MDedge ObGyn

In an April press release, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reported the findings of their review concerning the efficacy of various dose schedules for human papillomavirus (HPV). “A single-dose HPV vaccine delivers solid protection against HPV, the virus that causes cervical cancer, that is comparable to 2-dose schedules,” according to SAGE.

This statement comes on the heels of an article published in the November 2021 issue of Lancet Oncology about a study in India. It found that a single dose of the vaccine provides protection against persistent infection from HPV 16 and 18 similar to that provided by two or three doses.

Will this new information lead French authorities to change their recommendations? What do French specialists think? At the 45th Congress of the French Society for Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases (SFCPCV), Geoffroy Canlorbe, MD, PhD, of the department of gynecologic and breast surgery and oncology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, shared his thoughts.

With respect to the Indian study, Dr. Canlorbe pointed out that while its findings would need “to be confirmed by other studies,” they were, nonetheless, “excellent news for developing countries where there are challenges when it comes to access to vaccination.”
 

India and France

During the congress press conference, he went on to say that, at this stage, the findings “cannot be extrapolated” to France. This is because the country’s situation is different. HPV vaccination coverage is low; estimates put it at 23.7%, placing the country 28th out of 31 in Europe.

“This poor coverage has nothing to do with health care–related logistical or organizational issues; instead, it has to do with people’s mistrust when it comes to vaccination. Here, people who get the first dose get the subsequent ones,” said Dr. Canlorbe. “The very fact of getting two to three doses allows the person’s body to increase the production of antibodies and get a longer-lasting response to the vaccine.”

In addition, he drew attention to several limitations of the Indian study. Initially, the team had planned to enroll 20,000 participants. In the end, there were around 17,000, and these were allocated to three cohorts: single-dose, two-dose, and three-dose. Furthermore, the primary objective, which had initially been focused on precancerous and cancerous lesions, was revised. The new aim was to compare vaccine efficacy of single dose to that of three and two doses in protecting against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection at 10 years postvaccination. In about 90% of cases, the HPV infection went away spontaneously in 2 years without inducing lesions. Finally, the participants were women in India; therefore, the results cannot necessarily be generalized to the French population.

“This information has to be confirmed. However, as far as I know, there are no new studies going on at the moment. The Indian study, on the other hand, is still in progress,” said Dr. Canlorbe.

“In France, I think that for the time being we should stick to the studies that are currently available, which have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of two or three doses,” he concluded. In support of this approach, he cited a study on the effects of the national HPV vaccination program in England; there, the vaccination coverage is 80%.

This program was associated with a 95% risk reduction for precancerous lesions and an 87% reduction in the number of cancers, confirming the good results already achieved by Sweden and Australia.

In his comments on the WHO’s stance (which differs from that of the French experts), Jean-Luc Mergui, MD, gynecologist in the department of colposcopy and hysteroscopy at Pitié-Salpêtrière, and former president of the SFCPCV, offered an eloquent comparison: “The WHO also recommends 6 months of breastfeeding as a method of contraception, but this isn’t what’s recommended in France, for the risk of getting pregnant nevertheless remains.”
 

Indian study highlights

Partha Basu, MD, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, and colleagues compared vaccine efficacy of a single dose of Gardasil (HPV 9-valent vaccine, recombinant) to that of two and three doses in protecting against persistent HPV 16 and HPV 18 infection at 10 years postvaccination.

According to the protocol, the plan was to recruit 20,000 unmarried girls, aged 10-18 years, from across India. Recruitment was initiated in September 2009. However, in response to seven unexplained deaths reported in another ongoing HPV vaccination demonstration program in the country, the Indian government issued a notification in April 2010 to stop further recruitment and HPV vaccination in all clinical trials. At this point, Dr. Basu and his team had recruited 17,729 eligible girls.

After suspension of recruitment and vaccination, their randomized trial was converted to a longitudinal, prospective, cohort study by default.

Vaccinated participants were followed up over a median duration of 9 years. In all, 4,348 participants had three doses, 4,980 had two doses (at 0 and 6 months), and 4,949 had a single dose. Cervical specimens were collected from participants 18 months after marriage or 6 months after first childbirth, whichever was earlier, to assess incident and persistent HPV infections. Participants were invited to an annual cervical cancer screening once they reached age 25 years and were married.

A single dose of HPV vaccine provides similar protection against persistent infection from HPV 16 and HPV 18, the genotypes responsible for nearly 70% of cervical cancers, compared with that provided by two or three doses. Vaccine efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection among participants evaluable for the endpoint was 95.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.0-99.9) in the single-dose default cohort (2,135 women assessed), 93.1% (95% CI, 77.3-99.8) in the two-dose cohort (1,452 women assessed), and 93.3% (95% CI, 77.5-99.7) in three-dose recipients (1,460 women assessed).

Dr. Canlorbe reported no relevant financial relationships regarding the content of this article.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. An English version appeared on Medscape.com.

In an April press release, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reported the findings of their review concerning the efficacy of various dose schedules for human papillomavirus (HPV). “A single-dose HPV vaccine delivers solid protection against HPV, the virus that causes cervical cancer, that is comparable to 2-dose schedules,” according to SAGE.

This statement comes on the heels of an article published in the November 2021 issue of Lancet Oncology about a study in India. It found that a single dose of the vaccine provides protection against persistent infection from HPV 16 and 18 similar to that provided by two or three doses.

Will this new information lead French authorities to change their recommendations? What do French specialists think? At the 45th Congress of the French Society for Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases (SFCPCV), Geoffroy Canlorbe, MD, PhD, of the department of gynecologic and breast surgery and oncology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, shared his thoughts.

With respect to the Indian study, Dr. Canlorbe pointed out that while its findings would need “to be confirmed by other studies,” they were, nonetheless, “excellent news for developing countries where there are challenges when it comes to access to vaccination.”
 

India and France

During the congress press conference, he went on to say that, at this stage, the findings “cannot be extrapolated” to France. This is because the country’s situation is different. HPV vaccination coverage is low; estimates put it at 23.7%, placing the country 28th out of 31 in Europe.

“This poor coverage has nothing to do with health care–related logistical or organizational issues; instead, it has to do with people’s mistrust when it comes to vaccination. Here, people who get the first dose get the subsequent ones,” said Dr. Canlorbe. “The very fact of getting two to three doses allows the person’s body to increase the production of antibodies and get a longer-lasting response to the vaccine.”

In addition, he drew attention to several limitations of the Indian study. Initially, the team had planned to enroll 20,000 participants. In the end, there were around 17,000, and these were allocated to three cohorts: single-dose, two-dose, and three-dose. Furthermore, the primary objective, which had initially been focused on precancerous and cancerous lesions, was revised. The new aim was to compare vaccine efficacy of single dose to that of three and two doses in protecting against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection at 10 years postvaccination. In about 90% of cases, the HPV infection went away spontaneously in 2 years without inducing lesions. Finally, the participants were women in India; therefore, the results cannot necessarily be generalized to the French population.

“This information has to be confirmed. However, as far as I know, there are no new studies going on at the moment. The Indian study, on the other hand, is still in progress,” said Dr. Canlorbe.

“In France, I think that for the time being we should stick to the studies that are currently available, which have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of two or three doses,” he concluded. In support of this approach, he cited a study on the effects of the national HPV vaccination program in England; there, the vaccination coverage is 80%.

This program was associated with a 95% risk reduction for precancerous lesions and an 87% reduction in the number of cancers, confirming the good results already achieved by Sweden and Australia.

In his comments on the WHO’s stance (which differs from that of the French experts), Jean-Luc Mergui, MD, gynecologist in the department of colposcopy and hysteroscopy at Pitié-Salpêtrière, and former president of the SFCPCV, offered an eloquent comparison: “The WHO also recommends 6 months of breastfeeding as a method of contraception, but this isn’t what’s recommended in France, for the risk of getting pregnant nevertheless remains.”
 

Indian study highlights

Partha Basu, MD, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, and colleagues compared vaccine efficacy of a single dose of Gardasil (HPV 9-valent vaccine, recombinant) to that of two and three doses in protecting against persistent HPV 16 and HPV 18 infection at 10 years postvaccination.

According to the protocol, the plan was to recruit 20,000 unmarried girls, aged 10-18 years, from across India. Recruitment was initiated in September 2009. However, in response to seven unexplained deaths reported in another ongoing HPV vaccination demonstration program in the country, the Indian government issued a notification in April 2010 to stop further recruitment and HPV vaccination in all clinical trials. At this point, Dr. Basu and his team had recruited 17,729 eligible girls.

After suspension of recruitment and vaccination, their randomized trial was converted to a longitudinal, prospective, cohort study by default.

Vaccinated participants were followed up over a median duration of 9 years. In all, 4,348 participants had three doses, 4,980 had two doses (at 0 and 6 months), and 4,949 had a single dose. Cervical specimens were collected from participants 18 months after marriage or 6 months after first childbirth, whichever was earlier, to assess incident and persistent HPV infections. Participants were invited to an annual cervical cancer screening once they reached age 25 years and were married.

A single dose of HPV vaccine provides similar protection against persistent infection from HPV 16 and HPV 18, the genotypes responsible for nearly 70% of cervical cancers, compared with that provided by two or three doses. Vaccine efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection among participants evaluable for the endpoint was 95.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.0-99.9) in the single-dose default cohort (2,135 women assessed), 93.1% (95% CI, 77.3-99.8) in the two-dose cohort (1,452 women assessed), and 93.3% (95% CI, 77.5-99.7) in three-dose recipients (1,460 women assessed).

Dr. Canlorbe reported no relevant financial relationships regarding the content of this article.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. An English version appeared on Medscape.com.

In an April press release, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reported the findings of their review concerning the efficacy of various dose schedules for human papillomavirus (HPV). “A single-dose HPV vaccine delivers solid protection against HPV, the virus that causes cervical cancer, that is comparable to 2-dose schedules,” according to SAGE.

This statement comes on the heels of an article published in the November 2021 issue of Lancet Oncology about a study in India. It found that a single dose of the vaccine provides protection against persistent infection from HPV 16 and 18 similar to that provided by two or three doses.

Will this new information lead French authorities to change their recommendations? What do French specialists think? At the 45th Congress of the French Society for Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases (SFCPCV), Geoffroy Canlorbe, MD, PhD, of the department of gynecologic and breast surgery and oncology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, shared his thoughts.

With respect to the Indian study, Dr. Canlorbe pointed out that while its findings would need “to be confirmed by other studies,” they were, nonetheless, “excellent news for developing countries where there are challenges when it comes to access to vaccination.”
 

India and France

During the congress press conference, he went on to say that, at this stage, the findings “cannot be extrapolated” to France. This is because the country’s situation is different. HPV vaccination coverage is low; estimates put it at 23.7%, placing the country 28th out of 31 in Europe.

“This poor coverage has nothing to do with health care–related logistical or organizational issues; instead, it has to do with people’s mistrust when it comes to vaccination. Here, people who get the first dose get the subsequent ones,” said Dr. Canlorbe. “The very fact of getting two to three doses allows the person’s body to increase the production of antibodies and get a longer-lasting response to the vaccine.”

In addition, he drew attention to several limitations of the Indian study. Initially, the team had planned to enroll 20,000 participants. In the end, there were around 17,000, and these were allocated to three cohorts: single-dose, two-dose, and three-dose. Furthermore, the primary objective, which had initially been focused on precancerous and cancerous lesions, was revised. The new aim was to compare vaccine efficacy of single dose to that of three and two doses in protecting against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection at 10 years postvaccination. In about 90% of cases, the HPV infection went away spontaneously in 2 years without inducing lesions. Finally, the participants were women in India; therefore, the results cannot necessarily be generalized to the French population.

“This information has to be confirmed. However, as far as I know, there are no new studies going on at the moment. The Indian study, on the other hand, is still in progress,” said Dr. Canlorbe.

“In France, I think that for the time being we should stick to the studies that are currently available, which have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of two or three doses,” he concluded. In support of this approach, he cited a study on the effects of the national HPV vaccination program in England; there, the vaccination coverage is 80%.

This program was associated with a 95% risk reduction for precancerous lesions and an 87% reduction in the number of cancers, confirming the good results already achieved by Sweden and Australia.

In his comments on the WHO’s stance (which differs from that of the French experts), Jean-Luc Mergui, MD, gynecologist in the department of colposcopy and hysteroscopy at Pitié-Salpêtrière, and former president of the SFCPCV, offered an eloquent comparison: “The WHO also recommends 6 months of breastfeeding as a method of contraception, but this isn’t what’s recommended in France, for the risk of getting pregnant nevertheless remains.”
 

Indian study highlights

Partha Basu, MD, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, and colleagues compared vaccine efficacy of a single dose of Gardasil (HPV 9-valent vaccine, recombinant) to that of two and three doses in protecting against persistent HPV 16 and HPV 18 infection at 10 years postvaccination.

According to the protocol, the plan was to recruit 20,000 unmarried girls, aged 10-18 years, from across India. Recruitment was initiated in September 2009. However, in response to seven unexplained deaths reported in another ongoing HPV vaccination demonstration program in the country, the Indian government issued a notification in April 2010 to stop further recruitment and HPV vaccination in all clinical trials. At this point, Dr. Basu and his team had recruited 17,729 eligible girls.

After suspension of recruitment and vaccination, their randomized trial was converted to a longitudinal, prospective, cohort study by default.

Vaccinated participants were followed up over a median duration of 9 years. In all, 4,348 participants had three doses, 4,980 had two doses (at 0 and 6 months), and 4,949 had a single dose. Cervical specimens were collected from participants 18 months after marriage or 6 months after first childbirth, whichever was earlier, to assess incident and persistent HPV infections. Participants were invited to an annual cervical cancer screening once they reached age 25 years and were married.

A single dose of HPV vaccine provides similar protection against persistent infection from HPV 16 and HPV 18, the genotypes responsible for nearly 70% of cervical cancers, compared with that provided by two or three doses. Vaccine efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection among participants evaluable for the endpoint was 95.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.0-99.9) in the single-dose default cohort (2,135 women assessed), 93.1% (95% CI, 77.3-99.8) in the two-dose cohort (1,452 women assessed), and 93.3% (95% CI, 77.5-99.7) in three-dose recipients (1,460 women assessed).

Dr. Canlorbe reported no relevant financial relationships regarding the content of this article.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. An English version appeared on Medscape.com.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s June decision to repeal a federal right to abortion, many women will now be faced with the prospect of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.

One group of researchers has studied the fate of these women and their families for the last decade. Their findings show that women who were denied an abortion are worse off physically, mentally, and economically than those who underwent the procedure.

“There has been much hypothesizing about harms from abortion without considering what the consequences are when someone wants an abortion and can’t get one,” said Diana Greene Foster, PhD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Foster leads the Turnaway Study, one of the first efforts to examine the physical and mental health effects of receiving or being denied abortions. The ongoing research also charts the economic and social outcomes of women and their families in either circumstance.

Dr. Foster and her colleagues have followed women through childbirth, examining their well-being through phone interviews months to years after the initial interviews.

The economic consequences of carrying an unwanted pregnancy are clear. Women who did not receive a wanted abortion were more likely to live under the poverty line and struggle to cover basic living expenses like food, housing, and transportation.

The physical toll is also significant.

A 2019 analysis from the Turnaway Study found that eight out of 1,132 participants died, two after delivery, during the five-year follow up period – a far greater proportion than what would be expected among women of reproductive age. The researchers also found that women who carry unwanted pregnancies have more comorbid conditions before and after delivery than other women.

Lauren J. Ralph, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist and member of the Turnaway Study team, examined the physical well-being of women after delivering their unwanted pregnancies.

“They reported more chronic pain, more gestational hypertension, and were more likely to rate their health as fair or poor,” Dr. Ralph said. “Somewhat to our surprise, we also found that two women denied abortions died due to pregnancy-related causes. This is my biggest concern with the loss of abortion access, as all scientific evidence indicates we will see a rise in maternal deaths as a result.”

At least one preliminary study, released as a preprint and not yet peer reviewed, estimates that the number of women who will die each year from pregnancy complications will rise by 24%. For Black women, mortality could jump from 18% to 39% in every state, according to the researchers from the University of Colorado, Boulder.
 

State of denial

Regulations set in place at abortion clinics in each state individually determine who is able to obtain an abortion, dictated by a “gestational age limit” – how far along a woman is in her pregnancy from the end of her menstrual cycle. Some of the women from the Turnaway Study were unable to receive an abortion because of how far along they were. Others were granted the abortion because they were just under their state’s limit.

Before the latest Supreme Court ruling, this limit was 20 weeks in most states. Now, the cutoff can be as little as 6 weeks – before many women know they are pregnant – or zero weeks, under the most restrictive laws. 

Over 70% of women who are denied an abortion carry the pregnancy to term, according to Dr. Foster’s analysis. 

Interviews with nearly 1,000 women – in both the first and second trimester of pregnancy – in the Turnaway Study who sought abortions at 30 abortion clinics around the country revealed the main reasons for seeking the procedure were (a) not being able to afford a child; (b) the pregnancy coming at the wrong time in life; or (c) the partner involved not being suitable.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 59.7% of women seeking an abortion in the United States are already mothers. Having an unplanned child results in dramatically worse economic circumstances for their other children, who become nearly four times more likely to live below the poverty line than their peers. They also experience slower physical and mental development as a result of the arrival of the new sibling.

