MDedge ObGyn

Getting a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine did not affect pregnancy rates for women trying to conceive with in vitro fertilization or ovarian response to treatment, findings of a new study indicate.

The study was led by Sarit Avraham, MD, with the IVF unit, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Shamir Medical Center in Tzrifi, Israel. The findings were published online in Fertility and Sterility in a preproof version.

“Women should be vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to attempting to conceive via IVF treatments, given the higher risk of severe illness in pregnant women,” the authors wrote.

Doubts arose from “the theoretical concept of the supposed similarity between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the syncytin protein that is speculated to take part in the fertilization process and the formation of the placenta,” the authors wrote.

Some then assumed that the COVID vaccine might kick off an immune response that could affect implantation and pregnancy. But this study and others before it found otherwise.

Researchers included 200 vaccinated women trying to conceive with IVF treatments in the retrospective study, and compared them with 200 unvaccinated patients of similar age (average age in both groups, 36 years) who were not previously infected with COVID-19. All the women were undergoing IVF from January to April 2021 and all the vaccinated women completed two doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine at least 2 weeks before ovarian stimulation.

Researchers compared the average number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups.
 

No difference between groups

Two hundred patients underwent oocyte retrieval 14-68 days after receiving a COVID shot; there was no significant difference by vaccination status in the number retrieved per cycle (10.63 in the vaccinated group vs. 10.72 in the unvaccinated group; P = .93).

There was also no difference in the clinical pregnancy rates after fresh embryo transfers. The rate among 128 vaccinated patients was 32.8% versus 33.1% in the 133 unvaccinated patients (P = .96), with 42 and 44 clinical pregnancies, respectively.

A total of 113 patients (66 in the study group and 47 in the controls) underwent freeze-all cycles to preserve fertility and fertilization rates were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated (55.43% vaccinated vs. 54.29% unvaccinated; P = .73). The average number of cryopreserved embryos was 3.59 (vaccinated) versus 3.28 (unvaccinated) (P = .80).

In a subanalysis of outcomes by age, researchers found vaccination status had no effect on number of oocytes or pregnancy rates in the 39-and-older group. That’s important because it shows the vaccine did not affect outcomes even in a population with reduced ovarian reserves, the authors wrote.

The authors noted one of the study’s limitations is that it didn’t include information about vaccination or past infection status of the male partners.
 

Question should be put to rest

Sarah Cross, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said the study is the biggest she’s seen that concludes COVID vaccinations are safe and highly encouraged for women before trying to conceive, but other smaller studies have come to the same conclusion.

She pointed to research including a study from 2021 with similar findings that concluded: “Physicians and public health personnel can counsel women of reproductive age that neither previous illness with COVID-19 nor antibodies produced from vaccination to COVID-19 will cause sterility.”

She said she thinks the question of whether COVID shots are safe with IVF has been answered and the results of the latest study add proof to counter misinformation around the issue.

“The COVID-19 vaccine does not affect fertility,” she said. “I don’t know how many more [studies] we need.”

The harm is in not getting vaccinated, she said. Pregnancy significantly increases a woman’s chance of getting severe COVID, the need for hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and risk of death.

“I personally have never had a hospitalized patient who’s been vaccinated,” Dr. Cross said. “The worst thing for the fetus is to have a critically ill mother.”

Dr. Cross, whose high-risk patients include those seeking counseling before IVF, added: “I would counsel all of them that they should absolutely get vaccinated prior to pregnancy, when they’re pregnant, whenever it is, as soon as they possibly can.”

The study authors and Dr. Cross report no relevant financial relationships.

Getting a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine did not affect pregnancy rates for women trying to conceive with in vitro fertilization or ovarian response to treatment, findings of a new study indicate.

The study was led by Sarit Avraham, MD, with the IVF unit, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Shamir Medical Center in Tzrifi, Israel. The findings were published online in Fertility and Sterility in a preproof version.

“Women should be vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to attempting to conceive via IVF treatments, given the higher risk of severe illness in pregnant women,” the authors wrote.

Doubts arose from “the theoretical concept of the supposed similarity between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the syncytin protein that is speculated to take part in the fertilization process and the formation of the placenta,” the authors wrote.

Some then assumed that the COVID vaccine might kick off an immune response that could affect implantation and pregnancy. But this study and others before it found otherwise.

Researchers included 200 vaccinated women trying to conceive with IVF treatments in the retrospective study, and compared them with 200 unvaccinated patients of similar age (average age in both groups, 36 years) who were not previously infected with COVID-19. All the women were undergoing IVF from January to April 2021 and all the vaccinated women completed two doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine at least 2 weeks before ovarian stimulation.

Researchers compared the average number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups.
 

No difference between groups

Two hundred patients underwent oocyte retrieval 14-68 days after receiving a COVID shot; there was no significant difference by vaccination status in the number retrieved per cycle (10.63 in the vaccinated group vs. 10.72 in the unvaccinated group; P = .93).

There was also no difference in the clinical pregnancy rates after fresh embryo transfers. The rate among 128 vaccinated patients was 32.8% versus 33.1% in the 133 unvaccinated patients (P = .96), with 42 and 44 clinical pregnancies, respectively.

A total of 113 patients (66 in the study group and 47 in the controls) underwent freeze-all cycles to preserve fertility and fertilization rates were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated (55.43% vaccinated vs. 54.29% unvaccinated; P = .73). The average number of cryopreserved embryos was 3.59 (vaccinated) versus 3.28 (unvaccinated) (P = .80).

In a subanalysis of outcomes by age, researchers found vaccination status had no effect on number of oocytes or pregnancy rates in the 39-and-older group. That’s important because it shows the vaccine did not affect outcomes even in a population with reduced ovarian reserves, the authors wrote.

The authors noted one of the study’s limitations is that it didn’t include information about vaccination or past infection status of the male partners.
 

Question should be put to rest

Sarah Cross, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said the study is the biggest she’s seen that concludes COVID vaccinations are safe and highly encouraged for women before trying to conceive, but other smaller studies have come to the same conclusion.

She pointed to research including a study from 2021 with similar findings that concluded: “Physicians and public health personnel can counsel women of reproductive age that neither previous illness with COVID-19 nor antibodies produced from vaccination to COVID-19 will cause sterility.”

She said she thinks the question of whether COVID shots are safe with IVF has been answered and the results of the latest study add proof to counter misinformation around the issue.

“The COVID-19 vaccine does not affect fertility,” she said. “I don’t know how many more [studies] we need.”

The harm is in not getting vaccinated, she said. Pregnancy significantly increases a woman’s chance of getting severe COVID, the need for hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and risk of death.

“I personally have never had a hospitalized patient who’s been vaccinated,” Dr. Cross said. “The worst thing for the fetus is to have a critically ill mother.”

Dr. Cross, whose high-risk patients include those seeking counseling before IVF, added: “I would counsel all of them that they should absolutely get vaccinated prior to pregnancy, when they’re pregnant, whenever it is, as soon as they possibly can.”

The study authors and Dr. Cross report no relevant financial relationships.

Getting a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine did not affect pregnancy rates for women trying to conceive with in vitro fertilization or ovarian response to treatment, findings of a new study indicate.

The study was led by Sarit Avraham, MD, with the IVF unit, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Shamir Medical Center in Tzrifi, Israel. The findings were published online in Fertility and Sterility in a preproof version.

“Women should be vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to attempting to conceive via IVF treatments, given the higher risk of severe illness in pregnant women,” the authors wrote.

Doubts arose from “the theoretical concept of the supposed similarity between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the syncytin protein that is speculated to take part in the fertilization process and the formation of the placenta,” the authors wrote.

Some then assumed that the COVID vaccine might kick off an immune response that could affect implantation and pregnancy. But this study and others before it found otherwise.

Researchers included 200 vaccinated women trying to conceive with IVF treatments in the retrospective study, and compared them with 200 unvaccinated patients of similar age (average age in both groups, 36 years) who were not previously infected with COVID-19. All the women were undergoing IVF from January to April 2021 and all the vaccinated women completed two doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine at least 2 weeks before ovarian stimulation.

Researchers compared the average number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups.
 

No difference between groups

Two hundred patients underwent oocyte retrieval 14-68 days after receiving a COVID shot; there was no significant difference by vaccination status in the number retrieved per cycle (10.63 in the vaccinated group vs. 10.72 in the unvaccinated group; P = .93).

There was also no difference in the clinical pregnancy rates after fresh embryo transfers. The rate among 128 vaccinated patients was 32.8% versus 33.1% in the 133 unvaccinated patients (P = .96), with 42 and 44 clinical pregnancies, respectively.

A total of 113 patients (66 in the study group and 47 in the controls) underwent freeze-all cycles to preserve fertility and fertilization rates were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated (55.43% vaccinated vs. 54.29% unvaccinated; P = .73). The average number of cryopreserved embryos was 3.59 (vaccinated) versus 3.28 (unvaccinated) (P = .80).

In a subanalysis of outcomes by age, researchers found vaccination status had no effect on number of oocytes or pregnancy rates in the 39-and-older group. That’s important because it shows the vaccine did not affect outcomes even in a population with reduced ovarian reserves, the authors wrote.

The authors noted one of the study’s limitations is that it didn’t include information about vaccination or past infection status of the male partners.
 

Question should be put to rest

Sarah Cross, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said the study is the biggest she’s seen that concludes COVID vaccinations are safe and highly encouraged for women before trying to conceive, but other smaller studies have come to the same conclusion.

She pointed to research including a study from 2021 with similar findings that concluded: “Physicians and public health personnel can counsel women of reproductive age that neither previous illness with COVID-19 nor antibodies produced from vaccination to COVID-19 will cause sterility.”

She said she thinks the question of whether COVID shots are safe with IVF has been answered and the results of the latest study add proof to counter misinformation around the issue.

“The COVID-19 vaccine does not affect fertility,” she said. “I don’t know how many more [studies] we need.”

The harm is in not getting vaccinated, she said. Pregnancy significantly increases a woman’s chance of getting severe COVID, the need for hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and risk of death.

“I personally have never had a hospitalized patient who’s been vaccinated,” Dr. Cross said. “The worst thing for the fetus is to have a critically ill mother.”

Dr. Cross, whose high-risk patients include those seeking counseling before IVF, added: “I would counsel all of them that they should absolutely get vaccinated prior to pregnancy, when they’re pregnant, whenever it is, as soon as they possibly can.”

The study authors and Dr. Cross report no relevant financial relationships.

When Annie Uhing, MD, is stressed about work, she can call her mom. She and her mom are close, yes, but her mom is also a physician and understands the ups and downs of medical education and the unique challenges of being a woman in medicine.

“My mom and I were talking about this the other day – I don’t think we know any other mother-daughter pairs of doctors,” said Dr. Uhing.

Courtesy Dr. Charlene Gaebler-Uhing

In the United States, the number of female physicians has risen steadily since the mid- and late-20th century. As of 2019, women made up more than half of medical school classes across the country and 36.3% of the physician workforce.

Still, most female physicians are concentrated in a handful of specialties (such as pediatrics and obstetrics and gynecology) while the percentages of women in other areas remains extremely low (urology and orthopedic surgery). Many female physicians share anecdotal stories about not being taken seriously, like when a patient mistook them for a nurse, or preferred the advice of a male colleague to their own.

To celebrate International Women’s Day, this news organization talked to two families of female doctors about their experiences in medicine and how they inspire and support one another inside and outside the hospital.
 

Deborah, Charlene, and Annie

When Deborah Gaebler-Spira, MD, started medical school at the University of Illinois in 1975, women made up just 15% of her class. “For me, the idea that as a woman you could have a vocation that could be quite meaningful and self-directed – that was very important,” said Dr. Gaebler-Spira, now a pediatric rehabilitation physician at the Shirley Ryan Ability Lab and professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

She blocked out a lot of discouragement along the way. In undergrad, the dean of the college warned Dr. Gaebler-Spira she’d never make it as a doctor. In medical school interviews, administrators could be hostile. “There was this feeling that you were taking a place of someone who really deserved it,” she said. When selecting a residency, Dr. Gaebler-Spira decided against a career in obstetrics because of the overt misogyny in the field at the time.

Instead, she went into pediatrics and physical medicine and rehabilitation, eventually working to become an expert in cerebral palsy. Along the way, Dr. Gaebler-Spira made lifelong friends with other female physicians and found strong female mentors, including Billie Adams, MD, and Helen Emery, MD.

When her sister, Charlene Gaebler-Uhing, MD, also decided to go into medicine, Dr. Gaebler-Spira said she “thought it was a sign of sanity as she was always much more competitive than I was! And if I could do it, no question she was able!”

Dr. Gaebler-Uhing, now an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, followed her older sister’s footsteps to medical school in 1983, after first considering a career in social work.

While there were now more women going into medicine – her medical school class was about 25% women – problems persisted. During clinical rotations in residency, Dr. Gaebler-Uhing was often the only woman on a team and made the conscious decision to go professionally by her nickname, Charlie. “If a woman’s name was on the consult, her opinion and insights did not get the same value or respect as a male physician’s,” she said. “The only way they knew I was a woman was if they really knew me.”

The Gaebler sisters leaned on each other professionally and personally throughout their careers. When both sisters practiced in Chicago, they referred patients to one another. And Dr. Gaebler-Uhing said her older sister was a great role model for how to balance the dual roles of physician and parent, as few of the older female doctors who trained her were married or had a child.

Now Dr. Gaebler-Uhing’s daughter, Annie Uhing, MD, is entering medicine herself. She is currently pediatric resident at the University of Wisconsin American Family Hospital. She plans to do a chief year and then a pediatric endocrinology fellowship.

Growing up, Dr. Uhing wasn’t always sure she wanted to work as much as her parents, who are both doctors. But her mom provided a great example few of her friends had at home: “If you want to work, you should work and do what you want to do and it’s not wrong to want to have a really high-powered job as a woman,” said Dr. Uhing.

 

Kathryn, Susan, and Rita

The three sisters Kathryn Hudson, MD, Susan Schmidt, MD, and Rita Butler, MD, were inspired to go into medicine by their mother, Rita Watson, MD, who was one of the first female interventional cardiologists in the United States.

“I think we had a front row seat to what being a doctor was like,” said Dr. Hudson, a hematologist and oncologist and director of survivorship at Texas Oncology in Austin. Both parents were MDs – their dad was a pharmaceutical researcher at Merck – and they would excitedly discuss patient cases and drug development at the dinner table, said Dr. Butler, an interventional cardiology fellow at the Lankenau Heart Institute in Wynnewood, Pa.

All three sisters have vivid memories of ‘Take Your Daughter to Work Day’ at their mom’s hospital. “I remember going to Take Your Daughter to Work Day with her and watching her in action and thinking, oh my gosh, my mom is so cool and I want to be like her,” said Dr. Schmidt, a pediatric critical care specialist at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia. “I’ve always felt special that my mom was doing something really cool and really saving lives,” said Dr. Schmidt.

