MDedge ObGyn

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tell someone you’re a doctor, and the reaction is often: “You must be rich.” But physicians who are just finishing medical school or are in their early careers might feel far from it. The average medical school debt is more than $200,000, with total debts including undergrad climbing well north of $250,000.

That leaves house-hunting physicians in a predicament. A key factor for lending institutions is the “debt to income” ratio, a calculation which indicates if you already have too much debt to pay your mortgage. That single equation could eliminate you from lenders’ mortgage requirements.

But young doctors are also in a unique situation. Yes, they carry above-average levels of debt, but they are on a path to substantial income in future years. That’s where the physician mortgage loan (PML) becomes a useful option. 

What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?

A PML is designed to help physicians access mortgages despite large amounts of debt. They are also sometimes available to dentists, veterinarians, podiatrists, and others, according to Stephen Chang, MD, a radiologist, and a managing director at Acts Financial Advisors in McLean, Virginia.

The key features, according to James M. Dahle, MD, an emergency physician and founder of The White Coat Investor, include:

• No required down payment, which is typically 20% with a conventional loan.
• No private mortgage insurance (PMI). This is often a requirement of traditional loans, designed to protect the lender if the buyer misses payments. PMLs don’t involve PMI even if you don’t put down 20%.
• No pay stubs. With a conventional loan, pay stubs are often required to prove income level and reliability. PMLs will often allow an employment contract in place of those. 
• Different consideration of the student loan burden.

Those are the upsides, of course, but there may be downsides. Dr. Dahle said a PML might involve slightly higher rates and fees than a conventional mortgage does but not always.

Who Is Best Suited for a Physician Mortgage Loan?

Financial advisers caution that everyone should first consider their full financial picture before applying for a mortgage, PML or otherwise. “If you don’t have the money saved for a down payment, one can ask if you are financially prepared to purchase a home,” says Cobin Soelberg, MD, an anesthesiologist and owner of Greeley Wealth Management, a financial planning firm serving physician families in Bend, Oregon. 

If your savings are slim, you might need to build those accounts further before pursuing home ownership and the expenses that come along with it.

Your credit score can contribute to the equation. “With any loan product, we always recommend working to optimize your personal credit score as soon as possible before applying for a loan,” said Mark P. Eid, MD, a dermatologist and co–managing director (with Dr. Chang) at Act Financial Advisors. “Once you get into the high 700s, you’ve typically qualified for the best interest rates, so while that perfect 850 is nice to achieve, it’s by no means necessary.”

Also, assess your reasons for purchasing a home and whether it will fit your lifestyle in the coming years. “The main reason that [my wife and I] wanted to buy a home was for stability,” said Jordan Frey, MD, founder of The Prudent Plastic Surgeon. “After living in apartments for years, we wanted a place that was truly our own. We definitely felt disappointed and frustrated when worrying that our student debt may limit our ability to do this.”

Like many physicians, Dr. Frey had taken on a huge amount of debt, to the tune of half a million dollars in student loans and credit card debt when he finished training in 2020. The question Dr. Frey and his wife wrestled with was: “How much debt should we take on in addition to what we already have?”

What Are the Risks? What’s in the Fine Print?

The eased limitations of PMLs come with potential pitfalls, and physicians should not imagine that they have unlimited buying power.

“Many physicians buy more expensive or bigger houses than they need simply because banks are willing to lend physicians money,” Dr. Soelberg warns. “So, the doctor gets locked into a large mortgage and cannot build wealth, save for retirement, and repay their student loans.” 

As you shop around, beware of omissions and scams. When meeting with lenders, Dr. Frey recalled that some didn’t even present PMLs as an option, and others presented them with unfavorable terms. He was careful to look for disadvantages hidden in the fine print, such as a potential “big hike in the rate a year later.” 

But sometimes, a scam is not outright deception but is more like temptation. So it’s important to have your own best interests in mind without relying on lenders’ advice. 

“When we were shopping around, some mortgage lenders would [offer] $1.5 million, and we thought ‘that makes no sense,’ ” said Dr. Frey. “[Physicians] have big future income, which makes us attractive to these lenders. No one in their right mind would give a mortgage like this to anyone else. They aren’t worried about whether it’s a smart decision for you or not.” 

What Other Red Flags Should You Look Out for?

Dr. Frey recommends medical professionals beware of these red flags when shopping for PMLs:

• A request for any type of collateral, including your medical practice
• A rate that is much higher than others
• A lender is pushing you to borrow a higher amount than you’re comfortable with 
• A lender attempts to influence your decision about the size of your down payment

Remember, if you are choosing an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), your rate will recalibrate on the basis of the market’s rates — for better or worse. This means that your payment might be higher or lower, taking current interest rates into account, based on the market.

Looking back, Dr. Frey said he might reconsider his decision to use a 10-year ARM. He and his wife chose it because the rate was low at the time, and they planned to pay off the mortgage quickly or move before it went up. But the uncertainty added an element of pressure. 

How Can PMLs Contribute to Overall Financial Health?