The latest efforts by states to ban abortion could make the situation much worse, said Liza Fuentes, DrPh, senior research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute. “We will need further research on what it means for women to be denied care in the context of the new restrictions,” Dr. Fuentes told this news organization. 

Researchers cannot yet predict how many women will be unable to obtain an abortion in the coming months. But John Donahue, PhD, JD, an economist and professor of law at Stanford (Calif.) University, estimated that state laws would prevent roughly one-third of the 1 million abortions per year based on 2021 figures.

Dr. Ralph and her colleagues with the Turnaway Study know that restricting access to abortions will not make the need for abortions disappear. Rather, women will be forced to travel, potentially long distances at significant cost, for the procedure or will seek medication abortion by mail through virtual clinics.

But Dr. Ralph said she’s concerned about women who live in areas where telehealth abortions are banned, or who discover their pregnancies late, as medical abortions are only recommended for women who are 10 weeks pregnant or less.

“They may look to self-source the medications online or elsewhere, potentially putting themself at legal risk,” she said. “And, as my research has shown, others may turn to self-managing an abortion with herbs, other drugs or medications, or physical methods like hitting themselves in the abdomen; with this they put themselves at both legal and potentially medical risk.”

Constance Bohon, MD, an ob.gyn. in Washington, D.C., said further research should track what happens to women if they’re forced to leave a job to care for another child.

“Many of these women live paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford the cost of an additional child,” Dr. Bohon said. “They may also need to rely on social service agencies to help them find food and housing.”

Dr. Fuentes said she hopes the Turnaway Study will inspire other researchers to examine laws that outlaw abortion and the corresponding long-term effects on women.

“From a medical and a public health standpoint, these laws are unjust,” Dr. Fuentes said in an interview. “They’re not grounded in evidence, and they incur great costs not just to pregnant people but their families and their communities as well.”

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

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s June decision to repeal a federal right to abortion, many women will now be faced with the prospect of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.

One group of researchers has studied the fate of these women and their families for the last decade. Their findings show that women who were denied an abortion are worse off physically, mentally, and economically than those who underwent the procedure.

“There has been much hypothesizing about harms from abortion without considering what the consequences are when someone wants an abortion and can’t get one,” said Diana Greene Foster, PhD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Foster leads the Turnaway Study, one of the first efforts to examine the physical and mental health effects of receiving or being denied abortions. The ongoing research also charts the economic and social outcomes of women and their families in either circumstance.

Dr. Foster and her colleagues have followed women through childbirth, examining their well-being through phone interviews months to years after the initial interviews.

The economic consequences of carrying an unwanted pregnancy are clear. Women who did not receive a wanted abortion were more likely to live under the poverty line and struggle to cover basic living expenses like food, housing, and transportation.

The physical toll is also significant.

A 2019 analysis from the Turnaway Study found that eight out of 1,132 participants died, two after delivery, during the five-year follow up period – a far greater proportion than what would be expected among women of reproductive age. The researchers also found that women who carry unwanted pregnancies have more comorbid conditions before and after delivery than other women.

Lauren J. Ralph, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist and member of the Turnaway Study team, examined the physical well-being of women after delivering their unwanted pregnancies.

“They reported more chronic pain, more gestational hypertension, and were more likely to rate their health as fair or poor,” Dr. Ralph said. “Somewhat to our surprise, we also found that two women denied abortions died due to pregnancy-related causes. This is my biggest concern with the loss of abortion access, as all scientific evidence indicates we will see a rise in maternal deaths as a result.”

At least one preliminary study, released as a preprint and not yet peer reviewed, estimates that the number of women who will die each year from pregnancy complications will rise by 24%. For Black women, mortality could jump from 18% to 39% in every state, according to the researchers from the University of Colorado, Boulder.
 

State of denial

Regulations set in place at abortion clinics in each state individually determine who is able to obtain an abortion, dictated by a “gestational age limit” – how far along a woman is in her pregnancy from the end of her menstrual cycle. Some of the women from the Turnaway Study were unable to receive an abortion because of how far along they were. Others were granted the abortion because they were just under their state’s limit.

Before the latest Supreme Court ruling, this limit was 20 weeks in most states. Now, the cutoff can be as little as 6 weeks – before many women know they are pregnant – or zero weeks, under the most restrictive laws. 

Over 70% of women who are denied an abortion carry the pregnancy to term, according to Dr. Foster’s analysis. 

Interviews with nearly 1,000 women – in both the first and second trimester of pregnancy – in the Turnaway Study who sought abortions at 30 abortion clinics around the country revealed the main reasons for seeking the procedure were (a) not being able to afford a child; (b) the pregnancy coming at the wrong time in life; or (c) the partner involved not being suitable.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 59.7% of women seeking an abortion in the United States are already mothers. Having an unplanned child results in dramatically worse economic circumstances for their other children, who become nearly four times more likely to live below the poverty line than their peers. They also experience slower physical and mental development as a result of the arrival of the new sibling.

The latest efforts by states to ban abortion could make the situation much worse, said Liza Fuentes, DrPh, senior research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute. “We will need further research on what it means for women to be denied care in the context of the new restrictions,” Dr. Fuentes told this news organization. 

Researchers cannot yet predict how many women will be unable to obtain an abortion in the coming months. But John Donahue, PhD, JD, an economist and professor of law at Stanford (Calif.) University, estimated that state laws would prevent roughly one-third of the 1 million abortions per year based on 2021 figures.

Dr. Ralph and her colleagues with the Turnaway Study know that restricting access to abortions will not make the need for abortions disappear. Rather, women will be forced to travel, potentially long distances at significant cost, for the procedure or will seek medication abortion by mail through virtual clinics.

But Dr. Ralph said she’s concerned about women who live in areas where telehealth abortions are banned, or who discover their pregnancies late, as medical abortions are only recommended for women who are 10 weeks pregnant or less.

“They may look to self-source the medications online or elsewhere, potentially putting themself at legal risk,” she said. “And, as my research has shown, others may turn to self-managing an abortion with herbs, other drugs or medications, or physical methods like hitting themselves in the abdomen; with this they put themselves at both legal and potentially medical risk.”

Constance Bohon, MD, an ob.gyn. in Washington, D.C., said further research should track what happens to women if they’re forced to leave a job to care for another child.

“Many of these women live paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford the cost of an additional child,” Dr. Bohon said. “They may also need to rely on social service agencies to help them find food and housing.”

Dr. Fuentes said she hopes the Turnaway Study will inspire other researchers to examine laws that outlaw abortion and the corresponding long-term effects on women.

“From a medical and a public health standpoint, these laws are unjust,” Dr. Fuentes said in an interview. “They’re not grounded in evidence, and they incur great costs not just to pregnant people but their families and their communities as well.”

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

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s June decision to repeal a federal right to abortion, many women will now be faced with the prospect of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.

One group of researchers has studied the fate of these women and their families for the last decade. Their findings show that women who were denied an abortion are worse off physically, mentally, and economically than those who underwent the procedure.

“There has been much hypothesizing about harms from abortion without considering what the consequences are when someone wants an abortion and can’t get one,” said Diana Greene Foster, PhD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Foster leads the Turnaway Study, one of the first efforts to examine the physical and mental health effects of receiving or being denied abortions. The ongoing research also charts the economic and social outcomes of women and their families in either circumstance.

Dr. Foster and her colleagues have followed women through childbirth, examining their well-being through phone interviews months to years after the initial interviews.

The economic consequences of carrying an unwanted pregnancy are clear. Women who did not receive a wanted abortion were more likely to live under the poverty line and struggle to cover basic living expenses like food, housing, and transportation.

The physical toll is also significant.

A 2019 analysis from the Turnaway Study found that eight out of 1,132 participants died, two after delivery, during the five-year follow up period – a far greater proportion than what would be expected among women of reproductive age. The researchers also found that women who carry unwanted pregnancies have more comorbid conditions before and after delivery than other women.

Lauren J. Ralph, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist and member of the Turnaway Study team, examined the physical well-being of women after delivering their unwanted pregnancies.

“They reported more chronic pain, more gestational hypertension, and were more likely to rate their health as fair or poor,” Dr. Ralph said. “Somewhat to our surprise, we also found that two women denied abortions died due to pregnancy-related causes. This is my biggest concern with the loss of abortion access, as all scientific evidence indicates we will see a rise in maternal deaths as a result.”

At least one preliminary study, released as a preprint and not yet peer reviewed, estimates that the number of women who will die each year from pregnancy complications will rise by 24%. For Black women, mortality could jump from 18% to 39% in every state, according to the researchers from the University of Colorado, Boulder.
 

State of denial

Regulations set in place at abortion clinics in each state individually determine who is able to obtain an abortion, dictated by a “gestational age limit” – how far along a woman is in her pregnancy from the end of her menstrual cycle. Some of the women from the Turnaway Study were unable to receive an abortion because of how far along they were. Others were granted the abortion because they were just under their state’s limit.

Before the latest Supreme Court ruling, this limit was 20 weeks in most states. Now, the cutoff can be as little as 6 weeks – before many women know they are pregnant – or zero weeks, under the most restrictive laws. 

Over 70% of women who are denied an abortion carry the pregnancy to term, according to Dr. Foster’s analysis. 

Interviews with nearly 1,000 women – in both the first and second trimester of pregnancy – in the Turnaway Study who sought abortions at 30 abortion clinics around the country revealed the main reasons for seeking the procedure were (a) not being able to afford a child; (b) the pregnancy coming at the wrong time in life; or (c) the partner involved not being suitable.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 59.7% of women seeking an abortion in the United States are already mothers. Having an unplanned child results in dramatically worse economic circumstances for their other children, who become nearly four times more likely to live below the poverty line than their peers. They also experience slower physical and mental development as a result of the arrival of the new sibling.

The latest efforts by states to ban abortion could make the situation much worse, said Liza Fuentes, DrPh, senior research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute. “We will need further research on what it means for women to be denied care in the context of the new restrictions,” Dr. Fuentes told this news organization. 

Researchers cannot yet predict how many women will be unable to obtain an abortion in the coming months. But John Donahue, PhD, JD, an economist and professor of law at Stanford (Calif.) University, estimated that state laws would prevent roughly one-third of the 1 million abortions per year based on 2021 figures.

Dr. Ralph and her colleagues with the Turnaway Study know that restricting access to abortions will not make the need for abortions disappear. Rather, women will be forced to travel, potentially long distances at significant cost, for the procedure or will seek medication abortion by mail through virtual clinics.

But Dr. Ralph said she’s concerned about women who live in areas where telehealth abortions are banned, or who discover their pregnancies late, as medical abortions are only recommended for women who are 10 weeks pregnant or less.

“They may look to self-source the medications online or elsewhere, potentially putting themself at legal risk,” she said. “And, as my research has shown, others may turn to self-managing an abortion with herbs, other drugs or medications, or physical methods like hitting themselves in the abdomen; with this they put themselves at both legal and potentially medical risk.”

Constance Bohon, MD, an ob.gyn. in Washington, D.C., said further research should track what happens to women if they’re forced to leave a job to care for another child.

“Many of these women live paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford the cost of an additional child,” Dr. Bohon said. “They may also need to rely on social service agencies to help them find food and housing.”

Dr. Fuentes said she hopes the Turnaway Study will inspire other researchers to examine laws that outlaw abortion and the corresponding long-term effects on women.

“From a medical and a public health standpoint, these laws are unjust,” Dr. Fuentes said in an interview. “They’re not grounded in evidence, and they incur great costs not just to pregnant people but their families and their communities as well.”

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

When Amy Moser had a simple urinary tract infection in her late 20s, her doctor prescribed Cipro, a powerful antibiotic used to treat anthrax and some of the most fearsome bacterial infections.

Nearly 2 weeks after she finished her treatment, her left kneecap dislocated while she was trying on a swimsuit at a retail store. Shortly afterward, she had painful ligament ruptures in her wrists, then her shoulder dislocated, followed by three Achilles tendon tears.

“That’s when I fell apart,” says Ms. Moser, a Phoenix health blogger and book author. “From that moment on, for almost the next 2.5 years consistently, I had new tendon tears every few weeks.”

Ms. Moser’s doctors had no answer for what was causing her injuries, all of which required surgical fixes. A married mother of three, she was otherwise healthy and fit. So, after her third Achilles tear, she turned to the FDA’s website for answers. There, she found many warnings about side effects of Cipro, Levaquin, and other so-called fluoroquinolones, including risks for tendon and ligament injuries.

“When all the ruptures started to happen, my doctor kept asking me if I’d ever taken Levaquin, and every time I was like, ‘No.’ So I did what all doctors don’t want you to do: I Googled ‘Levaquin,’ ” she recalls.

Her search led to FDA warnings and articles about the possibility of tendon and ligament ruptures with fluroquinolones.

“That was the first time I’d ever even heard that word ‘fluroquinolones,’ and I found Cipro on that list ... and I realized that I’d just been prescribed that before everything started,” she says.

That was 12 years ago. Since then, the FDA has issued more warnings about fluoroquinolone risks. In that time, Ms. Moser, now 40, has had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures and injuries, including a double-knee replacement this year.

“I am in chronic pain all the time,” she says. “I am chronically injured. I have a lot of tears that I’ve not fixed because they’re very complicated, and I don’t know if the rest of my body can handle the strain of recovering from those surgeries.”

Ms. Moser’s is hardly an isolated case. Since the 1980s, more than 60,000 patients have reported hundreds of thousands of serious events linked to fluoroquinolones to the FDA, including 6,575 reports of deaths.

The most common side effects were tendon rupture, as well as neurological and psychiatric symptoms. But experts estimate only 1%-10% of such events are reported to the FDA. That suggests that fluoroquinolones might have harmed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone, says Charles Bennett, MD, a hematologist at the University of South Carolina’s College of Pharmacy, Columbia.

Yet despite the many patient reports and FDA warnings on dangerous side effects, many doctors continue to wrongly prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple urinary tract infections, sinus infections, and respiratory issues better treated with less risky antibiotics.

“There probably is overprescription by primary care doctors for urinary tract infections and respiratory infections, when there could be alternatives that are safer to use,” says Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist and senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

“I would say that’s probably the case in the outpatient setting, not necessarily in the hospital setting or among infectious disease doctors ... but I think it’s important to say there are still some judicious uses of fluoroquinolones,” he says. “However, there probably is a lot of injudicious use of fluoroquinolones along with many other antibiotics in the primary care setting.”
 

FDA warnings on fluoroquinolones

Fluoroquinolones are a class of broad-spectrum antibiotics used for decades to treat certain bacterial infections.

FDA-approved fluoroquinolones include ciprofloxacin (Cipro), ciprofloxacin extended-release tablets, delafloxacin (Baxdela), gemifloxacin (Factive) levofloxacin (Levaquin), moxifloxacin (Avelox), and ofloxacin (Floxin). More than 60 generic versions of these brand-name medicines are also on the market, making them among the most prescribed antibiotics in the U.S.

Over the past 2 decades, a wide range of physical and mental health side effects have been tied to fluoroquinolones. As a result of these “adverse event reports” and research published in medical literature, the FDA has required an escalating series of warnings and safety labeling changes for doctors who prescribe these drugs.

• In 2008, the FDA first added a “black box” warning to fluoroquinolones, citing an increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture in patients prescribed these meds.
• In 2011, the agency required the warning label to include risks of worsening symptoms for those with myasthenia gravis, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes muscle weakness, vision problems, and speech problems.
• In 2013, regulators required updated labels noting the potential for irreversible peripheral neuropathy (serious nerve damage).
• In 2016, the FDA issued its strongest warning against the use of such antibiotics for simple bacterial infections – such as uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), acute sinusitis, and acute bronchitis – saying the “association of fluoroquinolones with disabling and potentially permanent side effects involving tendons, muscles, joints, nerves and the central nervous system ... outweighs the benefits for patients.”
• And in 2018, regulators required safety labeling changes to include warnings about the risks of aortic aneurysm – a life-threatening enlargement of the main vessel that delivers blood to the body – as well as mental health side effects and serious blood sugar disturbances.

But FDA regulators have stopped short of barring fluoroquinolone use in the treatment of bacterial infections, citing the benefits for certain conditions.

“For some patients, the benefits of fluoroquinolones may continue to outweigh the risks for treatment of serious bacterial infections, such as pneumonia or intra-abdominal infections,” said former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, “but there are other serious, known risks associated with these strong antibiotics that must be carefully weighed when considering their use.”

In December 2021, a study published in the journal JAMA Network Open found the FDA’s warnings may have helped lower prescribing of the drugs in Medicare patients. But not all doctors have been responsive to those warnings, researchers found.

“An overall decline in change over time and an immediate change in fluoroquinolone prescribing was observed after the 2016 FDA warning,” the authors concluded. “Certain physicians, such as primary care physicians, were more responsive to FDA warnings than others. ... Findings of this study suggest that identifying the association of physician and organizational characteristics with fluoroquinolone prescribing practices could help in developing mechanisms for improving de-adoption.”

Some critics say the FDA should do more to spotlight the dangers of fluoroquinolones and require doctors and patients to sign checklist consent forms to show they are aware of the potential side effects of these drugs.

Rachel Brummert, a patient advocate who sits on an FDA consumer advisory board, believes the FDA needs to improve its communication to doctors on fluoroquinolone risks and get tougher with those who continue to inappropriately prescribe the drugs.