Their fourth sibling, John, isn’t a physician and “I honestly wonder if it’s because he never went to Take Your Daughter to Work Day!” said Dr. Butler.

Having a mother who had both a high-powered medical career and a family helped the three women know they could do the same. “It is a difficult journey, don’t get me wrong, but I never questioned that I could do it because my mom did it first,” said Dr. Hudson.

As adults, the sisters confide in one another as they navigate modern motherhood and careers, switching between discussing medical cases and parenting advice.

As hard as their mom worked while they were growing up, she didn’t have the pressure of living up to the “super mom” ideal we have now, said Dr. Butler. “Everyone wants women to work like they don’t have kids and everyone wants women to parent like they don’t have a job,” she said. Having two sisters who can provide reassurance and advice in that area goes a long way, she said.

“I think sharing that experience of navigating motherhood, a medical career, and marriage, and adult life with sisters who are going through all the same things is really special and I feel really fortunate for that,” said Dr. Schmidt.

*This story was updated on 3/8/2022.

When Annie Uhing, MD, is stressed about work, she can call her mom. She and her mom are close, yes, but her mom is also a physician and understands the ups and downs of medical education and the unique challenges of being a woman in medicine.

“My mom and I were talking about this the other day – I don’t think we know any other mother-daughter pairs of doctors,” said Dr. Uhing.

Courtesy Dr. Charlene Gaebler-Uhing

In the United States, the number of female physicians has risen steadily since the mid- and late-20th century. As of 2019, women made up more than half of medical school classes across the country and 36.3% of the physician workforce.

Still, most female physicians are concentrated in a handful of specialties (such as pediatrics and obstetrics and gynecology) while the percentages of women in other areas remains extremely low (urology and orthopedic surgery). Many female physicians share anecdotal stories about not being taken seriously, like when a patient mistook them for a nurse, or preferred the advice of a male colleague to their own.

To celebrate International Women’s Day, this news organization talked to two families of female doctors about their experiences in medicine and how they inspire and support one another inside and outside the hospital.
 

Deborah, Charlene, and Annie

When Deborah Gaebler-Spira, MD, started medical school at the University of Illinois in 1975, women made up just 15% of her class. “For me, the idea that as a woman you could have a vocation that could be quite meaningful and self-directed – that was very important,” said Dr. Gaebler-Spira, now a pediatric rehabilitation physician at the Shirley Ryan Ability Lab and professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

She blocked out a lot of discouragement along the way. In undergrad, the dean of the college warned Dr. Gaebler-Spira she’d never make it as a doctor. In medical school interviews, administrators could be hostile. “There was this feeling that you were taking a place of someone who really deserved it,” she said. When selecting a residency, Dr. Gaebler-Spira decided against a career in obstetrics because of the overt misogyny in the field at the time.

Instead, she went into pediatrics and physical medicine and rehabilitation, eventually working to become an expert in cerebral palsy. Along the way, Dr. Gaebler-Spira made lifelong friends with other female physicians and found strong female mentors, including Billie Adams, MD, and Helen Emery, MD.

When her sister, Charlene Gaebler-Uhing, MD, also decided to go into medicine, Dr. Gaebler-Spira said she “thought it was a sign of sanity as she was always much more competitive than I was! And if I could do it, no question she was able!”

Dr. Gaebler-Uhing, now an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, followed her older sister’s footsteps to medical school in 1983, after first considering a career in social work.

While there were now more women going into medicine – her medical school class was about 25% women – problems persisted. During clinical rotations in residency, Dr. Gaebler-Uhing was often the only woman on a team and made the conscious decision to go professionally by her nickname, Charlie. “If a woman’s name was on the consult, her opinion and insights did not get the same value or respect as a male physician’s,” she said. “The only way they knew I was a woman was if they really knew me.”

The Gaebler sisters leaned on each other professionally and personally throughout their careers. When both sisters practiced in Chicago, they referred patients to one another. And Dr. Gaebler-Uhing said her older sister was a great role model for how to balance the dual roles of physician and parent, as few of the older female doctors who trained her were married or had a child.

Now Dr. Gaebler-Uhing’s daughter, Annie Uhing, MD, is entering medicine herself. She is currently pediatric resident at the University of Wisconsin American Family Hospital. She plans to do a chief year and then a pediatric endocrinology fellowship.

Growing up, Dr. Uhing wasn’t always sure she wanted to work as much as her parents, who are both doctors. But her mom provided a great example few of her friends had at home: “If you want to work, you should work and do what you want to do and it’s not wrong to want to have a really high-powered job as a woman,” said Dr. Uhing.

 

Kathryn, Susan, and Rita

The three sisters Kathryn Hudson, MD, Susan Schmidt, MD, and Rita Butler, MD, were inspired to go into medicine by their mother, Rita Watson, MD, who was one of the first female interventional cardiologists in the United States.

“I think we had a front row seat to what being a doctor was like,” said Dr. Hudson, a hematologist and oncologist and director of survivorship at Texas Oncology in Austin. Both parents were MDs – their dad was a pharmaceutical researcher at Merck – and they would excitedly discuss patient cases and drug development at the dinner table, said Dr. Butler, an interventional cardiology fellow at the Lankenau Heart Institute in Wynnewood, Pa.

All three sisters have vivid memories of ‘Take Your Daughter to Work Day’ at their mom’s hospital. “I remember going to Take Your Daughter to Work Day with her and watching her in action and thinking, oh my gosh, my mom is so cool and I want to be like her,” said Dr. Schmidt, a pediatric critical care specialist at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia. “I’ve always felt special that my mom was doing something really cool and really saving lives,” said Dr. Schmidt.

Their fourth sibling, John, isn’t a physician and “I honestly wonder if it’s because he never went to Take Your Daughter to Work Day!” said Dr. Butler.

Having a mother who had both a high-powered medical career and a family helped the three women know they could do the same. “It is a difficult journey, don’t get me wrong, but I never questioned that I could do it because my mom did it first,” said Dr. Hudson.

As adults, the sisters confide in one another as they navigate modern motherhood and careers, switching between discussing medical cases and parenting advice.

As hard as their mom worked while they were growing up, she didn’t have the pressure of living up to the “super mom” ideal we have now, said Dr. Butler. “Everyone wants women to work like they don’t have kids and everyone wants women to parent like they don’t have a job,” she said. Having two sisters who can provide reassurance and advice in that area goes a long way, she said.

“I think sharing that experience of navigating motherhood, a medical career, and marriage, and adult life with sisters who are going through all the same things is really special and I feel really fortunate for that,” said Dr. Schmidt.

*This story was updated on 3/8/2022.

When Annie Uhing, MD, is stressed about work, she can call her mom. She and her mom are close, yes, but her mom is also a physician and understands the ups and downs of medical education and the unique challenges of being a woman in medicine.

“My mom and I were talking about this the other day – I don’t think we know any other mother-daughter pairs of doctors,” said Dr. Uhing.

Courtesy Dr. Charlene Gaebler-Uhing

In the United States, the number of female physicians has risen steadily since the mid- and late-20th century. As of 2019, women made up more than half of medical school classes across the country and 36.3% of the physician workforce.

Still, most female physicians are concentrated in a handful of specialties (such as pediatrics and obstetrics and gynecology) while the percentages of women in other areas remains extremely low (urology and orthopedic surgery). Many female physicians share anecdotal stories about not being taken seriously, like when a patient mistook them for a nurse, or preferred the advice of a male colleague to their own.

To celebrate International Women’s Day, this news organization talked to two families of female doctors about their experiences in medicine and how they inspire and support one another inside and outside the hospital.
 

Deborah, Charlene, and Annie

When Deborah Gaebler-Spira, MD, started medical school at the University of Illinois in 1975, women made up just 15% of her class. “For me, the idea that as a woman you could have a vocation that could be quite meaningful and self-directed – that was very important,” said Dr. Gaebler-Spira, now a pediatric rehabilitation physician at the Shirley Ryan Ability Lab and professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

She blocked out a lot of discouragement along the way. In undergrad, the dean of the college warned Dr. Gaebler-Spira she’d never make it as a doctor. In medical school interviews, administrators could be hostile. “There was this feeling that you were taking a place of someone who really deserved it,” she said. When selecting a residency, Dr. Gaebler-Spira decided against a career in obstetrics because of the overt misogyny in the field at the time.

Instead, she went into pediatrics and physical medicine and rehabilitation, eventually working to become an expert in cerebral palsy. Along the way, Dr. Gaebler-Spira made lifelong friends with other female physicians and found strong female mentors, including Billie Adams, MD, and Helen Emery, MD.

When her sister, Charlene Gaebler-Uhing, MD, also decided to go into medicine, Dr. Gaebler-Spira said she “thought it was a sign of sanity as she was always much more competitive than I was! And if I could do it, no question she was able!”

Dr. Gaebler-Uhing, now an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, followed her older sister’s footsteps to medical school in 1983, after first considering a career in social work.

While there were now more women going into medicine – her medical school class was about 25% women – problems persisted. During clinical rotations in residency, Dr. Gaebler-Uhing was often the only woman on a team and made the conscious decision to go professionally by her nickname, Charlie. “If a woman’s name was on the consult, her opinion and insights did not get the same value or respect as a male physician’s,” she said. “The only way they knew I was a woman was if they really knew me.”

The Gaebler sisters leaned on each other professionally and personally throughout their careers. When both sisters practiced in Chicago, they referred patients to one another. And Dr. Gaebler-Uhing said her older sister was a great role model for how to balance the dual roles of physician and parent, as few of the older female doctors who trained her were married or had a child.

Now Dr. Gaebler-Uhing’s daughter, Annie Uhing, MD, is entering medicine herself. She is currently pediatric resident at the University of Wisconsin American Family Hospital. She plans to do a chief year and then a pediatric endocrinology fellowship.

Growing up, Dr. Uhing wasn’t always sure she wanted to work as much as her parents, who are both doctors. But her mom provided a great example few of her friends had at home: “If you want to work, you should work and do what you want to do and it’s not wrong to want to have a really high-powered job as a woman,” said Dr. Uhing.

 

Kathryn, Susan, and Rita

The three sisters Kathryn Hudson, MD, Susan Schmidt, MD, and Rita Butler, MD, were inspired to go into medicine by their mother, Rita Watson, MD, who was one of the first female interventional cardiologists in the United States.

“I think we had a front row seat to what being a doctor was like,” said Dr. Hudson, a hematologist and oncologist and director of survivorship at Texas Oncology in Austin. Both parents were MDs – their dad was a pharmaceutical researcher at Merck – and they would excitedly discuss patient cases and drug development at the dinner table, said Dr. Butler, an interventional cardiology fellow at the Lankenau Heart Institute in Wynnewood, Pa.

All three sisters have vivid memories of ‘Take Your Daughter to Work Day’ at their mom’s hospital. “I remember going to Take Your Daughter to Work Day with her and watching her in action and thinking, oh my gosh, my mom is so cool and I want to be like her,” said Dr. Schmidt, a pediatric critical care specialist at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia. “I’ve always felt special that my mom was doing something really cool and really saving lives,” said Dr. Schmidt.

Their fourth sibling, John, isn’t a physician and “I honestly wonder if it’s because he never went to Take Your Daughter to Work Day!” said Dr. Butler.

Having a mother who had both a high-powered medical career and a family helped the three women know they could do the same. “It is a difficult journey, don’t get me wrong, but I never questioned that I could do it because my mom did it first,” said Dr. Hudson.

As adults, the sisters confide in one another as they navigate modern motherhood and careers, switching between discussing medical cases and parenting advice.

As hard as their mom worked while they were growing up, she didn’t have the pressure of living up to the “super mom” ideal we have now, said Dr. Butler. “Everyone wants women to work like they don’t have kids and everyone wants women to parent like they don’t have a job,” she said. Having two sisters who can provide reassurance and advice in that area goes a long way, she said.

“I think sharing that experience of navigating motherhood, a medical career, and marriage, and adult life with sisters who are going through all the same things is really special and I feel really fortunate for that,” said Dr. Schmidt.

*This story was updated on 3/8/2022.

Long or irregular menstrual cycles in relatively young women are linked an increased risk of both prevalent and incident nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a cross-sectional study that included data on more than 70,000 women.

“Our results indicate that menstrual irregularity, which is easier to diagnose and usually presented earlier than PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome] highlights the possibility of identifying premenopausal women at risk of developing NAFLD,” reported a team of authors primarily from Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea.

The study evaluated women aged younger than 40 years who were participating in the Kangbuk Samsung Health Study, which involves a comprehensive biennial health examination at health centers in South Korea. Of the 135,090 women enrolled over a 6-year period who had at least one follow-up examination, 72,092 were available for analysis after excluding for a sizable list of confounding factors such as liver disease and infections; exposure to steatogenic medications, such as corticosteroids; hysterectomy; and pregnancy.
 

NAFLD prevalence climbs with longer menses

Of these women, 36.378 (27.7%) had menstrual cycles of 26-30 days and were identified as the index group. The prevalence of NAFLD in this group was 5.8%. For those with a menstrual cycle of 31-39 days, the prevalence rate climbed to 7.2%. For those with a menstrual cycle of at least 40 days or too irregular to estimate, the prevalence was 9.7%. The prevalence was 7.1% for those with a menstrual cycle less than 21 days.

The results of this study were published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

In those without NAFLD at baseline who were then followed for a mean of 4.4 years, there were 4,524 incident cases of NAFLD. Incidence density was calculated per 103 patient-years. In the index group, the rate was 18.4. It climbed to 20.2 for those with a menstrual cycle of 31-39 days and then to 22.9 for those with a menstrual cycle of at least 40 days. For those with a cycle of fewer than 21 days, the rate was 26.8.

After adjusting for age, body mass index, insulin resistance, and other confounders, the hazard ratio for incident NAFLD for those with long or irregular menstrual cycles compared with the incident group corresponded with a 22% increased risk (HR, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.31). When calculated in a time-dependent analysis, the risk of NAFLD was increased by almost 50% (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.60).


 

Risk persists with PCOS exclusion

PCOS has previously been associated with increased risk of NAFLD, but the association between long or irregular menstrual cycles and NAFLD persisted after women with PCOS were excluded.

The mechanism that links menstrual irregularity with NAFLD is unclear, but the investigators said that estrogen exposure is implicated. In addition to a previously reported associated between low estradiol levels and antiestrogens such as tamoxifen with increased risk of NAFLD, they cited studies associating estrogen replacement therapy with a reduced risk of NAFLD. The role of estrogen in suppressing inflammation, oxidative stress, and insulin resistance are all activities that might link more regular menses with a reduced risk of NAFLD, the authors contended.

Women older than 40 years were excluded from this analysis to reduce the possibility of perimenopausal changes as a confounding factor.

Of study limitations acknowledged by the investigators, the presence of NAFLD was diagnosed on ultrasonography rather than histology. Information on sex hormone or prolactin levels was not captured in relation to NAFLD incidence, and the lack of exposure to estrogen replacement therapy and oral contraceptives was based on self-reports from the participants.