Dr. Frey says his physician mortgage was “a huge advantage,” allowing him and his wife to put 0% down on their home without PMI. But most importantly, it fit within their overall financial plan, which included investing. “The money that we would have potentially used for a down payment, we used to buy a rental property, which then got us more income,” he says. 

Of course, buying a rental property is not the only path to financial health and freedom. Many people approach a home as an investment that will eventually become fully their own. Others might put that down payment toward building a safety net of savings accounts. 

Used strategically and intentionally, PMLs can put you on a more predictable financial path. And with less money stress, buying a home can be an exciting milestone as you plan your future and put down roots in a community.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tell someone you’re a doctor, and the reaction is often: “You must be rich.” But physicians who are just finishing medical school or are in their early careers might feel far from it. The average medical school debt is more than $200,000, with total debts including undergrad climbing well north of $250,000.

That leaves house-hunting physicians in a predicament. A key factor for lending institutions is the “debt to income” ratio, a calculation which indicates if you already have too much debt to pay your mortgage. That single equation could eliminate you from lenders’ mortgage requirements.

But young doctors are also in a unique situation. Yes, they carry above-average levels of debt, but they are on a path to substantial income in future years. That’s where the physician mortgage loan (PML) becomes a useful option. 

What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?

A PML is designed to help physicians access mortgages despite large amounts of debt. They are also sometimes available to dentists, veterinarians, podiatrists, and others, according to Stephen Chang, MD, a radiologist, and a managing director at Acts Financial Advisors in McLean, Virginia.

The key features, according to James M. Dahle, MD, an emergency physician and founder of The White Coat Investor, include:

• No required down payment, which is typically 20% with a conventional loan.
• No private mortgage insurance (PMI). This is often a requirement of traditional loans, designed to protect the lender if the buyer misses payments. PMLs don’t involve PMI even if you don’t put down 20%.
• No pay stubs. With a conventional loan, pay stubs are often required to prove income level and reliability. PMLs will often allow an employment contract in place of those. 
• Different consideration of the student loan burden.

Those are the upsides, of course, but there may be downsides. Dr. Dahle said a PML might involve slightly higher rates and fees than a conventional mortgage does but not always.

Who Is Best Suited for a Physician Mortgage Loan?

Financial advisers caution that everyone should first consider their full financial picture before applying for a mortgage, PML or otherwise. “If you don’t have the money saved for a down payment, one can ask if you are financially prepared to purchase a home,” says Cobin Soelberg, MD, an anesthesiologist and owner of Greeley Wealth Management, a financial planning firm serving physician families in Bend, Oregon. 

If your savings are slim, you might need to build those accounts further before pursuing home ownership and the expenses that come along with it.

Your credit score can contribute to the equation. “With any loan product, we always recommend working to optimize your personal credit score as soon as possible before applying for a loan,” said Mark P. Eid, MD, a dermatologist and co–managing director (with Dr. Chang) at Act Financial Advisors. “Once you get into the high 700s, you’ve typically qualified for the best interest rates, so while that perfect 850 is nice to achieve, it’s by no means necessary.”

Also, assess your reasons for purchasing a home and whether it will fit your lifestyle in the coming years. “The main reason that [my wife and I] wanted to buy a home was for stability,” said Jordan Frey, MD, founder of The Prudent Plastic Surgeon. “After living in apartments for years, we wanted a place that was truly our own. We definitely felt disappointed and frustrated when worrying that our student debt may limit our ability to do this.”

Like many physicians, Dr. Frey had taken on a huge amount of debt, to the tune of half a million dollars in student loans and credit card debt when he finished training in 2020. The question Dr. Frey and his wife wrestled with was: “How much debt should we take on in addition to what we already have?”

What Are the Risks? What’s in the Fine Print?

The eased limitations of PMLs come with potential pitfalls, and physicians should not imagine that they have unlimited buying power.

“Many physicians buy more expensive or bigger houses than they need simply because banks are willing to lend physicians money,” Dr. Soelberg warns. “So, the doctor gets locked into a large mortgage and cannot build wealth, save for retirement, and repay their student loans.” 

As you shop around, beware of omissions and scams. When meeting with lenders, Dr. Frey recalled that some didn’t even present PMLs as an option, and others presented them with unfavorable terms. He was careful to look for disadvantages hidden in the fine print, such as a potential “big hike in the rate a year later.” 

But sometimes, a scam is not outright deception but is more like temptation. So it’s important to have your own best interests in mind without relying on lenders’ advice. 

“When we were shopping around, some mortgage lenders would [offer] $1.5 million, and we thought ‘that makes no sense,’ ” said Dr. Frey. “[Physicians] have big future income, which makes us attractive to these lenders. No one in their right mind would give a mortgage like this to anyone else. They aren’t worried about whether it’s a smart decision for you or not.” 

What Other Red Flags Should You Look Out for?