“I think there needs to be a system in place, where if something comes down from the FDA about a drug, the physician has to sign off on it, the patient has to sign off on it and mark that they understand that there are these ‘black box’ warnings,” says Ms. Brummert, 52, a representative on the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee.

As an example, she points to Australia’s medical laws requiring doctors and patients to sign a checklist before any fluoroquinolone prescription is approved.

“When a physician prescribes a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, there’s a checklist – does the patient have an infection, is it a simple infection, do they have allergies?” she notes. “And you can’t even get the prescription out – it won’t even print out, it won’t go into the system – unless you check all of the boxes. But we don’t do that here. We don’t have that type of system right now.”

Ms. Brummert says such a system might have prevented the harm from taking Levaquin her doctor prescribed for a suspected sinus infection in 2006.

Soon after she began taking the antibiotic, she ruptured her Achilles tendon, requiring surgery. By 2009, she’d had three ruptures, each needing surgical fixes. To date, she’s had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures. She’s also had seizures, blood pressure issues, depression, chronic pain, and memory problems she attributes to taking Levaquin.

As it turns out, her doctor misdiagnosed her condition – a misstep that would have been averted with a system like Australia’s, which requires doctors to verify the presence of a bacterial infection through a simple test before prescribing a fluoroquinolone.

“When I got the Levaquin, it was for a suspected sinus infection that it turned out I didn’t even have in the first place,” she notes. “So, I took the Levaquin basically for nothing. But what I would have asked my doctor had I known is: ‘Why should I take something so strong for so simple an infection?’

“It seems common sense to me now that you don’t prescribe something that can kill anthrax for a simple sinus infection. It’s like an atom bomb killing a mosquito. I agree that there are uses for these drugs, but they are being overprescribed. And so, here I am 16 years later – I’m still rupturing, I’m still having surgery, and I’m still in pain – all for something I didn’t even need medicine for in the first place.”
 

Should guidelines be stronger?

So, why are so many doctors continuing to prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple infections? Dr. Adalja and other experts say several things are at work.

For one thing, Dr. Adalja notes, fluoroquinolones are broad-spectrum antibiotics that are effective against dangerous germs, including “gram-negative” bacterial infections, and are “100% bioavailable.” That means they are as effective when given in pill form as they are if put directly into a vein. So they can be used in an outpatient setting or to allow a patient to be discharged from a hospital sooner because they don’t need an IV to receive treatment.

“There are still some uses for these drugs because they are so bioavailable, and I think that drives some of the use, and those are legitimate uses, knowing that there are risks when you do it,” he says. “But no drug is without risks, and you have to weigh risks and benefits – that’s what medicine is about: deciding what the best drug is for a patient.”

But Dr. Adalja says the overprescription of fluoroquinolones is part of the larger trend of antibiotic overuse. That is driving up antibiotic resistance, which in turn is another thing leading doctors to turn to Cipro and other fluoroquinolones after other drugs have proven ineffective.

“You can’t separate this from the fact that 80% of antibiotic prescriptions in the outpatient setting are probably illegitimate or not warranted,” he notes. “And because fluoroquinolones are highly effective drugs against certain pathogens, they are the go-to [drug] for many people who are prescribing antibiotics.”

That’s why patients should be wary whenever a doctor prescribes a fluoroquinolone, or any drug to treat a suspected infection, he says.

“Any time a patient is getting prescribed an antibiotic by a physician, they should ask: ‘Do I really need this antibiotic?’ That should be the first question they ask,” he advises. “And if they’re getting a fluoroquinolone, they may want to ask: ‘Is this the best antibiotic for me?’ ”
 

What you can do

Ms. Brummert and Ms. Moser say they are sharing their stories to raise awareness of the dangers of fluoroquinolones.

Ms. Moser has published a book on her experiences, “The Magnificent Story of a Lame Author,” and provides a wealth of consumer resources on her blog: Mountains and Mustard Seeds.

“As much as I hate what has happened to me, it has put me in a place where I am glad that I can inform other patients,” she says.

Ms. Brummert supplements her advocacy work as an FDA adviser with useful materials she provides on her website: Drugwatch.com.

“Pain into purpose – that’s what I call it,” she says. “I can’t change what happened to me, but I can warn others.”

The upshot for patients?

• the FDA’s Drug Safety Communication on Fluoroquinolones online to learn more about the risks and benefits of these powerful antibiotics.
• If you believe you’ve been harmed by fluoroquinolones, MedWatch website to report your experiences.

Ms. Brummert also advises patients to ask 12 critical questions of any doctor who wants to prescribe a fluoroquinolone, including the following listed on her website:

• For what condition is this medication prescribed, and is there another drug specific to my condition?
• What are the risks associated with this medication, and do the benefits outweigh them?
• Will this medication interact with my other drugs and/or other health conditions?
• What are the “boxed” warnings for this medication, and where can I report adverse events?

“I would also do my own research,” she says. “I wouldn’t just take a prescription from a physician and just say, ‘OK, doctor knows best.’ ”

Ms. Moser agrees that you have to be your own patient advocate and not simply take a doctor’s advice on any medical issue without having a deeper conversation.

“I’ve had arguments with doctors who legitimately did not believe me when I told them what happened to me,” she says. “And I actually told them, ‘Go get your Physicians’ Desk Reference [for prescription drugs]’ and they opened the book in front of me and read the warnings. Obviously, they had not been keeping up with the added warnings. So, I do think that doctors do need to be better informed.”

“So, yes, it’s the FDA’s responsibility, but it is also the doctors’ responsibility to make sure that they’re watching out for the side effects and they’re reporting them when their patients come up with them and making those connections.”

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

When Amy Moser had a simple urinary tract infection in her late 20s, her doctor prescribed Cipro, a powerful antibiotic used to treat anthrax and some of the most fearsome bacterial infections.

Nearly 2 weeks after she finished her treatment, her left kneecap dislocated while she was trying on a swimsuit at a retail store. Shortly afterward, she had painful ligament ruptures in her wrists, then her shoulder dislocated, followed by three Achilles tendon tears.

“That’s when I fell apart,” says Ms. Moser, a Phoenix health blogger and book author. “From that moment on, for almost the next 2.5 years consistently, I had new tendon tears every few weeks.”

Ms. Moser’s doctors had no answer for what was causing her injuries, all of which required surgical fixes. A married mother of three, she was otherwise healthy and fit. So, after her third Achilles tear, she turned to the FDA’s website for answers. There, she found many warnings about side effects of Cipro, Levaquin, and other so-called fluoroquinolones, including risks for tendon and ligament injuries.

“When all the ruptures started to happen, my doctor kept asking me if I’d ever taken Levaquin, and every time I was like, ‘No.’ So I did what all doctors don’t want you to do: I Googled ‘Levaquin,’ ” she recalls.

Her search led to FDA warnings and articles about the possibility of tendon and ligament ruptures with fluroquinolones.

“That was the first time I’d ever even heard that word ‘fluroquinolones,’ and I found Cipro on that list ... and I realized that I’d just been prescribed that before everything started,” she says.

That was 12 years ago. Since then, the FDA has issued more warnings about fluoroquinolone risks. In that time, Ms. Moser, now 40, has had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures and injuries, including a double-knee replacement this year.

“I am in chronic pain all the time,” she says. “I am chronically injured. I have a lot of tears that I’ve not fixed because they’re very complicated, and I don’t know if the rest of my body can handle the strain of recovering from those surgeries.”

Ms. Moser’s is hardly an isolated case. Since the 1980s, more than 60,000 patients have reported hundreds of thousands of serious events linked to fluoroquinolones to the FDA, including 6,575 reports of deaths.

The most common side effects were tendon rupture, as well as neurological and psychiatric symptoms. But experts estimate only 1%-10% of such events are reported to the FDA. That suggests that fluoroquinolones might have harmed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone, says Charles Bennett, MD, a hematologist at the University of South Carolina’s College of Pharmacy, Columbia.

Yet despite the many patient reports and FDA warnings on dangerous side effects, many doctors continue to wrongly prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple urinary tract infections, sinus infections, and respiratory issues better treated with less risky antibiotics.

“There probably is overprescription by primary care doctors for urinary tract infections and respiratory infections, when there could be alternatives that are safer to use,” says Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist and senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

“I would say that’s probably the case in the outpatient setting, not necessarily in the hospital setting or among infectious disease doctors ... but I think it’s important to say there are still some judicious uses of fluoroquinolones,” he says. “However, there probably is a lot of injudicious use of fluoroquinolones along with many other antibiotics in the primary care setting.”
 

FDA warnings on fluoroquinolones

Fluoroquinolones are a class of broad-spectrum antibiotics used for decades to treat certain bacterial infections.

FDA-approved fluoroquinolones include ciprofloxacin (Cipro), ciprofloxacin extended-release tablets, delafloxacin (Baxdela), gemifloxacin (Factive) levofloxacin (Levaquin), moxifloxacin (Avelox), and ofloxacin (Floxin). More than 60 generic versions of these brand-name medicines are also on the market, making them among the most prescribed antibiotics in the U.S.

Over the past 2 decades, a wide range of physical and mental health side effects have been tied to fluoroquinolones. As a result of these “adverse event reports” and research published in medical literature, the FDA has required an escalating series of warnings and safety labeling changes for doctors who prescribe these drugs.

• In 2008, the FDA first added a “black box” warning to fluoroquinolones, citing an increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture in patients prescribed these meds.
• In 2011, the agency required the warning label to include risks of worsening symptoms for those with myasthenia gravis, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes muscle weakness, vision problems, and speech problems.
• In 2013, regulators required updated labels noting the potential for irreversible peripheral neuropathy (serious nerve damage).
• In 2016, the FDA issued its strongest warning against the use of such antibiotics for simple bacterial infections – such as uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), acute sinusitis, and acute bronchitis – saying the “association of fluoroquinolones with disabling and potentially permanent side effects involving tendons, muscles, joints, nerves and the central nervous system ... outweighs the benefits for patients.”
• And in 2018, regulators required safety labeling changes to include warnings about the risks of aortic aneurysm – a life-threatening enlargement of the main vessel that delivers blood to the body – as well as mental health side effects and serious blood sugar disturbances.

But FDA regulators have stopped short of barring fluoroquinolone use in the treatment of bacterial infections, citing the benefits for certain conditions.

“For some patients, the benefits of fluoroquinolones may continue to outweigh the risks for treatment of serious bacterial infections, such as pneumonia or intra-abdominal infections,” said former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, “but there are other serious, known risks associated with these strong antibiotics that must be carefully weighed when considering their use.”

In December 2021, a study published in the journal JAMA Network Open found the FDA’s warnings may have helped lower prescribing of the drugs in Medicare patients. But not all doctors have been responsive to those warnings, researchers found.

“An overall decline in change over time and an immediate change in fluoroquinolone prescribing was observed after the 2016 FDA warning,” the authors concluded. “Certain physicians, such as primary care physicians, were more responsive to FDA warnings than others. ... Findings of this study suggest that identifying the association of physician and organizational characteristics with fluoroquinolone prescribing practices could help in developing mechanisms for improving de-adoption.”

Some critics say the FDA should do more to spotlight the dangers of fluoroquinolones and require doctors and patients to sign checklist consent forms to show they are aware of the potential side effects of these drugs.

Rachel Brummert, a patient advocate who sits on an FDA consumer advisory board, believes the FDA needs to improve its communication to doctors on fluoroquinolone risks and get tougher with those who continue to inappropriately prescribe the drugs.

“I think there needs to be a system in place, where if something comes down from the FDA about a drug, the physician has to sign off on it, the patient has to sign off on it and mark that they understand that there are these ‘black box’ warnings,” says Ms. Brummert, 52, a representative on the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee.

As an example, she points to Australia’s medical laws requiring doctors and patients to sign a checklist before any fluoroquinolone prescription is approved.

“When a physician prescribes a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, there’s a checklist – does the patient have an infection, is it a simple infection, do they have allergies?” she notes. “And you can’t even get the prescription out – it won’t even print out, it won’t go into the system – unless you check all of the boxes. But we don’t do that here. We don’t have that type of system right now.”

Ms. Brummert says such a system might have prevented the harm from taking Levaquin her doctor prescribed for a suspected sinus infection in 2006.

Soon after she began taking the antibiotic, she ruptured her Achilles tendon, requiring surgery. By 2009, she’d had three ruptures, each needing surgical fixes. To date, she’s had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures. She’s also had seizures, blood pressure issues, depression, chronic pain, and memory problems she attributes to taking Levaquin.

As it turns out, her doctor misdiagnosed her condition – a misstep that would have been averted with a system like Australia’s, which requires doctors to verify the presence of a bacterial infection through a simple test before prescribing a fluoroquinolone.

“When I got the Levaquin, it was for a suspected sinus infection that it turned out I didn’t even have in the first place,” she notes. “So, I took the Levaquin basically for nothing. But what I would have asked my doctor had I known is: ‘Why should I take something so strong for so simple an infection?’

“It seems common sense to me now that you don’t prescribe something that can kill anthrax for a simple sinus infection. It’s like an atom bomb killing a mosquito. I agree that there are uses for these drugs, but they are being overprescribed. And so, here I am 16 years later – I’m still rupturing, I’m still having surgery, and I’m still in pain – all for something I didn’t even need medicine for in the first place.”
 

Should guidelines be stronger?

So, why are so many doctors continuing to prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple infections? Dr. Adalja and other experts say several things are at work.

For one thing, Dr. Adalja notes, fluoroquinolones are broad-spectrum antibiotics that are effective against dangerous germs, including “gram-negative” bacterial infections, and are “100% bioavailable.” That means they are as effective when given in pill form as they are if put directly into a vein. So they can be used in an outpatient setting or to allow a patient to be discharged from a hospital sooner because they don’t need an IV to receive treatment.

“There are still some uses for these drugs because they are so bioavailable, and I think that drives some of the use, and those are legitimate uses, knowing that there are risks when you do it,” he says. “But no drug is without risks, and you have to weigh risks and benefits – that’s what medicine is about: deciding what the best drug is for a patient.”

But Dr. Adalja says the overprescription of fluoroquinolones is part of the larger trend of antibiotic overuse. That is driving up antibiotic resistance, which in turn is another thing leading doctors to turn to Cipro and other fluoroquinolones after other drugs have proven ineffective.

“You can’t separate this from the fact that 80% of antibiotic prescriptions in the outpatient setting are probably illegitimate or not warranted,” he notes. “And because fluoroquinolones are highly effective drugs against certain pathogens, they are the go-to [drug] for many people who are prescribing antibiotics.”

That’s why patients should be wary whenever a doctor prescribes a fluoroquinolone, or any drug to treat a suspected infection, he says.

“Any time a patient is getting prescribed an antibiotic by a physician, they should ask: ‘Do I really need this antibiotic?’ That should be the first question they ask,” he advises. “And if they’re getting a fluoroquinolone, they may want to ask: ‘Is this the best antibiotic for me?’ ”
 

What you can do

Ms. Brummert and Ms. Moser say they are sharing their stories to raise awareness of the dangers of fluoroquinolones.

Ms. Moser has published a book on her experiences, “The Magnificent Story of a Lame Author,” and provides a wealth of consumer resources on her blog: Mountains and Mustard Seeds.

“As much as I hate what has happened to me, it has put me in a place where I am glad that I can inform other patients,” she says.

Ms. Brummert supplements her advocacy work as an FDA adviser with useful materials she provides on her website: Drugwatch.com.

“Pain into purpose – that’s what I call it,” she says. “I can’t change what happened to me, but I can warn others.”

The upshot for patients?

• the FDA’s Drug Safety Communication on Fluoroquinolones online to learn more about the risks and benefits of these powerful antibiotics.
• If you believe you’ve been harmed by fluoroquinolones, MedWatch website to report your experiences.

Ms. Brummert also advises patients to ask 12 critical questions of any doctor who wants to prescribe a fluoroquinolone, including the following listed on her website:

• For what condition is this medication prescribed, and is there another drug specific to my condition?
• What are the risks associated with this medication, and do the benefits outweigh them?
• Will this medication interact with my other drugs and/or other health conditions?
• What are the “boxed” warnings for this medication, and where can I report adverse events?

“I would also do my own research,” she says. “I wouldn’t just take a prescription from a physician and just say, ‘OK, doctor knows best.’ ”

Ms. Moser agrees that you have to be your own patient advocate and not simply take a doctor’s advice on any medical issue without having a deeper conversation.

“I’ve had arguments with doctors who legitimately did not believe me when I told them what happened to me,” she says. “And I actually told them, ‘Go get your Physicians’ Desk Reference [for prescription drugs]’ and they opened the book in front of me and read the warnings. Obviously, they had not been keeping up with the added warnings. So, I do think that doctors do need to be better informed.”

“So, yes, it’s the FDA’s responsibility, but it is also the doctors’ responsibility to make sure that they’re watching out for the side effects and they’re reporting them when their patients come up with them and making those connections.”

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

When Amy Moser had a simple urinary tract infection in her late 20s, her doctor prescribed Cipro, a powerful antibiotic used to treat anthrax and some of the most fearsome bacterial infections.

Nearly 2 weeks after she finished her treatment, her left kneecap dislocated while she was trying on a swimsuit at a retail store. Shortly afterward, she had painful ligament ruptures in her wrists, then her shoulder dislocated, followed by three Achilles tendon tears.