Still, the large study size and the consistency of results after adjustment for multiple risk factors argue that long and irregular menstrual cycles do identify women at risk for NAFLD. One implication is that irregular menses can be a marker for NAFLD risk.

“Our findings do not prove a causal relationship, but they show that long or irregular menstrual cycles were significantly associated with an increased risk of developing NAFLD,” said Seungho Ryu, MD, PhD, a professor at the Sungkyunkwan University. Senior author of this study, Dr. Ryu emphasized in an interview that the association “was not explained by obesity or any other risk factor for NAFLD.”
 

Lifestyle changes may lower risk

The message is that “young women with long or irregular menstrual cycles may benefit from lifestyle changes to reduce the risk of NAFLD,” Dr. Ryu stated.

The Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation, which was started in 1994, has not evaluated NAFLD, but it did show a relationship between longer menstrual cycles and more cardiometabolic risk factors, according to Nanette Santoro MD, professor and chair, department of obstetrics & gynecology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

This suggests that others are “thinking along the same lines,” but in discussing this study with this news organization, she characterized some of the design elements as well as some of the findings in this study as “peculiar.”

In addition to a “very, very narrow definition of regular cycles,” she questioned the consistent hazard ratio for NAFLD for those with long cycles relative to other types of irregular menses. Presuming that the group with longer cycles would have included at least some patients with undiagnosed PCOS, she was would have expected that the risk would have been highest in this group. While conceding that differences in body composition of Korean women is a potential explanation for this apparent discrepancy, “I would like to see confirmed in other samples of women with more detailed metabolic assessments to understand who is at risk,” she said.

Not least problematic for the strength of the conclusions, the hazard ratio for NAFLD among women with long or irregular menstrual cycles was “pretty low.” She described this as a level at which the risk “is very susceptible to confounding and unlikely to influence clinical practice.”

Anuja Dokras, MD, PHD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the PCOS Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, also questioned whether undiagnosed PCOS might have skewed the data.

“There is increasing data on the association between PCOS and NAFLD. Irregular menses is a key criterion for PCOS, and PCOS is the commonest reason for anovulation,” she said. Dr. Dokras therefore considered it possible that patients with unrecognized PCOS were included in the study, weakening the claim that risk of NAFLD and long menstrual cycles remains significant after controlling for PCOS.

Dr. Ryu and coinvestigators, Dr. Santoro, and Dr. Dokras reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Long or irregular menstrual cycles in relatively young women are linked an increased risk of both prevalent and incident nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a cross-sectional study that included data on more than 70,000 women.

“Our results indicate that menstrual irregularity, which is easier to diagnose and usually presented earlier than PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome] highlights the possibility of identifying premenopausal women at risk of developing NAFLD,” reported a team of authors primarily from Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea.

The study evaluated women aged younger than 40 years who were participating in the Kangbuk Samsung Health Study, which involves a comprehensive biennial health examination at health centers in South Korea. Of the 135,090 women enrolled over a 6-year period who had at least one follow-up examination, 72,092 were available for analysis after excluding for a sizable list of confounding factors such as liver disease and infections; exposure to steatogenic medications, such as corticosteroids; hysterectomy; and pregnancy.
 

NAFLD prevalence climbs with longer menses

Of these women, 36.378 (27.7%) had menstrual cycles of 26-30 days and were identified as the index group. The prevalence of NAFLD in this group was 5.8%. For those with a menstrual cycle of 31-39 days, the prevalence rate climbed to 7.2%. For those with a menstrual cycle of at least 40 days or too irregular to estimate, the prevalence was 9.7%. The prevalence was 7.1% for those with a menstrual cycle less than 21 days.

The results of this study were published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

In those without NAFLD at baseline who were then followed for a mean of 4.4 years, there were 4,524 incident cases of NAFLD. Incidence density was calculated per 103 patient-years. In the index group, the rate was 18.4. It climbed to 20.2 for those with a menstrual cycle of 31-39 days and then to 22.9 for those with a menstrual cycle of at least 40 days. For those with a cycle of fewer than 21 days, the rate was 26.8.

After adjusting for age, body mass index, insulin resistance, and other confounders, the hazard ratio for incident NAFLD for those with long or irregular menstrual cycles compared with the incident group corresponded with a 22% increased risk (HR, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.31). When calculated in a time-dependent analysis, the risk of NAFLD was increased by almost 50% (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.60).


 

Risk persists with PCOS exclusion

PCOS has previously been associated with increased risk of NAFLD, but the association between long or irregular menstrual cycles and NAFLD persisted after women with PCOS were excluded.

The mechanism that links menstrual irregularity with NAFLD is unclear, but the investigators said that estrogen exposure is implicated. In addition to a previously reported associated between low estradiol levels and antiestrogens such as tamoxifen with increased risk of NAFLD, they cited studies associating estrogen replacement therapy with a reduced risk of NAFLD. The role of estrogen in suppressing inflammation, oxidative stress, and insulin resistance are all activities that might link more regular menses with a reduced risk of NAFLD, the authors contended.

Women older than 40 years were excluded from this analysis to reduce the possibility of perimenopausal changes as a confounding factor.

Of study limitations acknowledged by the investigators, the presence of NAFLD was diagnosed on ultrasonography rather than histology. Information on sex hormone or prolactin levels was not captured in relation to NAFLD incidence, and the lack of exposure to estrogen replacement therapy and oral contraceptives was based on self-reports from the participants.

Still, the large study size and the consistency of results after adjustment for multiple risk factors argue that long and irregular menstrual cycles do identify women at risk for NAFLD. One implication is that irregular menses can be a marker for NAFLD risk.

“Our findings do not prove a causal relationship, but they show that long or irregular menstrual cycles were significantly associated with an increased risk of developing NAFLD,” said Seungho Ryu, MD, PhD, a professor at the Sungkyunkwan University. Senior author of this study, Dr. Ryu emphasized in an interview that the association “was not explained by obesity or any other risk factor for NAFLD.”
 

Lifestyle changes may lower risk

The message is that “young women with long or irregular menstrual cycles may benefit from lifestyle changes to reduce the risk of NAFLD,” Dr. Ryu stated.

The Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation, which was started in 1994, has not evaluated NAFLD, but it did show a relationship between longer menstrual cycles and more cardiometabolic risk factors, according to Nanette Santoro MD, professor and chair, department of obstetrics & gynecology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

This suggests that others are “thinking along the same lines,” but in discussing this study with this news organization, she characterized some of the design elements as well as some of the findings in this study as “peculiar.”

In addition to a “very, very narrow definition of regular cycles,” she questioned the consistent hazard ratio for NAFLD for those with long cycles relative to other types of irregular menses. Presuming that the group with longer cycles would have included at least some patients with undiagnosed PCOS, she was would have expected that the risk would have been highest in this group. While conceding that differences in body composition of Korean women is a potential explanation for this apparent discrepancy, “I would like to see confirmed in other samples of women with more detailed metabolic assessments to understand who is at risk,” she said.

Not least problematic for the strength of the conclusions, the hazard ratio for NAFLD among women with long or irregular menstrual cycles was “pretty low.” She described this as a level at which the risk “is very susceptible to confounding and unlikely to influence clinical practice.”

Anuja Dokras, MD, PHD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the PCOS Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, also questioned whether undiagnosed PCOS might have skewed the data.

“There is increasing data on the association between PCOS and NAFLD. Irregular menses is a key criterion for PCOS, and PCOS is the commonest reason for anovulation,” she said. Dr. Dokras therefore considered it possible that patients with unrecognized PCOS were included in the study, weakening the claim that risk of NAFLD and long menstrual cycles remains significant after controlling for PCOS.

Dr. Ryu and coinvestigators, Dr. Santoro, and Dr. Dokras reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Long or irregular menstrual cycles in relatively young women are linked an increased risk of both prevalent and incident nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a cross-sectional study that included data on more than 70,000 women.

“Our results indicate that menstrual irregularity, which is easier to diagnose and usually presented earlier than PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome] highlights the possibility of identifying premenopausal women at risk of developing NAFLD,” reported a team of authors primarily from Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea.

The study evaluated women aged younger than 40 years who were participating in the Kangbuk Samsung Health Study, which involves a comprehensive biennial health examination at health centers in South Korea. Of the 135,090 women enrolled over a 6-year period who had at least one follow-up examination, 72,092 were available for analysis after excluding for a sizable list of confounding factors such as liver disease and infections; exposure to steatogenic medications, such as corticosteroids; hysterectomy; and pregnancy.
 

NAFLD prevalence climbs with longer menses

Of these women, 36.378 (27.7%) had menstrual cycles of 26-30 days and were identified as the index group. The prevalence of NAFLD in this group was 5.8%. For those with a menstrual cycle of 31-39 days, the prevalence rate climbed to 7.2%. For those with a menstrual cycle of at least 40 days or too irregular to estimate, the prevalence was 9.7%. The prevalence was 7.1% for those with a menstrual cycle less than 21 days.

The results of this study were published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

In those without NAFLD at baseline who were then followed for a mean of 4.4 years, there were 4,524 incident cases of NAFLD. Incidence density was calculated per 103 patient-years. In the index group, the rate was 18.4. It climbed to 20.2 for those with a menstrual cycle of 31-39 days and then to 22.9 for those with a menstrual cycle of at least 40 days. For those with a cycle of fewer than 21 days, the rate was 26.8.

After adjusting for age, body mass index, insulin resistance, and other confounders, the hazard ratio for incident NAFLD for those with long or irregular menstrual cycles compared with the incident group corresponded with a 22% increased risk (HR, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.31). When calculated in a time-dependent analysis, the risk of NAFLD was increased by almost 50% (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.60).


 

Risk persists with PCOS exclusion

PCOS has previously been associated with increased risk of NAFLD, but the association between long or irregular menstrual cycles and NAFLD persisted after women with PCOS were excluded.

The mechanism that links menstrual irregularity with NAFLD is unclear, but the investigators said that estrogen exposure is implicated. In addition to a previously reported associated between low estradiol levels and antiestrogens such as tamoxifen with increased risk of NAFLD, they cited studies associating estrogen replacement therapy with a reduced risk of NAFLD. The role of estrogen in suppressing inflammation, oxidative stress, and insulin resistance are all activities that might link more regular menses with a reduced risk of NAFLD, the authors contended.

Women older than 40 years were excluded from this analysis to reduce the possibility of perimenopausal changes as a confounding factor.

Of study limitations acknowledged by the investigators, the presence of NAFLD was diagnosed on ultrasonography rather than histology. Information on sex hormone or prolactin levels was not captured in relation to NAFLD incidence, and the lack of exposure to estrogen replacement therapy and oral contraceptives was based on self-reports from the participants.

Still, the large study size and the consistency of results after adjustment for multiple risk factors argue that long and irregular menstrual cycles do identify women at risk for NAFLD. One implication is that irregular menses can be a marker for NAFLD risk.

“Our findings do not prove a causal relationship, but they show that long or irregular menstrual cycles were significantly associated with an increased risk of developing NAFLD,” said Seungho Ryu, MD, PhD, a professor at the Sungkyunkwan University. Senior author of this study, Dr. Ryu emphasized in an interview that the association “was not explained by obesity or any other risk factor for NAFLD.”
 

Lifestyle changes may lower risk

The message is that “young women with long or irregular menstrual cycles may benefit from lifestyle changes to reduce the risk of NAFLD,” Dr. Ryu stated.

The Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation, which was started in 1994, has not evaluated NAFLD, but it did show a relationship between longer menstrual cycles and more cardiometabolic risk factors, according to Nanette Santoro MD, professor and chair, department of obstetrics & gynecology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

This suggests that others are “thinking along the same lines,” but in discussing this study with this news organization, she characterized some of the design elements as well as some of the findings in this study as “peculiar.”

In addition to a “very, very narrow definition of regular cycles,” she questioned the consistent hazard ratio for NAFLD for those with long cycles relative to other types of irregular menses. Presuming that the group with longer cycles would have included at least some patients with undiagnosed PCOS, she was would have expected that the risk would have been highest in this group. While conceding that differences in body composition of Korean women is a potential explanation for this apparent discrepancy, “I would like to see confirmed in other samples of women with more detailed metabolic assessments to understand who is at risk,” she said.

Not least problematic for the strength of the conclusions, the hazard ratio for NAFLD among women with long or irregular menstrual cycles was “pretty low.” She described this as a level at which the risk “is very susceptible to confounding and unlikely to influence clinical practice.”

Anuja Dokras, MD, PHD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the PCOS Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, also questioned whether undiagnosed PCOS might have skewed the data.

“There is increasing data on the association between PCOS and NAFLD. Irregular menses is a key criterion for PCOS, and PCOS is the commonest reason for anovulation,” she said. Dr. Dokras therefore considered it possible that patients with unrecognized PCOS were included in the study, weakening the claim that risk of NAFLD and long menstrual cycles remains significant after controlling for PCOS.

Dr. Ryu and coinvestigators, Dr. Santoro, and Dr. Dokras reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Physician clients will find themselves in difficult legal situations from time to time. Sometimes it’s an investigation for Medicare fraud or other illegal conduct. Other times it’s a review related to Drug Enforcement Administration or licensure compliance. More commonly, physicians are involved in employer inquiries into workplace misconduct.

The common element among these very different legal issues is that physicians typically have no idea what to do when they find themselves potentially in trouble, but how they choose to deal with the issue can have significant consequences.

In my opinion, physicians should have a relationship with a health care lawyer or firm in place before any investigation occurs. Whether they are being investigated for a license or medical staff issue, Medicare fraud, or contract issue, it’s important to know where to go for help quickly. Even if the physician does not retain a lawyer in advance, having the name of a qualified person who can be called for a variety of health care issues is already a step in the right direction.

More important than having a knowledgeable lawyer is actually contacting that lawyer. Some physicians will sit and chat with the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other investigators for hours, only to call me after the visitors leave. I have other clients who handle important medical staff hearings, discipline meetings, and license investigations on their own without consulting counsel first. In all of these situations, it can be too late to help a physician once their case has progressed too far down the road.

Employment issues arising in the workplace setting are the most common and troubling. Physicians will – without a second thought – attend a human resources–called or other meeting without thinking through the reason for the meeting, whether they are prepared or not, and without considering whether counsel could be helpful. Sometimes in the moment, there may be no choice, but most meetings are scheduled in advance with ample time for consultation and planning.

Many issues that arise in the workplace setting are troubling because they can be easily avoided. The No. 1 piece of advice which I offer to young physician clients as they enter the workplace is: Remember that nobody in the workplace is your friend. Every word that is said, text that is sent, gesture that is made, can put you at risk. You must assume that all conversations and messages will be shared with others. Joking around in the operating room about sexual escapades, sending texts with flirtatious comments, making comments that can be construed as racist or homophobic, or raising your voice in a moment of frustration are all real examples of situations where physicians ended up disciplined and terminated. Are these innocent comments or ones the doctor thought they could get away with among “friends?” From a human resources perspective, there is little tolerance for such conduct, regardless of the doctor’s intent.