Dr. Frey recommends medical professionals beware of these red flags when shopping for PMLs:

• A request for any type of collateral, including your medical practice
• A rate that is much higher than others
• A lender is pushing you to borrow a higher amount than you’re comfortable with 
• A lender attempts to influence your decision about the size of your down payment

Remember, if you are choosing an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), your rate will recalibrate on the basis of the market’s rates — for better or worse. This means that your payment might be higher or lower, taking current interest rates into account, based on the market.

Looking back, Dr. Frey said he might reconsider his decision to use a 10-year ARM. He and his wife chose it because the rate was low at the time, and they planned to pay off the mortgage quickly or move before it went up. But the uncertainty added an element of pressure. 

How Can PMLs Contribute to Overall Financial Health?

Dr. Frey says his physician mortgage was “a huge advantage,” allowing him and his wife to put 0% down on their home without PMI. But most importantly, it fit within their overall financial plan, which included investing. “The money that we would have potentially used for a down payment, we used to buy a rental property, which then got us more income,” he says. 

Of course, buying a rental property is not the only path to financial health and freedom. Many people approach a home as an investment that will eventually become fully their own. Others might put that down payment toward building a safety net of savings accounts. 

Used strategically and intentionally, PMLs can put you on a more predictable financial path. And with less money stress, buying a home can be an exciting milestone as you plan your future and put down roots in a community.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tell someone you’re a doctor, and the reaction is often: “You must be rich.” But physicians who are just finishing medical school or are in their early careers might feel far from it. The average medical school debt is more than $200,000, with total debts including undergrad climbing well north of $250,000.

That leaves house-hunting physicians in a predicament. A key factor for lending institutions is the “debt to income” ratio, a calculation which indicates if you already have too much debt to pay your mortgage. That single equation could eliminate you from lenders’ mortgage requirements.

But young doctors are also in a unique situation. Yes, they carry above-average levels of debt, but they are on a path to substantial income in future years. That’s where the physician mortgage loan (PML) becomes a useful option. 

What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?

A PML is designed to help physicians access mortgages despite large amounts of debt. They are also sometimes available to dentists, veterinarians, podiatrists, and others, according to Stephen Chang, MD, a radiologist, and a managing director at Acts Financial Advisors in McLean, Virginia.

The key features, according to James M. Dahle, MD, an emergency physician and founder of The White Coat Investor, include:

• No required down payment, which is typically 20% with a conventional loan.
• No private mortgage insurance (PMI). This is often a requirement of traditional loans, designed to protect the lender if the buyer misses payments. PMLs don’t involve PMI even if you don’t put down 20%.
• No pay stubs. With a conventional loan, pay stubs are often required to prove income level and reliability. PMLs will often allow an employment contract in place of those. 
• Different consideration of the student loan burden.

Those are the upsides, of course, but there may be downsides. Dr. Dahle said a PML might involve slightly higher rates and fees than a conventional mortgage does but not always.

Who Is Best Suited for a Physician Mortgage Loan?

Financial advisers caution that everyone should first consider their full financial picture before applying for a mortgage, PML or otherwise. “If you don’t have the money saved for a down payment, one can ask if you are financially prepared to purchase a home,” says Cobin Soelberg, MD, an anesthesiologist and owner of Greeley Wealth Management, a financial planning firm serving physician families in Bend, Oregon. 

If your savings are slim, you might need to build those accounts further before pursuing home ownership and the expenses that come along with it.

Your credit score can contribute to the equation. “With any loan product, we always recommend working to optimize your personal credit score as soon as possible before applying for a loan,” said Mark P. Eid, MD, a dermatologist and co–managing director (with Dr. Chang) at Act Financial Advisors. “Once you get into the high 700s, you’ve typically qualified for the best interest rates, so while that perfect 850 is nice to achieve, it’s by no means necessary.”

Also, assess your reasons for purchasing a home and whether it will fit your lifestyle in the coming years. “The main reason that [my wife and I] wanted to buy a home was for stability,” said Jordan Frey, MD, founder of The Prudent Plastic Surgeon. “After living in apartments for years, we wanted a place that was truly our own. We definitely felt disappointed and frustrated when worrying that our student debt may limit our ability to do this.”

Like many physicians, Dr. Frey had taken on a huge amount of debt, to the tune of half a million dollars in student loans and credit card debt when he finished training in 2020. The question Dr. Frey and his wife wrestled with was: “How much debt should we take on in addition to what we already have?”

What Are the Risks? What’s in the Fine Print?

The eased limitations of PMLs come with potential pitfalls, and physicians should not imagine that they have unlimited buying power.

“Many physicians buy more expensive or bigger houses than they need simply because banks are willing to lend physicians money,” Dr. Soelberg warns. “So, the doctor gets locked into a large mortgage and cannot build wealth, save for retirement, and repay their student loans.” 

As you shop around, beware of omissions and scams. When meeting with lenders, Dr. Frey recalled that some didn’t even present PMLs as an option, and others presented them with unfavorable terms. He was careful to look for disadvantages hidden in the fine print, such as a potential “big hike in the rate a year later.” 

But sometimes, a scam is not outright deception but is more like temptation. So it’s important to have your own best interests in mind without relying on lenders’ advice. 