“That’s when I fell apart,” says Ms. Moser, a Phoenix health blogger and book author. “From that moment on, for almost the next 2.5 years consistently, I had new tendon tears every few weeks.”

Ms. Moser’s doctors had no answer for what was causing her injuries, all of which required surgical fixes. A married mother of three, she was otherwise healthy and fit. So, after her third Achilles tear, she turned to the FDA’s website for answers. There, she found many warnings about side effects of Cipro, Levaquin, and other so-called fluoroquinolones, including risks for tendon and ligament injuries.

“When all the ruptures started to happen, my doctor kept asking me if I’d ever taken Levaquin, and every time I was like, ‘No.’ So I did what all doctors don’t want you to do: I Googled ‘Levaquin,’ ” she recalls.

Her search led to FDA warnings and articles about the possibility of tendon and ligament ruptures with fluroquinolones.

“That was the first time I’d ever even heard that word ‘fluroquinolones,’ and I found Cipro on that list ... and I realized that I’d just been prescribed that before everything started,” she says.

That was 12 years ago. Since then, the FDA has issued more warnings about fluoroquinolone risks. In that time, Ms. Moser, now 40, has had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures and injuries, including a double-knee replacement this year.

“I am in chronic pain all the time,” she says. “I am chronically injured. I have a lot of tears that I’ve not fixed because they’re very complicated, and I don’t know if the rest of my body can handle the strain of recovering from those surgeries.”

Ms. Moser’s is hardly an isolated case. Since the 1980s, more than 60,000 patients have reported hundreds of thousands of serious events linked to fluoroquinolones to the FDA, including 6,575 reports of deaths.

The most common side effects were tendon rupture, as well as neurological and psychiatric symptoms. But experts estimate only 1%-10% of such events are reported to the FDA. That suggests that fluoroquinolones might have harmed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone, says Charles Bennett, MD, a hematologist at the University of South Carolina’s College of Pharmacy, Columbia.

Yet despite the many patient reports and FDA warnings on dangerous side effects, many doctors continue to wrongly prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple urinary tract infections, sinus infections, and respiratory issues better treated with less risky antibiotics.

“There probably is overprescription by primary care doctors for urinary tract infections and respiratory infections, when there could be alternatives that are safer to use,” says Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist and senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

“I would say that’s probably the case in the outpatient setting, not necessarily in the hospital setting or among infectious disease doctors ... but I think it’s important to say there are still some judicious uses of fluoroquinolones,” he says. “However, there probably is a lot of injudicious use of fluoroquinolones along with many other antibiotics in the primary care setting.”
 

FDA warnings on fluoroquinolones

Fluoroquinolones are a class of broad-spectrum antibiotics used for decades to treat certain bacterial infections.

FDA-approved fluoroquinolones include ciprofloxacin (Cipro), ciprofloxacin extended-release tablets, delafloxacin (Baxdela), gemifloxacin (Factive) levofloxacin (Levaquin), moxifloxacin (Avelox), and ofloxacin (Floxin). More than 60 generic versions of these brand-name medicines are also on the market, making them among the most prescribed antibiotics in the U.S.

Over the past 2 decades, a wide range of physical and mental health side effects have been tied to fluoroquinolones. As a result of these “adverse event reports” and research published in medical literature, the FDA has required an escalating series of warnings and safety labeling changes for doctors who prescribe these drugs.

• In 2008, the FDA first added a “black box” warning to fluoroquinolones, citing an increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture in patients prescribed these meds.
• In 2011, the agency required the warning label to include risks of worsening symptoms for those with myasthenia gravis, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes muscle weakness, vision problems, and speech problems.
• In 2013, regulators required updated labels noting the potential for irreversible peripheral neuropathy (serious nerve damage).
• In 2016, the FDA issued its strongest warning against the use of such antibiotics for simple bacterial infections – such as uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), acute sinusitis, and acute bronchitis – saying the “association of fluoroquinolones with disabling and potentially permanent side effects involving tendons, muscles, joints, nerves and the central nervous system ... outweighs the benefits for patients.”
• And in 2018, regulators required safety labeling changes to include warnings about the risks of aortic aneurysm – a life-threatening enlargement of the main vessel that delivers blood to the body – as well as mental health side effects and serious blood sugar disturbances.

But FDA regulators have stopped short of barring fluoroquinolone use in the treatment of bacterial infections, citing the benefits for certain conditions.

“For some patients, the benefits of fluoroquinolones may continue to outweigh the risks for treatment of serious bacterial infections, such as pneumonia or intra-abdominal infections,” said former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, “but there are other serious, known risks associated with these strong antibiotics that must be carefully weighed when considering their use.”

In December 2021, a study published in the journal JAMA Network Open found the FDA’s warnings may have helped lower prescribing of the drugs in Medicare patients. But not all doctors have been responsive to those warnings, researchers found.

“An overall decline in change over time and an immediate change in fluoroquinolone prescribing was observed after the 2016 FDA warning,” the authors concluded. “Certain physicians, such as primary care physicians, were more responsive to FDA warnings than others. ... Findings of this study suggest that identifying the association of physician and organizational characteristics with fluoroquinolone prescribing practices could help in developing mechanisms for improving de-adoption.”

Some critics say the FDA should do more to spotlight the dangers of fluoroquinolones and require doctors and patients to sign checklist consent forms to show they are aware of the potential side effects of these drugs.

Rachel Brummert, a patient advocate who sits on an FDA consumer advisory board, believes the FDA needs to improve its communication to doctors on fluoroquinolone risks and get tougher with those who continue to inappropriately prescribe the drugs.

“I think there needs to be a system in place, where if something comes down from the FDA about a drug, the physician has to sign off on it, the patient has to sign off on it and mark that they understand that there are these ‘black box’ warnings,” says Ms. Brummert, 52, a representative on the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee.

As an example, she points to Australia’s medical laws requiring doctors and patients to sign a checklist before any fluoroquinolone prescription is approved.

“When a physician prescribes a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, there’s a checklist – does the patient have an infection, is it a simple infection, do they have allergies?” she notes. “And you can’t even get the prescription out – it won’t even print out, it won’t go into the system – unless you check all of the boxes. But we don’t do that here. We don’t have that type of system right now.”

Ms. Brummert says such a system might have prevented the harm from taking Levaquin her doctor prescribed for a suspected sinus infection in 2006.

Soon after she began taking the antibiotic, she ruptured her Achilles tendon, requiring surgery. By 2009, she’d had three ruptures, each needing surgical fixes. To date, she’s had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures. She’s also had seizures, blood pressure issues, depression, chronic pain, and memory problems she attributes to taking Levaquin.

As it turns out, her doctor misdiagnosed her condition – a misstep that would have been averted with a system like Australia’s, which requires doctors to verify the presence of a bacterial infection through a simple test before prescribing a fluoroquinolone.

“When I got the Levaquin, it was for a suspected sinus infection that it turned out I didn’t even have in the first place,” she notes. “So, I took the Levaquin basically for nothing. But what I would have asked my doctor had I known is: ‘Why should I take something so strong for so simple an infection?’

“It seems common sense to me now that you don’t prescribe something that can kill anthrax for a simple sinus infection. It’s like an atom bomb killing a mosquito. I agree that there are uses for these drugs, but they are being overprescribed. And so, here I am 16 years later – I’m still rupturing, I’m still having surgery, and I’m still in pain – all for something I didn’t even need medicine for in the first place.”
 

Should guidelines be stronger?

So, why are so many doctors continuing to prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple infections? Dr. Adalja and other experts say several things are at work.

For one thing, Dr. Adalja notes, fluoroquinolones are broad-spectrum antibiotics that are effective against dangerous germs, including “gram-negative” bacterial infections, and are “100% bioavailable.” That means they are as effective when given in pill form as they are if put directly into a vein. So they can be used in an outpatient setting or to allow a patient to be discharged from a hospital sooner because they don’t need an IV to receive treatment.

“There are still some uses for these drugs because they are so bioavailable, and I think that drives some of the use, and those are legitimate uses, knowing that there are risks when you do it,” he says. “But no drug is without risks, and you have to weigh risks and benefits – that’s what medicine is about: deciding what the best drug is for a patient.”

But Dr. Adalja says the overprescription of fluoroquinolones is part of the larger trend of antibiotic overuse. That is driving up antibiotic resistance, which in turn is another thing leading doctors to turn to Cipro and other fluoroquinolones after other drugs have proven ineffective.

“You can’t separate this from the fact that 80% of antibiotic prescriptions in the outpatient setting are probably illegitimate or not warranted,” he notes. “And because fluoroquinolones are highly effective drugs against certain pathogens, they are the go-to [drug] for many people who are prescribing antibiotics.”

That’s why patients should be wary whenever a doctor prescribes a fluoroquinolone, or any drug to treat a suspected infection, he says.

“Any time a patient is getting prescribed an antibiotic by a physician, they should ask: ‘Do I really need this antibiotic?’ That should be the first question they ask,” he advises. “And if they’re getting a fluoroquinolone, they may want to ask: ‘Is this the best antibiotic for me?’ ”
 

What you can do

Ms. Brummert and Ms. Moser say they are sharing their stories to raise awareness of the dangers of fluoroquinolones.

Ms. Moser has published a book on her experiences, “The Magnificent Story of a Lame Author,” and provides a wealth of consumer resources on her blog: Mountains and Mustard Seeds.

“As much as I hate what has happened to me, it has put me in a place where I am glad that I can inform other patients,” she says.

Ms. Brummert supplements her advocacy work as an FDA adviser with useful materials she provides on her website: Drugwatch.com.

“Pain into purpose – that’s what I call it,” she says. “I can’t change what happened to me, but I can warn others.”

The upshot for patients?

• the FDA’s Drug Safety Communication on Fluoroquinolones online to learn more about the risks and benefits of these powerful antibiotics.
• If you believe you’ve been harmed by fluoroquinolones, MedWatch website to report your experiences.

Ms. Brummert also advises patients to ask 12 critical questions of any doctor who wants to prescribe a fluoroquinolone, including the following listed on her website:

• For what condition is this medication prescribed, and is there another drug specific to my condition?
• What are the risks associated with this medication, and do the benefits outweigh them?
• Will this medication interact with my other drugs and/or other health conditions?
• What are the “boxed” warnings for this medication, and where can I report adverse events?

“I would also do my own research,” she says. “I wouldn’t just take a prescription from a physician and just say, ‘OK, doctor knows best.’ ”

Ms. Moser agrees that you have to be your own patient advocate and not simply take a doctor’s advice on any medical issue without having a deeper conversation.

“I’ve had arguments with doctors who legitimately did not believe me when I told them what happened to me,” she says. “And I actually told them, ‘Go get your Physicians’ Desk Reference [for prescription drugs]’ and they opened the book in front of me and read the warnings. Obviously, they had not been keeping up with the added warnings. So, I do think that doctors do need to be better informed.”

“So, yes, it’s the FDA’s responsibility, but it is also the doctors’ responsibility to make sure that they’re watching out for the side effects and they’re reporting them when their patients come up with them and making those connections.”

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

How satisfied are physicians that they are fairly compensated for their dedication, skills, and time? That’s a subject that seems to steer many physicians to heated emotions and to a variety of issues with today’s medical field – not all of which directly affect their pay.

Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2022: “Incomes Gain, Pay Gaps Remain” generally shows encouraging trends. Physician income rose from a year earlier, when it stagnated as COVID-19 restrictions led patients to stay home and medical practices to cut hours or close. And for the first time in Medscape’s 11 years of reporting on physician compensation, average income rose for every medical specialty surveyed.

Heartening findings, right? Yet the tone of comments to the report was anything but peppy. Many commenters were highly distressed or even angry about their compensation. One physician even complained his plumber earns more than he does.

A family physician lamented that he has “made less in the past 3 years, with more hassles and work” and he “can’t wait to retire next year.” Meanwhile, he complained, the U.S. health system is “the costliest, yet wasteful, with worse outcomes; reactive, not preventative; and has the costliest drugs and social issues.”
 

Do NPs and PAs encroach on your income?

The conversation about fair compensation launched some commenters into a discussion about competition from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Some physicians expressed wariness at best, and anger at worst, about NPs and PAs evolving beyond traditional doctor support roles into certain direct patient support.

One-fourth of respondents in the compensation report said their income was negatively affected by competition from NPs, PAs, and other nonphysician providers. For example, with states like Arkansas expanding independent practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), one commenter complained, “we are no longer needed.”

Added another physician, “primary care, especially internal medicine, is just going away for doctors. We wasted, by all accounts, 4 full years of our working lives because NPs are ‘just as good.’ ”

Greater independence for NPs and PAs strengthens the hands of health insurers and “will end up hastening the demise of primary care as we have known it,” another reader predicted. Other physicians’ takes: “For the institution, it’s much cheaper to hire NPs than to hire doctors” and “overall, physician negotiating power will decrease in the future.”
 

Medicare reimbursement rates grate

Although 7 in 10 respondents in the compensation report said they would continue to accept new Medicare or Medicaid patients, comments reveal resentment about the practical need to work with Medicare and its resentment rates.

“An open question to Medicare: Are you doing the dumbest thing possible by paying low wages and giving huge administrative burdens for internal medicine on purpose?” one physician wrote. “Or are you really that short-sighted?”

Another reader cited an analysis from the American College of Surgeons of Medicare’s 1998 surgical CPT codes. If Medicare had left those codes alone beyond annual inflation adjustments, the study found, reimbursement rates by 2019 would be half of what they became.

Another way of looking at the code reimbursement increases is a 50% pay cut over 20 years for doctors and medical practices, that reader insisted. “The rising cost of employee wages, particularly of the last two-and-a-half years of COVID-19, combined with the effective pay cuts over the last 20 years, equals time to quit!”

Another commenter concurred. “In the 1990s, most full-time docs were making almost double what you see [in the report], and everything cost almost half of what it does now. So, MD purchasing power is between half and one-quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.”
 

Are self-pay models better?

Do physicians have a better chance at consistently fair income under a self-pay practice that avoids dealing with insurance companies?

One commenter hypothesized that psychiatrists once trailed internists in income but today earn more because many “quit working for insurance and went to a cash business 15 years ago.” Many family physicians did something similar by switching to a direct primary care model, he said.

This physician said he has done the same “with great results” for patients as well: shorter office visits, faster booking of appointments, no deductibles owed. Best of all, “I love practicing medicine again, and my patients love the great health care they receive.”

Another commenter agreed. “Two words: cash practice.” But another objected, “I guess only the very rich can afford to cover your business costs.”

Regardless of the payment model, another physician argued for private practice over employed positions. “Save on the bureaucratic expenses. Go back to private practice and get rid of electronic records.”

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

How satisfied are physicians that they are fairly compensated for their dedication, skills, and time? That’s a subject that seems to steer many physicians to heated emotions and to a variety of issues with today’s medical field – not all of which directly affect their pay.

Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2022: “Incomes Gain, Pay Gaps Remain” generally shows encouraging trends. Physician income rose from a year earlier, when it stagnated as COVID-19 restrictions led patients to stay home and medical practices to cut hours or close. And for the first time in Medscape’s 11 years of reporting on physician compensation, average income rose for every medical specialty surveyed.

Heartening findings, right? Yet the tone of comments to the report was anything but peppy. Many commenters were highly distressed or even angry about their compensation. One physician even complained his plumber earns more than he does.

A family physician lamented that he has “made less in the past 3 years, with more hassles and work” and he “can’t wait to retire next year.” Meanwhile, he complained, the U.S. health system is “the costliest, yet wasteful, with worse outcomes; reactive, not preventative; and has the costliest drugs and social issues.”
 

Do NPs and PAs encroach on your income?

The conversation about fair compensation launched some commenters into a discussion about competition from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Some physicians expressed wariness at best, and anger at worst, about NPs and PAs evolving beyond traditional doctor support roles into certain direct patient support.

One-fourth of respondents in the compensation report said their income was negatively affected by competition from NPs, PAs, and other nonphysician providers. For example, with states like Arkansas expanding independent practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), one commenter complained, “we are no longer needed.”

Added another physician, “primary care, especially internal medicine, is just going away for doctors. We wasted, by all accounts, 4 full years of our working lives because NPs are ‘just as good.’ ”

Greater independence for NPs and PAs strengthens the hands of health insurers and “will end up hastening the demise of primary care as we have known it,” another reader predicted. Other physicians’ takes: “For the institution, it’s much cheaper to hire NPs than to hire doctors” and “overall, physician negotiating power will decrease in the future.”
 

Medicare reimbursement rates grate

Although 7 in 10 respondents in the compensation report said they would continue to accept new Medicare or Medicaid patients, comments reveal resentment about the practical need to work with Medicare and its resentment rates.

“An open question to Medicare: Are you doing the dumbest thing possible by paying low wages and giving huge administrative burdens for internal medicine on purpose?” one physician wrote. “Or are you really that short-sighted?”

Another reader cited an analysis from the American College of Surgeons of Medicare’s 1998 surgical CPT codes. If Medicare had left those codes alone beyond annual inflation adjustments, the study found, reimbursement rates by 2019 would be half of what they became.

Another way of looking at the code reimbursement increases is a 50% pay cut over 20 years for doctors and medical practices, that reader insisted. “The rising cost of employee wages, particularly of the last two-and-a-half years of COVID-19, combined with the effective pay cuts over the last 20 years, equals time to quit!”

