MDedge ObGyn

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

It’s well known that the United States enjoys the dubious distinction of having the worst maternal morbidity and mortality rates among industrialized nations. Maternal mortality in this country increased by 14% from 2018 to 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.

But a current trend of engaging birth doulas — nonmedical guides offering continuous one-on-one physical and psychological support in the pre-, peri,- and postnatal periods — may be poised to brighten that dismal statistical landscape.

Recent research has shown that mothers matched with a doula are less likely to have a low birth weight baby, less likely to experience a birth complication, and significantly more likely to initiate breastfeeding.

Doula services — even delivered digitally — are seen to lower healthcare costs, reduce cesarean sections, decrease maternal anxiety and depression, and improve communication between healthcare providers and low-income, racially/ethnically diverse pregnant women. Doulas can be especially helpful for mothers dealing with the psychological fallout of miscarriage or stillbirth. They can guide patients in the postpartum period, when problems can arise and when some mothers are lost to medical follow-up, and provide an ongoing source of patient information for the ob.gyn.

“Research has shown that in addition to better outcomes, doula care can shorten labor time and increase patient satisfaction,” said ob.gyn. Layan Alrahmani, MD, in an interview. A maternal-fetal medicine specialist with a focus on high-risk pregnancies among low-income women at Loyola Medicine in Maywood, Illinois, Dr. Alrahmani welcomes doulas to her patients’ antenatal visits.

“Many of my patients who are looking to avoid an epidural will work with a labor doula, in order to stay home as long as possible and to have one-on-one coaching through the pain as things progress,” said Susan Rothenberg, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and an ob/gyn at Mount Sinai Downtown Union Square in New York City. She added, “When a woman’s partner is squeamish or potentially unavailable, a labor doula can be a great option.”

Another ob.gyn. who enthusiastically embraces doula care is L. Joy Baker, MD, who practices in LaGrange, Georgia, and is affiliated with Wellstar West Georgia Medical Center. “I love it when my patients have a doula. A doula answers a patient’s questions throughout the pregnancy and amplifies the mother’s voice in the medical system and the clinical setting,” Dr. Baker told this news organization.

“They provide important details on patients’ food, housing, and transportation status when the mothers themselves would not bring those up in a short appointment with their doctors,” she said. Dr. Baker called for more recognition of their merit, especially for first-time and high-risk moms.

Efua B. Leke, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine and chief of obstetrics at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, Texas, also believes a major benefit of doulas is improved flow of information. “We know that having doulas participate in maternal care can ease communication between pregnant and parturient mothers and their clinical team,” Dr. Leke said. “This is especially important for under-resourced pregnant women for whom morbidity tends to be disparately higher.”

Doulas can also take pressure off embattled ob.gyn. clinical staff. “Our volume of patients is huge, so we have to keep appointments brief,” Dr. Baker said. “The US is currently 8000 ob.gyn.s short, and to make matters worse, we’re seeing more and more obstetrical care deserts.”

Still largely underutilized, doula care is seen by its proponents as important in light of the drastic shortage of ob.gyn.s and the shrinking presence of maternity care in many US counties.

According to a recent March of Dimes report, access to maternity care is waning, with more than 35% of US counties offering no community obstetrical care and 52% providing no maternity care in local hospitals. That translates to long distances and extended travel time for mothers seeking care.
 

Growth Remains Slow

Although many believe doulas could become part of the solution to the lack of access to maternity care, their acceptance seems to be slow growing. In a 2012 national survey by Declercq and associates, about 6% of mothers used a doula during childbirth, up from 3% in a 2006 national survey. Of those who were familiar with but lacking doula care, just 27% would have chosen to have this service.

“I’d estimate that doulas are still involved in only about 6%-8% of births,” said Shaconna Haley, MA, a certified holistic doula and doula trainer in Atlanta, Georgia.

And are there enough practicing doulas in the United States to put a dent in the current shortfall in pregnancy care? Although no reliable estimate of their numbers exists, a centralized online doula registration service listed 9000 registered practitioners in 2018. Contrast that with the approximately 3.6 million live births in 2023.
 

Potential for Friction?

Although generally seen as benign and helpful, the presence of a doula can add another layer of people for hard-pressed medical staff to deal with. Can their attendance occasionally lead to an adversarial encounter? Yes, said Dr. Baker, especially in the case of assertive questioning or suggestions directed at medical staff. “There can be some mistrust on the part of clinicians when nonmedical persons start raising concerns and asking questions. Staff can get a little prickly at this.”

In the view of Melissa A. Simon, MD, MPH, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology, preventive medicine, and medical social sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, simple, preventable communication breakdown is often the cause of occasional antagonism. “As in all team care approaches, it’s helpful to have upfront conversations with the birthing person, the doula, and any care team members or support people who will be present in the birthing room. These conversations should be about expectations.”

According to Ms. Haley, “As long as the focus stays firmly on the client/patient and not on the other team members, there should be no friction. Medical staff should be aware there will be a doula in attendance and ideally there should be a collaborative team and plan in place before the birth.” 

In Dr. Leke’s experience, doulas do not hinder the medical team as long as clinical roles are well clarified and the patient is engaged in her care plan. “Friction can occur when doulas are functioning outside of their scope of practice, such as speaking to the healthcare team on behalf of the mother instead empowering the mother to speak up herself,” she said. “Or, when the healthcare team doesn’t understand the doula’s scope of practice or recognize the doula as a member of the team.” 

Added Dr. Rothenberg, “I’ve occasionally run into doulas who imagine I have an ulterior motive when making recommendations to patients when that’s completely untrue. It’s common for women to decide to become doulas because they didn’t feel listened to during their own birthing experience, and for a few of them, it’s hard to not project that onto their clients’ labor situations, creating conflict where it doesn’t need to exist.”
 

Barriers and Challenges 

Unfortunately, the barriers of cost and access remain high for pregnant and birthing mothers from lower socioeconomic echelons who have no or limited insurance. “There also are very few multilingual doulas or doulas from diverse racial-ethnic backgrounds and identities,” Dr. Simon pointed out.
Yet by all indications, Medicaid members who receive doula services experience positive maternal outcomes, even those at higher risk for pregnancy complications.

As for Medicaid coverage of doula services, in a recent Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services report, just 11 state Medicaid programs were reimbursing doula services, whereas an additional five were in the process of implementing reimbursement.

Doula care is not covered by all private insurance plans either, Dr. Simon said. “Although there are maternity care bundles with payment models that help integrate doula care, and there are ways to use your flexible spending account to cover it.”

Some hospitals may undertake independent initiatives. Dr. Baker’s center is offering antenatal and peripartum doula support for under-resourced mothers thanks to a Health Resources and Services Administration grant.* 

But for now, doula services are largely limited to middle- and high-income women able to afford the associated out-of-pocket costs. These mothers are disproportionately White, and the doulas serving them tend to be of the same race and socioeconomic class.

The Future

Dr. Simon foresees an optimal scenario in which a team of doulas works with all birthing persons on a hospital labor floor as well as with a team of clinicians. “It takes a true team approach to ensure an optimal birthing experience and optimal birth outcomes,” she said.

Despite the many challenges ahead, doulas will probably become a permanent fixture in pregnancy, birth, and postpartum care, said Dr. Baker. “Doula care is going to be a game changer, and obstetricians welcome doulas to the obstetrical care team.” 

Dr. Alrahmani, Dr. Baker, Ms. Haley, Dr. Leke, Dr. Rothenberg, and Dr. Simon declared no conflicts of interest relevant to their comments.

*This story was updated on October 1, 2024.

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

It’s well known that the United States enjoys the dubious distinction of having the worst maternal morbidity and mortality rates among industrialized nations. Maternal mortality in this country increased by 14% from 2018 to 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.

But a current trend of engaging birth doulas — nonmedical guides offering continuous one-on-one physical and psychological support in the pre-, peri,- and postnatal periods — may be poised to brighten that dismal statistical landscape.

Recent research has shown that mothers matched with a doula are less likely to have a low birth weight baby, less likely to experience a birth complication, and significantly more likely to initiate breastfeeding.

Doula services — even delivered digitally — are seen to lower healthcare costs, reduce cesarean sections, decrease maternal anxiety and depression, and improve communication between healthcare providers and low-income, racially/ethnically diverse pregnant women. Doulas can be especially helpful for mothers dealing with the psychological fallout of miscarriage or stillbirth. They can guide patients in the postpartum period, when problems can arise and when some mothers are lost to medical follow-up, and provide an ongoing source of patient information for the ob.gyn.

“Research has shown that in addition to better outcomes, doula care can shorten labor time and increase patient satisfaction,” said ob.gyn. Layan Alrahmani, MD, in an interview. A maternal-fetal medicine specialist with a focus on high-risk pregnancies among low-income women at Loyola Medicine in Maywood, Illinois, Dr. Alrahmani welcomes doulas to her patients’ antenatal visits.

“Many of my patients who are looking to avoid an epidural will work with a labor doula, in order to stay home as long as possible and to have one-on-one coaching through the pain as things progress,” said Susan Rothenberg, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and an ob/gyn at Mount Sinai Downtown Union Square in New York City. She added, “When a woman’s partner is squeamish or potentially unavailable, a labor doula can be a great option.”

Another ob.gyn. who enthusiastically embraces doula care is L. Joy Baker, MD, who practices in LaGrange, Georgia, and is affiliated with Wellstar West Georgia Medical Center. “I love it when my patients have a doula. A doula answers a patient’s questions throughout the pregnancy and amplifies the mother’s voice in the medical system and the clinical setting,” Dr. Baker told this news organization.

“They provide important details on patients’ food, housing, and transportation status when the mothers themselves would not bring those up in a short appointment with their doctors,” she said. Dr. Baker called for more recognition of their merit, especially for first-time and high-risk moms.

Efua B. Leke, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine and chief of obstetrics at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, Texas, also believes a major benefit of doulas is improved flow of information. “We know that having doulas participate in maternal care can ease communication between pregnant and parturient mothers and their clinical team,” Dr. Leke said. “This is especially important for under-resourced pregnant women for whom morbidity tends to be disparately higher.”

Doulas can also take pressure off embattled ob.gyn. clinical staff. “Our volume of patients is huge, so we have to keep appointments brief,” Dr. Baker said. “The US is currently 8000 ob.gyn.s short, and to make matters worse, we’re seeing more and more obstetrical care deserts.”

Still largely underutilized, doula care is seen by its proponents as important in light of the drastic shortage of ob.gyn.s and the shrinking presence of maternity care in many US counties.

According to a recent March of Dimes report, access to maternity care is waning, with more than 35% of US counties offering no community obstetrical care and 52% providing no maternity care in local hospitals. That translates to long distances and extended travel time for mothers seeking care.
 

Growth Remains Slow

Although many believe doulas could become part of the solution to the lack of access to maternity care, their acceptance seems to be slow growing. In a 2012 national survey by Declercq and associates, about 6% of mothers used a doula during childbirth, up from 3% in a 2006 national survey. Of those who were familiar with but lacking doula care, just 27% would have chosen to have this service.

“I’d estimate that doulas are still involved in only about 6%-8% of births,” said Shaconna Haley, MA, a certified holistic doula and doula trainer in Atlanta, Georgia.

And are there enough practicing doulas in the United States to put a dent in the current shortfall in pregnancy care? Although no reliable estimate of their numbers exists, a centralized online doula registration service listed 9000 registered practitioners in 2018. Contrast that with the approximately 3.6 million live births in 2023.
 

Potential for Friction?

Although generally seen as benign and helpful, the presence of a doula can add another layer of people for hard-pressed medical staff to deal with. Can their attendance occasionally lead to an adversarial encounter? Yes, said Dr. Baker, especially in the case of assertive questioning or suggestions directed at medical staff. “There can be some mistrust on the part of clinicians when nonmedical persons start raising concerns and asking questions. Staff can get a little prickly at this.”

In the view of Melissa A. Simon, MD, MPH, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology, preventive medicine, and medical social sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, simple, preventable communication breakdown is often the cause of occasional antagonism. “As in all team care approaches, it’s helpful to have upfront conversations with the birthing person, the doula, and any care team members or support people who will be present in the birthing room. These conversations should be about expectations.”

According to Ms. Haley, “As long as the focus stays firmly on the client/patient and not on the other team members, there should be no friction. Medical staff should be aware there will be a doula in attendance and ideally there should be a collaborative team and plan in place before the birth.” 