There are also situations in the workplace that are more troubling. Many times a physician is accused of noncompliance with a contract or a policy, when in fact the accuser is retaliating or engaging in efforts to discredit a doctor. I have seen this happen where minority physicians complain about how they are treated and are suddenly investigated for a performance issue. I have had female physicians criticize a business decision at a committee meeting, only to receive a formal notice that their “negative attitude” violated a policy.

In these situations, talking with counsel before a meeting with the employer representative is recommended and can impact the trajectory of a physician’s career. Physicians cannot and should not handle such events on their own.

If a physician is forced or chooses to attend a meeting with an investigator or other party without counsel, there are some steps to consider (subject to the type of meeting and the specific circumstances).

• Listen more than you talk. Make sure you know the name of everyone who is present and their role within the organization.
• If you have previously provided any written or oral statements, or have written correspondence related to the issues at hand, review all materials in advance. If there is anything you think needs to be corrected or added, let the interviewer know that at the outset.
• Be familiar with your own employment agreement/policies and the terms that may be relevant to the discussion or meeting.
• Be calm, honest, and forthcoming in response to the questions, and don’t embellish or exaggerate.
• Avoid personal attacks on anyone. This generally serves to weaken an argument and credibility.
• Be prepared to explain your allegations or defense, and when you do so, keep in mind that the interviewer may not know the history, background, or details of any of the issues.
• If the reason for the situation relates to race or national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected category, don’t hesitate to say so.
• Answer the question you’re asked, but if you feel that the interviewer needs more information or is not understanding what you’ve said, feel free to explain. Be forthcoming, but don’t dominate the conversation.
• If they ask whether you have counsel, be honest, but decline to provide them any information about what you discussed with counsel, as those conversations are privileged.
• If the interviewer asks to record the conversation, you can agree, but ask to be provided a copy of the recording.
• Know your rights in advance. If the subject of the meeting is governed by bylaws or policies, for example, you may have the right to bring an attorney or adviser to the meeting, receive advance notice of who will be attending the meeting and the subject matter, and avail yourself of specific procedures or appeal rights of any discipline or decisions decided during the meeting.

There are many circumstances that can lead to a physician being under investigation or interrogation. In every single circumstance, it is ideal to seek legal counsel immediately. Whether the physician has actually engaged in wrongful conduct or not, without proper handling a physician’s career can be permanently, and sometimes irrevocably, affected.

Ms. Adler is a shareholder and health law practice group manager for Chicago-based law firm Roetzel, a member of the Illinois Association of Healthcare Attorneys, and a current advisory board member at DePaul College of Law Health Law Institute. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physician clients will find themselves in difficult legal situations from time to time. Sometimes it’s an investigation for Medicare fraud or other illegal conduct. Other times it’s a review related to Drug Enforcement Administration or licensure compliance. More commonly, physicians are involved in employer inquiries into workplace misconduct.

The common element among these very different legal issues is that physicians typically have no idea what to do when they find themselves potentially in trouble, but how they choose to deal with the issue can have significant consequences.

In my opinion, physicians should have a relationship with a health care lawyer or firm in place before any investigation occurs. Whether they are being investigated for a license or medical staff issue, Medicare fraud, or contract issue, it’s important to know where to go for help quickly. Even if the physician does not retain a lawyer in advance, having the name of a qualified person who can be called for a variety of health care issues is already a step in the right direction.

More important than having a knowledgeable lawyer is actually contacting that lawyer. Some physicians will sit and chat with the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other investigators for hours, only to call me after the visitors leave. I have other clients who handle important medical staff hearings, discipline meetings, and license investigations on their own without consulting counsel first. In all of these situations, it can be too late to help a physician once their case has progressed too far down the road.

Employment issues arising in the workplace setting are the most common and troubling. Physicians will – without a second thought – attend a human resources–called or other meeting without thinking through the reason for the meeting, whether they are prepared or not, and without considering whether counsel could be helpful. Sometimes in the moment, there may be no choice, but most meetings are scheduled in advance with ample time for consultation and planning.

Many issues that arise in the workplace setting are troubling because they can be easily avoided. The No. 1 piece of advice which I offer to young physician clients as they enter the workplace is: Remember that nobody in the workplace is your friend. Every word that is said, text that is sent, gesture that is made, can put you at risk. You must assume that all conversations and messages will be shared with others. Joking around in the operating room about sexual escapades, sending texts with flirtatious comments, making comments that can be construed as racist or homophobic, or raising your voice in a moment of frustration are all real examples of situations where physicians ended up disciplined and terminated. Are these innocent comments or ones the doctor thought they could get away with among “friends?” From a human resources perspective, there is little tolerance for such conduct, regardless of the doctor’s intent.

There are also situations in the workplace that are more troubling. Many times a physician is accused of noncompliance with a contract or a policy, when in fact the accuser is retaliating or engaging in efforts to discredit a doctor. I have seen this happen where minority physicians complain about how they are treated and are suddenly investigated for a performance issue. I have had female physicians criticize a business decision at a committee meeting, only to receive a formal notice that their “negative attitude” violated a policy.

In these situations, talking with counsel before a meeting with the employer representative is recommended and can impact the trajectory of a physician’s career. Physicians cannot and should not handle such events on their own.

If a physician is forced or chooses to attend a meeting with an investigator or other party without counsel, there are some steps to consider (subject to the type of meeting and the specific circumstances).

• Listen more than you talk. Make sure you know the name of everyone who is present and their role within the organization.
• If you have previously provided any written or oral statements, or have written correspondence related to the issues at hand, review all materials in advance. If there is anything you think needs to be corrected or added, let the interviewer know that at the outset.
• Be familiar with your own employment agreement/policies and the terms that may be relevant to the discussion or meeting.
• Be calm, honest, and forthcoming in response to the questions, and don’t embellish or exaggerate.
• Avoid personal attacks on anyone. This generally serves to weaken an argument and credibility.
• Be prepared to explain your allegations or defense, and when you do so, keep in mind that the interviewer may not know the history, background, or details of any of the issues.
• If the reason for the situation relates to race or national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected category, don’t hesitate to say so.
• Answer the question you’re asked, but if you feel that the interviewer needs more information or is not understanding what you’ve said, feel free to explain. Be forthcoming, but don’t dominate the conversation.
• If they ask whether you have counsel, be honest, but decline to provide them any information about what you discussed with counsel, as those conversations are privileged.
• If the interviewer asks to record the conversation, you can agree, but ask to be provided a copy of the recording.
• Know your rights in advance. If the subject of the meeting is governed by bylaws or policies, for example, you may have the right to bring an attorney or adviser to the meeting, receive advance notice of who will be attending the meeting and the subject matter, and avail yourself of specific procedures or appeal rights of any discipline or decisions decided during the meeting.

There are many circumstances that can lead to a physician being under investigation or interrogation. In every single circumstance, it is ideal to seek legal counsel immediately. Whether the physician has actually engaged in wrongful conduct or not, without proper handling a physician’s career can be permanently, and sometimes irrevocably, affected.

Ms. Adler is a shareholder and health law practice group manager for Chicago-based law firm Roetzel, a member of the Illinois Association of Healthcare Attorneys, and a current advisory board member at DePaul College of Law Health Law Institute. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physician clients will find themselves in difficult legal situations from time to time. Sometimes it’s an investigation for Medicare fraud or other illegal conduct. Other times it’s a review related to Drug Enforcement Administration or licensure compliance. More commonly, physicians are involved in employer inquiries into workplace misconduct.

The common element among these very different legal issues is that physicians typically have no idea what to do when they find themselves potentially in trouble, but how they choose to deal with the issue can have significant consequences.

In my opinion, physicians should have a relationship with a health care lawyer or firm in place before any investigation occurs. Whether they are being investigated for a license or medical staff issue, Medicare fraud, or contract issue, it’s important to know where to go for help quickly. Even if the physician does not retain a lawyer in advance, having the name of a qualified person who can be called for a variety of health care issues is already a step in the right direction.

More important than having a knowledgeable lawyer is actually contacting that lawyer. Some physicians will sit and chat with the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other investigators for hours, only to call me after the visitors leave. I have other clients who handle important medical staff hearings, discipline meetings, and license investigations on their own without consulting counsel first. In all of these situations, it can be too late to help a physician once their case has progressed too far down the road.

Employment issues arising in the workplace setting are the most common and troubling. Physicians will – without a second thought – attend a human resources–called or other meeting without thinking through the reason for the meeting, whether they are prepared or not, and without considering whether counsel could be helpful. Sometimes in the moment, there may be no choice, but most meetings are scheduled in advance with ample time for consultation and planning.

Many issues that arise in the workplace setting are troubling because they can be easily avoided. The No. 1 piece of advice which I offer to young physician clients as they enter the workplace is: Remember that nobody in the workplace is your friend. Every word that is said, text that is sent, gesture that is made, can put you at risk. You must assume that all conversations and messages will be shared with others. Joking around in the operating room about sexual escapades, sending texts with flirtatious comments, making comments that can be construed as racist or homophobic, or raising your voice in a moment of frustration are all real examples of situations where physicians ended up disciplined and terminated. Are these innocent comments or ones the doctor thought they could get away with among “friends?” From a human resources perspective, there is little tolerance for such conduct, regardless of the doctor’s intent.

There are also situations in the workplace that are more troubling. Many times a physician is accused of noncompliance with a contract or a policy, when in fact the accuser is retaliating or engaging in efforts to discredit a doctor. I have seen this happen where minority physicians complain about how they are treated and are suddenly investigated for a performance issue. I have had female physicians criticize a business decision at a committee meeting, only to receive a formal notice that their “negative attitude” violated a policy.

In these situations, talking with counsel before a meeting with the employer representative is recommended and can impact the trajectory of a physician’s career. Physicians cannot and should not handle such events on their own.

If a physician is forced or chooses to attend a meeting with an investigator or other party without counsel, there are some steps to consider (subject to the type of meeting and the specific circumstances).

• Listen more than you talk. Make sure you know the name of everyone who is present and their role within the organization.
• If you have previously provided any written or oral statements, or have written correspondence related to the issues at hand, review all materials in advance. If there is anything you think needs to be corrected or added, let the interviewer know that at the outset.
• Be familiar with your own employment agreement/policies and the terms that may be relevant to the discussion or meeting.
• Be calm, honest, and forthcoming in response to the questions, and don’t embellish or exaggerate.
• Avoid personal attacks on anyone. This generally serves to weaken an argument and credibility.
• Be prepared to explain your allegations or defense, and when you do so, keep in mind that the interviewer may not know the history, background, or details of any of the issues.
• If the reason for the situation relates to race or national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected category, don’t hesitate to say so.
• Answer the question you’re asked, but if you feel that the interviewer needs more information or is not understanding what you’ve said, feel free to explain. Be forthcoming, but don’t dominate the conversation.
• If they ask whether you have counsel, be honest, but decline to provide them any information about what you discussed with counsel, as those conversations are privileged.
• If the interviewer asks to record the conversation, you can agree, but ask to be provided a copy of the recording.
• Know your rights in advance. If the subject of the meeting is governed by bylaws or policies, for example, you may have the right to bring an attorney or adviser to the meeting, receive advance notice of who will be attending the meeting and the subject matter, and avail yourself of specific procedures or appeal rights of any discipline or decisions decided during the meeting.

There are many circumstances that can lead to a physician being under investigation or interrogation. In every single circumstance, it is ideal to seek legal counsel immediately. Whether the physician has actually engaged in wrongful conduct or not, without proper handling a physician’s career can be permanently, and sometimes irrevocably, affected.

Ms. Adler is a shareholder and health law practice group manager for Chicago-based law firm Roetzel, a member of the Illinois Association of Healthcare Attorneys, and a current advisory board member at DePaul College of Law Health Law Institute. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LAS VEGAS – While frontline health care workers may have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire workforce has experienced some level of anxiety, stress, loss, grief, and trauma, according to Jon A. Levenson, MD.

“There are those who will need mental health treatment, so creating an easy way to reach out for help and facilitate linkage with care is critically important,” Dr. Levenson, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “The vast majority of our workforce will thrive with proper support. But what can each of us do to take care of ourselves?”

Step one is to recognize common stress reactions as well as signs of distress. He offered the oxygen mask metaphor, the idea that before we can take care of and support anyone else, we must first take care of ourselves. “When people are stressed, they don’t always think about the oxygen mask metaphor,” Dr. Levenson said. Step two is to practice and model self-care by adopting principles often discussed in acceptance and commitment therapy: to focus on what you can control, not on what you can’t control.

“We can’t control the amount of toilet paper at the grocery store, how long the pandemic will last, or how others have reacted,” Dr. Levenson said. “We also can’t control other people’s motives, predict what will happen, or the actions of others, including whether they will follow social distancing guidelines or not.”

How about what we can control? One is a positive attitude, “which can sustain people during times of intense stress,” he said. “Other things that we can do include turn off the news and find fun and enriching activities to do at home, whether it be playing a game with family or reaching out to friends through an iPad or a smartphone. You can also follow [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recommendations, control your own social distancing, and limit social media activity, which can be stressful. We can also control our kindness and grace.” He added that resilience does not mean “snapping back” to how you were before the pandemic, but rather “learning to integrate the adverse experiences into who you are and growing with them, which is sometimes known as posttraumatic growth.”

Dr. Levenson encouraged health care workers to use their coping resources, connect to others, and cultivate their values and purpose in life as they navigate these challenging times. “You also want to promote realistic optimism; find a way to stay positive,” he said. “We emphasize to our staff that while you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control – your positive relationships – and remind yourself of your values and sources of gratitude. Figure out, and reflect on, what you care about, and then care about it. Remind yourself in a deliberate, purposeful way what anchors you to your job, which in the health care setting tends to be a desire to care for others, to assist those in need, and to work in teams. We also encourage staff to refrain from judgment. Guilt is a normal and near-universal response to this stressor, but there are many ways to contribute without a judgmental or guilty tone.”

Other tips for self-support are to remind yourself that it is not selfish to take breaks. “The needs of your patients are not more important than your own needs,” Dr. Levenson said. “Working nonstop can put you at higher risk for stress, exhaustion, and illness. You may need to give yourself more time to step back and recover from workplace challenges or extended coverage for peers; this is important. We remind our staff that your work may feel more emotionally draining than usual because everything is more intense overall during the COVID-19 pandemic. This reminder helps staff normalize what they already may be experiencing, and in turn, to further support each other.”

Soothing activities to relieve stress include meditation, prayer, deep and slow breathing, relaxation exercises, yoga, mindfulness, stretching, staying hydrated, eating healthfully, exercise, and getting sufficient sleep. Other stress management tips include avoiding excessive alcohol intake, reaching out to others, asking for assistance, and delegating when possible. “We want to promote psychological flexibility: the ability to stay in contact with the present moment,” he said. “We encourage our peers to be aware of unpleasant thoughts and feelings, and to try to redirect negative thought patterns to a proactive problem-solving approach; this includes choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values.”