Another commenter concurred. “In the 1990s, most full-time docs were making almost double what you see [in the report], and everything cost almost half of what it does now. So, MD purchasing power is between half and one-quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.”
 

Are self-pay models better?

Do physicians have a better chance at consistently fair income under a self-pay practice that avoids dealing with insurance companies?

One commenter hypothesized that psychiatrists once trailed internists in income but today earn more because many “quit working for insurance and went to a cash business 15 years ago.” Many family physicians did something similar by switching to a direct primary care model, he said.

This physician said he has done the same “with great results” for patients as well: shorter office visits, faster booking of appointments, no deductibles owed. Best of all, “I love practicing medicine again, and my patients love the great health care they receive.”

Another commenter agreed. “Two words: cash practice.” But another objected, “I guess only the very rich can afford to cover your business costs.”

Regardless of the payment model, another physician argued for private practice over employed positions. “Save on the bureaucratic expenses. Go back to private practice and get rid of electronic records.”

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

How satisfied are physicians that they are fairly compensated for their dedication, skills, and time? That’s a subject that seems to steer many physicians to heated emotions and to a variety of issues with today’s medical field – not all of which directly affect their pay.

Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2022: “Incomes Gain, Pay Gaps Remain” generally shows encouraging trends. Physician income rose from a year earlier, when it stagnated as COVID-19 restrictions led patients to stay home and medical practices to cut hours or close. And for the first time in Medscape’s 11 years of reporting on physician compensation, average income rose for every medical specialty surveyed.

Heartening findings, right? Yet the tone of comments to the report was anything but peppy. Many commenters were highly distressed or even angry about their compensation. One physician even complained his plumber earns more than he does.

A family physician lamented that he has “made less in the past 3 years, with more hassles and work” and he “can’t wait to retire next year.” Meanwhile, he complained, the U.S. health system is “the costliest, yet wasteful, with worse outcomes; reactive, not preventative; and has the costliest drugs and social issues.”
 

Do NPs and PAs encroach on your income?

The conversation about fair compensation launched some commenters into a discussion about competition from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Some physicians expressed wariness at best, and anger at worst, about NPs and PAs evolving beyond traditional doctor support roles into certain direct patient support.

One-fourth of respondents in the compensation report said their income was negatively affected by competition from NPs, PAs, and other nonphysician providers. For example, with states like Arkansas expanding independent practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), one commenter complained, “we are no longer needed.”

Added another physician, “primary care, especially internal medicine, is just going away for doctors. We wasted, by all accounts, 4 full years of our working lives because NPs are ‘just as good.’ ”

Greater independence for NPs and PAs strengthens the hands of health insurers and “will end up hastening the demise of primary care as we have known it,” another reader predicted. Other physicians’ takes: “For the institution, it’s much cheaper to hire NPs than to hire doctors” and “overall, physician negotiating power will decrease in the future.”
 

Medicare reimbursement rates grate

Although 7 in 10 respondents in the compensation report said they would continue to accept new Medicare or Medicaid patients, comments reveal resentment about the practical need to work with Medicare and its resentment rates.

“An open question to Medicare: Are you doing the dumbest thing possible by paying low wages and giving huge administrative burdens for internal medicine on purpose?” one physician wrote. “Or are you really that short-sighted?”

Another reader cited an analysis from the American College of Surgeons of Medicare’s 1998 surgical CPT codes. If Medicare had left those codes alone beyond annual inflation adjustments, the study found, reimbursement rates by 2019 would be half of what they became.

Another way of looking at the code reimbursement increases is a 50% pay cut over 20 years for doctors and medical practices, that reader insisted. “The rising cost of employee wages, particularly of the last two-and-a-half years of COVID-19, combined with the effective pay cuts over the last 20 years, equals time to quit!”

Another commenter concurred. “In the 1990s, most full-time docs were making almost double what you see [in the report], and everything cost almost half of what it does now. So, MD purchasing power is between half and one-quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.”
 

Are self-pay models better?

Do physicians have a better chance at consistently fair income under a self-pay practice that avoids dealing with insurance companies?

One commenter hypothesized that psychiatrists once trailed internists in income but today earn more because many “quit working for insurance and went to a cash business 15 years ago.” Many family physicians did something similar by switching to a direct primary care model, he said.

This physician said he has done the same “with great results” for patients as well: shorter office visits, faster booking of appointments, no deductibles owed. Best of all, “I love practicing medicine again, and my patients love the great health care they receive.”

Another commenter agreed. “Two words: cash practice.” But another objected, “I guess only the very rich can afford to cover your business costs.”

Regardless of the payment model, another physician argued for private practice over employed positions. “Save on the bureaucratic expenses. Go back to private practice and get rid of electronic records.”

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

Bone densitometry scans may be a novel, noninvasive, and scalable way to identify older women at risk of developing dementia, new research suggests.

In an analysis of more than 900 study participants, women in their 70s with more advanced abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) seen on lateral spine images during dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) had a two- to fourfold higher risk for late-life dementia than those with low AAC.

This finding was independent of cardiovascular risk factors and apolipoprotein E (APOE ) genotype.

“While these results are exciting, we now need to undertake further large screening studies in older men and women using this approach to show that the findings are generalizable to older men and can identify people with greater cognitive decline,” coinvestigator Marc Sim, PhD, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia, said in an interview.

“This will hopefully open the door to studies of early disease-modifying interventions,” Sim said.

The findings were published online in The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific. 
 

AAC and cognition

Late-life dementia occurring after age 80 is increasingly common because of both vascular and nonvascular risk factors.

Two recent studies in middle-aged and older men and women showed that AAC identified on bone densitometry was associated with poorer cognition, suggesting it may be related to cognitive decline and increased dementia risk.

This provided the rationale for the current study, Dr. Sim noted.

The researchers assessed AAC using DXA lateral spine images captured in the late 1990s in a prospective cohort of 958 older women who were participating in an osteoporosis study.

AAC was classified into established low, moderate, and extensive categories. At baseline, all women were aged 70 and older, and 45% had low AAC, 36% had moderate AAC, and 19% had extensive AAC.

Over 14.5 years, 150 women (15.7%) had a late-life hospitalization and/or died.
 

Improved risk prediction

Results showed that, compared with women who had low AAC, women with moderate and extensive AAC were more likely to experience late-life dementia hospitalization (9.3% low, 15.5% moderate, and 18.3% extensive) and death (2.8%, 8.3%, and 9.4%, respectively).

After multivariable adjustment, women with moderate AAC had a two- and threefold increased relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death, compared with their peers who had low AAC.

Women with extensive AAC had a two- and fourfold increase in the adjusted relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death.

“To our knowledge this is the first time it has been shown that AAC from these scans is related to late-life dementia,” Dr. Sim said.

“We demonstrated that AAC improved risk prediction in addition to cardiovascular risk factors and APOE genotype, a genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, the major form of dementia,” he added.

Dr. Sim noted “these additional lateral spine images” can be taken at the same time that hip and spine bone density tests are done.

“This provides an opportunity to identify AAC in large numbers of people,” he said.

He cautioned, however, that further studies with detailed dementia-related phenotypes, brain imaging, and measures of cognition are needed to confirm whether AAC will add value to dementia risk prediction.
 

‘Not surprising’

Commenting on the findings for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, senior director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, Chicago, noted that AAC is a marker of atherosclerosis and is associated with vascular health outcomes.

Therefore, it is “not surprising it would be associated with dementia too. There’s been previous research linking atherosclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Sexton said.  

“What’s novel about this research is that it’s looking at AAC specifically, which can be identified through a relatively simple test that is already in widespread use,” she added.

Dr. Sexton noted that “much more research” is now needed in larger, more diverse populations in order to better understand the link between AAC and dementia – and whether bone density testing may be an appropriate dementia-screening tool.

“The good news is vascular conditions like atherosclerosis can be managed through lifestyle changes like eating a healthy diet and getting regular exercise. And research tells us what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Sexton said.

The study was funded by Kidney Health Australia, Healthway Health Promotion Foundation of Western Australia, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital Research Advisory Committee Grant, and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Sim and Dr. Sexton have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bone densitometry scans may be a novel, noninvasive, and scalable way to identify older women at risk of developing dementia, new research suggests.

In an analysis of more than 900 study participants, women in their 70s with more advanced abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) seen on lateral spine images during dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) had a two- to fourfold higher risk for late-life dementia than those with low AAC.

This finding was independent of cardiovascular risk factors and apolipoprotein E (APOE ) genotype.

“While these results are exciting, we now need to undertake further large screening studies in older men and women using this approach to show that the findings are generalizable to older men and can identify people with greater cognitive decline,” coinvestigator Marc Sim, PhD, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia, said in an interview.

“This will hopefully open the door to studies of early disease-modifying interventions,” Sim said.

The findings were published online in The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific. 
 

AAC and cognition

Late-life dementia occurring after age 80 is increasingly common because of both vascular and nonvascular risk factors.

Two recent studies in middle-aged and older men and women showed that AAC identified on bone densitometry was associated with poorer cognition, suggesting it may be related to cognitive decline and increased dementia risk.

This provided the rationale for the current study, Dr. Sim noted.

The researchers assessed AAC using DXA lateral spine images captured in the late 1990s in a prospective cohort of 958 older women who were participating in an osteoporosis study.

AAC was classified into established low, moderate, and extensive categories. At baseline, all women were aged 70 and older, and 45% had low AAC, 36% had moderate AAC, and 19% had extensive AAC.

Over 14.5 years, 150 women (15.7%) had a late-life hospitalization and/or died.
 

Improved risk prediction

Results showed that, compared with women who had low AAC, women with moderate and extensive AAC were more likely to experience late-life dementia hospitalization (9.3% low, 15.5% moderate, and 18.3% extensive) and death (2.8%, 8.3%, and 9.4%, respectively).

After multivariable adjustment, women with moderate AAC had a two- and threefold increased relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death, compared with their peers who had low AAC.

Women with extensive AAC had a two- and fourfold increase in the adjusted relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death.

“To our knowledge this is the first time it has been shown that AAC from these scans is related to late-life dementia,” Dr. Sim said.

“We demonstrated that AAC improved risk prediction in addition to cardiovascular risk factors and APOE genotype, a genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, the major form of dementia,” he added.

Dr. Sim noted “these additional lateral spine images” can be taken at the same time that hip and spine bone density tests are done.

“This provides an opportunity to identify AAC in large numbers of people,” he said.

He cautioned, however, that further studies with detailed dementia-related phenotypes, brain imaging, and measures of cognition are needed to confirm whether AAC will add value to dementia risk prediction.
 

‘Not surprising’

Commenting on the findings for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, senior director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, Chicago, noted that AAC is a marker of atherosclerosis and is associated with vascular health outcomes.

Therefore, it is “not surprising it would be associated with dementia too. There’s been previous research linking atherosclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Sexton said.  

“What’s novel about this research is that it’s looking at AAC specifically, which can be identified through a relatively simple test that is already in widespread use,” she added.

Dr. Sexton noted that “much more research” is now needed in larger, more diverse populations in order to better understand the link between AAC and dementia – and whether bone density testing may be an appropriate dementia-screening tool.

“The good news is vascular conditions like atherosclerosis can be managed through lifestyle changes like eating a healthy diet and getting regular exercise. And research tells us what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Sexton said.

The study was funded by Kidney Health Australia, Healthway Health Promotion Foundation of Western Australia, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital Research Advisory Committee Grant, and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Sim and Dr. Sexton have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bone densitometry scans may be a novel, noninvasive, and scalable way to identify older women at risk of developing dementia, new research suggests.

In an analysis of more than 900 study participants, women in their 70s with more advanced abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) seen on lateral spine images during dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) had a two- to fourfold higher risk for late-life dementia than those with low AAC.

This finding was independent of cardiovascular risk factors and apolipoprotein E (APOE ) genotype.

“While these results are exciting, we now need to undertake further large screening studies in older men and women using this approach to show that the findings are generalizable to older men and can identify people with greater cognitive decline,” coinvestigator Marc Sim, PhD, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia, said in an interview.

“This will hopefully open the door to studies of early disease-modifying interventions,” Sim said.

The findings were published online in The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific. 
 

AAC and cognition

Late-life dementia occurring after age 80 is increasingly common because of both vascular and nonvascular risk factors.

Two recent studies in middle-aged and older men and women showed that AAC identified on bone densitometry was associated with poorer cognition, suggesting it may be related to cognitive decline and increased dementia risk.

This provided the rationale for the current study, Dr. Sim noted.

The researchers assessed AAC using DXA lateral spine images captured in the late 1990s in a prospective cohort of 958 older women who were participating in an osteoporosis study.

AAC was classified into established low, moderate, and extensive categories. At baseline, all women were aged 70 and older, and 45% had low AAC, 36% had moderate AAC, and 19% had extensive AAC.

Over 14.5 years, 150 women (15.7%) had a late-life hospitalization and/or died.
 

Improved risk prediction

Results showed that, compared with women who had low AAC, women with moderate and extensive AAC were more likely to experience late-life dementia hospitalization (9.3% low, 15.5% moderate, and 18.3% extensive) and death (2.8%, 8.3%, and 9.4%, respectively).

After multivariable adjustment, women with moderate AAC had a two- and threefold increased relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death, compared with their peers who had low AAC.

Women with extensive AAC had a two- and fourfold increase in the adjusted relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death.

“To our knowledge this is the first time it has been shown that AAC from these scans is related to late-life dementia,” Dr. Sim said.

“We demonstrated that AAC improved risk prediction in addition to cardiovascular risk factors and APOE genotype, a genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, the major form of dementia,” he added.

Dr. Sim noted “these additional lateral spine images” can be taken at the same time that hip and spine bone density tests are done.

“This provides an opportunity to identify AAC in large numbers of people,” he said.

He cautioned, however, that further studies with detailed dementia-related phenotypes, brain imaging, and measures of cognition are needed to confirm whether AAC will add value to dementia risk prediction.
 

‘Not surprising’

Commenting on the findings for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, senior director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, Chicago, noted that AAC is a marker of atherosclerosis and is associated with vascular health outcomes.

Therefore, it is “not surprising it would be associated with dementia too. There’s been previous research linking atherosclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Sexton said.  

“What’s novel about this research is that it’s looking at AAC specifically, which can be identified through a relatively simple test that is already in widespread use,” she added.

Dr. Sexton noted that “much more research” is now needed in larger, more diverse populations in order to better understand the link between AAC and dementia – and whether bone density testing may be an appropriate dementia-screening tool.

“The good news is vascular conditions like atherosclerosis can be managed through lifestyle changes like eating a healthy diet and getting regular exercise. And research tells us what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Sexton said.

The study was funded by Kidney Health Australia, Healthway Health Promotion Foundation of Western Australia, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital Research Advisory Committee Grant, and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Sim and Dr. Sexton have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

It is projected that by 2050, 1.6 billion women in the world will have reached menopause or the postmenopausal period, a significant increase, compared with a billion women in 2020. Of all menopausal women, around 75% are affected by troublesome menopause symptoms, such as hot flashes and night sweats.

Around 84% of postmenopausal women experience genitourinary symptoms, such as vulvovaginal atrophy and incontinence.

Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is the most effective treatment for managing these symptoms; however, its effects on numerous aspects of female health remain uncertain, in particular with regard to breast cancer. The influence of MHT on breast cancer remains unsettled, with discordant findings from observational studies and randomized clinical trials, a factor that affects the decisions made by doctors concerning hormone therapy in menopausal women.
 

Background

Conjugated equine estrogens (CEEs) were introduced into clinical practice in the 1940s. For decades, MHT was the main treatment in conventional medicine for the symptoms of menopause. MHT was used in Western countries for about 600 million women starting from 1970, and it progressively increased during the 1990s. Professional organizations recommended MHT for the prevention of osteoporosis and chronic heart disease (CHD), and a third of prescriptions were for women older than 60 years.

Against this background, the National Institutes of Health launched randomized trials of MHT through the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) to test whether the association with reduced risk for CHD found in observational studies was real and to obtain reliable information on the overall risks and benefits regarding the prevention of chronic disease for postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years.

The WHI trials tested standard-dose oral CEEs with and without standard-dose continuous medroxyprogesterone acetate (EPT). In 2002, the results of the WHI studies raised a series of concerns about the long-term safety of MHT, in particular the finding of an increased risk of breast cancer for women undergoing therapy. That risk exceeded the benefits from reductions in hip fractures and colorectal cancer.

The WHI findings received wide attention. Prescriptions for MHT dropped precipitously after 2002 and continued to decline in subsequent years. Declines were most marked for standard-dose EPT and in older women. The results of the CEE study were less negative, compared with those for EPT, as they showed no effect on CHD, a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of breast cancer, and a more favorable risk-benefit ratio for younger women, compared with older women. A decade later, it had become widely accepted that MHT should not be used for the prevention of chronic disease in older women; however, short-term use for treatment of vasomotor symptoms remains an accepted indication.
 

Risks and outcomes

Emerging from a series of WHI reports are complex models on the effect of hormonal therapy on the risk and outcome of breast cancer. In one study, women with an intact uterus received CEEs plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA). An increase in the risk of breast cancer was observed over a median of 5.6 years of treatment, followed by a moderate reduction, with the risk increasing after 13 years of cumulative follow-up. For women treated with CEE alone, the reduction in risk observed over an average of 7.2 years of treatment was maintained for 13 years of follow-up.