In Dr. Leke’s experience, doulas do not hinder the medical team as long as clinical roles are well clarified and the patient is engaged in her care plan. “Friction can occur when doulas are functioning outside of their scope of practice, such as speaking to the healthcare team on behalf of the mother instead empowering the mother to speak up herself,” she said. “Or, when the healthcare team doesn’t understand the doula’s scope of practice or recognize the doula as a member of the team.” 

Added Dr. Rothenberg, “I’ve occasionally run into doulas who imagine I have an ulterior motive when making recommendations to patients when that’s completely untrue. It’s common for women to decide to become doulas because they didn’t feel listened to during their own birthing experience, and for a few of them, it’s hard to not project that onto their clients’ labor situations, creating conflict where it doesn’t need to exist.”
 

Barriers and Challenges 

Unfortunately, the barriers of cost and access remain high for pregnant and birthing mothers from lower socioeconomic echelons who have no or limited insurance. “There also are very few multilingual doulas or doulas from diverse racial-ethnic backgrounds and identities,” Dr. Simon pointed out.
Yet by all indications, Medicaid members who receive doula services experience positive maternal outcomes, even those at higher risk for pregnancy complications.

As for Medicaid coverage of doula services, in a recent Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services report, just 11 state Medicaid programs were reimbursing doula services, whereas an additional five were in the process of implementing reimbursement.

Doula care is not covered by all private insurance plans either, Dr. Simon said. “Although there are maternity care bundles with payment models that help integrate doula care, and there are ways to use your flexible spending account to cover it.”

Some hospitals may undertake independent initiatives. Dr. Baker’s center is offering antenatal and peripartum doula support for under-resourced mothers thanks to a Health Resources and Services Administration grant.* 

But for now, doula services are largely limited to middle- and high-income women able to afford the associated out-of-pocket costs. These mothers are disproportionately White, and the doulas serving them tend to be of the same race and socioeconomic class.

The Future

Dr. Simon foresees an optimal scenario in which a team of doulas works with all birthing persons on a hospital labor floor as well as with a team of clinicians. “It takes a true team approach to ensure an optimal birthing experience and optimal birth outcomes,” she said.

Despite the many challenges ahead, doulas will probably become a permanent fixture in pregnancy, birth, and postpartum care, said Dr. Baker. “Doula care is going to be a game changer, and obstetricians welcome doulas to the obstetrical care team.” 

Dr. Alrahmani, Dr. Baker, Ms. Haley, Dr. Leke, Dr. Rothenberg, and Dr. Simon declared no conflicts of interest relevant to their comments.

*This story was updated on October 1, 2024.

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

It’s well known that the United States enjoys the dubious distinction of having the worst maternal morbidity and mortality rates among industrialized nations. Maternal mortality in this country increased by 14% from 2018 to 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.

But a current trend of engaging birth doulas — nonmedical guides offering continuous one-on-one physical and psychological support in the pre-, peri,- and postnatal periods — may be poised to brighten that dismal statistical landscape.

Recent research has shown that mothers matched with a doula are less likely to have a low birth weight baby, less likely to experience a birth complication, and significantly more likely to initiate breastfeeding.

Doula services — even delivered digitally — are seen to lower healthcare costs, reduce cesarean sections, decrease maternal anxiety and depression, and improve communication between healthcare providers and low-income, racially/ethnically diverse pregnant women. Doulas can be especially helpful for mothers dealing with the psychological fallout of miscarriage or stillbirth. They can guide patients in the postpartum period, when problems can arise and when some mothers are lost to medical follow-up, and provide an ongoing source of patient information for the ob.gyn.

“Research has shown that in addition to better outcomes, doula care can shorten labor time and increase patient satisfaction,” said ob.gyn. Layan Alrahmani, MD, in an interview. A maternal-fetal medicine specialist with a focus on high-risk pregnancies among low-income women at Loyola Medicine in Maywood, Illinois, Dr. Alrahmani welcomes doulas to her patients’ antenatal visits.

“Many of my patients who are looking to avoid an epidural will work with a labor doula, in order to stay home as long as possible and to have one-on-one coaching through the pain as things progress,” said Susan Rothenberg, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and an ob/gyn at Mount Sinai Downtown Union Square in New York City. She added, “When a woman’s partner is squeamish or potentially unavailable, a labor doula can be a great option.”

Another ob.gyn. who enthusiastically embraces doula care is L. Joy Baker, MD, who practices in LaGrange, Georgia, and is affiliated with Wellstar West Georgia Medical Center. “I love it when my patients have a doula. A doula answers a patient’s questions throughout the pregnancy and amplifies the mother’s voice in the medical system and the clinical setting,” Dr. Baker told this news organization.

“They provide important details on patients’ food, housing, and transportation status when the mothers themselves would not bring those up in a short appointment with their doctors,” she said. Dr. Baker called for more recognition of their merit, especially for first-time and high-risk moms.

Efua B. Leke, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine and chief of obstetrics at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, Texas, also believes a major benefit of doulas is improved flow of information. “We know that having doulas participate in maternal care can ease communication between pregnant and parturient mothers and their clinical team,” Dr. Leke said. “This is especially important for under-resourced pregnant women for whom morbidity tends to be disparately higher.”

Doulas can also take pressure off embattled ob.gyn. clinical staff. “Our volume of patients is huge, so we have to keep appointments brief,” Dr. Baker said. “The US is currently 8000 ob.gyn.s short, and to make matters worse, we’re seeing more and more obstetrical care deserts.”

Still largely underutilized, doula care is seen by its proponents as important in light of the drastic shortage of ob.gyn.s and the shrinking presence of maternity care in many US counties.

According to a recent March of Dimes report, access to maternity care is waning, with more than 35% of US counties offering no community obstetrical care and 52% providing no maternity care in local hospitals. That translates to long distances and extended travel time for mothers seeking care.
 

Growth Remains Slow

Although many believe doulas could become part of the solution to the lack of access to maternity care, their acceptance seems to be slow growing. In a 2012 national survey by Declercq and associates, about 6% of mothers used a doula during childbirth, up from 3% in a 2006 national survey. Of those who were familiar with but lacking doula care, just 27% would have chosen to have this service.

“I’d estimate that doulas are still involved in only about 6%-8% of births,” said Shaconna Haley, MA, a certified holistic doula and doula trainer in Atlanta, Georgia.

And are there enough practicing doulas in the United States to put a dent in the current shortfall in pregnancy care? Although no reliable estimate of their numbers exists, a centralized online doula registration service listed 9000 registered practitioners in 2018. Contrast that with the approximately 3.6 million live births in 2023.
 

Potential for Friction?

Although generally seen as benign and helpful, the presence of a doula can add another layer of people for hard-pressed medical staff to deal with. Can their attendance occasionally lead to an adversarial encounter? Yes, said Dr. Baker, especially in the case of assertive questioning or suggestions directed at medical staff. “There can be some mistrust on the part of clinicians when nonmedical persons start raising concerns and asking questions. Staff can get a little prickly at this.”

In the view of Melissa A. Simon, MD, MPH, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology, preventive medicine, and medical social sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, simple, preventable communication breakdown is often the cause of occasional antagonism. “As in all team care approaches, it’s helpful to have upfront conversations with the birthing person, the doula, and any care team members or support people who will be present in the birthing room. These conversations should be about expectations.”

According to Ms. Haley, “As long as the focus stays firmly on the client/patient and not on the other team members, there should be no friction. Medical staff should be aware there will be a doula in attendance and ideally there should be a collaborative team and plan in place before the birth.” 

In Dr. Leke’s experience, doulas do not hinder the medical team as long as clinical roles are well clarified and the patient is engaged in her care plan. “Friction can occur when doulas are functioning outside of their scope of practice, such as speaking to the healthcare team on behalf of the mother instead empowering the mother to speak up herself,” she said. “Or, when the healthcare team doesn’t understand the doula’s scope of practice or recognize the doula as a member of the team.” 

Added Dr. Rothenberg, “I’ve occasionally run into doulas who imagine I have an ulterior motive when making recommendations to patients when that’s completely untrue. It’s common for women to decide to become doulas because they didn’t feel listened to during their own birthing experience, and for a few of them, it’s hard to not project that onto their clients’ labor situations, creating conflict where it doesn’t need to exist.”
 

Barriers and Challenges 

Unfortunately, the barriers of cost and access remain high for pregnant and birthing mothers from lower socioeconomic echelons who have no or limited insurance. “There also are very few multilingual doulas or doulas from diverse racial-ethnic backgrounds and identities,” Dr. Simon pointed out.
Yet by all indications, Medicaid members who receive doula services experience positive maternal outcomes, even those at higher risk for pregnancy complications.

As for Medicaid coverage of doula services, in a recent Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services report, just 11 state Medicaid programs were reimbursing doula services, whereas an additional five were in the process of implementing reimbursement.

Doula care is not covered by all private insurance plans either, Dr. Simon said. “Although there are maternity care bundles with payment models that help integrate doula care, and there are ways to use your flexible spending account to cover it.”

Some hospitals may undertake independent initiatives. Dr. Baker’s center is offering antenatal and peripartum doula support for under-resourced mothers thanks to a Health Resources and Services Administration grant.* 

But for now, doula services are largely limited to middle- and high-income women able to afford the associated out-of-pocket costs. These mothers are disproportionately White, and the doulas serving them tend to be of the same race and socioeconomic class.

The Future

Dr. Simon foresees an optimal scenario in which a team of doulas works with all birthing persons on a hospital labor floor as well as with a team of clinicians. “It takes a true team approach to ensure an optimal birthing experience and optimal birth outcomes,” she said.

Despite the many challenges ahead, doulas will probably become a permanent fixture in pregnancy, birth, and postpartum care, said Dr. Baker. “Doula care is going to be a game changer, and obstetricians welcome doulas to the obstetrical care team.” 

Dr. Alrahmani, Dr. Baker, Ms. Haley, Dr. Leke, Dr. Rothenberg, and Dr. Simon declared no conflicts of interest relevant to their comments.

*This story was updated on October 1, 2024.

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

TOPLINE:

Higher body mass index (BMI) in both partners is linked to lower fecundability and increased subfertility. Overweight and obesity in women are associated with higher odds of miscarriage.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based prospective cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, from August 9, 2017, to July 1, 2021.
• A total of 3604 women and their partners were included, with follow-up until birth.
• BMI was measured in preconception or early pregnancy, and outcomes included fecundability, subfertility, and miscarriage.
• Fecundability was defined as the probability of conceiving within 1 month and subfertility as time to pregnancy or duration of actively pursuing pregnancy of more than 12 months or use of assisted reproductive technology.
• Miscarriage was defined as pregnancy loss before 22 weeks of gestation.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher BMI in women and men was associated with lower fecundability: For every unit increase in BMI, fecundability decreased (women, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; men, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00).
• Women with overweight (0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) and obesity (0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82) had lower fecundability than women with normal weight.
• Overweight (1.35; 95% CI, 1.11-1.63) and obesity (1.67; 95% CI, 1.30-2.13) in women were associated with increased odds of subfertility.
• Obesity in men was associated with increased odds of subfertility (1.69; 95% CI, 1.24-2.31).

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed in this cohort study that BMI outside of the normal category in women and men was associated with lower fecundability, subfertility, and increased odds of miscarriage. Optimizing BMI from the preconception period onward in women and men might be an important strategy to improve fertility and pregnancy outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aline J. Boxem, MD, and Vincent W. V. Jaddoe, MD, PhD, The Generation R Study Group, Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability may be affected by differences between included and excluded participants, who were younger and had a higher BMI. The accuracy of time-to-pregnancy duration may have been impacted by retrospectively answered questionnaires. Residual confounding might still be an issue due to the observational nature of the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Boxem and Dr. Jaddoe disclosed receiving grants from the Erasmus University Medical Centre, the Erasmus University Rotterdam, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Higher body mass index (BMI) in both partners is linked to lower fecundability and increased subfertility. Overweight and obesity in women are associated with higher odds of miscarriage.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based prospective cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, from August 9, 2017, to July 1, 2021.
• A total of 3604 women and their partners were included, with follow-up until birth.
• BMI was measured in preconception or early pregnancy, and outcomes included fecundability, subfertility, and miscarriage.
• Fecundability was defined as the probability of conceiving within 1 month and subfertility as time to pregnancy or duration of actively pursuing pregnancy of more than 12 months or use of assisted reproductive technology.
• Miscarriage was defined as pregnancy loss before 22 weeks of gestation.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher BMI in women and men was associated with lower fecundability: For every unit increase in BMI, fecundability decreased (women, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; men, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00).
• Women with overweight (0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) and obesity (0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82) had lower fecundability than women with normal weight.
• Overweight (1.35; 95% CI, 1.11-1.63) and obesity (1.67; 95% CI, 1.30-2.13) in women were associated with increased odds of subfertility.
• Obesity in men was associated with increased odds of subfertility (1.69; 95% CI, 1.24-2.31).