“When we were shopping around, some mortgage lenders would [offer] $1.5 million, and we thought ‘that makes no sense,’ ” said Dr. Frey. “[Physicians] have big future income, which makes us attractive to these lenders. No one in their right mind would give a mortgage like this to anyone else. They aren’t worried about whether it’s a smart decision for you or not.” 

What Other Red Flags Should You Look Out for?

Dr. Frey recommends medical professionals beware of these red flags when shopping for PMLs:

• A request for any type of collateral, including your medical practice
• A rate that is much higher than others
• A lender is pushing you to borrow a higher amount than you’re comfortable with 
• A lender attempts to influence your decision about the size of your down payment

Remember, if you are choosing an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), your rate will recalibrate on the basis of the market’s rates — for better or worse. This means that your payment might be higher or lower, taking current interest rates into account, based on the market.

Looking back, Dr. Frey said he might reconsider his decision to use a 10-year ARM. He and his wife chose it because the rate was low at the time, and they planned to pay off the mortgage quickly or move before it went up. But the uncertainty added an element of pressure. 

How Can PMLs Contribute to Overall Financial Health?

Dr. Frey says his physician mortgage was “a huge advantage,” allowing him and his wife to put 0% down on their home without PMI. But most importantly, it fit within their overall financial plan, which included investing. “The money that we would have potentially used for a down payment, we used to buy a rental property, which then got us more income,” he says. 

Of course, buying a rental property is not the only path to financial health and freedom. Many people approach a home as an investment that will eventually become fully their own. Others might put that down payment toward building a safety net of savings accounts. 

Used strategically and intentionally, PMLs can put you on a more predictable financial path. And with less money stress, buying a home can be an exciting milestone as you plan your future and put down roots in a community.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now. The introduction of the PA Licensure Compact (PA Compact) marks a long-awaited and significant step forward for the PA community.

In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.

How the PA Compact Works

The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.

The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.

How the PA Compact Helps

The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.

PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.

One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.

A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.

Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont. 

If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now. The introduction of the PA Licensure Compact (PA Compact) marks a long-awaited and significant step forward for the PA community.

In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.

How the PA Compact Works

The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.

The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.

How the PA Compact Helps

The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.

PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.

One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.

A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.

Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont. 

If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now. The introduction of the PA Licensure Compact (PA Compact) marks a long-awaited and significant step forward for the PA community.

In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.

How the PA Compact Works

The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.

The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.

How the PA Compact Helps

The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.

PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.

One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.

A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.

Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont. 

If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of Americans seeking permanent forms of contraception has surged in the nearly 2 years since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision that overturned a federal right to abortion, according to a study presented on May 5 at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA) (abstract PD40-03). Several other studies at the conference reported similar findings.

Rates of vasectomy and tubal ligation have increased in states where abortion became illegal after the court’s June 2022 ruling, researchers found. Rates of tubal sterilization had already been higher in states where abortion was illegal compared with those where access to the procedure remained available and was expected to remain so, but the difference widened after the decision. 

“Our study showed trends of increasing utilization of permanent contraception post-Dobbs, with a significant increase in patients less than 30 years old pursuing any type of permanent contraception post-Dobbs,” Jessica N. Schardein, MD, MS, of University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, told attendees. “Reproductive autonomy is important for people of all genders and may be influenced by legal climate. Understanding the relationship between state-level abortion laws and trends in permanent contraception is crucial for us to determine how to best allocate resources for education and services to ensure reproductive rights for all patients.”

Dr. Schardein told this news organization the increase in vasectomies post-Dobbs was consistent across most states regardless of legal climate, showing that “reproductive health matters to all people,” both women and men.

“We should continue to offer permanent contraception to patients who are not interested in future fertility, regardless of their age or marital status, to ensure reproductive autonomy for those patients,” Dr. Schardein said. “Patients may need increased access to these procedures if the increased rates continue over time.”

Dr. Schardein’s study investigated national trends in the use of permanent contraception before and after the Dobbs ruling. She and her colleagues analyzed data from the Epic Cosmos database of more than 217 million patients from an estimated 27,000 clinics and 1260 hospitals nationwide. The researchers identified all adults who underwent a vasectomy or tubal ligation from July to December 2021 and then from July to December 2022, in the 5 months following the decision.

Among adults aged 18-30 years, rates of vasectomy were 1.59 times higher and rates of tubal ligation were 1.29 times higher after the Dobbs ruling than before it (P < .001). Although overall rates of tubal ligation among single women did not change after Dobbs, rates of vasectomy in single men were 1.13 times higher (P < .001).

States were categorized as not hostile to abortion access (abortion access remained available), hostile (access was restricted or might become illegal), or illegal on the basis of information from the Center for Reproductive Rights. Vasectomies increased in most states, with the biggest gain in Tennessee, where abortions are illegal. 

The increase in vasectomy rates was similar across nonhostile (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.43), hostile (IRR, 1.46), and illegal (IRR, 1.41) states (P < .001). Although the rate of increase was similar regardless of legal climate, the rate of vasectomies was higher in hostile and illegal states than in nonhostile states both before and after the Dobbs ruling, according to the researchers.