Results from observational studies contrast with those from randomized controlled trials, particularly those concerning the use of estrogens only. A meta-analysis by the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer showed that both EPT and CEE were associated with a higher risk of breast neoplasia. Results of the Million Women Study showed a higher death rate.
 

Treatment methods and duration

Information from prospective studies on the effects of commencing MHT at various ages between 40 and 59 years show that for women who commenced treatment at any time within this age range, the relative risk was similar and was highly significant for all ages. Few women had started MHT treatment well after menopause at ages 60-69 years, and their excess risks during years 5-14 of current use were significant for estrogen-progestogen but not for estrogen-only MHT.

If these associations are largely causal, then for women of average weight in developed countries, 5 years of MHT, starting at age 50 years, would increase breast cancer incidence at ages 50-69 years by about 1 in every 50 users of estrogen plus daily progestogen preparations; 1 in every 70 users of estrogen plus intermittent progestogen preparations; and 1 in every 200 users of estrogen-only preparations. The corresponding excesses from 10 years of MHT would be about twice as great.

During 5-14 years of MHT use, the RRs were similarly increased if MHT use had started at ages 40-44 years, 45-49 years, 50-54 years, and 55-59 years; RRs appeared to be attenuated if MHT use had started after age 60 years. They were also attenuated by adiposity, particularly for estrogen-only MHT (which had little effect in obese women). After MHT use ceased, some excess risk of breast cancer persisted for more than a decade; this is directly correlated with the duration of treatment.

Therefore, it can be expected that the effects of MHT may vary between participants on the basis of age or time since menopause, as well as treatments (MHT type, dose, formulation, duration of use, and route of administration). Regarding formulation effects on the risk of breast cancer, new evidence shows an increased risk of 28%. Progestogens appeared to be differentially associated with breast cancer (micronized progesterone: odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.55-1.79; synthetic progestin: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.35). When prescribing MHT, micronized progesterone may be the safer progestogen to use.

In conclusion, MHT has a complex balance of benefits and risk on various health outcomes. Some effects differ qualitatively between ET and EPT. Regarding use of MHT, consideration should be given to the full range of effects, along with patients’ values and preferences. The overall quality of existing systematic reviews is moderate to poor. Clinicians should evaluate their scientific strength before considering applying their results in clinical practice. Regarding use of any hormone therapy regimen, consideration should be given to the full range of risk and benefits and should involve shared decisionmaking with the patient. It should be recognized that risk-benefit balance is altered by factors such as age, time from menopause, oophorectomy status, and prior hysterectomy and that some outcomes persist and there is some attenuation after stopping use.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.

It is projected that by 2050, 1.6 billion women in the world will have reached menopause or the postmenopausal period, a significant increase, compared with a billion women in 2020. Of all menopausal women, around 75% are affected by troublesome menopause symptoms, such as hot flashes and night sweats.

Around 84% of postmenopausal women experience genitourinary symptoms, such as vulvovaginal atrophy and incontinence.

Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is the most effective treatment for managing these symptoms; however, its effects on numerous aspects of female health remain uncertain, in particular with regard to breast cancer. The influence of MHT on breast cancer remains unsettled, with discordant findings from observational studies and randomized clinical trials, a factor that affects the decisions made by doctors concerning hormone therapy in menopausal women.
 

Background

Conjugated equine estrogens (CEEs) were introduced into clinical practice in the 1940s. For decades, MHT was the main treatment in conventional medicine for the symptoms of menopause. MHT was used in Western countries for about 600 million women starting from 1970, and it progressively increased during the 1990s. Professional organizations recommended MHT for the prevention of osteoporosis and chronic heart disease (CHD), and a third of prescriptions were for women older than 60 years.

Against this background, the National Institutes of Health launched randomized trials of MHT through the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) to test whether the association with reduced risk for CHD found in observational studies was real and to obtain reliable information on the overall risks and benefits regarding the prevention of chronic disease for postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years.

The WHI trials tested standard-dose oral CEEs with and without standard-dose continuous medroxyprogesterone acetate (EPT). In 2002, the results of the WHI studies raised a series of concerns about the long-term safety of MHT, in particular the finding of an increased risk of breast cancer for women undergoing therapy. That risk exceeded the benefits from reductions in hip fractures and colorectal cancer.

The WHI findings received wide attention. Prescriptions for MHT dropped precipitously after 2002 and continued to decline in subsequent years. Declines were most marked for standard-dose EPT and in older women. The results of the CEE study were less negative, compared with those for EPT, as they showed no effect on CHD, a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of breast cancer, and a more favorable risk-benefit ratio for younger women, compared with older women. A decade later, it had become widely accepted that MHT should not be used for the prevention of chronic disease in older women; however, short-term use for treatment of vasomotor symptoms remains an accepted indication.
 

Risks and outcomes

Emerging from a series of WHI reports are complex models on the effect of hormonal therapy on the risk and outcome of breast cancer. In one study, women with an intact uterus received CEEs plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA). An increase in the risk of breast cancer was observed over a median of 5.6 years of treatment, followed by a moderate reduction, with the risk increasing after 13 years of cumulative follow-up. For women treated with CEE alone, the reduction in risk observed over an average of 7.2 years of treatment was maintained for 13 years of follow-up.

Results from observational studies contrast with those from randomized controlled trials, particularly those concerning the use of estrogens only. A meta-analysis by the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer showed that both EPT and CEE were associated with a higher risk of breast neoplasia. Results of the Million Women Study showed a higher death rate.
 

Treatment methods and duration

Information from prospective studies on the effects of commencing MHT at various ages between 40 and 59 years show that for women who commenced treatment at any time within this age range, the relative risk was similar and was highly significant for all ages. Few women had started MHT treatment well after menopause at ages 60-69 years, and their excess risks during years 5-14 of current use were significant for estrogen-progestogen but not for estrogen-only MHT.

If these associations are largely causal, then for women of average weight in developed countries, 5 years of MHT, starting at age 50 years, would increase breast cancer incidence at ages 50-69 years by about 1 in every 50 users of estrogen plus daily progestogen preparations; 1 in every 70 users of estrogen plus intermittent progestogen preparations; and 1 in every 200 users of estrogen-only preparations. The corresponding excesses from 10 years of MHT would be about twice as great.

During 5-14 years of MHT use, the RRs were similarly increased if MHT use had started at ages 40-44 years, 45-49 years, 50-54 years, and 55-59 years; RRs appeared to be attenuated if MHT use had started after age 60 years. They were also attenuated by adiposity, particularly for estrogen-only MHT (which had little effect in obese women). After MHT use ceased, some excess risk of breast cancer persisted for more than a decade; this is directly correlated with the duration of treatment.

Therefore, it can be expected that the effects of MHT may vary between participants on the basis of age or time since menopause, as well as treatments (MHT type, dose, formulation, duration of use, and route of administration). Regarding formulation effects on the risk of breast cancer, new evidence shows an increased risk of 28%. Progestogens appeared to be differentially associated with breast cancer (micronized progesterone: odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.55-1.79; synthetic progestin: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.35). When prescribing MHT, micronized progesterone may be the safer progestogen to use.

In conclusion, MHT has a complex balance of benefits and risk on various health outcomes. Some effects differ qualitatively between ET and EPT. Regarding use of MHT, consideration should be given to the full range of effects, along with patients’ values and preferences. The overall quality of existing systematic reviews is moderate to poor. Clinicians should evaluate their scientific strength before considering applying their results in clinical practice. Regarding use of any hormone therapy regimen, consideration should be given to the full range of risk and benefits and should involve shared decisionmaking with the patient. It should be recognized that risk-benefit balance is altered by factors such as age, time from menopause, oophorectomy status, and prior hysterectomy and that some outcomes persist and there is some attenuation after stopping use.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.

It is projected that by 2050, 1.6 billion women in the world will have reached menopause or the postmenopausal period, a significant increase, compared with a billion women in 2020. Of all menopausal women, around 75% are affected by troublesome menopause symptoms, such as hot flashes and night sweats.

Around 84% of postmenopausal women experience genitourinary symptoms, such as vulvovaginal atrophy and incontinence.

Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is the most effective treatment for managing these symptoms; however, its effects on numerous aspects of female health remain uncertain, in particular with regard to breast cancer. The influence of MHT on breast cancer remains unsettled, with discordant findings from observational studies and randomized clinical trials, a factor that affects the decisions made by doctors concerning hormone therapy in menopausal women.
 

Background

Conjugated equine estrogens (CEEs) were introduced into clinical practice in the 1940s. For decades, MHT was the main treatment in conventional medicine for the symptoms of menopause. MHT was used in Western countries for about 600 million women starting from 1970, and it progressively increased during the 1990s. Professional organizations recommended MHT for the prevention of osteoporosis and chronic heart disease (CHD), and a third of prescriptions were for women older than 60 years.

Against this background, the National Institutes of Health launched randomized trials of MHT through the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) to test whether the association with reduced risk for CHD found in observational studies was real and to obtain reliable information on the overall risks and benefits regarding the prevention of chronic disease for postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years.

The WHI trials tested standard-dose oral CEEs with and without standard-dose continuous medroxyprogesterone acetate (EPT). In 2002, the results of the WHI studies raised a series of concerns about the long-term safety of MHT, in particular the finding of an increased risk of breast cancer for women undergoing therapy. That risk exceeded the benefits from reductions in hip fractures and colorectal cancer.

The WHI findings received wide attention. Prescriptions for MHT dropped precipitously after 2002 and continued to decline in subsequent years. Declines were most marked for standard-dose EPT and in older women. The results of the CEE study were less negative, compared with those for EPT, as they showed no effect on CHD, a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of breast cancer, and a more favorable risk-benefit ratio for younger women, compared with older women. A decade later, it had become widely accepted that MHT should not be used for the prevention of chronic disease in older women; however, short-term use for treatment of vasomotor symptoms remains an accepted indication.
 

Risks and outcomes

Emerging from a series of WHI reports are complex models on the effect of hormonal therapy on the risk and outcome of breast cancer. In one study, women with an intact uterus received CEEs plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA). An increase in the risk of breast cancer was observed over a median of 5.6 years of treatment, followed by a moderate reduction, with the risk increasing after 13 years of cumulative follow-up. For women treated with CEE alone, the reduction in risk observed over an average of 7.2 years of treatment was maintained for 13 years of follow-up.

Results from observational studies contrast with those from randomized controlled trials, particularly those concerning the use of estrogens only. A meta-analysis by the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer showed that both EPT and CEE were associated with a higher risk of breast neoplasia. Results of the Million Women Study showed a higher death rate.
 

Treatment methods and duration

Information from prospective studies on the effects of commencing MHT at various ages between 40 and 59 years show that for women who commenced treatment at any time within this age range, the relative risk was similar and was highly significant for all ages. Few women had started MHT treatment well after menopause at ages 60-69 years, and their excess risks during years 5-14 of current use were significant for estrogen-progestogen but not for estrogen-only MHT.

If these associations are largely causal, then for women of average weight in developed countries, 5 years of MHT, starting at age 50 years, would increase breast cancer incidence at ages 50-69 years by about 1 in every 50 users of estrogen plus daily progestogen preparations; 1 in every 70 users of estrogen plus intermittent progestogen preparations; and 1 in every 200 users of estrogen-only preparations. The corresponding excesses from 10 years of MHT would be about twice as great.

During 5-14 years of MHT use, the RRs were similarly increased if MHT use had started at ages 40-44 years, 45-49 years, 50-54 years, and 55-59 years; RRs appeared to be attenuated if MHT use had started after age 60 years. They were also attenuated by adiposity, particularly for estrogen-only MHT (which had little effect in obese women). After MHT use ceased, some excess risk of breast cancer persisted for more than a decade; this is directly correlated with the duration of treatment.

Therefore, it can be expected that the effects of MHT may vary between participants on the basis of age or time since menopause, as well as treatments (MHT type, dose, formulation, duration of use, and route of administration). Regarding formulation effects on the risk of breast cancer, new evidence shows an increased risk of 28%. Progestogens appeared to be differentially associated with breast cancer (micronized progesterone: odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.55-1.79; synthetic progestin: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.35). When prescribing MHT, micronized progesterone may be the safer progestogen to use.

In conclusion, MHT has a complex balance of benefits and risk on various health outcomes. Some effects differ qualitatively between ET and EPT. Regarding use of MHT, consideration should be given to the full range of effects, along with patients’ values and preferences. The overall quality of existing systematic reviews is moderate to poor. Clinicians should evaluate their scientific strength before considering applying their results in clinical practice. Regarding use of any hormone therapy regimen, consideration should be given to the full range of risk and benefits and should involve shared decisionmaking with the patient. It should be recognized that risk-benefit balance is altered by factors such as age, time from menopause, oophorectomy status, and prior hysterectomy and that some outcomes persist and there is some attenuation after stopping use.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with type 1 diabetes may need additional glucose after exercise during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, compared with other times, according to a study in nine women.

“We know that exercise is very beneficial for people with type 1 diabetes; we also know that fear of hypoglycemia is a major barrier to exercise in this population,” said Jane E. Yardley, PhD, in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, New Orleans. Women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) perceive more barriers, compared with men, she added.

The menstrual cycle could be an additional barrier to exercise for women with T1D because it increases glucose fluctuations that have not been well documented in the literature to date, said Dr. Yardley, of the University of Alberta, Augustana.

The follicular phase of the menstrual cycle lasts from menses to the midcycle, about 14 days later. This is followed by the luteal phase, which lasts until approximately day 28, Dr. Yardley explained. Data on insulin sensitivity have shown that the late luteal phase is associated with “a little less insulin sensitivity” in women with T1D, she noted.

To assess the relationship between menstrual cycle, glucose control, and exercise, Dr. Yardley and colleagues compared the effects of a moderate aerobic exercise on glycemic responses between the early follicular and late luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in nine female participants with T1D.

The exercise involved 45 minutes of aerobic cycling at 50% of predetermined peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) for 45 min. The mean age of the participants was 30.2 years, the mean hemoglobin A1C was 7.4%, and the mean VO2peak was 32.5 mL/kg per min. The women reported regular menstrual cycles, and none were using oral contraceptives.

Blood samples were collected before and immediately after exercise and after an hour of recovery. Participants wore continuous glucose monitors for at least 1 hour before and after exercise.

Menstrual cycle was confirmed via estrogen, estradiol, and progesterone.

Insulin levels varied greatly among the study participants, but the differences were not significant, Dr. Yardley said. Glucose levels consistently decreased during exercise and increased after exercise, she noted.

No significant difference in glucose was observed between the follicular and luteal phases.

However, “this needs to be interpreted in the context of the safety profiles that are in place in our lab,” which include carbohydrate supplements for individuals whose blood glucose levels drop below 4.5 mmol/L, she said.

In the current study, 6 of 9 participants required additional carbohydrates during the luteal phase, but only 1 participant needed additional carbohydrates during the follicular phase, she noted. For this reason, no differences were noted. “We actually prevented changes,” she said.

No significant differences were noted in mean glucose levels or number of hypoglycemic episodes at any of the time points between the two phases.

“One place where we did see a difference was in hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise,” Dr. Yardley said. Level 1 hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise was significantly more frequent in the follicular phase, compared with the luteal phase (P = .028).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and homogenous population, and more research is needed to interpret the data, said Dr. Yardley.

However, the need for more glucose supplementation to prevent hypoglycemia during the luteal phase suggests a higher hypoglycemic risk associated with aerobic exercise during this time, she said.

In addition, the results suggest that the menstrual cycle should be taken into consideration when female participants are involved in exercise studies, she noted.

Study supports personalized exercise plans

“It is important to evaluate effects of exercise in people with type 1 diabetes and evaluate whether there is a difference those effects in men and women,” said Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., in an interview. “There is also a need to evaluate to what extent the changes in blood glucose patterns in women in response to exercise differ depending on the phase of the ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved in the study.

In the current study, “the researchers observed a decline in glucose during a 45-minute period of moderate aerobic exercise, cycling at 50% VO2peak followed by an increase during a 60-minute recovery period. There was a suggestive finding, in the nine subjects, that more carbohydrate supplementation was needed during the late luteal phase of the menstrual cycle than during the follicular phase,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “In contrast, the authors reported a significantly increased degree of hyperglycemia during the recovery phase for subjects during the follicular phase. These findings are consistent with and extend several recent studies from Dr. Yardley and coworkers, who have been focused on this area of research,” she said.

“This study provides provocative evidence that glucose responses to aerobic exercise in women may depend on the timing in relationship to their ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard. “These findings are based on a small group of subjects and were present in some but not all subjects. Clinicians should encourage women to evaluate and record their experiences during and after exercise in terms of need for carbohydrate supplementation for documented or symptomatic hypoglycemia and in terms of glucose changes as recorded using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), both in relation to type of exercise and in relation to time in the menstrual cycle,” she said.

The findings also highlight the importance of individualized therapy that is “based on subjective inputs combined with analysis of CGM data during and following exercise,” said Dr. Rodbard. “It is likely that use of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) will be helpful in achieving this level of individualization in view of the wide range of types, intensity, and duration of physical activity and exercise in which people with T1D engage and the myriad factors that can influence the glycemic response,” she said.

Looking ahead, “the authors and others should expand the present series of subjects using aerobic exercise and examine other types of exercise as well,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “It will be important to evaluate the consistency of these changes in glucose patterns within individuals on multiple occasions, and it would be helpful to repeat the studies in women using oral contraceptives.”