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed in this cohort study that BMI outside of the normal category in women and men was associated with lower fecundability, subfertility, and increased odds of miscarriage. Optimizing BMI from the preconception period onward in women and men might be an important strategy to improve fertility and pregnancy outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aline J. Boxem, MD, and Vincent W. V. Jaddoe, MD, PhD, The Generation R Study Group, Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability may be affected by differences between included and excluded participants, who were younger and had a higher BMI. The accuracy of time-to-pregnancy duration may have been impacted by retrospectively answered questionnaires. Residual confounding might still be an issue due to the observational nature of the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Boxem and Dr. Jaddoe disclosed receiving grants from the Erasmus University Medical Centre, the Erasmus University Rotterdam, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Higher body mass index (BMI) in both partners is linked to lower fecundability and increased subfertility. Overweight and obesity in women are associated with higher odds of miscarriage.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based prospective cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, from August 9, 2017, to July 1, 2021.
• A total of 3604 women and their partners were included, with follow-up until birth.
• BMI was measured in preconception or early pregnancy, and outcomes included fecundability, subfertility, and miscarriage.
• Fecundability was defined as the probability of conceiving within 1 month and subfertility as time to pregnancy or duration of actively pursuing pregnancy of more than 12 months or use of assisted reproductive technology.
• Miscarriage was defined as pregnancy loss before 22 weeks of gestation.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher BMI in women and men was associated with lower fecundability: For every unit increase in BMI, fecundability decreased (women, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; men, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00).
• Women with overweight (0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) and obesity (0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82) had lower fecundability than women with normal weight.
• Overweight (1.35; 95% CI, 1.11-1.63) and obesity (1.67; 95% CI, 1.30-2.13) in women were associated with increased odds of subfertility.
• Obesity in men was associated with increased odds of subfertility (1.69; 95% CI, 1.24-2.31).

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed in this cohort study that BMI outside of the normal category in women and men was associated with lower fecundability, subfertility, and increased odds of miscarriage. Optimizing BMI from the preconception period onward in women and men might be an important strategy to improve fertility and pregnancy outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aline J. Boxem, MD, and Vincent W. V. Jaddoe, MD, PhD, The Generation R Study Group, Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability may be affected by differences between included and excluded participants, who were younger and had a higher BMI. The accuracy of time-to-pregnancy duration may have been impacted by retrospectively answered questionnaires. Residual confounding might still be an issue due to the observational nature of the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Boxem and Dr. Jaddoe disclosed receiving grants from the Erasmus University Medical Centre, the Erasmus University Rotterdam, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

There’s an unexpected treatment for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms that’s getting more popular: clinical hypnosis. 

Hypnosis is a state of highly focused attention that works through disassociating, or putting aside your conscious awareness of things that would ordinarily be in your consciousness, said David Spiegel, MD, a psychiatrist with Stanford Medical School in Califonrnia. 

“It increases your cognitive flexibility – a way to approach an old problem from a new point of view and just let go of your older ways of thinking about it,” he said. 

Usually around age 50, women have menopause, which is the end of their menstrual cycles. Estrogen levels drop, and hot flashes can happen 12-15 times per day, said Gary Elkins, PhD, a psychology and neuroscience professor at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

Both clinical hypnosis and cognitive-behavioral therapy, a common form of talk therapy, have been shown to work as non-hormonal treatments for hot flashes, particularly for women who are unable to take hormones for health reasons, such as having a history with an estrogen-sensitive cancer (like breast cancer), according to research published by the Menopause Society in 2023. 

A new review presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the Menopause Society in Chicago analyzed 23 studies from 1996 to 2022 and compared how well clinical hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy worked as treatments for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms. Researchers found that clinical hypnosis is better at helping make hot flashes less frequent and less intense, even reducing symptoms by 60%. Findings on cognitive-behavioral therapy, on the other hand, showed only slight hot flash reduction, though it helped reduce daily stress linked with hot flashes. 

Hypnosis can address the “perfect storm” of mental and physical issues that come with menopause symptoms, explained Dr. Spiegel, who created a popular self-hypnosis app called Reveri. “You’re having a reduction in your levels of estrogen and progesterone, but it’s also a reminder that you’re going into a different stage of life where you’re no longer fertile, you’re getting older,” he said. “[With hypnosis], you can disassociate pain and your awareness of things that ordinarily would impede your consciousness and make you miserable.”

A hypnosis session can help you separate psychological discomfort from physical discomfort, Dr. Spiegel said. “Typically, people in hypnosis dealing with menopause will imagine they’re floating in a lake, feeling cool, tingling, numbness. They can literally change how hot they feel. They can change the hot flash and imagine themselves cool, comfortable. If they’re worried about something, picture it on an imaginary screen. Just picture it, but not feel it.”
 

Hypnosis for Sleep

Hot flashes that happen at night are called night sweats and can hinder your sleep. Hypnotherapy can help reduce both hot flashes and night sweats, to the point where sleep is not interrupted, Dr. Elkins said. “While sleep improves with the hypnotherapy intervention, it also involves general relaxation,” said Dr. Elkins, who is the director of the Mind-Body Medicine Research Laboratory at Baylor University. “As women practice self-hypnosis at night, they’re entering a more calm and relaxed state, which also may facilitate good sleep or improve sleep duration and sleep quality.”

Our subconscious mind influences our sleep patterns largely through experiences vs. words or thoughts, according to Emilie Leyes, a certified hypnotherapist based in Philadelphia. This explains why simply reciting the words “I’m relaxed,” when you’re stressed, is often less effective than a few deep breaths or a warm hug from a family member or friend, said Ms. Leyes, who hosts a brain-training podcast for mindset transformation called How to Like Your Life.

“In a similar way, hypnosis, which directly accesses the subconscious, allows us to offer our minds new, powerful experiences to reduce our stress, improve our mood, and increase our access to positive emotions,” she said. “Repeatedly exposing ourselves to these positive experiences in our minds can increase our capacity to feel good, and impact how we feel in our everyday lives.”
 

Your First Hypnosis Session

A hypnosis session always begins with deep relaxation, which can help your mind and body grow accustomed to what it’s like to feel calm, said Ms. Leyes. “By giving the brain and body experiences of safety, relaxation, and inner peace, we can more easily let go of our stressful thoughts of the day and drift off to sleep with ease at night.”

You will often start by sitting or lying in a comfortable position, and then the hypnotic induction begins with a focus of attention, according to Dr. Elkins. The person concentrates, with their eyelids closed, and then are given suggestions for deepening their relaxed state. “Usually that’s a safe, pleasant place, such as walking through the mountains or being near a beach,” he said. “And within that, suggestions are given that target the mechanism that underlies the symptoms [such as hot flashes].”

Dr. Spiegel usually starts off with a neutral test that can help measure how hypnotizable a person is on a 0-to-10 scale. For example, instructing the client to imagine that their hand is floating in the air. If they pull their hand down and it floats back up, the client finds they can “actually dissociate the psychological from the physiological aspects of their experience – their left hand feels different from their right hand,” Dr. Spiegel said. “I use that as an example for them to say, ‘look how you can change how your body feels. Now, let’s use it to help you with your anxiety with your menopausal symptoms.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

There’s an unexpected treatment for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms that’s getting more popular: clinical hypnosis. 

Hypnosis is a state of highly focused attention that works through disassociating, or putting aside your conscious awareness of things that would ordinarily be in your consciousness, said David Spiegel, MD, a psychiatrist with Stanford Medical School in Califonrnia. 

“It increases your cognitive flexibility – a way to approach an old problem from a new point of view and just let go of your older ways of thinking about it,” he said. 

Usually around age 50, women have menopause, which is the end of their menstrual cycles. Estrogen levels drop, and hot flashes can happen 12-15 times per day, said Gary Elkins, PhD, a psychology and neuroscience professor at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

Both clinical hypnosis and cognitive-behavioral therapy, a common form of talk therapy, have been shown to work as non-hormonal treatments for hot flashes, particularly for women who are unable to take hormones for health reasons, such as having a history with an estrogen-sensitive cancer (like breast cancer), according to research published by the Menopause Society in 2023. 

A new review presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the Menopause Society in Chicago analyzed 23 studies from 1996 to 2022 and compared how well clinical hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy worked as treatments for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms. Researchers found that clinical hypnosis is better at helping make hot flashes less frequent and less intense, even reducing symptoms by 60%. Findings on cognitive-behavioral therapy, on the other hand, showed only slight hot flash reduction, though it helped reduce daily stress linked with hot flashes. 

Hypnosis can address the “perfect storm” of mental and physical issues that come with menopause symptoms, explained Dr. Spiegel, who created a popular self-hypnosis app called Reveri. “You’re having a reduction in your levels of estrogen and progesterone, but it’s also a reminder that you’re going into a different stage of life where you’re no longer fertile, you’re getting older,” he said. “[With hypnosis], you can disassociate pain and your awareness of things that ordinarily would impede your consciousness and make you miserable.”

A hypnosis session can help you separate psychological discomfort from physical discomfort, Dr. Spiegel said. “Typically, people in hypnosis dealing with menopause will imagine they’re floating in a lake, feeling cool, tingling, numbness. They can literally change how hot they feel. They can change the hot flash and imagine themselves cool, comfortable. If they’re worried about something, picture it on an imaginary screen. Just picture it, but not feel it.”
 

Hypnosis for Sleep

Hot flashes that happen at night are called night sweats and can hinder your sleep. Hypnotherapy can help reduce both hot flashes and night sweats, to the point where sleep is not interrupted, Dr. Elkins said. “While sleep improves with the hypnotherapy intervention, it also involves general relaxation,” said Dr. Elkins, who is the director of the Mind-Body Medicine Research Laboratory at Baylor University. “As women practice self-hypnosis at night, they’re entering a more calm and relaxed state, which also may facilitate good sleep or improve sleep duration and sleep quality.”

Our subconscious mind influences our sleep patterns largely through experiences vs. words or thoughts, according to Emilie Leyes, a certified hypnotherapist based in Philadelphia. This explains why simply reciting the words “I’m relaxed,” when you’re stressed, is often less effective than a few deep breaths or a warm hug from a family member or friend, said Ms. Leyes, who hosts a brain-training podcast for mindset transformation called How to Like Your Life.

“In a similar way, hypnosis, which directly accesses the subconscious, allows us to offer our minds new, powerful experiences to reduce our stress, improve our mood, and increase our access to positive emotions,” she said. “Repeatedly exposing ourselves to these positive experiences in our minds can increase our capacity to feel good, and impact how we feel in our everyday lives.”
 

Your First Hypnosis Session

A hypnosis session always begins with deep relaxation, which can help your mind and body grow accustomed to what it’s like to feel calm, said Ms. Leyes. “By giving the brain and body experiences of safety, relaxation, and inner peace, we can more easily let go of our stressful thoughts of the day and drift off to sleep with ease at night.”

You will often start by sitting or lying in a comfortable position, and then the hypnotic induction begins with a focus of attention, according to Dr. Elkins. The person concentrates, with their eyelids closed, and then are given suggestions for deepening their relaxed state. “Usually that’s a safe, pleasant place, such as walking through the mountains or being near a beach,” he said. “And within that, suggestions are given that target the mechanism that underlies the symptoms [such as hot flashes].”

Dr. Spiegel usually starts off with a neutral test that can help measure how hypnotizable a person is on a 0-to-10 scale. For example, instructing the client to imagine that their hand is floating in the air. If they pull their hand down and it floats back up, the client finds they can “actually dissociate the psychological from the physiological aspects of their experience – their left hand feels different from their right hand,” Dr. Spiegel said. “I use that as an example for them to say, ‘look how you can change how your body feels. Now, let’s use it to help you with your anxiety with your menopausal symptoms.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

There’s an unexpected treatment for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms that’s getting more popular: clinical hypnosis. 

Hypnosis is a state of highly focused attention that works through disassociating, or putting aside your conscious awareness of things that would ordinarily be in your consciousness, said David Spiegel, MD, a psychiatrist with Stanford Medical School in Califonrnia. 

“It increases your cognitive flexibility – a way to approach an old problem from a new point of view and just let go of your older ways of thinking about it,” he said. 