Dr. Levenson reported having no disclosures related to his presentation.

LAS VEGAS – While frontline health care workers may have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire workforce has experienced some level of anxiety, stress, loss, grief, and trauma, according to Jon A. Levenson, MD.

“There are those who will need mental health treatment, so creating an easy way to reach out for help and facilitate linkage with care is critically important,” Dr. Levenson, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “The vast majority of our workforce will thrive with proper support. But what can each of us do to take care of ourselves?”

Step one is to recognize common stress reactions as well as signs of distress. He offered the oxygen mask metaphor, the idea that before we can take care of and support anyone else, we must first take care of ourselves. “When people are stressed, they don’t always think about the oxygen mask metaphor,” Dr. Levenson said. Step two is to practice and model self-care by adopting principles often discussed in acceptance and commitment therapy: to focus on what you can control, not on what you can’t control.

“We can’t control the amount of toilet paper at the grocery store, how long the pandemic will last, or how others have reacted,” Dr. Levenson said. “We also can’t control other people’s motives, predict what will happen, or the actions of others, including whether they will follow social distancing guidelines or not.”

How about what we can control? One is a positive attitude, “which can sustain people during times of intense stress,” he said. “Other things that we can do include turn off the news and find fun and enriching activities to do at home, whether it be playing a game with family or reaching out to friends through an iPad or a smartphone. You can also follow [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recommendations, control your own social distancing, and limit social media activity, which can be stressful. We can also control our kindness and grace.” He added that resilience does not mean “snapping back” to how you were before the pandemic, but rather “learning to integrate the adverse experiences into who you are and growing with them, which is sometimes known as posttraumatic growth.”

Dr. Levenson encouraged health care workers to use their coping resources, connect to others, and cultivate their values and purpose in life as they navigate these challenging times. “You also want to promote realistic optimism; find a way to stay positive,” he said. “We emphasize to our staff that while you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control – your positive relationships – and remind yourself of your values and sources of gratitude. Figure out, and reflect on, what you care about, and then care about it. Remind yourself in a deliberate, purposeful way what anchors you to your job, which in the health care setting tends to be a desire to care for others, to assist those in need, and to work in teams. We also encourage staff to refrain from judgment. Guilt is a normal and near-universal response to this stressor, but there are many ways to contribute without a judgmental or guilty tone.”

Other tips for self-support are to remind yourself that it is not selfish to take breaks. “The needs of your patients are not more important than your own needs,” Dr. Levenson said. “Working nonstop can put you at higher risk for stress, exhaustion, and illness. You may need to give yourself more time to step back and recover from workplace challenges or extended coverage for peers; this is important. We remind our staff that your work may feel more emotionally draining than usual because everything is more intense overall during the COVID-19 pandemic. This reminder helps staff normalize what they already may be experiencing, and in turn, to further support each other.”

Soothing activities to relieve stress include meditation, prayer, deep and slow breathing, relaxation exercises, yoga, mindfulness, stretching, staying hydrated, eating healthfully, exercise, and getting sufficient sleep. Other stress management tips include avoiding excessive alcohol intake, reaching out to others, asking for assistance, and delegating when possible. “We want to promote psychological flexibility: the ability to stay in contact with the present moment,” he said. “We encourage our peers to be aware of unpleasant thoughts and feelings, and to try to redirect negative thought patterns to a proactive problem-solving approach; this includes choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values.”

Dr. Levenson reported having no disclosures related to his presentation.

LAS VEGAS – While frontline health care workers may have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire workforce has experienced some level of anxiety, stress, loss, grief, and trauma, according to Jon A. Levenson, MD.

“There are those who will need mental health treatment, so creating an easy way to reach out for help and facilitate linkage with care is critically important,” Dr. Levenson, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “The vast majority of our workforce will thrive with proper support. But what can each of us do to take care of ourselves?”

Step one is to recognize common stress reactions as well as signs of distress. He offered the oxygen mask metaphor, the idea that before we can take care of and support anyone else, we must first take care of ourselves. “When people are stressed, they don’t always think about the oxygen mask metaphor,” Dr. Levenson said. Step two is to practice and model self-care by adopting principles often discussed in acceptance and commitment therapy: to focus on what you can control, not on what you can’t control.

“We can’t control the amount of toilet paper at the grocery store, how long the pandemic will last, or how others have reacted,” Dr. Levenson said. “We also can’t control other people’s motives, predict what will happen, or the actions of others, including whether they will follow social distancing guidelines or not.”

How about what we can control? One is a positive attitude, “which can sustain people during times of intense stress,” he said. “Other things that we can do include turn off the news and find fun and enriching activities to do at home, whether it be playing a game with family or reaching out to friends through an iPad or a smartphone. You can also follow [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recommendations, control your own social distancing, and limit social media activity, which can be stressful. We can also control our kindness and grace.” He added that resilience does not mean “snapping back” to how you were before the pandemic, but rather “learning to integrate the adverse experiences into who you are and growing with them, which is sometimes known as posttraumatic growth.”

Dr. Levenson encouraged health care workers to use their coping resources, connect to others, and cultivate their values and purpose in life as they navigate these challenging times. “You also want to promote realistic optimism; find a way to stay positive,” he said. “We emphasize to our staff that while you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control – your positive relationships – and remind yourself of your values and sources of gratitude. Figure out, and reflect on, what you care about, and then care about it. Remind yourself in a deliberate, purposeful way what anchors you to your job, which in the health care setting tends to be a desire to care for others, to assist those in need, and to work in teams. We also encourage staff to refrain from judgment. Guilt is a normal and near-universal response to this stressor, but there are many ways to contribute without a judgmental or guilty tone.”

Other tips for self-support are to remind yourself that it is not selfish to take breaks. “The needs of your patients are not more important than your own needs,” Dr. Levenson said. “Working nonstop can put you at higher risk for stress, exhaustion, and illness. You may need to give yourself more time to step back and recover from workplace challenges or extended coverage for peers; this is important. We remind our staff that your work may feel more emotionally draining than usual because everything is more intense overall during the COVID-19 pandemic. This reminder helps staff normalize what they already may be experiencing, and in turn, to further support each other.”

Soothing activities to relieve stress include meditation, prayer, deep and slow breathing, relaxation exercises, yoga, mindfulness, stretching, staying hydrated, eating healthfully, exercise, and getting sufficient sleep. Other stress management tips include avoiding excessive alcohol intake, reaching out to others, asking for assistance, and delegating when possible. “We want to promote psychological flexibility: the ability to stay in contact with the present moment,” he said. “We encourage our peers to be aware of unpleasant thoughts and feelings, and to try to redirect negative thought patterns to a proactive problem-solving approach; this includes choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values.”

Dr. Levenson reported having no disclosures related to his presentation.

Aspirin use failed to reduce recurrence rates among women with breast cancer in a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial that was halted following a planned futility analysis. The aspirin group actually had greater risk of recurrence, though the result did not reach statistical significance. Aspirin has proven effective in reducing recurrence rates in colon cancer.

Despite the disappointment of the results, Wendy Chen, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, emphasized the value of the study. “Negative studies provide important data. You don’t want people doing something that’s not going to be helping them. There have been a lot of negative studies that have still provided important clinical information,” said Dr. Chen, who presented the results of the study at the ASCO Plenary Series.

Even study participants took the news with equanimity. “What has really been gratifying is that the patients, when we did tell them about the results, all of them [said] ‘I’m really glad I participated in the study anyway. I think it was an important question.’ And this is why we do studies. You don’t do studies because every single one of them is going to show a benefit. We do studies knowing that some of them are going to show no benefit,” said Dr. Chen.

The study included 3,021 women under age 70, recruited from 338 sites between 2017 and 2020, who were randomized to 300 mg daily aspirin or placebo. The median follow-up was 24.0 months. Dropout was high, with only 56% of patients still taking aspirin or placebo at the end of the study. The percentage was nearly identical in both arms. That low treatment rate could potentially explain the lack of an apparent effect, but Dr. Chen noted that the incidence of recurrence was actually higher in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 1.25), though the result was not statistically significant (P = .1258). “The amount that it would need to flip in the second half [of the study] would really be of such a large magnitude to flip it. That biologically would not be plausible,” Dr. Chen said.

Previous epidemiological and even post hoc analyses of other clinical trials had suggested that aspirin might be effective at reducing recurrence in breast cancer, including data from 39,876 participants in the Women’s Health Study suggesting a reduction in risk of metastatic adenocarcinoma, but this isn’t the first time such evidence has led researchers and physicians astray. Dr. Chen pointed to hormone replacement therapy, which was prescribed for the prevention of breast cancer recurrence on the basis of similar evidence, but was shown to be harmful in a randomized, controlled trial.

“It was a very similar situation. Fortunately, the aspirin in this population was not causing harm, but it is possible that there are a lot of people who are just taking aspirin on their own, and they may be over 70, or they may have have other risk factors for adverse events that are different from our population,” Dr. Chen said.

The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and the National Cancer Institute. Bayer provided aspirin and placebo for the study.

Aspirin use failed to reduce recurrence rates among women with breast cancer in a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial that was halted following a planned futility analysis. The aspirin group actually had greater risk of recurrence, though the result did not reach statistical significance. Aspirin has proven effective in reducing recurrence rates in colon cancer.

Despite the disappointment of the results, Wendy Chen, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, emphasized the value of the study. “Negative studies provide important data. You don’t want people doing something that’s not going to be helping them. There have been a lot of negative studies that have still provided important clinical information,” said Dr. Chen, who presented the results of the study at the ASCO Plenary Series.

Even study participants took the news with equanimity. “What has really been gratifying is that the patients, when we did tell them about the results, all of them [said] ‘I’m really glad I participated in the study anyway. I think it was an important question.’ And this is why we do studies. You don’t do studies because every single one of them is going to show a benefit. We do studies knowing that some of them are going to show no benefit,” said Dr. Chen.

The study included 3,021 women under age 70, recruited from 338 sites between 2017 and 2020, who were randomized to 300 mg daily aspirin or placebo. The median follow-up was 24.0 months. Dropout was high, with only 56% of patients still taking aspirin or placebo at the end of the study. The percentage was nearly identical in both arms. That low treatment rate could potentially explain the lack of an apparent effect, but Dr. Chen noted that the incidence of recurrence was actually higher in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 1.25), though the result was not statistically significant (P = .1258). “The amount that it would need to flip in the second half [of the study] would really be of such a large magnitude to flip it. That biologically would not be plausible,” Dr. Chen said.

Previous epidemiological and even post hoc analyses of other clinical trials had suggested that aspirin might be effective at reducing recurrence in breast cancer, including data from 39,876 participants in the Women’s Health Study suggesting a reduction in risk of metastatic adenocarcinoma, but this isn’t the first time such evidence has led researchers and physicians astray. Dr. Chen pointed to hormone replacement therapy, which was prescribed for the prevention of breast cancer recurrence on the basis of similar evidence, but was shown to be harmful in a randomized, controlled trial.

“It was a very similar situation. Fortunately, the aspirin in this population was not causing harm, but it is possible that there are a lot of people who are just taking aspirin on their own, and they may be over 70, or they may have have other risk factors for adverse events that are different from our population,” Dr. Chen said.

The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and the National Cancer Institute. Bayer provided aspirin and placebo for the study.

Aspirin use failed to reduce recurrence rates among women with breast cancer in a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial that was halted following a planned futility analysis. The aspirin group actually had greater risk of recurrence, though the result did not reach statistical significance. Aspirin has proven effective in reducing recurrence rates in colon cancer.

Despite the disappointment of the results, Wendy Chen, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, emphasized the value of the study. “Negative studies provide important data. You don’t want people doing something that’s not going to be helping them. There have been a lot of negative studies that have still provided important clinical information,” said Dr. Chen, who presented the results of the study at the ASCO Plenary Series.

Even study participants took the news with equanimity. “What has really been gratifying is that the patients, when we did tell them about the results, all of them [said] ‘I’m really glad I participated in the study anyway. I think it was an important question.’ And this is why we do studies. You don’t do studies because every single one of them is going to show a benefit. We do studies knowing that some of them are going to show no benefit,” said Dr. Chen.

The study included 3,021 women under age 70, recruited from 338 sites between 2017 and 2020, who were randomized to 300 mg daily aspirin or placebo. The median follow-up was 24.0 months. Dropout was high, with only 56% of patients still taking aspirin or placebo at the end of the study. The percentage was nearly identical in both arms. That low treatment rate could potentially explain the lack of an apparent effect, but Dr. Chen noted that the incidence of recurrence was actually higher in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 1.25), though the result was not statistically significant (P = .1258). “The amount that it would need to flip in the second half [of the study] would really be of such a large magnitude to flip it. That biologically would not be plausible,” Dr. Chen said.

Previous epidemiological and even post hoc analyses of other clinical trials had suggested that aspirin might be effective at reducing recurrence in breast cancer, including data from 39,876 participants in the Women’s Health Study suggesting a reduction in risk of metastatic adenocarcinoma, but this isn’t the first time such evidence has led researchers and physicians astray. Dr. Chen pointed to hormone replacement therapy, which was prescribed for the prevention of breast cancer recurrence on the basis of similar evidence, but was shown to be harmful in a randomized, controlled trial.

“It was a very similar situation. Fortunately, the aspirin in this population was not causing harm, but it is possible that there are a lot of people who are just taking aspirin on their own, and they may be over 70, or they may have have other risk factors for adverse events that are different from our population,” Dr. Chen said.

The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and the National Cancer Institute. Bayer provided aspirin and placebo for the study.

Chocolate: Now part of a well-balanced diet

Asking if someone loves chocolate is like asking if they love breathing. It’s really not a question that needs to be asked. The thing with chocolate, however, is that most people who love chocolate actually love sugar, since your typical milk chocolate contains only about 30% cacao. The rest, of course, is sugar.

Now, dark chocolate is actually kind of good for you since it contains beneficial flavonoids and less sugar. But that healthiness comes at a cost: Dark chocolate is quite bitter, and gets more so as the cacao content rises, to the point where 100% cacao chocolate is very nearly inedible. That’s the chocolate conundrum, the healthier it is, the worse it tastes. But what if there’s another way? What if you can have tasty chocolate that’s good for you?

Sascha Luehr/Pixabay

That’s the question a group of researchers from Penn State University dared to ask. The secret, they discovered, is to subject the cacao beans to extra-intense roasting. We’re not sure how screaming insults at a bunch of beans will help, but if science says so ... YOU USELESS LUMP OF BARELY EDIBLE FOOD! HOW DARE YOU EXIST!

Oh, not that kind of roasting. Oops.

For their study, the researchers made 27 unsweetened chocolates, prepared using various cacao bean roasting times and temperatures, and served them to volunteers. Those volunteers reported that chocolates made with cacao beans roasted more intensely (such as 20 minutes at 340° F, 80 min at 275° F, and 54 min at 304° F) were far more acceptable than were chocolates prepared with raw or lightly roasted cacao beans.