Rates of tubal ligation did not change as substantially across the United States after Dobbs, remaining unchanged in states hostile to abortion access and rising slightly in nonhostile states (IRR, 1.06) and in states where abortion is now illegal (IRR, 1.12; P < .001 for both).

However, when the researchers looked at tubal ligation in nonhostile states and hostile or illegal states, they found that rates of the procedure were nearly double in the hostile or illegal states both before and after Dobbs, with a bigger increase after Dobbs in illegal states. Tubal ligation rates were 1.85 times higher in illegal states than in nonhostile states after Dobbs, compared with being 1.76 times higher than in nonhostile states before Dobbs.
 

Other Studies Support the Findings 

Another study assessed the change in the volume of vasectomy consultations at six US academic medical centers in the 17 months before and 5 months after Dobbs (abstract PD40-02). The researchers reported that the rate was roughly 7% higher after the ruling than before (143 vs 134 cases per month, respectively). Again, the men seeking vasectomies after Dobbs were younger than those who sought the procedure before Dobbs (median age, 38 vs 39 years; P < .001). Post-Dobbs patients were also significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic White, English-speaking, and privately insured. 

“Younger, childless people are choosing vasectomies as permanent method of birth control,” lead author Kara L. Watts, MD, associate professor of urology at Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, New York, told attendees. “The impact of this decision is likely to be long-lasting, requiring urologists and medical centers to adjust practice patterns to account for the increased demand.”

Twice as many childless married men underwent vasectomies after Dobbs than before the ruling (11% vs 5%, respectively; P = .001), but substantially more childless single men had the procedure after Dobbs than before it (36% vs 21%; P = .003). Those seeking vasectomies after Dobbs had to wait a median of 8 days longer between consult and procedure (59 vs 51 days pre-Dobbs; P < .001). Several of the same researchers had identified an increase in online searches about vasectomies in the months just after the Dobbs decision.

“We’ve been trying to get men to take more responsibility” for their role in unplanned pregnancies, Ajay K. Nangia, MD, MBBS, professor and vice chair of urology at University of Kansas Medical Center in Overland Park, told this news organization. Dr. Nangia, who helped conduct the study of vasectomy consultations and has spent years on research related to pharmaceutical contraception options for men, said the sudden increase in interest in vasectomies can be ethically fraught. Only 25% of vasectomies can be reversed, and some patients who seek the surgery may not have permanently ruled out having children.

“They’re going into this with their eyes wide open, knowing that it’s not 100% going to be reversible with a vasectomy,” he said. But fear of not having abortion access for their partners is part of their motivation, which creates tension for providers in balancing ethical counseling with the potential paternalism of advising against a vasectomy if they’re not certain that they don’t want children. 

“What happens in that situation, when it’s a political decision making you change your medical decision?” Dr. Nangia said. “I worry about that ethically.”

Dr. Nangia noted that the findings of his study cannot show that the Dobbs decision was the cause of the increase in vasectomies. However, in another abstract from the same session (PD40-01), researchers at The Ohio State University College of Medicine in Columbus presented findings from a survey of 57 men who underwent vasectomies in the preceding 2 years. Those results revealed that abortion access had been a factor among some of the 47% of patients whose procedures were performed after Dobbs. Post-Dobbs patients were significantly more likely to say they sought a vasectomy because of concerns about not being able to get abortion (P = .026) and because they didn’t want “to bring children into the current political climate” (P = .002). 

A study presented on May 6 (abstract MP76-06) involved a retrospective review of all 631 patients who underwent a vasectomy consult at UC San Diego Medical Center from June 2021 to June 2023. More vasectomy consults occurred after the Dobbs decision than before it (56% vs 44%). The gap for vasectomy consults was slightly wider for partnerless patients after vs before Dobbs (58% vs 42%) and substantially larger for childless patients post-Dobbs compared with pre-Dobbs (63% vs 37%). The childless men undergoing vasectomies after Dobbs also were significantly younger than those who had had this procedure before the ruling (mean, 36.4 vs 39.8 years; P <.001). 

“Patients should be counseled on the permanent nature of this procedure, underscoring need for effective and reversible male contraception,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Schardein and Dr. Watts reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Nangia is conducting an idiopathic infertility study with funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. None of the studies reported external funding.

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

The number of Americans seeking permanent forms of contraception has surged in the nearly 2 years since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision that overturned a federal right to abortion, according to a study presented on May 5 at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA) (abstract PD40-03). Several other studies at the conference reported similar findings.

Rates of vasectomy and tubal ligation have increased in states where abortion became illegal after the court’s June 2022 ruling, researchers found. Rates of tubal sterilization had already been higher in states where abortion was illegal compared with those where access to the procedure remained available and was expected to remain so, but the difference widened after the decision. 