Usually around age 50, women have menopause, which is the end of their menstrual cycles. Estrogen levels drop, and hot flashes can happen 12-15 times per day, said Gary Elkins, PhD, a psychology and neuroscience professor at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

Both clinical hypnosis and cognitive-behavioral therapy, a common form of talk therapy, have been shown to work as non-hormonal treatments for hot flashes, particularly for women who are unable to take hormones for health reasons, such as having a history with an estrogen-sensitive cancer (like breast cancer), according to research published by the Menopause Society in 2023. 

A new review presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the Menopause Society in Chicago analyzed 23 studies from 1996 to 2022 and compared how well clinical hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy worked as treatments for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms. Researchers found that clinical hypnosis is better at helping make hot flashes less frequent and less intense, even reducing symptoms by 60%. Findings on cognitive-behavioral therapy, on the other hand, showed only slight hot flash reduction, though it helped reduce daily stress linked with hot flashes. 

Hypnosis can address the “perfect storm” of mental and physical issues that come with menopause symptoms, explained Dr. Spiegel, who created a popular self-hypnosis app called Reveri. “You’re having a reduction in your levels of estrogen and progesterone, but it’s also a reminder that you’re going into a different stage of life where you’re no longer fertile, you’re getting older,” he said. “[With hypnosis], you can disassociate pain and your awareness of things that ordinarily would impede your consciousness and make you miserable.”

A hypnosis session can help you separate psychological discomfort from physical discomfort, Dr. Spiegel said. “Typically, people in hypnosis dealing with menopause will imagine they’re floating in a lake, feeling cool, tingling, numbness. They can literally change how hot they feel. They can change the hot flash and imagine themselves cool, comfortable. If they’re worried about something, picture it on an imaginary screen. Just picture it, but not feel it.”
 

Hypnosis for Sleep

Hot flashes that happen at night are called night sweats and can hinder your sleep. Hypnotherapy can help reduce both hot flashes and night sweats, to the point where sleep is not interrupted, Dr. Elkins said. “While sleep improves with the hypnotherapy intervention, it also involves general relaxation,” said Dr. Elkins, who is the director of the Mind-Body Medicine Research Laboratory at Baylor University. “As women practice self-hypnosis at night, they’re entering a more calm and relaxed state, which also may facilitate good sleep or improve sleep duration and sleep quality.”

Our subconscious mind influences our sleep patterns largely through experiences vs. words or thoughts, according to Emilie Leyes, a certified hypnotherapist based in Philadelphia. This explains why simply reciting the words “I’m relaxed,” when you’re stressed, is often less effective than a few deep breaths or a warm hug from a family member or friend, said Ms. Leyes, who hosts a brain-training podcast for mindset transformation called How to Like Your Life.

“In a similar way, hypnosis, which directly accesses the subconscious, allows us to offer our minds new, powerful experiences to reduce our stress, improve our mood, and increase our access to positive emotions,” she said. “Repeatedly exposing ourselves to these positive experiences in our minds can increase our capacity to feel good, and impact how we feel in our everyday lives.”
 

Your First Hypnosis Session

A hypnosis session always begins with deep relaxation, which can help your mind and body grow accustomed to what it’s like to feel calm, said Ms. Leyes. “By giving the brain and body experiences of safety, relaxation, and inner peace, we can more easily let go of our stressful thoughts of the day and drift off to sleep with ease at night.”

You will often start by sitting or lying in a comfortable position, and then the hypnotic induction begins with a focus of attention, according to Dr. Elkins. The person concentrates, with their eyelids closed, and then are given suggestions for deepening their relaxed state. “Usually that’s a safe, pleasant place, such as walking through the mountains or being near a beach,” he said. “And within that, suggestions are given that target the mechanism that underlies the symptoms [such as hot flashes].”

Dr. Spiegel usually starts off with a neutral test that can help measure how hypnotizable a person is on a 0-to-10 scale. For example, instructing the client to imagine that their hand is floating in the air. If they pull their hand down and it floats back up, the client finds they can “actually dissociate the psychological from the physiological aspects of their experience – their left hand feels different from their right hand,” Dr. Spiegel said. “I use that as an example for them to say, ‘look how you can change how your body feels. Now, let’s use it to help you with your anxiety with your menopausal symptoms.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

CHICAGO — The nonhormonal investigational drug elinzanetant led to significant improvement in hot flashes as well as sleep disturbance and quality of life, according to data from three randomized controlled trials presented at The Menopause Society 2024 Annual Meeting in Chicago. Two phase 3 trials, OASIS 1 and 2, were also published in JAMA, and the longer-term OASIS 3 trial was presented as a poster at the conference.

Elinzanetant is a selective neurokinin (NK) receptor antagonist, similar to fezolinetant, the first drug in this class approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for vasomotor symptoms in May 2023. This class of medications targets the estrogen-sensitive kisspeptin/NK B/dynorphin (KNDy) neurons thought to play a role in thermoregulation and hot flashes during menopause. While fezolinetant targets only the NK-3 receptor, elinzanetant is a dual NK receptor antagonist that targets both NK-1 and NK-3. Bayer submitted a New Drug Application for elinzanetant to the FDA on August 1.

For those in whom hormone therapy is contraindicated, “it’s always been difficult for women with really severe symptoms to have a safe and effective therapy,” lead author JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia, told this news organization. “The nonhormonal therapies we’ve used mostly off-label — the antidepressants, gabapentin, clonidine, oxybutynin — do help the hot flashes, but they don’t work nearly as effectively as these new NK receptor antagonists, and having one that looks like it might have a broader use for hot flashes, night sweats, mood, and sleep is just really exciting.”

Dr. Pinkerton said approximately 80% of the women in the OASIS 1 and 2 studies had at least a 50% reduction in hot flashes. “It was a very strong, dramatic positive finding, but the improvements in sleep and mood have really encouraged us to go further,” she said.

Declining estrogen levels during and after menopause can cause hypertrophy and hyperactivity of the KNDy neurons, which has been linked to thermoregulation disruptions that may trigger hot flashes, James Simon, MD, a clinical professor of ob.gyn. at The George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences and medical director of IntimMedicine in Washington, DC, told attendees. He presented pooled data from OASIS 1 and 2. The NK-1 receptor, targeted by elinzanetant but not fezolinetant, is also thought to play a role in insomnia and possibly in mood.

“Oftentimes the focus on a lot of these drugs is hot flashes, hot flashes, hot flashes, but we know hot flashes do not occur in isolation,” Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, professor and chair of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, told this news organization. Elinzanetant is “an interesting compound because it actually works on sleep, and that was critical because sleep disturbance precedes” many other menopausal symptoms, said Dr. Shufelt, who was not involved in the study.

“I think it is an outstanding option for women who don’t have the opportunity to get hormones,” Dr. Shufelt said, and she was particularly pleased to see there were no safety concerns for the liver in the trial data. The FDA issued a warning on September 12 about the risk for rare liver injury with fezolinetant, but the early signals that had been seen in fezolinetant data were not seen in these elinzanetant data.

The OASIS 1 and 2 trials enrolled postmenopausal women, aged 40-65 years, who had at least 50 moderate to severe vasomotor occurrences per week.

“A moderate hot flash is a hot flash that is also associated with sweating, and a severe hot flash is a moderate hot flash that stops a woman in her tracks,” Dr. Simon said. “Namely, it’s severe enough with sweating and central nervous system effects that she is interrupted in whatever it is that she’s doing at the time.”

Exclusion criteria for the trials included a history of arrhythmias, heart block, or QT prolongation; abnormal lab results; history of malignancy within the past 5 years; uncontrolled or treatment-resistant hypertension, hypothyroidism, or hyperthyroidism; unexplained postmenopausal bleeding; clinically relevant abnormal mammogram findings; or disordered proliferative endometrium, endometrial hyperplasia, polyp, or endometrial cancer.

The predominantly White (80%) women were an average 54 years old, with an average body mass index (BMI) of 27.8, and were an average 3.5 years from their last period. For the first 12 weeks of the trials, 399 women were assigned to receive 120 mg once daily of oral elinzanetant and 397 were assigned to once daily placebo. Then the women taking placebo switched to elinzanetant for the final 14 weeks of the study.

The endpoints included mean change in frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms at weeks 1, 4, and 12 as well as change in sleep disturbance and quality of life at week 12. Sleep was assessed with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance–Short Form score, which ranges from 28.9 to 76.5, with a higher number denoting greater sleep disturbance. The Menopause-Specific Quality-of-Life score ranges from 1 to 8, with a higher score indicating poorer quality of life.

Daily frequency of vasomotor symptoms was 14 per day at baseline in the elinzanetant group, decreasing by 4.8 per day at week 1, 8 per day at week 4, and 9.4 per day at week 12. In the placebo group, women had an average 15.2 occurrences per day at baseline, which decreased by 3.2 at week 1, 5.2 at week 4, and 6.4 at week 12. Comparing the groups at 12 weeks, those receiving elinzanetant had 3.2 fewer daily vasomotor symptoms than those receiving placebo (P < .0001).

The severity of vasomotor symptoms also improved more in the elinzanetant group than in the placebo group over 12 weeks, after which severity improved further in those who switched from placebo to elinzanetant (P < .0001).

Sleep disturbance scores, starting at a mean 61.5 in the elinzanetant group and 60.5 in the placebo group, fell 10.7 points in the elinzanetant group and 5.3 points in the placebo group at 12 weeks, for a difference of 4.9 points (P < .0001). Sleep then further improved in those who switched from placebo to elinzanetant. Quality-of-life scores improved 1.37 points (from 4.52 at baseline) in the elinzanetant group and 0.96 points (from 4.49 at baseline) in the placebo group, for a mean difference at 12 weeks of 0.36 (P < .0001).

Though no head-to-head data exist comparing elinzanetant and fezolinetant, Dr. Simon told this news organization the side effects with fezolinetant “tend to be gastrointestinal, whereas the side effects for elinzanetant tend to be central nervous system,” such as drowsiness and lethargy.

The women who are the best candidates for elinzanetant, Dr. Pinkerton told this news organization, include those who have had an estrogen-sensitive cancer, such as breast or endometrial cancer, or who have fear of it, a family history, or are otherwise high risk. Other ideal candidates include those with a history of venous thromboembolism, people who have migraine with aura (due to concerns about increased risk for stroke), and those who have endometriosis or large fibroids.

“Then the last group might be women who took hormone therapy in their 50s and want to continue, but they’re trying to go off, and they have a recurrence of their hot flashes or night sweats or sleep issues,” Dr. Pinkerton said. “This might be a great group to switch over.”

OASIS 3 assessed the drug for 1 year and “supported the results of OASIS 1 and 2, demonstrating efficacy over a longer study duration and in a population with a vasomotor symptom profile representative of that seen in clinical practice,” Nick Panay, BSc, MBBS, director of the Menopause & PMS Centre at Queen Charlotte’s Hospital & Imperial College London, London, England, and his colleague reported.

Among 628 postmenopausal women aged 40-65, the predominantly White (78.5%) women were an average 54 years old, with an average BMI of 27.6, and were an average 5 years past their last period. Half received 120 mg elinzanetant and half received a placebo for 52 weeks.

At 12 weeks, the women receiving elinzanetant reported an average 1.6 moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms per day, down from 6.7 at baseline. Daily average symptoms in the placebo group fell from 6.8 at baseline to 3.4 at 12 weeks, for a difference of 1.6 fewer occurrences per day in the elinzanetant group (P < .0001).

Sleep disturbances also improved, falling 9.4 points from a baseline 57.4 in the elinzanetant group and 5.7 points from a baseline 58 in the placebo group. Quality-of-life scores improved from 4.1 to 2.8 (−1.3 change) in the elinzanetant group and from 4.4 to 3.3 (−1.1 change) in the placebo group.

In addition to looking at treatment-emergent adverse events, the safety assessments also included endometrial biopsies; bone mineral density in the femoral neck, hip, and lumbar spine; weight; and labs. Adverse events related to the study drug occurred in 30.4% of those in the elinzanetant group and 14.6% of those in the placebo group. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache (9.6% elinzanetant vs 7% placebo), fatigue (7% vs 10.2%), and sleepiness (5.1% vs 1.3%). A higher proportion of women taking elinzanetant (12.5%) than those taking placebo (4.1%) discontinued the study.

No serious adverse events deemed to be treatment-related occurred in either group, and no endometrial hyperplasia or malignant neoplasm occurred in either group. Bone mineral density changes in both groups were within the expected range for the women’s age, and their weight remained stable over the 52 weeks.

Six women taking elinzanetant and four taking placebo met predefined criteria for close liver observation, but none showed hepatotoxicity or evidence of possible drug-induced liver injury.