Dr. Yardley disclosed research support from Abbott, Dexcom, and LifeScan and disclosed serving on the speaker’s bureau for Abbott Diabetes. Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. She serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Clinical Endocrinology News.

Women with type 1 diabetes may need additional glucose after exercise during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, compared with other times, according to a study in nine women.

“We know that exercise is very beneficial for people with type 1 diabetes; we also know that fear of hypoglycemia is a major barrier to exercise in this population,” said Jane E. Yardley, PhD, in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, New Orleans. Women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) perceive more barriers, compared with men, she added.

The menstrual cycle could be an additional barrier to exercise for women with T1D because it increases glucose fluctuations that have not been well documented in the literature to date, said Dr. Yardley, of the University of Alberta, Augustana.

The follicular phase of the menstrual cycle lasts from menses to the midcycle, about 14 days later. This is followed by the luteal phase, which lasts until approximately day 28, Dr. Yardley explained. Data on insulin sensitivity have shown that the late luteal phase is associated with “a little less insulin sensitivity” in women with T1D, she noted.

To assess the relationship between menstrual cycle, glucose control, and exercise, Dr. Yardley and colleagues compared the effects of a moderate aerobic exercise on glycemic responses between the early follicular and late luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in nine female participants with T1D.

The exercise involved 45 minutes of aerobic cycling at 50% of predetermined peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) for 45 min. The mean age of the participants was 30.2 years, the mean hemoglobin A1C was 7.4%, and the mean VO2peak was 32.5 mL/kg per min. The women reported regular menstrual cycles, and none were using oral contraceptives.

Blood samples were collected before and immediately after exercise and after an hour of recovery. Participants wore continuous glucose monitors for at least 1 hour before and after exercise.

Menstrual cycle was confirmed via estrogen, estradiol, and progesterone.

Insulin levels varied greatly among the study participants, but the differences were not significant, Dr. Yardley said. Glucose levels consistently decreased during exercise and increased after exercise, she noted.

No significant difference in glucose was observed between the follicular and luteal phases.

However, “this needs to be interpreted in the context of the safety profiles that are in place in our lab,” which include carbohydrate supplements for individuals whose blood glucose levels drop below 4.5 mmol/L, she said.

In the current study, 6 of 9 participants required additional carbohydrates during the luteal phase, but only 1 participant needed additional carbohydrates during the follicular phase, she noted. For this reason, no differences were noted. “We actually prevented changes,” she said.

No significant differences were noted in mean glucose levels or number of hypoglycemic episodes at any of the time points between the two phases.

“One place where we did see a difference was in hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise,” Dr. Yardley said. Level 1 hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise was significantly more frequent in the follicular phase, compared with the luteal phase (P = .028).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and homogenous population, and more research is needed to interpret the data, said Dr. Yardley.

However, the need for more glucose supplementation to prevent hypoglycemia during the luteal phase suggests a higher hypoglycemic risk associated with aerobic exercise during this time, she said.

In addition, the results suggest that the menstrual cycle should be taken into consideration when female participants are involved in exercise studies, she noted.

Study supports personalized exercise plans

“It is important to evaluate effects of exercise in people with type 1 diabetes and evaluate whether there is a difference those effects in men and women,” said Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., in an interview. “There is also a need to evaluate to what extent the changes in blood glucose patterns in women in response to exercise differ depending on the phase of the ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved in the study.

In the current study, “the researchers observed a decline in glucose during a 45-minute period of moderate aerobic exercise, cycling at 50% VO2peak followed by an increase during a 60-minute recovery period. There was a suggestive finding, in the nine subjects, that more carbohydrate supplementation was needed during the late luteal phase of the menstrual cycle than during the follicular phase,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “In contrast, the authors reported a significantly increased degree of hyperglycemia during the recovery phase for subjects during the follicular phase. These findings are consistent with and extend several recent studies from Dr. Yardley and coworkers, who have been focused on this area of research,” she said.

“This study provides provocative evidence that glucose responses to aerobic exercise in women may depend on the timing in relationship to their ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard. “These findings are based on a small group of subjects and were present in some but not all subjects. Clinicians should encourage women to evaluate and record their experiences during and after exercise in terms of need for carbohydrate supplementation for documented or symptomatic hypoglycemia and in terms of glucose changes as recorded using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), both in relation to type of exercise and in relation to time in the menstrual cycle,” she said.

The findings also highlight the importance of individualized therapy that is “based on subjective inputs combined with analysis of CGM data during and following exercise,” said Dr. Rodbard. “It is likely that use of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) will be helpful in achieving this level of individualization in view of the wide range of types, intensity, and duration of physical activity and exercise in which people with T1D engage and the myriad factors that can influence the glycemic response,” she said.

Looking ahead, “the authors and others should expand the present series of subjects using aerobic exercise and examine other types of exercise as well,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “It will be important to evaluate the consistency of these changes in glucose patterns within individuals on multiple occasions, and it would be helpful to repeat the studies in women using oral contraceptives.”

Dr. Yardley disclosed research support from Abbott, Dexcom, and LifeScan and disclosed serving on the speaker’s bureau for Abbott Diabetes. Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. She serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Clinical Endocrinology News.

Women with type 1 diabetes may need additional glucose after exercise during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, compared with other times, according to a study in nine women.

“We know that exercise is very beneficial for people with type 1 diabetes; we also know that fear of hypoglycemia is a major barrier to exercise in this population,” said Jane E. Yardley, PhD, in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, New Orleans. Women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) perceive more barriers, compared with men, she added.

The menstrual cycle could be an additional barrier to exercise for women with T1D because it increases glucose fluctuations that have not been well documented in the literature to date, said Dr. Yardley, of the University of Alberta, Augustana.

The follicular phase of the menstrual cycle lasts from menses to the midcycle, about 14 days later. This is followed by the luteal phase, which lasts until approximately day 28, Dr. Yardley explained. Data on insulin sensitivity have shown that the late luteal phase is associated with “a little less insulin sensitivity” in women with T1D, she noted.

To assess the relationship between menstrual cycle, glucose control, and exercise, Dr. Yardley and colleagues compared the effects of a moderate aerobic exercise on glycemic responses between the early follicular and late luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in nine female participants with T1D.

The exercise involved 45 minutes of aerobic cycling at 50% of predetermined peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) for 45 min. The mean age of the participants was 30.2 years, the mean hemoglobin A1C was 7.4%, and the mean VO2peak was 32.5 mL/kg per min. The women reported regular menstrual cycles, and none were using oral contraceptives.

Blood samples were collected before and immediately after exercise and after an hour of recovery. Participants wore continuous glucose monitors for at least 1 hour before and after exercise.

Menstrual cycle was confirmed via estrogen, estradiol, and progesterone.

Insulin levels varied greatly among the study participants, but the differences were not significant, Dr. Yardley said. Glucose levels consistently decreased during exercise and increased after exercise, she noted.

No significant difference in glucose was observed between the follicular and luteal phases.

However, “this needs to be interpreted in the context of the safety profiles that are in place in our lab,” which include carbohydrate supplements for individuals whose blood glucose levels drop below 4.5 mmol/L, she said.

In the current study, 6 of 9 participants required additional carbohydrates during the luteal phase, but only 1 participant needed additional carbohydrates during the follicular phase, she noted. For this reason, no differences were noted. “We actually prevented changes,” she said.

No significant differences were noted in mean glucose levels or number of hypoglycemic episodes at any of the time points between the two phases.

“One place where we did see a difference was in hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise,” Dr. Yardley said. Level 1 hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise was significantly more frequent in the follicular phase, compared with the luteal phase (P = .028).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and homogenous population, and more research is needed to interpret the data, said Dr. Yardley.

However, the need for more glucose supplementation to prevent hypoglycemia during the luteal phase suggests a higher hypoglycemic risk associated with aerobic exercise during this time, she said.

In addition, the results suggest that the menstrual cycle should be taken into consideration when female participants are involved in exercise studies, she noted.

Study supports personalized exercise plans

“It is important to evaluate effects of exercise in people with type 1 diabetes and evaluate whether there is a difference those effects in men and women,” said Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., in an interview. “There is also a need to evaluate to what extent the changes in blood glucose patterns in women in response to exercise differ depending on the phase of the ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved in the study.

In the current study, “the researchers observed a decline in glucose during a 45-minute period of moderate aerobic exercise, cycling at 50% VO2peak followed by an increase during a 60-minute recovery period. There was a suggestive finding, in the nine subjects, that more carbohydrate supplementation was needed during the late luteal phase of the menstrual cycle than during the follicular phase,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “In contrast, the authors reported a significantly increased degree of hyperglycemia during the recovery phase for subjects during the follicular phase. These findings are consistent with and extend several recent studies from Dr. Yardley and coworkers, who have been focused on this area of research,” she said.

“This study provides provocative evidence that glucose responses to aerobic exercise in women may depend on the timing in relationship to their ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard. “These findings are based on a small group of subjects and were present in some but not all subjects. Clinicians should encourage women to evaluate and record their experiences during and after exercise in terms of need for carbohydrate supplementation for documented or symptomatic hypoglycemia and in terms of glucose changes as recorded using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), both in relation to type of exercise and in relation to time in the menstrual cycle,” she said.

The findings also highlight the importance of individualized therapy that is “based on subjective inputs combined with analysis of CGM data during and following exercise,” said Dr. Rodbard. “It is likely that use of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) will be helpful in achieving this level of individualization in view of the wide range of types, intensity, and duration of physical activity and exercise in which people with T1D engage and the myriad factors that can influence the glycemic response,” she said.

Looking ahead, “the authors and others should expand the present series of subjects using aerobic exercise and examine other types of exercise as well,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “It will be important to evaluate the consistency of these changes in glucose patterns within individuals on multiple occasions, and it would be helpful to repeat the studies in women using oral contraceptives.”

Dr. Yardley disclosed research support from Abbott, Dexcom, and LifeScan and disclosed serving on the speaker’s bureau for Abbott Diabetes. Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. She serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Clinical Endocrinology News.

Several national antiabortion advocacy groups and lawmakers in Republican-led states are pushing forward with plans to block people from crossing state lines to seek the procedure elsewhere. 
Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last week, several states have enacted "trigger ban" laws to stop abortion, particularly across the Southeast and Midwest. As part of that, antiabortion groups are building momentum around the idea of blocking out-of-state travel as well, even discussing it at two national antiabortion conferences last weekend, according to The Washington Post. 
"Just because you jump across a state line doesn't mean your home state doesn't have jurisdiction," Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel for the Thomas More Society, told the newspaper. 
"It's not a free abortion card when you drive across the state line," he said. 
The Thomas More Society, a conservative legal organization, is drafting model legislation for state lawmakers to use, which would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a resident end a pregnancy outside of a state that has banned abortion. The draft language borrows from the recent Texas abortion ban, which allows private citizens to enforce the law through civil litigation. 
The National Association of Christian Lawmakers, an antiabortion organization led by Republican state legislators, has also begun working with the authors of the Texas abortion ban, the Post reported. The group is exploring model legislation that would restrict people from crossing state lines for abortions. 
Relying on private citizens to enforce civil litigation, rather than imposing a state-enforced ban on crossing state lines, could make these laws more difficult to challenge in court. 
What's more, the legislation could have a chilling effect on doctors, who may stop performing abortions on people from other states while waiting on courts to intervene and overturn the laws, the newspaper reported. 
Not every antiabortion group is supporting the idea. Catherine Glenn Foster, president of Americans United for Life, said that people access medical procedures across state lines often. 
"I don't think you can prevent that," she said. 
But some states may still propose these types of bills this year. Legislators in Arkansas and South Dakota, for instance, have already planned special sessions to discuss abortion legislation, which could include the issue. Lawmakers in Missouri have also supported the idea. 
In contrast, several Democrat-led states have passed legislation this year to counteract laws that may try to restrict movement across state lines, according to the Post. Connecticut passed a law that offers protection from out-of-state subpoenas issued in cases related to abortion procedures that are legal in the state, and California passed a similar law to protect abortion providers and patients from civil suits. 
The Justice Department has warned that it will fight laws that block people from crossing state lines, saying they violate the right to interstate commerce. 
"The Constitution continues to restrict states' authority to ban reproductive services provided outside their borders," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement after last week's ruling. 
"We recognize that traveling to obtain reproductive care may not be feasible in many circumstances," he said. "But under bedrock constitutional principles, women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal."

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

Several national antiabortion advocacy groups and lawmakers in Republican-led states are pushing forward with plans to block people from crossing state lines to seek the procedure elsewhere. 
Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last week, several states have enacted "trigger ban" laws to stop abortion, particularly across the Southeast and Midwest. As part of that, antiabortion groups are building momentum around the idea of blocking out-of-state travel as well, even discussing it at two national antiabortion conferences last weekend, according to The Washington Post. 
"Just because you jump across a state line doesn't mean your home state doesn't have jurisdiction," Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel for the Thomas More Society, told the newspaper. 
"It's not a free abortion card when you drive across the state line," he said. 
The Thomas More Society, a conservative legal organization, is drafting model legislation for state lawmakers to use, which would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a resident end a pregnancy outside of a state that has banned abortion. The draft language borrows from the recent Texas abortion ban, which allows private citizens to enforce the law through civil litigation. 
The National Association of Christian Lawmakers, an antiabortion organization led by Republican state legislators, has also begun working with the authors of the Texas abortion ban, the Post reported. The group is exploring model legislation that would restrict people from crossing state lines for abortions. 
Relying on private citizens to enforce civil litigation, rather than imposing a state-enforced ban on crossing state lines, could make these laws more difficult to challenge in court. 
What's more, the legislation could have a chilling effect on doctors, who may stop performing abortions on people from other states while waiting on courts to intervene and overturn the laws, the newspaper reported. 
Not every antiabortion group is supporting the idea. Catherine Glenn Foster, president of Americans United for Life, said that people access medical procedures across state lines often. 
"I don't think you can prevent that," she said. 
But some states may still propose these types of bills this year. Legislators in Arkansas and South Dakota, for instance, have already planned special sessions to discuss abortion legislation, which could include the issue. Lawmakers in Missouri have also supported the idea. 
In contrast, several Democrat-led states have passed legislation this year to counteract laws that may try to restrict movement across state lines, according to the Post. Connecticut passed a law that offers protection from out-of-state subpoenas issued in cases related to abortion procedures that are legal in the state, and California passed a similar law to protect abortion providers and patients from civil suits. 
The Justice Department has warned that it will fight laws that block people from crossing state lines, saying they violate the right to interstate commerce. 
"The Constitution continues to restrict states' authority to ban reproductive services provided outside their borders," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement after last week's ruling. 
"We recognize that traveling to obtain reproductive care may not be feasible in many circumstances," he said. "But under bedrock constitutional principles, women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal."

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

Several national antiabortion advocacy groups and lawmakers in Republican-led states are pushing forward with plans to block people from crossing state lines to seek the procedure elsewhere. 
Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last week, several states have enacted "trigger ban" laws to stop abortion, particularly across the Southeast and Midwest. As part of that, antiabortion groups are building momentum around the idea of blocking out-of-state travel as well, even discussing it at two national antiabortion conferences last weekend, according to The Washington Post. 
"Just because you jump across a state line doesn't mean your home state doesn't have jurisdiction," Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel for the Thomas More Society, told the newspaper. 
"It's not a free abortion card when you drive across the state line," he said. 
The Thomas More Society, a conservative legal organization, is drafting model legislation for state lawmakers to use, which would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a resident end a pregnancy outside of a state that has banned abortion. The draft language borrows from the recent Texas abortion ban, which allows private citizens to enforce the law through civil litigation. 
The National Association of Christian Lawmakers, an antiabortion organization led by Republican state legislators, has also begun working with the authors of the Texas abortion ban, the Post reported. The group is exploring model legislation that would restrict people from crossing state lines for abortions. 
Relying on private citizens to enforce civil litigation, rather than imposing a state-enforced ban on crossing state lines, could make these laws more difficult to challenge in court. 
What's more, the legislation could have a chilling effect on doctors, who may stop performing abortions on people from other states while waiting on courts to intervene and overturn the laws, the newspaper reported. 
Not every antiabortion group is supporting the idea. Catherine Glenn Foster, president of Americans United for Life, said that people access medical procedures across state lines often. 
"I don't think you can prevent that," she said. 
But some states may still propose these types of bills this year. Legislators in Arkansas and South Dakota, for instance, have already planned special sessions to discuss abortion legislation, which could include the issue. Lawmakers in Missouri have also supported the idea. 
In contrast, several Democrat-led states have passed legislation this year to counteract laws that may try to restrict movement across state lines, according to the Post. Connecticut passed a law that offers protection from out-of-state subpoenas issued in cases related to abortion procedures that are legal in the state, and California passed a similar law to protect abortion providers and patients from civil suits. 
The Justice Department has warned that it will fight laws that block people from crossing state lines, saying they violate the right to interstate commerce. 
"The Constitution continues to restrict states' authority to ban reproductive services provided outside their borders," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement after last week's ruling. 
"We recognize that traveling to obtain reproductive care may not be feasible in many circumstances," he said. "But under bedrock constitutional principles, women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal."

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

Cannabis users had a 22% increased risk of an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization compared to nonusers, as determined from data from more than 30,000 individuals.