“Our study showed trends of increasing utilization of permanent contraception post-Dobbs, with a significant increase in patients less than 30 years old pursuing any type of permanent contraception post-Dobbs,” Jessica N. Schardein, MD, MS, of University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, told attendees. “Reproductive autonomy is important for people of all genders and may be influenced by legal climate. Understanding the relationship between state-level abortion laws and trends in permanent contraception is crucial for us to determine how to best allocate resources for education and services to ensure reproductive rights for all patients.”

Dr. Schardein told this news organization the increase in vasectomies post-Dobbs was consistent across most states regardless of legal climate, showing that “reproductive health matters to all people,” both women and men.

“We should continue to offer permanent contraception to patients who are not interested in future fertility, regardless of their age or marital status, to ensure reproductive autonomy for those patients,” Dr. Schardein said. “Patients may need increased access to these procedures if the increased rates continue over time.”

Dr. Schardein’s study investigated national trends in the use of permanent contraception before and after the Dobbs ruling. She and her colleagues analyzed data from the Epic Cosmos database of more than 217 million patients from an estimated 27,000 clinics and 1260 hospitals nationwide. The researchers identified all adults who underwent a vasectomy or tubal ligation from July to December 2021 and then from July to December 2022, in the 5 months following the decision.

Among adults aged 18-30 years, rates of vasectomy were 1.59 times higher and rates of tubal ligation were 1.29 times higher after the Dobbs ruling than before it (P < .001). Although overall rates of tubal ligation among single women did not change after Dobbs, rates of vasectomy in single men were 1.13 times higher (P < .001).

States were categorized as not hostile to abortion access (abortion access remained available), hostile (access was restricted or might become illegal), or illegal on the basis of information from the Center for Reproductive Rights. Vasectomies increased in most states, with the biggest gain in Tennessee, where abortions are illegal. 

The increase in vasectomy rates was similar across nonhostile (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.43), hostile (IRR, 1.46), and illegal (IRR, 1.41) states (P < .001). Although the rate of increase was similar regardless of legal climate, the rate of vasectomies was higher in hostile and illegal states than in nonhostile states both before and after the Dobbs ruling, according to the researchers.

Rates of tubal ligation did not change as substantially across the United States after Dobbs, remaining unchanged in states hostile to abortion access and rising slightly in nonhostile states (IRR, 1.06) and in states where abortion is now illegal (IRR, 1.12; P < .001 for both).

However, when the researchers looked at tubal ligation in nonhostile states and hostile or illegal states, they found that rates of the procedure were nearly double in the hostile or illegal states both before and after Dobbs, with a bigger increase after Dobbs in illegal states. Tubal ligation rates were 1.85 times higher in illegal states than in nonhostile states after Dobbs, compared with being 1.76 times higher than in nonhostile states before Dobbs.
 

Other Studies Support the Findings 

Another study assessed the change in the volume of vasectomy consultations at six US academic medical centers in the 17 months before and 5 months after Dobbs (abstract PD40-02). The researchers reported that the rate was roughly 7% higher after the ruling than before (143 vs 134 cases per month, respectively). Again, the men seeking vasectomies after Dobbs were younger than those who sought the procedure before Dobbs (median age, 38 vs 39 years; P < .001). Post-Dobbs patients were also significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic White, English-speaking, and privately insured. 

“Younger, childless people are choosing vasectomies as permanent method of birth control,” lead author Kara L. Watts, MD, associate professor of urology at Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, New York, told attendees. “The impact of this decision is likely to be long-lasting, requiring urologists and medical centers to adjust practice patterns to account for the increased demand.”

Twice as many childless married men underwent vasectomies after Dobbs than before the ruling (11% vs 5%, respectively; P = .001), but substantially more childless single men had the procedure after Dobbs than before it (36% vs 21%; P = .003). Those seeking vasectomies after Dobbs had to wait a median of 8 days longer between consult and procedure (59 vs 51 days pre-Dobbs; P < .001). Several of the same researchers had identified an increase in online searches about vasectomies in the months just after the Dobbs decision.

“We’ve been trying to get men to take more responsibility” for their role in unplanned pregnancies, Ajay K. Nangia, MD, MBBS, professor and vice chair of urology at University of Kansas Medical Center in Overland Park, told this news organization. Dr. Nangia, who helped conduct the study of vasectomy consultations and has spent years on research related to pharmaceutical contraception options for men, said the sudden increase in interest in vasectomies can be ethically fraught. Only 25% of vasectomies can be reversed, and some patients who seek the surgery may not have permanently ruled out having children.

“They’re going into this with their eyes wide open, knowing that it’s not 100% going to be reversible with a vasectomy,” he said. But fear of not having abortion access for their partners is part of their motivation, which creates tension for providers in balancing ethical counseling with the potential paternalism of advising against a vasectomy if they’re not certain that they don’t want children. 

“What happens in that situation, when it’s a political decision making you change your medical decision?” Dr. Nangia said. “I worry about that ethically.”