The implications of healthy yet tasty chocolate are obvious: Master the chocolate and you’ll make millions. Imagine a future where parents say to their kids: “Don’t forget to eat your chocolate.” So, we’re off to do some cooking. Don’t want Hershey to make all the money off of this revelation.
 

The villain hiding in dairy for some MS patients

For some of us, lactose can be a real heartbreaker when it comes to dairy consumption, but for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) there’s another villain they may also have to face that can make their symptoms worse.

fcafotodigital/Getty Images

Physicians at the Institute of Anatomy at University Hospital Bonn (Germany) were getting so many complaints from patients with MS about how much worse they felt about after having cheese, yogurt, and milk that they decided to get to the bottom of it. The culprit, it seems, is casein, a protein specifically found in cow’s milk.

The researchers injected mice with various proteins found in cow’s milk and found perforated myelin sheaths in those given casein. In MS, the patient’s own immune system destroys that sheath, which leads to paresthesia, vision problems, and movement disorders.

“The body’s defenses actually attack the casein, but in the process they also destroy proteins involved in the formation of myelin, “ said Rittika Chunder, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Bonn. How? Apparently it’s all a big misunderstanding.

While looking at molecules needed for myelin production, the researchers came across MAG, which is very similar to casein, which is a problem when patients with MS are allergic to casein. After they have dairy products, the B-cell squad gets called in to clean up the evil twin, casein, but can’t differentiate it from the good twin, MAG, so it all gets a wash and the myelin sheath suffers.

Since this happens only to patients with MS who have a casein allergy, the researchers advise them to stay away from milk, yogurt, or cottage cheese while they work on a self-test to check if patients carry the antibodies.

A small price to pay, perhaps, to stop a villainous evil twin.
 

You would even say it glows

If you’re anything like us – and we think you are since you’re reading this – you’ve been asking yourself: Are there any common medications in my house that will make good radiation sensors?

Vnukko/Pixabay

Not that anyone needs to worry about excess radiation or anything. Far from it. We were just wondering.

It just so happens that Anna Mrozik and Paweł Bilski, both of the Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences (IFJ PAN) in Kraków, Poland, were wondering the same thing: “During an uncontrolled release of radiation, it is highly unlikely that members of the public will be equipped with personal radiation dose monitors.”

People would need to use something they had lying around the house. A smartphone would work, the investigators explained in a statement from the IFJ PAN, but the process of converting one to radiation-sensor duty, which involves dismantling it and breaking the display glass, “is laborious and time-consuming [and] the destruction of a valuable and useful device does not seem to be the optimal solution.”

Naturally, they turned to drugs. The key, in this case, is optically stimulated luminescence. They needed to find materials that would glow with greater intensity as the radiation dose increased. Turns out that ibuprofen- and paracetamol-based painkillers fit the bill quite nicely, although aspirin also works.

It’s not known exactly which substance is causing the luminescence, but rest assured, the “physicists from the IFJ PAN intend to identify it.”
 

This is why you don’t interrupt someone using headphones

There’s nothing like taking a nice relaxing walk with your headphones. Whether you’re listening to a podcast or a song or talking on the phone, it’s an escape from reality that makes you feel like you’re completely in tune with what you’re listening to.

Weedezign/Thinkstock

According to a new study, headphones, as opposed to speakers, make people feel more connected to what they are listening to. Data collected from more than 4,000 people showed that listening with headphones makes more of an impact than listening to speakers.

“Headphones produce a phenomenon called in-head localization, which makes the speaker sound as if they’re inside your head,” study coauthor On Amir of the University of California, San Diego, said in a statement. Because of this, people feel like the speakers are close to them and there’s more of a sense of empathy for the speakers and the listener is more likely to be swayed toward the ideas of the speaker.

These findings could lead to more efficient training programs, online work, and advertising, the investigators suggested.

We now finally understand why people get so mad when they have to take out their headphones to answer or talk to us. We ruined a satisfying moment going on in their brains.

Chocolate: Now part of a well-balanced diet

Asking if someone loves chocolate is like asking if they love breathing. It’s really not a question that needs to be asked. The thing with chocolate, however, is that most people who love chocolate actually love sugar, since your typical milk chocolate contains only about 30% cacao. The rest, of course, is sugar.

Now, dark chocolate is actually kind of good for you since it contains beneficial flavonoids and less sugar. But that healthiness comes at a cost: Dark chocolate is quite bitter, and gets more so as the cacao content rises, to the point where 100% cacao chocolate is very nearly inedible. That’s the chocolate conundrum, the healthier it is, the worse it tastes. But what if there’s another way? What if you can have tasty chocolate that’s good for you?

Sascha Luehr/Pixabay

That’s the question a group of researchers from Penn State University dared to ask. The secret, they discovered, is to subject the cacao beans to extra-intense roasting. We’re not sure how screaming insults at a bunch of beans will help, but if science says so ... YOU USELESS LUMP OF BARELY EDIBLE FOOD! HOW DARE YOU EXIST!

Oh, not that kind of roasting. Oops.

For their study, the researchers made 27 unsweetened chocolates, prepared using various cacao bean roasting times and temperatures, and served them to volunteers. Those volunteers reported that chocolates made with cacao beans roasted more intensely (such as 20 minutes at 340° F, 80 min at 275° F, and 54 min at 304° F) were far more acceptable than were chocolates prepared with raw or lightly roasted cacao beans.

The implications of healthy yet tasty chocolate are obvious: Master the chocolate and you’ll make millions. Imagine a future where parents say to their kids: “Don’t forget to eat your chocolate.” So, we’re off to do some cooking. Don’t want Hershey to make all the money off of this revelation.
 

The villain hiding in dairy for some MS patients

For some of us, lactose can be a real heartbreaker when it comes to dairy consumption, but for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) there’s another villain they may also have to face that can make their symptoms worse.

fcafotodigital/Getty Images

Physicians at the Institute of Anatomy at University Hospital Bonn (Germany) were getting so many complaints from patients with MS about how much worse they felt about after having cheese, yogurt, and milk that they decided to get to the bottom of it. The culprit, it seems, is casein, a protein specifically found in cow’s milk.

The researchers injected mice with various proteins found in cow’s milk and found perforated myelin sheaths in those given casein. In MS, the patient’s own immune system destroys that sheath, which leads to paresthesia, vision problems, and movement disorders.

“The body’s defenses actually attack the casein, but in the process they also destroy proteins involved in the formation of myelin, “ said Rittika Chunder, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Bonn. How? Apparently it’s all a big misunderstanding.

While looking at molecules needed for myelin production, the researchers came across MAG, which is very similar to casein, which is a problem when patients with MS are allergic to casein. After they have dairy products, the B-cell squad gets called in to clean up the evil twin, casein, but can’t differentiate it from the good twin, MAG, so it all gets a wash and the myelin sheath suffers.

Since this happens only to patients with MS who have a casein allergy, the researchers advise them to stay away from milk, yogurt, or cottage cheese while they work on a self-test to check if patients carry the antibodies.

A small price to pay, perhaps, to stop a villainous evil twin.
 

You would even say it glows

If you’re anything like us – and we think you are since you’re reading this – you’ve been asking yourself: Are there any common medications in my house that will make good radiation sensors?

Vnukko/Pixabay

Not that anyone needs to worry about excess radiation or anything. Far from it. We were just wondering.

It just so happens that Anna Mrozik and Paweł Bilski, both of the Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences (IFJ PAN) in Kraków, Poland, were wondering the same thing: “During an uncontrolled release of radiation, it is highly unlikely that members of the public will be equipped with personal radiation dose monitors.”

People would need to use something they had lying around the house. A smartphone would work, the investigators explained in a statement from the IFJ PAN, but the process of converting one to radiation-sensor duty, which involves dismantling it and breaking the display glass, “is laborious and time-consuming [and] the destruction of a valuable and useful device does not seem to be the optimal solution.”

Naturally, they turned to drugs. The key, in this case, is optically stimulated luminescence. They needed to find materials that would glow with greater intensity as the radiation dose increased. Turns out that ibuprofen- and paracetamol-based painkillers fit the bill quite nicely, although aspirin also works.

It’s not known exactly which substance is causing the luminescence, but rest assured, the “physicists from the IFJ PAN intend to identify it.”
 

This is why you don’t interrupt someone using headphones

There’s nothing like taking a nice relaxing walk with your headphones. Whether you’re listening to a podcast or a song or talking on the phone, it’s an escape from reality that makes you feel like you’re completely in tune with what you’re listening to.

Weedezign/Thinkstock

According to a new study, headphones, as opposed to speakers, make people feel more connected to what they are listening to. Data collected from more than 4,000 people showed that listening with headphones makes more of an impact than listening to speakers.

“Headphones produce a phenomenon called in-head localization, which makes the speaker sound as if they’re inside your head,” study coauthor On Amir of the University of California, San Diego, said in a statement. Because of this, people feel like the speakers are close to them and there’s more of a sense of empathy for the speakers and the listener is more likely to be swayed toward the ideas of the speaker.

These findings could lead to more efficient training programs, online work, and advertising, the investigators suggested.

We now finally understand why people get so mad when they have to take out their headphones to answer or talk to us. We ruined a satisfying moment going on in their brains.

Chocolate: Now part of a well-balanced diet

Asking if someone loves chocolate is like asking if they love breathing. It’s really not a question that needs to be asked. The thing with chocolate, however, is that most people who love chocolate actually love sugar, since your typical milk chocolate contains only about 30% cacao. The rest, of course, is sugar.

Now, dark chocolate is actually kind of good for you since it contains beneficial flavonoids and less sugar. But that healthiness comes at a cost: Dark chocolate is quite bitter, and gets more so as the cacao content rises, to the point where 100% cacao chocolate is very nearly inedible. That’s the chocolate conundrum, the healthier it is, the worse it tastes. But what if there’s another way? What if you can have tasty chocolate that’s good for you?

Sascha Luehr/Pixabay

That’s the question a group of researchers from Penn State University dared to ask. The secret, they discovered, is to subject the cacao beans to extra-intense roasting. We’re not sure how screaming insults at a bunch of beans will help, but if science says so ... YOU USELESS LUMP OF BARELY EDIBLE FOOD! HOW DARE YOU EXIST!

Oh, not that kind of roasting. Oops.

For their study, the researchers made 27 unsweetened chocolates, prepared using various cacao bean roasting times and temperatures, and served them to volunteers. Those volunteers reported that chocolates made with cacao beans roasted more intensely (such as 20 minutes at 340° F, 80 min at 275° F, and 54 min at 304° F) were far more acceptable than were chocolates prepared with raw or lightly roasted cacao beans.

The implications of healthy yet tasty chocolate are obvious: Master the chocolate and you’ll make millions. Imagine a future where parents say to their kids: “Don’t forget to eat your chocolate.” So, we’re off to do some cooking. Don’t want Hershey to make all the money off of this revelation.
 

The villain hiding in dairy for some MS patients

For some of us, lactose can be a real heartbreaker when it comes to dairy consumption, but for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) there’s another villain they may also have to face that can make their symptoms worse.

fcafotodigital/Getty Images

Physicians at the Institute of Anatomy at University Hospital Bonn (Germany) were getting so many complaints from patients with MS about how much worse they felt about after having cheese, yogurt, and milk that they decided to get to the bottom of it. The culprit, it seems, is casein, a protein specifically found in cow’s milk.

The researchers injected mice with various proteins found in cow’s milk and found perforated myelin sheaths in those given casein. In MS, the patient’s own immune system destroys that sheath, which leads to paresthesia, vision problems, and movement disorders.

“The body’s defenses actually attack the casein, but in the process they also destroy proteins involved in the formation of myelin, “ said Rittika Chunder, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Bonn. How? Apparently it’s all a big misunderstanding.

While looking at molecules needed for myelin production, the researchers came across MAG, which is very similar to casein, which is a problem when patients with MS are allergic to casein. After they have dairy products, the B-cell squad gets called in to clean up the evil twin, casein, but can’t differentiate it from the good twin, MAG, so it all gets a wash and the myelin sheath suffers.

Since this happens only to patients with MS who have a casein allergy, the researchers advise them to stay away from milk, yogurt, or cottage cheese while they work on a self-test to check if patients carry the antibodies.

A small price to pay, perhaps, to stop a villainous evil twin.
 

You would even say it glows

If you’re anything like us – and we think you are since you’re reading this – you’ve been asking yourself: Are there any common medications in my house that will make good radiation sensors?

Vnukko/Pixabay

Not that anyone needs to worry about excess radiation or anything. Far from it. We were just wondering.

It just so happens that Anna Mrozik and Paweł Bilski, both of the Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences (IFJ PAN) in Kraków, Poland, were wondering the same thing: “During an uncontrolled release of radiation, it is highly unlikely that members of the public will be equipped with personal radiation dose monitors.”

People would need to use something they had lying around the house. A smartphone would work, the investigators explained in a statement from the IFJ PAN, but the process of converting one to radiation-sensor duty, which involves dismantling it and breaking the display glass, “is laborious and time-consuming [and] the destruction of a valuable and useful device does not seem to be the optimal solution.”

Naturally, they turned to drugs. The key, in this case, is optically stimulated luminescence. They needed to find materials that would glow with greater intensity as the radiation dose increased. Turns out that ibuprofen- and paracetamol-based painkillers fit the bill quite nicely, although aspirin also works.

It’s not known exactly which substance is causing the luminescence, but rest assured, the “physicists from the IFJ PAN intend to identify it.”
 

This is why you don’t interrupt someone using headphones

There’s nothing like taking a nice relaxing walk with your headphones. Whether you’re listening to a podcast or a song or talking on the phone, it’s an escape from reality that makes you feel like you’re completely in tune with what you’re listening to.

Weedezign/Thinkstock

According to a new study, headphones, as opposed to speakers, make people feel more connected to what they are listening to. Data collected from more than 4,000 people showed that listening with headphones makes more of an impact than listening to speakers.

“Headphones produce a phenomenon called in-head localization, which makes the speaker sound as if they’re inside your head,” study coauthor On Amir of the University of California, San Diego, said in a statement. Because of this, people feel like the speakers are close to them and there’s more of a sense of empathy for the speakers and the listener is more likely to be swayed toward the ideas of the speaker.

These findings could lead to more efficient training programs, online work, and advertising, the investigators suggested.

We now finally understand why people get so mad when they have to take out their headphones to answer or talk to us. We ruined a satisfying moment going on in their brains.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for lung cancer screening should be expanded to include more women, especially those with a history of breast cancer, according to a new study published in BJS Open.

The 2021 screening guidelines include adults aged between 50 and 80 years who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, but the guidelines do not include nonsmokers or patients with a history of previous malignancies, such as breast cancer.

Led by Daniela Molena, MD, a thoracic surgeon and director of esophageal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, researchers conducted an analysis of 2,192 women with first-time lung cancer who underwent lung resections at Memorial Sloan Kettering between January 2000 and December 2017. The study’s objective was to determine stage at diagnosis, survival, and eligibility for lung cancer screening among patients with lung cancer who had a previous breast cancer diagnosis and those who did not have a history of breast cancer.