Although cannabis contains compounds similar to tobacco, “data published on the association between cannabis smoking and airways health have been contradictory,” and whether smoking cannabis increases a user’s risk of developing acute respiratory illness remains unclear, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

Smithore/Getty Images

In a study published in BMJ Open Respiratory Research, the investigators reviewed national health records data from 35,114 individuals aged 12-65 years for the period January 2009 to December 2015. Of these persons, 4,807 of the 6,425 who reported cannabis use in the past year were matched with 10,395 never-users who served as controls. The mean age of the study population at the index date was 35 years, and 42% were women; demographics were similar between users and control persons.

Overall, the odds of respiratory-related emergency department visits or hospitalizations were not significantly different between the cannabis users and the control persons (3.6% vs. 3.9%; odds ratio, 0.91). However, cannabis users had significantly greater odds of all-cause ED visits or hospitalizations (30.0% vs. 26.0%; OR, 1.22). All-cause mortality was 0.2% for both groups.

Respiratory problems were the second-highest reason for all-cause visits, the researchers noted. The lack of a difference in respiratory-related visits between cannabis users and nonusers conflicts somewhat with previous studies on this topic, which were limited, the researchers noted in their discussion.

The negative results also might stem from factors for which the researchers could not adjust, including insufficient cannabis smoke exposure among users in the study population, noninhalational cannabis use, which is less likely to have a respiratory effect, and possible secondhand exposure among control persons.

“It is also possible that our analysis might have been insufficiently powered to detect a significant signal with respect to the primary outcome,” they noted.

However, after the researchers controlled for multiple variables, the risk of an equally important morbidity outcome, all-cause ED visits or hospitalizations, was significantly greater among cannabis users than among control individuals, and respiratory reasons were the second most common cause for ED visits and hospitalizations in the all-cause outcome, they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective and observational design and the inability to control for all confounding variables, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the use of self-reports and potential for bias, the inability to perform dose-response analysis, and the high number of infrequent cannabis users in the study population.

However, the results suggest that cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of serious health events and should be discouraged, although more research is needed to confirm the current study findings, they concluded.
 

Consider range of causes for cannabis emergency visits

“With growing numbers of states legalizing recreational use of cannabis, it’s important to understand whether cannabis use is associated with increased emergency department visits,” Robert D. Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, told this news organization.

Previous studies have shown an association between increased ED visits and cannabis use in states, especially with edibles, where cannabis is legal, and “the current study reinforces the elevated risk of ED visits along with hospitalizations,” he said.

“While the researchers found no increased risk of respiratory-related complaints among users compared to the general population, there was an associated increase in ED visits and hospitalizations, which is important to understand,” said Dr. Glatter, who was not involved in the study.

“While this observational study found that the incidence of respiratory complaints was not significantly different among frequent users of cannabis, the increased odds that cannabis users would require evaluation in the emergency room or even hospitalization was still apparent even after the investigators controlled for such factors as use of alcohol, tobacco, illicit drug use, or other mental health–related disorders,” Dr. Glatter noted.

“That said, it’s a bit surprising that with the continued popularity of vaping, especially among teens, there was still not any appreciable or significant increase in respiratory complaints observed. Beyond this finding, I was not surprised by the overall conclusions of the current study, as we continue to see an elevated number of patients presenting to the ED with adverse events related to cannabis use.”

Dr. Glatter noted that “the majority of patients we see in the ED are associated with use of edibles, since it takes longer for the person to feel the effects, leading the user to consume more of the product up front, with delayed effects lasting up to 12 hours. This is what gets people into trouble and leads to toxicity of cannabis, or ‘overdoses,’ “ he explained.

When consuming edible cannabis products, “[p]eople need to begin at low dosages and not take additional gummies up front, since it can take up to 2 or even 3 hours in some cases to feel the initial effects. With the drug’s effects lasting up to 12 hours, it’s especially important to avoid operating any motor vehicles, bicycles, or scooters, since reaction time is impaired, as well as overall judgment, balance, and fine motor skills,” Dr. Glatter said.

Cannabis can land users in the ED for a range of reasons, said Dr. Glatter. “According to the study, 15% of the emergency room visits and hospitalizations were due to acute trauma, 14% due to respiratory issues, and 13% to gastrointestinal illnesses. These effects were seen in first-time users but not those with chronic use, according to the study inclusion criteria.”

Cannabis use could result in physical injuries through “impaired judgment, coordination, combined with an altered state of consciousness or generalized drowsiness, that could contribute to an increase in motor vehicle collisions, along with an increased risk for falls leading to lacerations, fractures, contusions, or bruising,” said Dr. Glatter. “Cannabis may also lead to an altered sense of perception related to interactions with others, resulting in feelings of anxiety or restlessness culminating in physical altercations and other injuries.”

The current study indicates the need for understanding the potential physical and psychological effects of cannabis use, he said.

“Additional research is needed to better understand the relative percentage cases related to edibles vs. inhalation presenting to the ED,” he noted. “There is no question that edibles continue to present significant dangers for those who don’t read labels or remain poorly informed regarding their dosing as a result of delayed onset and longer duration,” he said. To help reduce risk of toxicity, the concept of a “high lasting 12-15 hours, as with edibles, as opposed to 3-4 hours from inhalation must be clearly stated on packaging and better communicated with users, as the toxicity with edibles is more often from lack of prior knowledge about onset of effects related to dosing.”

In addition, the “potential for psychosis to develop with more chronic cannabis use, along with cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome should be on every clinician’s radar,” Dr. Glatter emphasized.

“The bottom line is that as more states legalize the use of cannabis, it’s vital to also implement comprehensive public education efforts to provide users with the reported risks associated with not only inhalation (vaping or flower) but also edibles, which account for an increasingly greater percentage of ED visits and associated adverse effects,” he said.

The study was supported by the Lung Association–Ontario, as well as by grants from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. The researchers and Dr. Glatter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cannabis users had a 22% increased risk of an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization compared to nonusers, as determined from data from more than 30,000 individuals.

Although cannabis contains compounds similar to tobacco, “data published on the association between cannabis smoking and airways health have been contradictory,” and whether smoking cannabis increases a user’s risk of developing acute respiratory illness remains unclear, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

Smithore/Getty Images

In a study published in BMJ Open Respiratory Research, the investigators reviewed national health records data from 35,114 individuals aged 12-65 years for the period January 2009 to December 2015. Of these persons, 4,807 of the 6,425 who reported cannabis use in the past year were matched with 10,395 never-users who served as controls. The mean age of the study population at the index date was 35 years, and 42% were women; demographics were similar between users and control persons.

Overall, the odds of respiratory-related emergency department visits or hospitalizations were not significantly different between the cannabis users and the control persons (3.6% vs. 3.9%; odds ratio, 0.91). However, cannabis users had significantly greater odds of all-cause ED visits or hospitalizations (30.0% vs. 26.0%; OR, 1.22). All-cause mortality was 0.2% for both groups.

Respiratory problems were the second-highest reason for all-cause visits, the researchers noted. The lack of a difference in respiratory-related visits between cannabis users and nonusers conflicts somewhat with previous studies on this topic, which were limited, the researchers noted in their discussion.

The negative results also might stem from factors for which the researchers could not adjust, including insufficient cannabis smoke exposure among users in the study population, noninhalational cannabis use, which is less likely to have a respiratory effect, and possible secondhand exposure among control persons.

“It is also possible that our analysis might have been insufficiently powered to detect a significant signal with respect to the primary outcome,” they noted.

However, after the researchers controlled for multiple variables, the risk of an equally important morbidity outcome, all-cause ED visits or hospitalizations, was significantly greater among cannabis users than among control individuals, and respiratory reasons were the second most common cause for ED visits and hospitalizations in the all-cause outcome, they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective and observational design and the inability to control for all confounding variables, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the use of self-reports and potential for bias, the inability to perform dose-response analysis, and the high number of infrequent cannabis users in the study population.

However, the results suggest that cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of serious health events and should be discouraged, although more research is needed to confirm the current study findings, they concluded.
 

Consider range of causes for cannabis emergency visits

“With growing numbers of states legalizing recreational use of cannabis, it’s important to understand whether cannabis use is associated with increased emergency department visits,” Robert D. Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, told this news organization.

Previous studies have shown an association between increased ED visits and cannabis use in states, especially with edibles, where cannabis is legal, and “the current study reinforces the elevated risk of ED visits along with hospitalizations,” he said.

“While the researchers found no increased risk of respiratory-related complaints among users compared to the general population, there was an associated increase in ED visits and hospitalizations, which is important to understand,” said Dr. Glatter, who was not involved in the study.

“While this observational study found that the incidence of respiratory complaints was not significantly different among frequent users of cannabis, the increased odds that cannabis users would require evaluation in the emergency room or even hospitalization was still apparent even after the investigators controlled for such factors as use of alcohol, tobacco, illicit drug use, or other mental health–related disorders,” Dr. Glatter noted.

“That said, it’s a bit surprising that with the continued popularity of vaping, especially among teens, there was still not any appreciable or significant increase in respiratory complaints observed. Beyond this finding, I was not surprised by the overall conclusions of the current study, as we continue to see an elevated number of patients presenting to the ED with adverse events related to cannabis use.”

Dr. Glatter noted that “the majority of patients we see in the ED are associated with use of edibles, since it takes longer for the person to feel the effects, leading the user to consume more of the product up front, with delayed effects lasting up to 12 hours. This is what gets people into trouble and leads to toxicity of cannabis, or ‘overdoses,’ “ he explained.

When consuming edible cannabis products, “[p]eople need to begin at low dosages and not take additional gummies up front, since it can take up to 2 or even 3 hours in some cases to feel the initial effects. With the drug’s effects lasting up to 12 hours, it’s especially important to avoid operating any motor vehicles, bicycles, or scooters, since reaction time is impaired, as well as overall judgment, balance, and fine motor skills,” Dr. Glatter said.

Cannabis can land users in the ED for a range of reasons, said Dr. Glatter. “According to the study, 15% of the emergency room visits and hospitalizations were due to acute trauma, 14% due to respiratory issues, and 13% to gastrointestinal illnesses. These effects were seen in first-time users but not those with chronic use, according to the study inclusion criteria.”

Cannabis use could result in physical injuries through “impaired judgment, coordination, combined with an altered state of consciousness or generalized drowsiness, that could contribute to an increase in motor vehicle collisions, along with an increased risk for falls leading to lacerations, fractures, contusions, or bruising,” said Dr. Glatter. “Cannabis may also lead to an altered sense of perception related to interactions with others, resulting in feelings of anxiety or restlessness culminating in physical altercations and other injuries.”

The current study indicates the need for understanding the potential physical and psychological effects of cannabis use, he said.

“Additional research is needed to better understand the relative percentage cases related to edibles vs. inhalation presenting to the ED,” he noted. “There is no question that edibles continue to present significant dangers for those who don’t read labels or remain poorly informed regarding their dosing as a result of delayed onset and longer duration,” he said. To help reduce risk of toxicity, the concept of a “high lasting 12-15 hours, as with edibles, as opposed to 3-4 hours from inhalation must be clearly stated on packaging and better communicated with users, as the toxicity with edibles is more often from lack of prior knowledge about onset of effects related to dosing.”

In addition, the “potential for psychosis to develop with more chronic cannabis use, along with cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome should be on every clinician’s radar,” Dr. Glatter emphasized.

“The bottom line is that as more states legalize the use of cannabis, it’s vital to also implement comprehensive public education efforts to provide users with the reported risks associated with not only inhalation (vaping or flower) but also edibles, which account for an increasingly greater percentage of ED visits and associated adverse effects,” he said.

The study was supported by the Lung Association–Ontario, as well as by grants from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. The researchers and Dr. Glatter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cannabis users had a 22% increased risk of an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization compared to nonusers, as determined from data from more than 30,000 individuals.

Although cannabis contains compounds similar to tobacco, “data published on the association between cannabis smoking and airways health have been contradictory,” and whether smoking cannabis increases a user’s risk of developing acute respiratory illness remains unclear, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

Smithore/Getty Images

In a study published in BMJ Open Respiratory Research, the investigators reviewed national health records data from 35,114 individuals aged 12-65 years for the period January 2009 to December 2015. Of these persons, 4,807 of the 6,425 who reported cannabis use in the past year were matched with 10,395 never-users who served as controls. The mean age of the study population at the index date was 35 years, and 42% were women; demographics were similar between users and control persons.

Overall, the odds of respiratory-related emergency department visits or hospitalizations were not significantly different between the cannabis users and the control persons (3.6% vs. 3.9%; odds ratio, 0.91). However, cannabis users had significantly greater odds of all-cause ED visits or hospitalizations (30.0% vs. 26.0%; OR, 1.22). All-cause mortality was 0.2% for both groups.

Respiratory problems were the second-highest reason for all-cause visits, the researchers noted. The lack of a difference in respiratory-related visits between cannabis users and nonusers conflicts somewhat with previous studies on this topic, which were limited, the researchers noted in their discussion.

The negative results also might stem from factors for which the researchers could not adjust, including insufficient cannabis smoke exposure among users in the study population, noninhalational cannabis use, which is less likely to have a respiratory effect, and possible secondhand exposure among control persons.

“It is also possible that our analysis might have been insufficiently powered to detect a significant signal with respect to the primary outcome,” they noted.

However, after the researchers controlled for multiple variables, the risk of an equally important morbidity outcome, all-cause ED visits or hospitalizations, was significantly greater among cannabis users than among control individuals, and respiratory reasons were the second most common cause for ED visits and hospitalizations in the all-cause outcome, they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective and observational design and the inability to control for all confounding variables, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the use of self-reports and potential for bias, the inability to perform dose-response analysis, and the high number of infrequent cannabis users in the study population.

However, the results suggest that cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of serious health events and should be discouraged, although more research is needed to confirm the current study findings, they concluded.
 

Consider range of causes for cannabis emergency visits

“With growing numbers of states legalizing recreational use of cannabis, it’s important to understand whether cannabis use is associated with increased emergency department visits,” Robert D. Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, told this news organization.

Previous studies have shown an association between increased ED visits and cannabis use in states, especially with edibles, where cannabis is legal, and “the current study reinforces the elevated risk of ED visits along with hospitalizations,” he said.

“While the researchers found no increased risk of respiratory-related complaints among users compared to the general population, there was an associated increase in ED visits and hospitalizations, which is important to understand,” said Dr. Glatter, who was not involved in the study.

“While this observational study found that the incidence of respiratory complaints was not significantly different among frequent users of cannabis, the increased odds that cannabis users would require evaluation in the emergency room or even hospitalization was still apparent even after the investigators controlled for such factors as use of alcohol, tobacco, illicit drug use, or other mental health–related disorders,” Dr. Glatter noted.

“That said, it’s a bit surprising that with the continued popularity of vaping, especially among teens, there was still not any appreciable or significant increase in respiratory complaints observed. Beyond this finding, I was not surprised by the overall conclusions of the current study, as we continue to see an elevated number of patients presenting to the ED with adverse events related to cannabis use.”

Dr. Glatter noted that “the majority of patients we see in the ED are associated with use of edibles, since it takes longer for the person to feel the effects, leading the user to consume more of the product up front, with delayed effects lasting up to 12 hours. This is what gets people into trouble and leads to toxicity of cannabis, or ‘overdoses,’ “ he explained.

When consuming edible cannabis products, “[p]eople need to begin at low dosages and not take additional gummies up front, since it can take up to 2 or even 3 hours in some cases to feel the initial effects. With the drug’s effects lasting up to 12 hours, it’s especially important to avoid operating any motor vehicles, bicycles, or scooters, since reaction time is impaired, as well as overall judgment, balance, and fine motor skills,” Dr. Glatter said.

Cannabis can land users in the ED for a range of reasons, said Dr. Glatter. “According to the study, 15% of the emergency room visits and hospitalizations were due to acute trauma, 14% due to respiratory issues, and 13% to gastrointestinal illnesses. These effects were seen in first-time users but not those with chronic use, according to the study inclusion criteria.”

Cannabis use could result in physical injuries through “impaired judgment, coordination, combined with an altered state of consciousness or generalized drowsiness, that could contribute to an increase in motor vehicle collisions, along with an increased risk for falls leading to lacerations, fractures, contusions, or bruising,” said Dr. Glatter. “Cannabis may also lead to an altered sense of perception related to interactions with others, resulting in feelings of anxiety or restlessness culminating in physical altercations and other injuries.”

The current study indicates the need for understanding the potential physical and psychological effects of cannabis use, he said.

“Additional research is needed to better understand the relative percentage cases related to edibles vs. inhalation presenting to the ED,” he noted. “There is no question that edibles continue to present significant dangers for those who don’t read labels or remain poorly informed regarding their dosing as a result of delayed onset and longer duration,” he said. To help reduce risk of toxicity, the concept of a “high lasting 12-15 hours, as with edibles, as opposed to 3-4 hours from inhalation must be clearly stated on packaging and better communicated with users, as the toxicity with edibles is more often from lack of prior knowledge about onset of effects related to dosing.”

In addition, the “potential for psychosis to develop with more chronic cannabis use, along with cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome should be on every clinician’s radar,” Dr. Glatter emphasized.

“The bottom line is that as more states legalize the use of cannabis, it’s vital to also implement comprehensive public education efforts to provide users with the reported risks associated with not only inhalation (vaping or flower) but also edibles, which account for an increasingly greater percentage of ED visits and associated adverse effects,” he said.

The study was supported by the Lung Association–Ontario, as well as by grants from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. The researchers and Dr. Glatter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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