The research was funded by Bayer. Dr. Pinkerton has run a trial funded by Bayer and is a consultant for Bayer and Pfizer. Dr. Shufelt had no disclosures. Dr. Simon had grant/research support, consulting/advisory board participation, and/or speaking disclosures with AbbVie, Bayer Healthcare, Besins Healthcare, California Institute of Integral Studies, Camargo Pharmaceutical Services, Covance, Daré Bioscience, DEKA M.E.L.A S.r.l., Femasys, Ipsen, KaNDy/NeRRe Therapeutics, Khyria, Madorra, Mayne Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Development America, Mylan/Viatris Inc, Myovant Sciences, ObsEva SA, Pfizer, Pharmavite, QUE Oncology, Scynexis, Sebela Pharmaceuticals, Sprout Pharmaceuticals, TherapeuticsMD, Vella Bioscience, and Viveve Medical, and he is a stockholder in Sermonix Pharmaceuticals.

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

CHICAGO — The nonhormonal investigational drug elinzanetant led to significant improvement in hot flashes as well as sleep disturbance and quality of life, according to data from three randomized controlled trials presented at The Menopause Society 2024 Annual Meeting in Chicago. Two phase 3 trials, OASIS 1 and 2, were also published in JAMA, and the longer-term OASIS 3 trial was presented as a poster at the conference.

Elinzanetant is a selective neurokinin (NK) receptor antagonist, similar to fezolinetant, the first drug in this class approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for vasomotor symptoms in May 2023. This class of medications targets the estrogen-sensitive kisspeptin/NK B/dynorphin (KNDy) neurons thought to play a role in thermoregulation and hot flashes during menopause. While fezolinetant targets only the NK-3 receptor, elinzanetant is a dual NK receptor antagonist that targets both NK-1 and NK-3. Bayer submitted a New Drug Application for elinzanetant to the FDA on August 1.

For those in whom hormone therapy is contraindicated, “it’s always been difficult for women with really severe symptoms to have a safe and effective therapy,” lead author JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia, told this news organization. “The nonhormonal therapies we’ve used mostly off-label — the antidepressants, gabapentin, clonidine, oxybutynin — do help the hot flashes, but they don’t work nearly as effectively as these new NK receptor antagonists, and having one that looks like it might have a broader use for hot flashes, night sweats, mood, and sleep is just really exciting.”

Dr. Pinkerton said approximately 80% of the women in the OASIS 1 and 2 studies had at least a 50% reduction in hot flashes. “It was a very strong, dramatic positive finding, but the improvements in sleep and mood have really encouraged us to go further,” she said.

Declining estrogen levels during and after menopause can cause hypertrophy and hyperactivity of the KNDy neurons, which has been linked to thermoregulation disruptions that may trigger hot flashes, James Simon, MD, a clinical professor of ob.gyn. at The George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences and medical director of IntimMedicine in Washington, DC, told attendees. He presented pooled data from OASIS 1 and 2. The NK-1 receptor, targeted by elinzanetant but not fezolinetant, is also thought to play a role in insomnia and possibly in mood.

“Oftentimes the focus on a lot of these drugs is hot flashes, hot flashes, hot flashes, but we know hot flashes do not occur in isolation,” Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, professor and chair of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, told this news organization. Elinzanetant is “an interesting compound because it actually works on sleep, and that was critical because sleep disturbance precedes” many other menopausal symptoms, said Dr. Shufelt, who was not involved in the study.

“I think it is an outstanding option for women who don’t have the opportunity to get hormones,” Dr. Shufelt said, and she was particularly pleased to see there were no safety concerns for the liver in the trial data. The FDA issued a warning on September 12 about the risk for rare liver injury with fezolinetant, but the early signals that had been seen in fezolinetant data were not seen in these elinzanetant data.

The OASIS 1 and 2 trials enrolled postmenopausal women, aged 40-65 years, who had at least 50 moderate to severe vasomotor occurrences per week.

“A moderate hot flash is a hot flash that is also associated with sweating, and a severe hot flash is a moderate hot flash that stops a woman in her tracks,” Dr. Simon said. “Namely, it’s severe enough with sweating and central nervous system effects that she is interrupted in whatever it is that she’s doing at the time.”

Exclusion criteria for the trials included a history of arrhythmias, heart block, or QT prolongation; abnormal lab results; history of malignancy within the past 5 years; uncontrolled or treatment-resistant hypertension, hypothyroidism, or hyperthyroidism; unexplained postmenopausal bleeding; clinically relevant abnormal mammogram findings; or disordered proliferative endometrium, endometrial hyperplasia, polyp, or endometrial cancer.

The predominantly White (80%) women were an average 54 years old, with an average body mass index (BMI) of 27.8, and were an average 3.5 years from their last period. For the first 12 weeks of the trials, 399 women were assigned to receive 120 mg once daily of oral elinzanetant and 397 were assigned to once daily placebo. Then the women taking placebo switched to elinzanetant for the final 14 weeks of the study.

The endpoints included mean change in frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms at weeks 1, 4, and 12 as well as change in sleep disturbance and quality of life at week 12. Sleep was assessed with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance–Short Form score, which ranges from 28.9 to 76.5, with a higher number denoting greater sleep disturbance. The Menopause-Specific Quality-of-Life score ranges from 1 to 8, with a higher score indicating poorer quality of life.

Daily frequency of vasomotor symptoms was 14 per day at baseline in the elinzanetant group, decreasing by 4.8 per day at week 1, 8 per day at week 4, and 9.4 per day at week 12. In the placebo group, women had an average 15.2 occurrences per day at baseline, which decreased by 3.2 at week 1, 5.2 at week 4, and 6.4 at week 12. Comparing the groups at 12 weeks, those receiving elinzanetant had 3.2 fewer daily vasomotor symptoms than those receiving placebo (P < .0001).

The severity of vasomotor symptoms also improved more in the elinzanetant group than in the placebo group over 12 weeks, after which severity improved further in those who switched from placebo to elinzanetant (P < .0001).

Sleep disturbance scores, starting at a mean 61.5 in the elinzanetant group and 60.5 in the placebo group, fell 10.7 points in the elinzanetant group and 5.3 points in the placebo group at 12 weeks, for a difference of 4.9 points (P < .0001). Sleep then further improved in those who switched from placebo to elinzanetant. Quality-of-life scores improved 1.37 points (from 4.52 at baseline) in the elinzanetant group and 0.96 points (from 4.49 at baseline) in the placebo group, for a mean difference at 12 weeks of 0.36 (P < .0001).

Though no head-to-head data exist comparing elinzanetant and fezolinetant, Dr. Simon told this news organization the side effects with fezolinetant “tend to be gastrointestinal, whereas the side effects for elinzanetant tend to be central nervous system,” such as drowsiness and lethargy.

The women who are the best candidates for elinzanetant, Dr. Pinkerton told this news organization, include those who have had an estrogen-sensitive cancer, such as breast or endometrial cancer, or who have fear of it, a family history, or are otherwise high risk. Other ideal candidates include those with a history of venous thromboembolism, people who have migraine with aura (due to concerns about increased risk for stroke), and those who have endometriosis or large fibroids.

“Then the last group might be women who took hormone therapy in their 50s and want to continue, but they’re trying to go off, and they have a recurrence of their hot flashes or night sweats or sleep issues,” Dr. Pinkerton said. “This might be a great group to switch over.”

OASIS 3 assessed the drug for 1 year and “supported the results of OASIS 1 and 2, demonstrating efficacy over a longer study duration and in a population with a vasomotor symptom profile representative of that seen in clinical practice,” Nick Panay, BSc, MBBS, director of the Menopause & PMS Centre at Queen Charlotte’s Hospital & Imperial College London, London, England, and his colleague reported.

Among 628 postmenopausal women aged 40-65, the predominantly White (78.5%) women were an average 54 years old, with an average BMI of 27.6, and were an average 5 years past their last period. Half received 120 mg elinzanetant and half received a placebo for 52 weeks.

At 12 weeks, the women receiving elinzanetant reported an average 1.6 moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms per day, down from 6.7 at baseline. Daily average symptoms in the placebo group fell from 6.8 at baseline to 3.4 at 12 weeks, for a difference of 1.6 fewer occurrences per day in the elinzanetant group (P < .0001).

Sleep disturbances also improved, falling 9.4 points from a baseline 57.4 in the elinzanetant group and 5.7 points from a baseline 58 in the placebo group. Quality-of-life scores improved from 4.1 to 2.8 (−1.3 change) in the elinzanetant group and from 4.4 to 3.3 (−1.1 change) in the placebo group.

In addition to looking at treatment-emergent adverse events, the safety assessments also included endometrial biopsies; bone mineral density in the femoral neck, hip, and lumbar spine; weight; and labs. Adverse events related to the study drug occurred in 30.4% of those in the elinzanetant group and 14.6% of those in the placebo group. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache (9.6% elinzanetant vs 7% placebo), fatigue (7% vs 10.2%), and sleepiness (5.1% vs 1.3%). A higher proportion of women taking elinzanetant (12.5%) than those taking placebo (4.1%) discontinued the study.

No serious adverse events deemed to be treatment-related occurred in either group, and no endometrial hyperplasia or malignant neoplasm occurred in either group. Bone mineral density changes in both groups were within the expected range for the women’s age, and their weight remained stable over the 52 weeks.

Six women taking elinzanetant and four taking placebo met predefined criteria for close liver observation, but none showed hepatotoxicity or evidence of possible drug-induced liver injury.

The research was funded by Bayer. Dr. Pinkerton has run a trial funded by Bayer and is a consultant for Bayer and Pfizer. Dr. Shufelt had no disclosures. Dr. Simon had grant/research support, consulting/advisory board participation, and/or speaking disclosures with AbbVie, Bayer Healthcare, Besins Healthcare, California Institute of Integral Studies, Camargo Pharmaceutical Services, Covance, Daré Bioscience, DEKA M.E.L.A S.r.l., Femasys, Ipsen, KaNDy/NeRRe Therapeutics, Khyria, Madorra, Mayne Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Development America, Mylan/Viatris Inc, Myovant Sciences, ObsEva SA, Pfizer, Pharmavite, QUE Oncology, Scynexis, Sebela Pharmaceuticals, Sprout Pharmaceuticals, TherapeuticsMD, Vella Bioscience, and Viveve Medical, and he is a stockholder in Sermonix Pharmaceuticals.

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

CHICAGO — The nonhormonal investigational drug elinzanetant led to significant improvement in hot flashes as well as sleep disturbance and quality of life, according to data from three randomized controlled trials presented at The Menopause Society 2024 Annual Meeting in Chicago. Two phase 3 trials, OASIS 1 and 2, were also published in JAMA, and the longer-term OASIS 3 trial was presented as a poster at the conference.

Elinzanetant is a selective neurokinin (NK) receptor antagonist, similar to fezolinetant, the first drug in this class approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for vasomotor symptoms in May 2023. This class of medications targets the estrogen-sensitive kisspeptin/NK B/dynorphin (KNDy) neurons thought to play a role in thermoregulation and hot flashes during menopause. While fezolinetant targets only the NK-3 receptor, elinzanetant is a dual NK receptor antagonist that targets both NK-1 and NK-3. Bayer submitted a New Drug Application for elinzanetant to the FDA on August 1.

For those in whom hormone therapy is contraindicated, “it’s always been difficult for women with really severe symptoms to have a safe and effective therapy,” lead author JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia, told this news organization. “The nonhormonal therapies we’ve used mostly off-label — the antidepressants, gabapentin, clonidine, oxybutynin — do help the hot flashes, but they don’t work nearly as effectively as these new NK receptor antagonists, and having one that looks like it might have a broader use for hot flashes, night sweats, mood, and sleep is just really exciting.”

Dr. Pinkerton said approximately 80% of the women in the OASIS 1 and 2 studies had at least a 50% reduction in hot flashes. “It was a very strong, dramatic positive finding, but the improvements in sleep and mood have really encouraged us to go further,” she said.

Declining estrogen levels during and after menopause can cause hypertrophy and hyperactivity of the KNDy neurons, which has been linked to thermoregulation disruptions that may trigger hot flashes, James Simon, MD, a clinical professor of ob.gyn. at The George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences and medical director of IntimMedicine in Washington, DC, told attendees. He presented pooled data from OASIS 1 and 2. The NK-1 receptor, targeted by elinzanetant but not fezolinetant, is also thought to play a role in insomnia and possibly in mood.