Dr. Nangia noted that the findings of his study cannot show that the Dobbs decision was the cause of the increase in vasectomies. However, in another abstract from the same session (PD40-01), researchers at The Ohio State University College of Medicine in Columbus presented findings from a survey of 57 men who underwent vasectomies in the preceding 2 years. Those results revealed that abortion access had been a factor among some of the 47% of patients whose procedures were performed after Dobbs. Post-Dobbs patients were significantly more likely to say they sought a vasectomy because of concerns about not being able to get abortion (P = .026) and because they didn’t want “to bring children into the current political climate” (P = .002). 

A study presented on May 6 (abstract MP76-06) involved a retrospective review of all 631 patients who underwent a vasectomy consult at UC San Diego Medical Center from June 2021 to June 2023. More vasectomy consults occurred after the Dobbs decision than before it (56% vs 44%). The gap for vasectomy consults was slightly wider for partnerless patients after vs before Dobbs (58% vs 42%) and substantially larger for childless patients post-Dobbs compared with pre-Dobbs (63% vs 37%). The childless men undergoing vasectomies after Dobbs also were significantly younger than those who had had this procedure before the ruling (mean, 36.4 vs 39.8 years; P <.001). 

“Patients should be counseled on the permanent nature of this procedure, underscoring need for effective and reversible male contraception,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Schardein and Dr. Watts reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Nangia is conducting an idiopathic infertility study with funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. None of the studies reported external funding.

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

The number of Americans seeking permanent forms of contraception has surged in the nearly 2 years since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision that overturned a federal right to abortion, according to a study presented on May 5 at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA) (abstract PD40-03). Several other studies at the conference reported similar findings.

Rates of vasectomy and tubal ligation have increased in states where abortion became illegal after the court’s June 2022 ruling, researchers found. Rates of tubal sterilization had already been higher in states where abortion was illegal compared with those where access to the procedure remained available and was expected to remain so, but the difference widened after the decision. 

“Our study showed trends of increasing utilization of permanent contraception post-Dobbs, with a significant increase in patients less than 30 years old pursuing any type of permanent contraception post-Dobbs,” Jessica N. Schardein, MD, MS, of University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, told attendees. “Reproductive autonomy is important for people of all genders and may be influenced by legal climate. Understanding the relationship between state-level abortion laws and trends in permanent contraception is crucial for us to determine how to best allocate resources for education and services to ensure reproductive rights for all patients.”

Dr. Schardein told this news organization the increase in vasectomies post-Dobbs was consistent across most states regardless of legal climate, showing that “reproductive health matters to all people,” both women and men.

“We should continue to offer permanent contraception to patients who are not interested in future fertility, regardless of their age or marital status, to ensure reproductive autonomy for those patients,” Dr. Schardein said. “Patients may need increased access to these procedures if the increased rates continue over time.”

Dr. Schardein’s study investigated national trends in the use of permanent contraception before and after the Dobbs ruling. She and her colleagues analyzed data from the Epic Cosmos database of more than 217 million patients from an estimated 27,000 clinics and 1260 hospitals nationwide. The researchers identified all adults who underwent a vasectomy or tubal ligation from July to December 2021 and then from July to December 2022, in the 5 months following the decision.

Among adults aged 18-30 years, rates of vasectomy were 1.59 times higher and rates of tubal ligation were 1.29 times higher after the Dobbs ruling than before it (P < .001). Although overall rates of tubal ligation among single women did not change after Dobbs, rates of vasectomy in single men were 1.13 times higher (P < .001).

States were categorized as not hostile to abortion access (abortion access remained available), hostile (access was restricted or might become illegal), or illegal on the basis of information from the Center for Reproductive Rights. Vasectomies increased in most states, with the biggest gain in Tennessee, where abortions are illegal. 

The increase in vasectomy rates was similar across nonhostile (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.43), hostile (IRR, 1.46), and illegal (IRR, 1.41) states (P < .001). Although the rate of increase was similar regardless of legal climate, the rate of vasectomies was higher in hostile and illegal states than in nonhostile states both before and after the Dobbs ruling, according to the researchers.

Rates of tubal ligation did not change as substantially across the United States after Dobbs, remaining unchanged in states hostile to abortion access and rising slightly in nonhostile states (IRR, 1.06) and in states where abortion is now illegal (IRR, 1.12; P < .001 for both).

However, when the researchers looked at tubal ligation in nonhostile states and hostile or illegal states, they found that rates of the procedure were nearly double in the hostile or illegal states both before and after Dobbs, with a bigger increase after Dobbs in illegal states. Tubal ligation rates were 1.85 times higher in illegal states than in nonhostile states after Dobbs, compared with being 1.76 times higher than in nonhostile states before Dobbs.
 

Other Studies Support the Findings 

Another study assessed the change in the volume of vasectomy consultations at six US academic medical centers in the 17 months before and 5 months after Dobbs (abstract PD40-02). The researchers reported that the rate was roughly 7% higher after the ruling than before (143 vs 134 cases per month, respectively). Again, the men seeking vasectomies after Dobbs were younger than those who sought the procedure before Dobbs (median age, 38 vs 39 years; P < .001). Post-Dobbs patients were also significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic White, English-speaking, and privately insured. 