Only 331 (15.1%) patients were previously diagnosed with breast cancer, which was not statistically significant. “Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in genomic or oncogenic pathway alterations between the two groups, which suggests that lung cancer in patients who previously had breast cancer may not be affected at the genomic level by the previous breast cancer,” the authors wrote.

However, at 58.4%, more than half of patients in the study (1,281 patients) were prior smokers and only 33.3% met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening, which the authors said was concerning.

“The most important finding of the study was that a high percentage of women with lung cancer, regardless of breast cancer history, did not meet the current USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. This is very important given the observation that nearly half of the women included in the study did not have a history of smoking. As such, the role of imaging for other causes, such as cancer surveillance, becomes especially important for early cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Molena and colleagues wrote. “To reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses, further assessment of guidelines for lung cancer screening for all women may be needed.”

Instead, for almost half of women in the study group with a history of breast cancer, the lung cancer was detected on a routine follow-up imaging scan.

USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening do not include previous malignancy as a high-risk feature requiring evaluation, which may explain why so few women in this study were screened for lung cancer, even though lung cancer is more common in breast cancer survivors than the general population. Approximately 10% of women who have had breast cancer will develop a second malignancy within 10 years and in most cases, it will be lung cancer. Plus, according to the National Cancer Institute, breast, lung, and colorectal cancers are the three most common cancers in women and account for approximately 50% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2020.

A 2018 analysis published in Frontiers in Oncology found that, of more than 6,000 women with secondary primary lung cancer after having had breast cancer, 42% had distant-stage disease at the time of diagnosis which, Dr. Molena and colleagues said, suggests an ongoing need to update screening recommendations.

“Given that lung cancer has a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 20% (highlighting the benefits of early-stage diagnosis), a better understanding of lung cancer in women with a history of breast cancer could have important implications for screening and surveillance,” the authors wrote.

Estrogen is known to play a role in the development of lung cancer by activating the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Previous research has shown an increased risk of lung cancer in patients with estrogen receptor–negative, progesterone receptor–negative, HER2-negative, or triple-negative breast cancer.

“Antiestrogen treatment has been demonstrated to decrease the incidence of lung cancer and has been associated with improved long-term survival in patients with lung cancer after breast cancer. Future studies should seek to identify high-risk populations on the basis of hormone receptor status and antiestrogen therapy use,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted a number of limitations to the study, including the single hospital as the sole source of data, plus, the analysis did not account for the length of time since patients quit smoking and a lung cancer diagnosis. Nor did it consider other risk factors, such as radiation, chemotherapy, or antiestrogen therapies.

The authors did not disclose any study-related conflicts of interests.

This article was updated 3/2/22.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for lung cancer screening should be expanded to include more women, especially those with a history of breast cancer, according to a new study published in BJS Open.

The 2021 screening guidelines include adults aged between 50 and 80 years who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, but the guidelines do not include nonsmokers or patients with a history of previous malignancies, such as breast cancer.

Led by Daniela Molena, MD, a thoracic surgeon and director of esophageal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, researchers conducted an analysis of 2,192 women with first-time lung cancer who underwent lung resections at Memorial Sloan Kettering between January 2000 and December 2017. The study’s objective was to determine stage at diagnosis, survival, and eligibility for lung cancer screening among patients with lung cancer who had a previous breast cancer diagnosis and those who did not have a history of breast cancer.

Only 331 (15.1%) patients were previously diagnosed with breast cancer, which was not statistically significant. “Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in genomic or oncogenic pathway alterations between the two groups, which suggests that lung cancer in patients who previously had breast cancer may not be affected at the genomic level by the previous breast cancer,” the authors wrote.

However, at 58.4%, more than half of patients in the study (1,281 patients) were prior smokers and only 33.3% met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening, which the authors said was concerning.

“The most important finding of the study was that a high percentage of women with lung cancer, regardless of breast cancer history, did not meet the current USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. This is very important given the observation that nearly half of the women included in the study did not have a history of smoking. As such, the role of imaging for other causes, such as cancer surveillance, becomes especially important for early cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Molena and colleagues wrote. “To reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses, further assessment of guidelines for lung cancer screening for all women may be needed.”

Instead, for almost half of women in the study group with a history of breast cancer, the lung cancer was detected on a routine follow-up imaging scan.

USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening do not include previous malignancy as a high-risk feature requiring evaluation, which may explain why so few women in this study were screened for lung cancer, even though lung cancer is more common in breast cancer survivors than the general population. Approximately 10% of women who have had breast cancer will develop a second malignancy within 10 years and in most cases, it will be lung cancer. Plus, according to the National Cancer Institute, breast, lung, and colorectal cancers are the three most common cancers in women and account for approximately 50% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2020.

A 2018 analysis published in Frontiers in Oncology found that, of more than 6,000 women with secondary primary lung cancer after having had breast cancer, 42% had distant-stage disease at the time of diagnosis which, Dr. Molena and colleagues said, suggests an ongoing need to update screening recommendations.

“Given that lung cancer has a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 20% (highlighting the benefits of early-stage diagnosis), a better understanding of lung cancer in women with a history of breast cancer could have important implications for screening and surveillance,” the authors wrote.

Estrogen is known to play a role in the development of lung cancer by activating the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Previous research has shown an increased risk of lung cancer in patients with estrogen receptor–negative, progesterone receptor–negative, HER2-negative, or triple-negative breast cancer.

“Antiestrogen treatment has been demonstrated to decrease the incidence of lung cancer and has been associated with improved long-term survival in patients with lung cancer after breast cancer. Future studies should seek to identify high-risk populations on the basis of hormone receptor status and antiestrogen therapy use,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted a number of limitations to the study, including the single hospital as the sole source of data, plus, the analysis did not account for the length of time since patients quit smoking and a lung cancer diagnosis. Nor did it consider other risk factors, such as radiation, chemotherapy, or antiestrogen therapies.

The authors did not disclose any study-related conflicts of interests.

This article was updated 3/2/22.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for lung cancer screening should be expanded to include more women, especially those with a history of breast cancer, according to a new study published in BJS Open.

The 2021 screening guidelines include adults aged between 50 and 80 years who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, but the guidelines do not include nonsmokers or patients with a history of previous malignancies, such as breast cancer.

Led by Daniela Molena, MD, a thoracic surgeon and director of esophageal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, researchers conducted an analysis of 2,192 women with first-time lung cancer who underwent lung resections at Memorial Sloan Kettering between January 2000 and December 2017. The study’s objective was to determine stage at diagnosis, survival, and eligibility for lung cancer screening among patients with lung cancer who had a previous breast cancer diagnosis and those who did not have a history of breast cancer.

Only 331 (15.1%) patients were previously diagnosed with breast cancer, which was not statistically significant. “Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in genomic or oncogenic pathway alterations between the two groups, which suggests that lung cancer in patients who previously had breast cancer may not be affected at the genomic level by the previous breast cancer,” the authors wrote.

However, at 58.4%, more than half of patients in the study (1,281 patients) were prior smokers and only 33.3% met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening, which the authors said was concerning.

“The most important finding of the study was that a high percentage of women with lung cancer, regardless of breast cancer history, did not meet the current USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. This is very important given the observation that nearly half of the women included in the study did not have a history of smoking. As such, the role of imaging for other causes, such as cancer surveillance, becomes especially important for early cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Molena and colleagues wrote. “To reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses, further assessment of guidelines for lung cancer screening for all women may be needed.”

Instead, for almost half of women in the study group with a history of breast cancer, the lung cancer was detected on a routine follow-up imaging scan.

USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening do not include previous malignancy as a high-risk feature requiring evaluation, which may explain why so few women in this study were screened for lung cancer, even though lung cancer is more common in breast cancer survivors than the general population. Approximately 10% of women who have had breast cancer will develop a second malignancy within 10 years and in most cases, it will be lung cancer. Plus, according to the National Cancer Institute, breast, lung, and colorectal cancers are the three most common cancers in women and account for approximately 50% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2020.

A 2018 analysis published in Frontiers in Oncology found that, of more than 6,000 women with secondary primary lung cancer after having had breast cancer, 42% had distant-stage disease at the time of diagnosis which, Dr. Molena and colleagues said, suggests an ongoing need to update screening recommendations.

“Given that lung cancer has a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 20% (highlighting the benefits of early-stage diagnosis), a better understanding of lung cancer in women with a history of breast cancer could have important implications for screening and surveillance,” the authors wrote.

Estrogen is known to play a role in the development of lung cancer by activating the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Previous research has shown an increased risk of lung cancer in patients with estrogen receptor–negative, progesterone receptor–negative, HER2-negative, or triple-negative breast cancer.

“Antiestrogen treatment has been demonstrated to decrease the incidence of lung cancer and has been associated with improved long-term survival in patients with lung cancer after breast cancer. Future studies should seek to identify high-risk populations on the basis of hormone receptor status and antiestrogen therapy use,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted a number of limitations to the study, including the single hospital as the sole source of data, plus, the analysis did not account for the length of time since patients quit smoking and a lung cancer diagnosis. Nor did it consider other risk factors, such as radiation, chemotherapy, or antiestrogen therapies.

The authors did not disclose any study-related conflicts of interests.

This article was updated 3/2/22.

Expulsion of intrauterine devices was significantly more likely when the devices were inserted within the first 3 days after delivery compared with later insertions, based on data from more than 300,000 women.

Intrauterine devices are effective contraception, and current guidelines support immediate postpartum IUD insertion as a safe, effective, and convenient option, Mary Anne Armstrong, MA, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, and colleagues wrote. Although IUD expulsion rates are low overall, data from previous studies suggest that timing of insertion may affect expulsion rates, and that breastfeeding may play a role.

In the Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices (APEX-IUD) cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from the electronic health records at four sites; the study population included women aged 50 years and younger who underwent IUD insertion between 2001 and 2018.

The women were grouped by postpartum status and timing of IUD placement: 0-3 days, 4 days to 6 weeks, 6-14 weeks, 14-52 weeks, and nonpostpartum (defined as more than 52 weeks or no evidence of delivery).

The researchers also compared expulsion rates in postpartum women who were and were not breastfeeding at the time of IUD insertion based on clinical records, diagnostic codes, or questionnaires at well-baby visits.

The total study population included 326,658 women with a mean age of 32.0 years; 42% were non-Hispanic White, 17.2% were Hispanic other, 13.0% were Hispanic White, 11.9% were Asian or Pacific Islander, 8.7% were non-Hispanic Black, and 0.2% were Hispanic Black. Approximately 80% of the IUDs were levonorgestrel releasing.

A total of 8,943 expulsions were reported, for an overall expulsion rate of 13.94 per 1,000 person-years.

The adjusted hazard ratios for IUD expulsion were 5.34, 1.22, 1.06, and 1.43 for women with insertion times, respectively, of 0-3 days, 4 days to 6 or fewer weeks, 6-14 weeks, and 14-52 weeks. Women with nonpostpartum IUD insertion served as the referent.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of IUD expulsion was highest with placement between 0 and 3 days post partum and lowest with placement at 6-14 weeks postpartum (10.73% and 3.18%, respectively).

“Within the group with IUD insertions 0-3 days postpartum, the highest expulsion rates were discovered within 12 weeks of insertion, with the highest incidence rate occurring at week 6 (844 per 1,000 person-years), a time women are commonly seen post delivery,” the researchers noted.

In a subcohort of 94,817 women with known breastfeeding status, the 5-year cumulative incidence of expulsion was 3.49% for breastfeeding women and 4.57% for nonbreastfeeding women, with an adjusted HR of 0.71 for breastfeeding versus not breastfeeding.

“While women who accept immediate postpartum IUD placement report high satisfaction rates, information on women’s preferences and satisfaction associated with different timing of postpartum placement would also be helpful to understand the benefit-risk profile,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. “The fact that most expulsions in the immediate postpartum group occurred early presents an opportunity to mitigate risk of unrecognized expulsion and unintended pregnancy via counseling on signs of expulsion and follow-up examination.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential misclassification of exposures and the primary outcome of expulsion, especially since some postpartum women may be lactating whether or not they are breastfeeding, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the combination of complete and partial expulsions, and the dating of IUD expulsion based on when it came to medical attention, which was not necessarily when it occurred. More data are needed on the potential association between lactational amenorrhea and lower expulsion risk among postpartum women who are breastfeeding.

However, the results were strengthened by the large and diverse study population, the use of linked mother-infant records to identify exposures, and the use electronic health records to identify outcomes, and the data can inform patient counseling for postpartum IUDs, the researchers concluded.
 

Study reflects findings from Europe

“The FDA mandated this study in response to a European study, EURAS-IUD1, a European prospective observational study that enrolled 61,448 participants between 2006 and 2012,” Ms. Armstrong said in an interview. In the European study “women breastfeeding at the time of device insertion or with the device inserted at 36 weeks’ postpartum or less had higher risk of uterine perforation. The FDA wanted to know if the risks were similar in the United States population”

The APEX-IUD study was designed to reflect current United States clinical practice. “The aims of APEX-IUD are to evaluate risk of IUD-related uterine perforation and device expulsion among women who are breastfeeding or within 12 months postpartum at insertion. The perforation outcome is addressed in a separate paper,” Ms. Armstrong noted.

“We were not surprised by the findings; they aligned with previous findings and confirm the overall safety of intrauterine devices,” said Ms. Armstrong. “Data from this study provides IUD expulsion risk estimates that can be used to inform clinical practice and preinsertion counseling. IUD insertions 0-3 days postpartum might decrease the risk of unintended pregnancy and provide more convenience and efficiency for new mothers. This has proven to be especially important during the pandemic. The higher risk of expulsion at 0-3 days post partum must be balanced with the low IUD-related uterine perforation risk to provide a comprehensive picture that aids in clinical decision-making.

“Potential barriers to postpartum IUD placement include lack of provision of education on the range of contraceptive options available during prenatal care and failure or inability of hospital inpatient units to stock the intrauterine devices for use when needed,” said Ms. Armstrong.

Looking ahead, “future research could evaluate risk factors for partial versus complete expulsions, the association of preinsertion counseling with recognition of potential expulsions and corresponding IUD failure rates, and whether ultrasound verification of IUD position in the uterus after insertion is associated with expulsion risk,” she said.
 

Identifying risk factors informs patient counseling

“The current study examines breastfeeding at time of IUD insertion as a risk factor for expulsion,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “There is biologic plausibility that breastfeeding may be a risk factor of IUD expulsion. Breastfeeding stimulates secretion of oxytocin, a hormone which plays a key role in the contraction of the uterus during labor and uterine involution postpartum. It also plays a key role in the contraction of milk ducts to allow for milk letdown. Because of its dual role some mothers may occasionally report uterine cramping with breastfeeding. Prior studies have suggested that breastfeeding may be associated with an increased risk of uterine perforation with postpartum IUD placement, but how breastfeeding may contribute to risk of IUD expulsion has not been studied extensively.”