“Oftentimes the focus on a lot of these drugs is hot flashes, hot flashes, hot flashes, but we know hot flashes do not occur in isolation,” Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, professor and chair of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, told this news organization. Elinzanetant is “an interesting compound because it actually works on sleep, and that was critical because sleep disturbance precedes” many other menopausal symptoms, said Dr. Shufelt, who was not involved in the study.

“I think it is an outstanding option for women who don’t have the opportunity to get hormones,” Dr. Shufelt said, and she was particularly pleased to see there were no safety concerns for the liver in the trial data. The FDA issued a warning on September 12 about the risk for rare liver injury with fezolinetant, but the early signals that had been seen in fezolinetant data were not seen in these elinzanetant data.

The OASIS 1 and 2 trials enrolled postmenopausal women, aged 40-65 years, who had at least 50 moderate to severe vasomotor occurrences per week.

“A moderate hot flash is a hot flash that is also associated with sweating, and a severe hot flash is a moderate hot flash that stops a woman in her tracks,” Dr. Simon said. “Namely, it’s severe enough with sweating and central nervous system effects that she is interrupted in whatever it is that she’s doing at the time.”

Exclusion criteria for the trials included a history of arrhythmias, heart block, or QT prolongation; abnormal lab results; history of malignancy within the past 5 years; uncontrolled or treatment-resistant hypertension, hypothyroidism, or hyperthyroidism; unexplained postmenopausal bleeding; clinically relevant abnormal mammogram findings; or disordered proliferative endometrium, endometrial hyperplasia, polyp, or endometrial cancer.

The predominantly White (80%) women were an average 54 years old, with an average body mass index (BMI) of 27.8, and were an average 3.5 years from their last period. For the first 12 weeks of the trials, 399 women were assigned to receive 120 mg once daily of oral elinzanetant and 397 were assigned to once daily placebo. Then the women taking placebo switched to elinzanetant for the final 14 weeks of the study.

The endpoints included mean change in frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms at weeks 1, 4, and 12 as well as change in sleep disturbance and quality of life at week 12. Sleep was assessed with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance–Short Form score, which ranges from 28.9 to 76.5, with a higher number denoting greater sleep disturbance. The Menopause-Specific Quality-of-Life score ranges from 1 to 8, with a higher score indicating poorer quality of life.

Daily frequency of vasomotor symptoms was 14 per day at baseline in the elinzanetant group, decreasing by 4.8 per day at week 1, 8 per day at week 4, and 9.4 per day at week 12. In the placebo group, women had an average 15.2 occurrences per day at baseline, which decreased by 3.2 at week 1, 5.2 at week 4, and 6.4 at week 12. Comparing the groups at 12 weeks, those receiving elinzanetant had 3.2 fewer daily vasomotor symptoms than those receiving placebo (P < .0001).

The severity of vasomotor symptoms also improved more in the elinzanetant group than in the placebo group over 12 weeks, after which severity improved further in those who switched from placebo to elinzanetant (P < .0001).

Sleep disturbance scores, starting at a mean 61.5 in the elinzanetant group and 60.5 in the placebo group, fell 10.7 points in the elinzanetant group and 5.3 points in the placebo group at 12 weeks, for a difference of 4.9 points (P < .0001). Sleep then further improved in those who switched from placebo to elinzanetant. Quality-of-life scores improved 1.37 points (from 4.52 at baseline) in the elinzanetant group and 0.96 points (from 4.49 at baseline) in the placebo group, for a mean difference at 12 weeks of 0.36 (P < .0001).

Though no head-to-head data exist comparing elinzanetant and fezolinetant, Dr. Simon told this news organization the side effects with fezolinetant “tend to be gastrointestinal, whereas the side effects for elinzanetant tend to be central nervous system,” such as drowsiness and lethargy.

The women who are the best candidates for elinzanetant, Dr. Pinkerton told this news organization, include those who have had an estrogen-sensitive cancer, such as breast or endometrial cancer, or who have fear of it, a family history, or are otherwise high risk. Other ideal candidates include those with a history of venous thromboembolism, people who have migraine with aura (due to concerns about increased risk for stroke), and those who have endometriosis or large fibroids.

“Then the last group might be women who took hormone therapy in their 50s and want to continue, but they’re trying to go off, and they have a recurrence of their hot flashes or night sweats or sleep issues,” Dr. Pinkerton said. “This might be a great group to switch over.”

OASIS 3 assessed the drug for 1 year and “supported the results of OASIS 1 and 2, demonstrating efficacy over a longer study duration and in a population with a vasomotor symptom profile representative of that seen in clinical practice,” Nick Panay, BSc, MBBS, director of the Menopause & PMS Centre at Queen Charlotte’s Hospital & Imperial College London, London, England, and his colleague reported.

Among 628 postmenopausal women aged 40-65, the predominantly White (78.5%) women were an average 54 years old, with an average BMI of 27.6, and were an average 5 years past their last period. Half received 120 mg elinzanetant and half received a placebo for 52 weeks.

At 12 weeks, the women receiving elinzanetant reported an average 1.6 moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms per day, down from 6.7 at baseline. Daily average symptoms in the placebo group fell from 6.8 at baseline to 3.4 at 12 weeks, for a difference of 1.6 fewer occurrences per day in the elinzanetant group (P < .0001).

Sleep disturbances also improved, falling 9.4 points from a baseline 57.4 in the elinzanetant group and 5.7 points from a baseline 58 in the placebo group. Quality-of-life scores improved from 4.1 to 2.8 (−1.3 change) in the elinzanetant group and from 4.4 to 3.3 (−1.1 change) in the placebo group.

In addition to looking at treatment-emergent adverse events, the safety assessments also included endometrial biopsies; bone mineral density in the femoral neck, hip, and lumbar spine; weight; and labs. Adverse events related to the study drug occurred in 30.4% of those in the elinzanetant group and 14.6% of those in the placebo group. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache (9.6% elinzanetant vs 7% placebo), fatigue (7% vs 10.2%), and sleepiness (5.1% vs 1.3%). A higher proportion of women taking elinzanetant (12.5%) than those taking placebo (4.1%) discontinued the study.

No serious adverse events deemed to be treatment-related occurred in either group, and no endometrial hyperplasia or malignant neoplasm occurred in either group. Bone mineral density changes in both groups were within the expected range for the women’s age, and their weight remained stable over the 52 weeks.

Six women taking elinzanetant and four taking placebo met predefined criteria for close liver observation, but none showed hepatotoxicity or evidence of possible drug-induced liver injury.

The research was funded by Bayer. Dr. Pinkerton has run a trial funded by Bayer and is a consultant for Bayer and Pfizer. Dr. Shufelt had no disclosures. Dr. Simon had grant/research support, consulting/advisory board participation, and/or speaking disclosures with AbbVie, Bayer Healthcare, Besins Healthcare, California Institute of Integral Studies, Camargo Pharmaceutical Services, Covance, Daré Bioscience, DEKA M.E.L.A S.r.l., Femasys, Ipsen, KaNDy/NeRRe Therapeutics, Khyria, Madorra, Mayne Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Development America, Mylan/Viatris Inc, Myovant Sciences, ObsEva SA, Pfizer, Pharmavite, QUE Oncology, Scynexis, Sebela Pharmaceuticals, Sprout Pharmaceuticals, TherapeuticsMD, Vella Bioscience, and Viveve Medical, and he is a stockholder in Sermonix Pharmaceuticals.

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

TOPLINE:

Black women in the United States have higher breast cancer (BC) mortality rates than White women across tumor subtypes. The greatest disparity in BC-specific survival was observed in those with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor 2–negative (HER2−) tumors, with Black women having a 50% higher risk for death.

METHODOLOGY:

• US Black women have a 40% higher risk for death from BC than White women, and many cancer specialists believe that disparities are worse among more treatable subtypes, such as HR+ tumors.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 US studies published during 2009-2022 that included 228,885 women (34,262 Black women; 182,466 White women) and examined racial differences in BC survival by subtype.
• The analysis included hormone receptor and HER2/neu status to define subtypes: HR+ HER2+, HR+ HER2−, HR− HER2+, and HR− HER2−.
• Random-effects models were used to generate pooled relative risks and 95% CI for BC-specific survival and overall survival.
• The primary outcome was BC-specific survival, with overall survival as a secondary analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Black women had a higher risk for BC death across all tumor subtypes than White women, with the greatest disparity observed in HR+ HER2− tumors (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.30-1.72).
• The risk for BC death was also higher for Black women with HR+ HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64); HR− HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.00-1.43); and HR− HER2− tumors (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.25).
• Overall survival was poorer for Black women across all subtypes, although estimates for HR− HER2+ tumors did not reach statistical significance.
• In analysis of two subtypes with significant heterogeneity among studies, adjustments for socioeconomic status and number of Black participants explained about half and all the variance for HR+ HER2− and HR− HER2+ tumors, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest there are both subtype-specific and subtype-independent mechanisms that contribute to disparities in breast cancer survival between Black and White women, which require multilevel interventions to address and achieve health equity,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Juliana M. Torres, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, CURE Program, Boston. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included potential heterogeneity between studies as indicated by significant heterogeneity in some analyses. The use of different subtype definitions and potential overlap in data sets may have also affected the results. Many included studies did not capture the extent to which treatments were completed or detection and treatment of recurrences. Additionally, the study’s findings may not fully capture socioeconomic inequality and other unmeasured factors contributing to disparities. The racial and ethnic disparities analysis focused only on Black and White women.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual authors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, Healthix, Merck, AstraZeneca, LabCorp, and Takeda. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Black women in the United States have higher breast cancer (BC) mortality rates than White women across tumor subtypes. The greatest disparity in BC-specific survival was observed in those with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor 2–negative (HER2−) tumors, with Black women having a 50% higher risk for death.

METHODOLOGY:

• US Black women have a 40% higher risk for death from BC than White women, and many cancer specialists believe that disparities are worse among more treatable subtypes, such as HR+ tumors.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 US studies published during 2009-2022 that included 228,885 women (34,262 Black women; 182,466 White women) and examined racial differences in BC survival by subtype.
• The analysis included hormone receptor and HER2/neu status to define subtypes: HR+ HER2+, HR+ HER2−, HR− HER2+, and HR− HER2−.
• Random-effects models were used to generate pooled relative risks and 95% CI for BC-specific survival and overall survival.
• The primary outcome was BC-specific survival, with overall survival as a secondary analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Black women had a higher risk for BC death across all tumor subtypes than White women, with the greatest disparity observed in HR+ HER2− tumors (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.30-1.72).
• The risk for BC death was also higher for Black women with HR+ HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64); HR− HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.00-1.43); and HR− HER2− tumors (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.25).
• Overall survival was poorer for Black women across all subtypes, although estimates for HR− HER2+ tumors did not reach statistical significance.
• In analysis of two subtypes with significant heterogeneity among studies, adjustments for socioeconomic status and number of Black participants explained about half and all the variance for HR+ HER2− and HR− HER2+ tumors, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest there are both subtype-specific and subtype-independent mechanisms that contribute to disparities in breast cancer survival between Black and White women, which require multilevel interventions to address and achieve health equity,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Juliana M. Torres, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, CURE Program, Boston. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included potential heterogeneity between studies as indicated by significant heterogeneity in some analyses. The use of different subtype definitions and potential overlap in data sets may have also affected the results. Many included studies did not capture the extent to which treatments were completed or detection and treatment of recurrences. Additionally, the study’s findings may not fully capture socioeconomic inequality and other unmeasured factors contributing to disparities. The racial and ethnic disparities analysis focused only on Black and White women.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual authors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, Healthix, Merck, AstraZeneca, LabCorp, and Takeda. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Black women in the United States have higher breast cancer (BC) mortality rates than White women across tumor subtypes. The greatest disparity in BC-specific survival was observed in those with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor 2–negative (HER2−) tumors, with Black women having a 50% higher risk for death.

METHODOLOGY:

• US Black women have a 40% higher risk for death from BC than White women, and many cancer specialists believe that disparities are worse among more treatable subtypes, such as HR+ tumors.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 US studies published during 2009-2022 that included 228,885 women (34,262 Black women; 182,466 White women) and examined racial differences in BC survival by subtype.
• The analysis included hormone receptor and HER2/neu status to define subtypes: HR+ HER2+, HR+ HER2−, HR− HER2+, and HR− HER2−.
• Random-effects models were used to generate pooled relative risks and 95% CI for BC-specific survival and overall survival.
• The primary outcome was BC-specific survival, with overall survival as a secondary analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Black women had a higher risk for BC death across all tumor subtypes than White women, with the greatest disparity observed in HR+ HER2− tumors (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.30-1.72).
• The risk for BC death was also higher for Black women with HR+ HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64); HR− HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.00-1.43); and HR− HER2− tumors (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.25).
• Overall survival was poorer for Black women across all subtypes, although estimates for HR− HER2+ tumors did not reach statistical significance.
• In analysis of two subtypes with significant heterogeneity among studies, adjustments for socioeconomic status and number of Black participants explained about half and all the variance for HR+ HER2− and HR− HER2+ tumors, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest there are both subtype-specific and subtype-independent mechanisms that contribute to disparities in breast cancer survival between Black and White women, which require multilevel interventions to address and achieve health equity,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Juliana M. Torres, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, CURE Program, Boston. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included potential heterogeneity between studies as indicated by significant heterogeneity in some analyses. The use of different subtype definitions and potential overlap in data sets may have also affected the results. Many included studies did not capture the extent to which treatments were completed or detection and treatment of recurrences. Additionally, the study’s findings may not fully capture socioeconomic inequality and other unmeasured factors contributing to disparities. The racial and ethnic disparities analysis focused only on Black and White women.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual authors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, Healthix, Merck, AstraZeneca, LabCorp, and Takeda. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ribociclib (Kisqali, Novartis) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor for adult patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative stages II and III breast cancer at high risk for recurrence following surgery.

FDA also approved ribociclib and the aromatase inhibitor letrozole packaged together (Kisqali Femara Co-Pack, Novartis) for the same indication.

A rival cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio, Eli Lilly) carries a similar adjuvant indication, but use of this agent requires patients to be lymph node–positive.

There’s no such restriction for the new ribociclib indication, which “allows us to offer treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor to a significantly broader group of people,” lead investigator Dennis J. Slamon, MD, breast oncologist at the University of California Los Angeless, said in a Novartis press release.

The new indication joins ribociclib’s previous approval for advanced or metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in combination with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant.

The current approval was based on data from the NATALEE trial. NATALEE randomized 5101 patients with early-stage HR-positive, HER2-negative disease to either 400 mg ribociclib with an aromatase inhibitor or to an aromatase inhibitor alone following surgery. 

Invasive disease-free survival at 36 months was 90.7% in the ribociclib arm vs 87.6% with aromatase inhibitor monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.749; P = .0006). The trial included patients with and without lymph node involvement.

At 4 years (well beyond NATALEE’s 3-year treatment window), the ribociclib group continued to do better, with an invasive disease-free survival rate of 88.5% vs 83.6% in the control arm.

Overall survival data remain immature but with a trend towards improved survival in the ribociclib arm (HR, 0.715; P < .0001), according to a recent report from the 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

There were no new safety signals in the trial. Adverse events in the ribociclib group included neutropenia (62.5% overall; 44.3% grade 3/4), liver-related events (26.4% overall; 8.6% grade 3/4), QT prolongation (5.3% overall; 1.0% grade 3/4), and interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis (1.5% overall; 0.0% grade 3/4), according to Novartis.

Ribociclib dosing for the adjuvant indication is lower than for metastatic disease, but patients are on the same schedule — two 200 mg tablets once daily for 21 days followed by 7 days off in 28-day cycles. Treatment continues for 3 years.

Forty-two 200 mg tablets cost about $15,000, according to drugs.com. A patient assistance program is available through Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ribociclib (Kisqali, Novartis) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor for adult patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative stages II and III breast cancer at high risk for recurrence following surgery.

FDA also approved ribociclib and the aromatase inhibitor letrozole packaged together (Kisqali Femara Co-Pack, Novartis) for the same indication.

A rival cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio, Eli Lilly) carries a similar adjuvant indication, but use of this agent requires patients to be lymph node–positive.

There’s no such restriction for the new ribociclib indication, which “allows us to offer treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor to a significantly broader group of people,” lead investigator Dennis J. Slamon, MD, breast oncologist at the University of California Los Angeless, said in a Novartis press release.

The new indication joins ribociclib’s previous approval for advanced or metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in combination with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant.

The current approval was based on data from the NATALEE trial. NATALEE randomized 5101 patients with early-stage HR-positive, HER2-negative disease to either 400 mg ribociclib with an aromatase inhibitor or to an aromatase inhibitor alone following surgery. 

Invasive disease-free survival at 36 months was 90.7% in the ribociclib arm vs 87.6% with aromatase inhibitor monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.749; P = .0006). The trial included patients with and without lymph node involvement.

At 4 years (well beyond NATALEE’s 3-year treatment window), the ribociclib group continued to do better, with an invasive disease-free survival rate of 88.5% vs 83.6% in the control arm.

Overall survival data remain immature but with a trend towards improved survival in the ribociclib arm (HR, 0.715; P < .0001), according to a recent report from the 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

There were no new safety signals in the trial. Adverse events in the ribociclib group included neutropenia (62.5% overall; 44.3% grade 3/4), liver-related events (26.4% overall; 8.6% grade 3/4), QT prolongation (5.3% overall; 1.0% grade 3/4), and interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis (1.5% overall; 0.0% grade 3/4), according to Novartis.

Ribociclib dosing for the adjuvant indication is lower than for metastatic disease, but patients are on the same schedule — two 200 mg tablets once daily for 21 days followed by 7 days off in 28-day cycles. Treatment continues for 3 years.

Forty-two 200 mg tablets cost about $15,000, according to drugs.com. A patient assistance program is available through Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ribociclib (Kisqali, Novartis) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor for adult patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative stages II and III breast cancer at high risk for recurrence following surgery.

FDA also approved ribociclib and the aromatase inhibitor letrozole packaged together (Kisqali Femara Co-Pack, Novartis) for the same indication.

A rival cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio, Eli Lilly) carries a similar adjuvant indication, but use of this agent requires patients to be lymph node–positive.

There’s no such restriction for the new ribociclib indication, which “allows us to offer treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor to a significantly broader group of people,” lead investigator Dennis J. Slamon, MD, breast oncologist at the University of California Los Angeless, said in a Novartis press release.

The new indication joins ribociclib’s previous approval for advanced or metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in combination with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant.

The current approval was based on data from the NATALEE trial. NATALEE randomized 5101 patients with early-stage HR-positive, HER2-negative disease to either 400 mg ribociclib with an aromatase inhibitor or to an aromatase inhibitor alone following surgery. 

Invasive disease-free survival at 36 months was 90.7% in the ribociclib arm vs 87.6% with aromatase inhibitor monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.749; P = .0006). The trial included patients with and without lymph node involvement.

At 4 years (well beyond NATALEE’s 3-year treatment window), the ribociclib group continued to do better, with an invasive disease-free survival rate of 88.5% vs 83.6% in the control arm.

Overall survival data remain immature but with a trend towards improved survival in the ribociclib arm (HR, 0.715; P < .0001), according to a recent report from the 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

There were no new safety signals in the trial. Adverse events in the ribociclib group included neutropenia (62.5% overall; 44.3% grade 3/4), liver-related events (26.4% overall; 8.6% grade 3/4), QT prolongation (5.3% overall; 1.0% grade 3/4), and interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis (1.5% overall; 0.0% grade 3/4), according to Novartis.

Ribociclib dosing for the adjuvant indication is lower than for metastatic disease, but patients are on the same schedule — two 200 mg tablets once daily for 21 days followed by 7 days off in 28-day cycles. Treatment continues for 3 years.

Forty-two 200 mg tablets cost about $15,000, according to drugs.com. A patient assistance program is available through Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

TOPLINE: 

Intravenous iron reduced iron deficiency more effectively than oral iron, which is often distasteful, among pregnant women in Nigeria. However, no significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia or preterm birth between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 1056 pregnant women aged 15-49 years with hemoglobin concentrations 10 g/dL at 20-32 weeks’ gestation were included in the trial.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single dose of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (20 mg/kg to a maximum of 1000 mg) or oral ferrous sulphate (200 mg; 65 mg elemental iron) three times daily until 6 weeks postpartum.
• Primary outcomes were maternal anemia (hemoglobin, < 11 g/dL) at 36 weeks’ gestation and preterm birth before 37 weeks’ gestation.
• Secondary outcomes were iron deficiency, iron deficiency anemia, maternal depression, infections, immunization, and breastfeeding practices.
• The trial was conducted in 11 health facilities in Lagos and Kano, Nigeria, with follow-up visits at 2 weeks and 6 weeks postpartum.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia at 36 weeks’ gestation between the intravenous and oral iron groups (58% vs 61%; P = .36).
• Intravenous iron was more effective at reducing iron deficiency (5% vs 16%; P = .0001) and iron deficiency anemia (2% vs 10%; P = .0001) at 36 weeks’ gestation.
• The incidence of preterm birth did not significantly differ between the intravenous and oral iron groups (14% vs 15%; P = .66).
• Intravenous iron led to a higher mean hemoglobin concentration from baseline to 4 weeks in both iron-deficient and non–iron-deficient subgroups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the effect on overall anaemia did not differ, intravenous iron reduced the prevalence of iron deficiency to a greater extent than oral iron and was considered to be safe. We recommend that intravenous iron be considered for anaemic pregnant women in Nigeria and similar settings,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Bosede B. Afolabi, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Nigeria. It was published online in The Lancet Global Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s sample size estimation assumed a 25% rate of preterm births, but the actual rate was only 14.5%, which potentially underpowered the study to measure this outcome. Most participants were enrolled after 20 weeks’ gestation, which limited the ability to explore the effect of treatment duration. The interpretation of postpartum hemorrhage was limited by the use of visual assessment to determine blood loss, which is subjective.

DISCLOSURES:

A coathor, Kristi S. Annerstedt, PhD, reported participation on the ALERT project Data Safety Monitoring Board. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. The study was supported by grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

TOPLINE: 

Intravenous iron reduced iron deficiency more effectively than oral iron, which is often distasteful, among pregnant women in Nigeria. However, no significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia or preterm birth between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 1056 pregnant women aged 15-49 years with hemoglobin concentrations 10 g/dL at 20-32 weeks’ gestation were included in the trial.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single dose of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (20 mg/kg to a maximum of 1000 mg) or oral ferrous sulphate (200 mg; 65 mg elemental iron) three times daily until 6 weeks postpartum.
• Primary outcomes were maternal anemia (hemoglobin, < 11 g/dL) at 36 weeks’ gestation and preterm birth before 37 weeks’ gestation.
• Secondary outcomes were iron deficiency, iron deficiency anemia, maternal depression, infections, immunization, and breastfeeding practices.
• The trial was conducted in 11 health facilities in Lagos and Kano, Nigeria, with follow-up visits at 2 weeks and 6 weeks postpartum.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia at 36 weeks’ gestation between the intravenous and oral iron groups (58% vs 61%; P = .36).
• Intravenous iron was more effective at reducing iron deficiency (5% vs 16%; P = .0001) and iron deficiency anemia (2% vs 10%; P = .0001) at 36 weeks’ gestation.
• The incidence of preterm birth did not significantly differ between the intravenous and oral iron groups (14% vs 15%; P = .66).
• Intravenous iron led to a higher mean hemoglobin concentration from baseline to 4 weeks in both iron-deficient and non–iron-deficient subgroups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the effect on overall anaemia did not differ, intravenous iron reduced the prevalence of iron deficiency to a greater extent than oral iron and was considered to be safe. We recommend that intravenous iron be considered for anaemic pregnant women in Nigeria and similar settings,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Bosede B. Afolabi, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Nigeria. It was published online in The Lancet Global Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s sample size estimation assumed a 25% rate of preterm births, but the actual rate was only 14.5%, which potentially underpowered the study to measure this outcome. Most participants were enrolled after 20 weeks’ gestation, which limited the ability to explore the effect of treatment duration. The interpretation of postpartum hemorrhage was limited by the use of visual assessment to determine blood loss, which is subjective.