The current data are consistent with previous studies suggesting the highest risk of IUD expulsion is with placement in the immediate postpartum period (0-3 days). “In a subcohort analysis by breastfeeding status, the risk of IUD expulsion was lower for women who were breastfeeding versus not breastfeeding;” however, “these findings may be due to amenorrhea that can also be seen with breastfeeding,” Dr. Krishna said. “Menstrual bleeding is an independent risk factor for IUD expulsion and not having menstrual bleeding while breastfeeding may lower risk of expulsion.

“Patients should be counseled on the benefits of immediate postpartum IUD placement, the risk of IUD expulsion, and alternative contraception options to be able to make an informed decision about the right contraception for them,” Dr. Krishna emphasized. “Clinicians can reassure patients that the uterine cramping they may feel while breastfeeding does not appear to increase the risk of IUD expulsion and that the amenorrhea that may result from breastfeeding also may lower the risk of IUD expulsion.”

The study was supported by Bayer through support to RTI Health Solutions, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Kaiser Permanente Washington, and the Regenstrief Institute. Ms. Armstrong and several coauthors disclosed support from Bayer during the study. Dr. Krishna had no relevant disclosures.

Expulsion of intrauterine devices was significantly more likely when the devices were inserted within the first 3 days after delivery compared with later insertions, based on data from more than 300,000 women.

Intrauterine devices are effective contraception, and current guidelines support immediate postpartum IUD insertion as a safe, effective, and convenient option, Mary Anne Armstrong, MA, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, and colleagues wrote. Although IUD expulsion rates are low overall, data from previous studies suggest that timing of insertion may affect expulsion rates, and that breastfeeding may play a role.

In the Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices (APEX-IUD) cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from the electronic health records at four sites; the study population included women aged 50 years and younger who underwent IUD insertion between 2001 and 2018.

The women were grouped by postpartum status and timing of IUD placement: 0-3 days, 4 days to 6 weeks, 6-14 weeks, 14-52 weeks, and nonpostpartum (defined as more than 52 weeks or no evidence of delivery).

The researchers also compared expulsion rates in postpartum women who were and were not breastfeeding at the time of IUD insertion based on clinical records, diagnostic codes, or questionnaires at well-baby visits.

The total study population included 326,658 women with a mean age of 32.0 years; 42% were non-Hispanic White, 17.2% were Hispanic other, 13.0% were Hispanic White, 11.9% were Asian or Pacific Islander, 8.7% were non-Hispanic Black, and 0.2% were Hispanic Black. Approximately 80% of the IUDs were levonorgestrel releasing.

A total of 8,943 expulsions were reported, for an overall expulsion rate of 13.94 per 1,000 person-years.

The adjusted hazard ratios for IUD expulsion were 5.34, 1.22, 1.06, and 1.43 for women with insertion times, respectively, of 0-3 days, 4 days to 6 or fewer weeks, 6-14 weeks, and 14-52 weeks. Women with nonpostpartum IUD insertion served as the referent.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of IUD expulsion was highest with placement between 0 and 3 days post partum and lowest with placement at 6-14 weeks postpartum (10.73% and 3.18%, respectively).

“Within the group with IUD insertions 0-3 days postpartum, the highest expulsion rates were discovered within 12 weeks of insertion, with the highest incidence rate occurring at week 6 (844 per 1,000 person-years), a time women are commonly seen post delivery,” the researchers noted.

In a subcohort of 94,817 women with known breastfeeding status, the 5-year cumulative incidence of expulsion was 3.49% for breastfeeding women and 4.57% for nonbreastfeeding women, with an adjusted HR of 0.71 for breastfeeding versus not breastfeeding.

“While women who accept immediate postpartum IUD placement report high satisfaction rates, information on women’s preferences and satisfaction associated with different timing of postpartum placement would also be helpful to understand the benefit-risk profile,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. “The fact that most expulsions in the immediate postpartum group occurred early presents an opportunity to mitigate risk of unrecognized expulsion and unintended pregnancy via counseling on signs of expulsion and follow-up examination.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential misclassification of exposures and the primary outcome of expulsion, especially since some postpartum women may be lactating whether or not they are breastfeeding, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the combination of complete and partial expulsions, and the dating of IUD expulsion based on when it came to medical attention, which was not necessarily when it occurred. More data are needed on the potential association between lactational amenorrhea and lower expulsion risk among postpartum women who are breastfeeding.

However, the results were strengthened by the large and diverse study population, the use of linked mother-infant records to identify exposures, and the use electronic health records to identify outcomes, and the data can inform patient counseling for postpartum IUDs, the researchers concluded.
 

Study reflects findings from Europe

“The FDA mandated this study in response to a European study, EURAS-IUD1, a European prospective observational study that enrolled 61,448 participants between 2006 and 2012,” Ms. Armstrong said in an interview. In the European study “women breastfeeding at the time of device insertion or with the device inserted at 36 weeks’ postpartum or less had higher risk of uterine perforation. The FDA wanted to know if the risks were similar in the United States population”

The APEX-IUD study was designed to reflect current United States clinical practice. “The aims of APEX-IUD are to evaluate risk of IUD-related uterine perforation and device expulsion among women who are breastfeeding or within 12 months postpartum at insertion. The perforation outcome is addressed in a separate paper,” Ms. Armstrong noted.

“We were not surprised by the findings; they aligned with previous findings and confirm the overall safety of intrauterine devices,” said Ms. Armstrong. “Data from this study provides IUD expulsion risk estimates that can be used to inform clinical practice and preinsertion counseling. IUD insertions 0-3 days postpartum might decrease the risk of unintended pregnancy and provide more convenience and efficiency for new mothers. This has proven to be especially important during the pandemic. The higher risk of expulsion at 0-3 days post partum must be balanced with the low IUD-related uterine perforation risk to provide a comprehensive picture that aids in clinical decision-making.

“Potential barriers to postpartum IUD placement include lack of provision of education on the range of contraceptive options available during prenatal care and failure or inability of hospital inpatient units to stock the intrauterine devices for use when needed,” said Ms. Armstrong.

Looking ahead, “future research could evaluate risk factors for partial versus complete expulsions, the association of preinsertion counseling with recognition of potential expulsions and corresponding IUD failure rates, and whether ultrasound verification of IUD position in the uterus after insertion is associated with expulsion risk,” she said.
 

Identifying risk factors informs patient counseling

“The current study examines breastfeeding at time of IUD insertion as a risk factor for expulsion,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “There is biologic plausibility that breastfeeding may be a risk factor of IUD expulsion. Breastfeeding stimulates secretion of oxytocin, a hormone which plays a key role in the contraction of the uterus during labor and uterine involution postpartum. It also plays a key role in the contraction of milk ducts to allow for milk letdown. Because of its dual role some mothers may occasionally report uterine cramping with breastfeeding. Prior studies have suggested that breastfeeding may be associated with an increased risk of uterine perforation with postpartum IUD placement, but how breastfeeding may contribute to risk of IUD expulsion has not been studied extensively.”

The current data are consistent with previous studies suggesting the highest risk of IUD expulsion is with placement in the immediate postpartum period (0-3 days). “In a subcohort analysis by breastfeeding status, the risk of IUD expulsion was lower for women who were breastfeeding versus not breastfeeding;” however, “these findings may be due to amenorrhea that can also be seen with breastfeeding,” Dr. Krishna said. “Menstrual bleeding is an independent risk factor for IUD expulsion and not having menstrual bleeding while breastfeeding may lower risk of expulsion.

“Patients should be counseled on the benefits of immediate postpartum IUD placement, the risk of IUD expulsion, and alternative contraception options to be able to make an informed decision about the right contraception for them,” Dr. Krishna emphasized. “Clinicians can reassure patients that the uterine cramping they may feel while breastfeeding does not appear to increase the risk of IUD expulsion and that the amenorrhea that may result from breastfeeding also may lower the risk of IUD expulsion.”

The study was supported by Bayer through support to RTI Health Solutions, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Kaiser Permanente Washington, and the Regenstrief Institute. Ms. Armstrong and several coauthors disclosed support from Bayer during the study. Dr. Krishna had no relevant disclosures.

Expulsion of intrauterine devices was significantly more likely when the devices were inserted within the first 3 days after delivery compared with later insertions, based on data from more than 300,000 women.

Intrauterine devices are effective contraception, and current guidelines support immediate postpartum IUD insertion as a safe, effective, and convenient option, Mary Anne Armstrong, MA, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, and colleagues wrote. Although IUD expulsion rates are low overall, data from previous studies suggest that timing of insertion may affect expulsion rates, and that breastfeeding may play a role.

In the Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices (APEX-IUD) cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from the electronic health records at four sites; the study population included women aged 50 years and younger who underwent IUD insertion between 2001 and 2018.

The women were grouped by postpartum status and timing of IUD placement: 0-3 days, 4 days to 6 weeks, 6-14 weeks, 14-52 weeks, and nonpostpartum (defined as more than 52 weeks or no evidence of delivery).

The researchers also compared expulsion rates in postpartum women who were and were not breastfeeding at the time of IUD insertion based on clinical records, diagnostic codes, or questionnaires at well-baby visits.

The total study population included 326,658 women with a mean age of 32.0 years; 42% were non-Hispanic White, 17.2% were Hispanic other, 13.0% were Hispanic White, 11.9% were Asian or Pacific Islander, 8.7% were non-Hispanic Black, and 0.2% were Hispanic Black. Approximately 80% of the IUDs were levonorgestrel releasing.

A total of 8,943 expulsions were reported, for an overall expulsion rate of 13.94 per 1,000 person-years.

The adjusted hazard ratios for IUD expulsion were 5.34, 1.22, 1.06, and 1.43 for women with insertion times, respectively, of 0-3 days, 4 days to 6 or fewer weeks, 6-14 weeks, and 14-52 weeks. Women with nonpostpartum IUD insertion served as the referent.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of IUD expulsion was highest with placement between 0 and 3 days post partum and lowest with placement at 6-14 weeks postpartum (10.73% and 3.18%, respectively).

“Within the group with IUD insertions 0-3 days postpartum, the highest expulsion rates were discovered within 12 weeks of insertion, with the highest incidence rate occurring at week 6 (844 per 1,000 person-years), a time women are commonly seen post delivery,” the researchers noted.

In a subcohort of 94,817 women with known breastfeeding status, the 5-year cumulative incidence of expulsion was 3.49% for breastfeeding women and 4.57% for nonbreastfeeding women, with an adjusted HR of 0.71 for breastfeeding versus not breastfeeding.

“While women who accept immediate postpartum IUD placement report high satisfaction rates, information on women’s preferences and satisfaction associated with different timing of postpartum placement would also be helpful to understand the benefit-risk profile,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. “The fact that most expulsions in the immediate postpartum group occurred early presents an opportunity to mitigate risk of unrecognized expulsion and unintended pregnancy via counseling on signs of expulsion and follow-up examination.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential misclassification of exposures and the primary outcome of expulsion, especially since some postpartum women may be lactating whether or not they are breastfeeding, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the combination of complete and partial expulsions, and the dating of IUD expulsion based on when it came to medical attention, which was not necessarily when it occurred. More data are needed on the potential association between lactational amenorrhea and lower expulsion risk among postpartum women who are breastfeeding.

However, the results were strengthened by the large and diverse study population, the use of linked mother-infant records to identify exposures, and the use electronic health records to identify outcomes, and the data can inform patient counseling for postpartum IUDs, the researchers concluded.
 

Study reflects findings from Europe

“The FDA mandated this study in response to a European study, EURAS-IUD1, a European prospective observational study that enrolled 61,448 participants between 2006 and 2012,” Ms. Armstrong said in an interview. In the European study “women breastfeeding at the time of device insertion or with the device inserted at 36 weeks’ postpartum or less had higher risk of uterine perforation. The FDA wanted to know if the risks were similar in the United States population”

The APEX-IUD study was designed to reflect current United States clinical practice. “The aims of APEX-IUD are to evaluate risk of IUD-related uterine perforation and device expulsion among women who are breastfeeding or within 12 months postpartum at insertion. The perforation outcome is addressed in a separate paper,” Ms. Armstrong noted.

“We were not surprised by the findings; they aligned with previous findings and confirm the overall safety of intrauterine devices,” said Ms. Armstrong. “Data from this study provides IUD expulsion risk estimates that can be used to inform clinical practice and preinsertion counseling. IUD insertions 0-3 days postpartum might decrease the risk of unintended pregnancy and provide more convenience and efficiency for new mothers. This has proven to be especially important during the pandemic. The higher risk of expulsion at 0-3 days post partum must be balanced with the low IUD-related uterine perforation risk to provide a comprehensive picture that aids in clinical decision-making.

“Potential barriers to postpartum IUD placement include lack of provision of education on the range of contraceptive options available during prenatal care and failure or inability of hospital inpatient units to stock the intrauterine devices for use when needed,” said Ms. Armstrong.

Looking ahead, “future research could evaluate risk factors for partial versus complete expulsions, the association of preinsertion counseling with recognition of potential expulsions and corresponding IUD failure rates, and whether ultrasound verification of IUD position in the uterus after insertion is associated with expulsion risk,” she said.
 

Identifying risk factors informs patient counseling

“The current study examines breastfeeding at time of IUD insertion as a risk factor for expulsion,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “There is biologic plausibility that breastfeeding may be a risk factor of IUD expulsion. Breastfeeding stimulates secretion of oxytocin, a hormone which plays a key role in the contraction of the uterus during labor and uterine involution postpartum. It also plays a key role in the contraction of milk ducts to allow for milk letdown. Because of its dual role some mothers may occasionally report uterine cramping with breastfeeding. Prior studies have suggested that breastfeeding may be associated with an increased risk of uterine perforation with postpartum IUD placement, but how breastfeeding may contribute to risk of IUD expulsion has not been studied extensively.”

The current data are consistent with previous studies suggesting the highest risk of IUD expulsion is with placement in the immediate postpartum period (0-3 days). “In a subcohort analysis by breastfeeding status, the risk of IUD expulsion was lower for women who were breastfeeding versus not breastfeeding;” however, “these findings may be due to amenorrhea that can also be seen with breastfeeding,” Dr. Krishna said. “Menstrual bleeding is an independent risk factor for IUD expulsion and not having menstrual bleeding while breastfeeding may lower risk of expulsion.

“Patients should be counseled on the benefits of immediate postpartum IUD placement, the risk of IUD expulsion, and alternative contraception options to be able to make an informed decision about the right contraception for them,” Dr. Krishna emphasized. “Clinicians can reassure patients that the uterine cramping they may feel while breastfeeding does not appear to increase the risk of IUD expulsion and that the amenorrhea that may result from breastfeeding also may lower the risk of IUD expulsion.”

The study was supported by Bayer through support to RTI Health Solutions, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Kaiser Permanente Washington, and the Regenstrief Institute. Ms. Armstrong and several coauthors disclosed support from Bayer during the study. Dr. Krishna had no relevant disclosures.