DISCLOSURES:

A coathor, Kristi S. Annerstedt, PhD, reported participation on the ALERT project Data Safety Monitoring Board. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. The study was supported by grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

TOPLINE: 

Intravenous iron reduced iron deficiency more effectively than oral iron, which is often distasteful, among pregnant women in Nigeria. However, no significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia or preterm birth between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 1056 pregnant women aged 15-49 years with hemoglobin concentrations 10 g/dL at 20-32 weeks’ gestation were included in the trial.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single dose of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (20 mg/kg to a maximum of 1000 mg) or oral ferrous sulphate (200 mg; 65 mg elemental iron) three times daily until 6 weeks postpartum.
• Primary outcomes were maternal anemia (hemoglobin, < 11 g/dL) at 36 weeks’ gestation and preterm birth before 37 weeks’ gestation.
• Secondary outcomes were iron deficiency, iron deficiency anemia, maternal depression, infections, immunization, and breastfeeding practices.
• The trial was conducted in 11 health facilities in Lagos and Kano, Nigeria, with follow-up visits at 2 weeks and 6 weeks postpartum.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia at 36 weeks’ gestation between the intravenous and oral iron groups (58% vs 61%; P = .36).
• Intravenous iron was more effective at reducing iron deficiency (5% vs 16%; P = .0001) and iron deficiency anemia (2% vs 10%; P = .0001) at 36 weeks’ gestation.
• The incidence of preterm birth did not significantly differ between the intravenous and oral iron groups (14% vs 15%; P = .66).
• Intravenous iron led to a higher mean hemoglobin concentration from baseline to 4 weeks in both iron-deficient and non–iron-deficient subgroups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the effect on overall anaemia did not differ, intravenous iron reduced the prevalence of iron deficiency to a greater extent than oral iron and was considered to be safe. We recommend that intravenous iron be considered for anaemic pregnant women in Nigeria and similar settings,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Bosede B. Afolabi, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Nigeria. It was published online in The Lancet Global Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s sample size estimation assumed a 25% rate of preterm births, but the actual rate was only 14.5%, which potentially underpowered the study to measure this outcome. Most participants were enrolled after 20 weeks’ gestation, which limited the ability to explore the effect of treatment duration. The interpretation of postpartum hemorrhage was limited by the use of visual assessment to determine blood loss, which is subjective.

DISCLOSURES:

A coathor, Kristi S. Annerstedt, PhD, reported participation on the ALERT project Data Safety Monitoring Board. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. The study was supported by grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

NEW YORK — Because of their heterogeneity in appearance, drug-induced skin rashes are a common diagnostic challenge, but eruptions in skin of color, particularly those with a delayed onset, require a high index of suspicion to speed the diagnosis.

This risk for a delayed or missed diagnosis in patients with darker skin is shared across skin rashes, but drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS) is a telling example, according to Joanna Harp, MD, director of the Inpatient Dermatology Consult Service, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York City.

DIHS, also known as a drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, is a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, Dr. Harp explained. While the fact that this disorder does not always include eosinophilia prompted the DIHS acronym, the maculopapular rash often serves as a critical clue of the underlying etiology.

Signs of AGEP Can Be Subtle in Black Patients

Some of the same principles for diagnosing drug-induced rash in darker skin can also be applied to acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), another type IV hypersensitivity reaction. Like all drug-induced rashes, the earlier AGEP is recognized and treated, the better the outcome, but in Black patients, the signs can be subtle.

“The onset is usually fast and occurs in 1-2 days after [the causative drug] exposure,” said Dr. Harp, adding that antibiotics, such as cephalosporins or penicillin, and calcium channel blockers are among the prominent causes of AGEP.

One of the hallmark signs of early-onset AGEP are tiny erythematous pustules in flexural areas, such as the neck or the armpits. The issue of detecting erythema in darker skin is also relevant to this area, but there is an additional problem, according to Dr. Harp. The pustules often dry up quickly, leaving a neutrophilic scale that further complicates the effort to see the characteristic erythema.

“If you see a lot of scale, look for erythema underneath. Think of inflammation,” Dr. Harp said, explaining that the clinical appearance evolves quickly. “If you do not see the pustules, it does not mean they were not there; you just missed them.”

In addition to the flexural areas, “AGEP loves the ears, the face, and the geographic tongue,” she said, offering several pearls to help with the diagnosis. These include side lighting to make papules easier to see, pressing on the skin to highlight the difference between erythematous skin and blanched skin, and checking less pigmented skin, such as on the hands and feet, which makes erythema easier to see.

Steroids are often the first-line treatment for drug-induced skin rashes, but Dr. Harp moves to etanercept or cyclosporine for the most serious drug reactions, such as SJS and toxic epidermal necrolysis.

Etanercept is typically her first choice because patients with systemic hypersensitivity reactions with major organ involvement are often quite ill, making cyclosporine harder to use. In her experience, etanercept has been well tolerated.

Conversely, she cautioned against the use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Although this has been used traditionally for severe drug hypersensitivity reactions, “the data are not there,” she said. The data are stronger for a combination of high-dose steroids and IVIG, but she thinks even these data are inconsistent and not as strong as the data supporting etanercept or cyclosporine. She encouraged centers still using IVIG to consider alternatives.

After drug sensitivity reactions are controlled, follow-up care is particularly important for Black patients who face greater risks for sequelae, such as hypopigmentation, hyperpigmentation, or keloids. She recommended aggressive use of emollients and sunscreens for an extended period after lesions resolve to lessen these risks.

Differences in the manifestations of drug-induced skin rashes by race and ethnicity are important and perhaps underappreciated, agreed Shawn Kwatra, MD, professor and chairman of the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Asked to comment at the meeting, Dr. Kwatra said that he appreciated Dr. Harp’s effort to translate published data and her experience into an overview that increases awareness of the risk for missed or delayed diagnoses of drug-induced rashes in skin of color. He noted that the strategies to identify erythema and pustules, such as increased suspicion in skin of color and the extra steps to rule them out, such as the use of side lighting in the case of pustules for AGEP, are simple and practical.

Dr. Harp and Dr. Kwatra had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Because of their heterogeneity in appearance, drug-induced skin rashes are a common diagnostic challenge, but eruptions in skin of color, particularly those with a delayed onset, require a high index of suspicion to speed the diagnosis.

This risk for a delayed or missed diagnosis in patients with darker skin is shared across skin rashes, but drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS) is a telling example, according to Joanna Harp, MD, director of the Inpatient Dermatology Consult Service, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York City.

DIHS, also known as a drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, is a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, Dr. Harp explained. While the fact that this disorder does not always include eosinophilia prompted the DIHS acronym, the maculopapular rash often serves as a critical clue of the underlying etiology.

Signs of AGEP Can Be Subtle in Black Patients

Some of the same principles for diagnosing drug-induced rash in darker skin can also be applied to acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), another type IV hypersensitivity reaction. Like all drug-induced rashes, the earlier AGEP is recognized and treated, the better the outcome, but in Black patients, the signs can be subtle.

“The onset is usually fast and occurs in 1-2 days after [the causative drug] exposure,” said Dr. Harp, adding that antibiotics, such as cephalosporins or penicillin, and calcium channel blockers are among the prominent causes of AGEP.

One of the hallmark signs of early-onset AGEP are tiny erythematous pustules in flexural areas, such as the neck or the armpits. The issue of detecting erythema in darker skin is also relevant to this area, but there is an additional problem, according to Dr. Harp. The pustules often dry up quickly, leaving a neutrophilic scale that further complicates the effort to see the characteristic erythema.

“If you see a lot of scale, look for erythema underneath. Think of inflammation,” Dr. Harp said, explaining that the clinical appearance evolves quickly. “If you do not see the pustules, it does not mean they were not there; you just missed them.”

In addition to the flexural areas, “AGEP loves the ears, the face, and the geographic tongue,” she said, offering several pearls to help with the diagnosis. These include side lighting to make papules easier to see, pressing on the skin to highlight the difference between erythematous skin and blanched skin, and checking less pigmented skin, such as on the hands and feet, which makes erythema easier to see.

Steroids are often the first-line treatment for drug-induced skin rashes, but Dr. Harp moves to etanercept or cyclosporine for the most serious drug reactions, such as SJS and toxic epidermal necrolysis.

Etanercept is typically her first choice because patients with systemic hypersensitivity reactions with major organ involvement are often quite ill, making cyclosporine harder to use. In her experience, etanercept has been well tolerated.

Conversely, she cautioned against the use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Although this has been used traditionally for severe drug hypersensitivity reactions, “the data are not there,” she said. The data are stronger for a combination of high-dose steroids and IVIG, but she thinks even these data are inconsistent and not as strong as the data supporting etanercept or cyclosporine. She encouraged centers still using IVIG to consider alternatives.

After drug sensitivity reactions are controlled, follow-up care is particularly important for Black patients who face greater risks for sequelae, such as hypopigmentation, hyperpigmentation, or keloids. She recommended aggressive use of emollients and sunscreens for an extended period after lesions resolve to lessen these risks.

Differences in the manifestations of drug-induced skin rashes by race and ethnicity are important and perhaps underappreciated, agreed Shawn Kwatra, MD, professor and chairman of the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Asked to comment at the meeting, Dr. Kwatra said that he appreciated Dr. Harp’s effort to translate published data and her experience into an overview that increases awareness of the risk for missed or delayed diagnoses of drug-induced rashes in skin of color. He noted that the strategies to identify erythema and pustules, such as increased suspicion in skin of color and the extra steps to rule them out, such as the use of side lighting in the case of pustules for AGEP, are simple and practical.

Dr. Harp and Dr. Kwatra had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Because of their heterogeneity in appearance, drug-induced skin rashes are a common diagnostic challenge, but eruptions in skin of color, particularly those with a delayed onset, require a high index of suspicion to speed the diagnosis.

This risk for a delayed or missed diagnosis in patients with darker skin is shared across skin rashes, but drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS) is a telling example, according to Joanna Harp, MD, director of the Inpatient Dermatology Consult Service, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York City.

DIHS, also known as a drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, is a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, Dr. Harp explained. While the fact that this disorder does not always include eosinophilia prompted the DIHS acronym, the maculopapular rash often serves as a critical clue of the underlying etiology.

Signs of AGEP Can Be Subtle in Black Patients

Some of the same principles for diagnosing drug-induced rash in darker skin can also be applied to acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), another type IV hypersensitivity reaction. Like all drug-induced rashes, the earlier AGEP is recognized and treated, the better the outcome, but in Black patients, the signs can be subtle.

“The onset is usually fast and occurs in 1-2 days after [the causative drug] exposure,” said Dr. Harp, adding that antibiotics, such as cephalosporins or penicillin, and calcium channel blockers are among the prominent causes of AGEP.

One of the hallmark signs of early-onset AGEP are tiny erythematous pustules in flexural areas, such as the neck or the armpits. The issue of detecting erythema in darker skin is also relevant to this area, but there is an additional problem, according to Dr. Harp. The pustules often dry up quickly, leaving a neutrophilic scale that further complicates the effort to see the characteristic erythema.

“If you see a lot of scale, look for erythema underneath. Think of inflammation,” Dr. Harp said, explaining that the clinical appearance evolves quickly. “If you do not see the pustules, it does not mean they were not there; you just missed them.”

In addition to the flexural areas, “AGEP loves the ears, the face, and the geographic tongue,” she said, offering several pearls to help with the diagnosis. These include side lighting to make papules easier to see, pressing on the skin to highlight the difference between erythematous skin and blanched skin, and checking less pigmented skin, such as on the hands and feet, which makes erythema easier to see.

Steroids are often the first-line treatment for drug-induced skin rashes, but Dr. Harp moves to etanercept or cyclosporine for the most serious drug reactions, such as SJS and toxic epidermal necrolysis.

Etanercept is typically her first choice because patients with systemic hypersensitivity reactions with major organ involvement are often quite ill, making cyclosporine harder to use. In her experience, etanercept has been well tolerated.

Conversely, she cautioned against the use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Although this has been used traditionally for severe drug hypersensitivity reactions, “the data are not there,” she said. The data are stronger for a combination of high-dose steroids and IVIG, but she thinks even these data are inconsistent and not as strong as the data supporting etanercept or cyclosporine. She encouraged centers still using IVIG to consider alternatives.

After drug sensitivity reactions are controlled, follow-up care is particularly important for Black patients who face greater risks for sequelae, such as hypopigmentation, hyperpigmentation, or keloids. She recommended aggressive use of emollients and sunscreens for an extended period after lesions resolve to lessen these risks.

Differences in the manifestations of drug-induced skin rashes by race and ethnicity are important and perhaps underappreciated, agreed Shawn Kwatra, MD, professor and chairman of the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Asked to comment at the meeting, Dr. Kwatra said that he appreciated Dr. Harp’s effort to translate published data and her experience into an overview that increases awareness of the risk for missed or delayed diagnoses of drug-induced rashes in skin of color. He noted that the strategies to identify erythema and pustules, such as increased suspicion in skin of color and the extra steps to rule them out, such as the use of side lighting in the case of pustules for AGEP, are simple and practical.

Dr. Harp and Dr. Kwatra had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.