“Younger, childless people are choosing vasectomies as permanent method of birth control,” lead author Kara L. Watts, MD, associate professor of urology at Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, New York, told attendees. “The impact of this decision is likely to be long-lasting, requiring urologists and medical centers to adjust practice patterns to account for the increased demand.”

Twice as many childless married men underwent vasectomies after Dobbs than before the ruling (11% vs 5%, respectively; P = .001), but substantially more childless single men had the procedure after Dobbs than before it (36% vs 21%; P = .003). Those seeking vasectomies after Dobbs had to wait a median of 8 days longer between consult and procedure (59 vs 51 days pre-Dobbs; P < .001). Several of the same researchers had identified an increase in online searches about vasectomies in the months just after the Dobbs decision.

“We’ve been trying to get men to take more responsibility” for their role in unplanned pregnancies, Ajay K. Nangia, MD, MBBS, professor and vice chair of urology at University of Kansas Medical Center in Overland Park, told this news organization. Dr. Nangia, who helped conduct the study of vasectomy consultations and has spent years on research related to pharmaceutical contraception options for men, said the sudden increase in interest in vasectomies can be ethically fraught. Only 25% of vasectomies can be reversed, and some patients who seek the surgery may not have permanently ruled out having children.

“They’re going into this with their eyes wide open, knowing that it’s not 100% going to be reversible with a vasectomy,” he said. But fear of not having abortion access for their partners is part of their motivation, which creates tension for providers in balancing ethical counseling with the potential paternalism of advising against a vasectomy if they’re not certain that they don’t want children. 

“What happens in that situation, when it’s a political decision making you change your medical decision?” Dr. Nangia said. “I worry about that ethically.”

Dr. Nangia noted that the findings of his study cannot show that the Dobbs decision was the cause of the increase in vasectomies. However, in another abstract from the same session (PD40-01), researchers at The Ohio State University College of Medicine in Columbus presented findings from a survey of 57 men who underwent vasectomies in the preceding 2 years. Those results revealed that abortion access had been a factor among some of the 47% of patients whose procedures were performed after Dobbs. Post-Dobbs patients were significantly more likely to say they sought a vasectomy because of concerns about not being able to get abortion (P = .026) and because they didn’t want “to bring children into the current political climate” (P = .002). 

A study presented on May 6 (abstract MP76-06) involved a retrospective review of all 631 patients who underwent a vasectomy consult at UC San Diego Medical Center from June 2021 to June 2023. More vasectomy consults occurred after the Dobbs decision than before it (56% vs 44%). The gap for vasectomy consults was slightly wider for partnerless patients after vs before Dobbs (58% vs 42%) and substantially larger for childless patients post-Dobbs compared with pre-Dobbs (63% vs 37%). The childless men undergoing vasectomies after Dobbs also were significantly younger than those who had had this procedure before the ruling (mean, 36.4 vs 39.8 years; P <.001). 

“Patients should be counseled on the permanent nature of this procedure, underscoring need for effective and reversible male contraception,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Schardein and Dr. Watts reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Nangia is conducting an idiopathic infertility study with funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. None of the studies reported external funding.

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

People with HIV who wish to breastfeed their infants should have sustained viral suppression, with a viral load below 50 copies per mL, to have the least risk of transmitting HIV to their baby aside from avoiding breastfeeding altogether, according to a new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

“The risk of HIV transmission via breastfeeding from a parent with HIV who is receiving antiretroviral treatment (ART) and is virally suppressed is estimated to be less than 1%,” Lisa Abuogi, MD, an associate professor of pediatric infectious disease at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and her colleagues wrote in Pediatrics. For people living with HIV in the United States, however, the AAP recommends that “avoidance of breastfeeding is the only infant feeding option with 0% risk of HIV transmission.”

The authors go on to suggest that pediatricians “be prepared to offer a family-centered, nonjudgmental, harm reduction approach” to support people with HIV who do want to breastfeed and have sustained viral suppression. Parents with HIV who are not on ART or who do not have adequate viral suppression should be advised against breastfeeding, the report states. Members of the AAP Committee on Pediatric and Adolescent HIV and of the AAP Section on Breastfeeding coauthored the clinical report.

“The new guidelines emphasize the importance of patient-centered counseling as the foundation for shared decision-making, allowing patients and pediatric providers to make feeding decisions together and for the first time really giving support to people with HIV in the U.S. who want to breastfeed,” Danna Biala, MD, MS, an attending pediatrician at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore and an assistant professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, told MDedge News.

Dr. Biala was not involved in the development of the report, but she said the AAP’s guidance reflects the recent shift in the stance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regarding breastfeeding among people who are HIV+. Recommendations from the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) were updated in 2023.

“I’m glad that the AAP is putting out guidelines on infant feeding for people with HIV,” Dr. Biala said. “For so long in the U.S., pediatricians have been advising all mothers with HIV to avoid breastfeeding, believing that the risk of transmission outweighed the benefits of breastfeeding.”

The updated guidance from HHS in 2023 “was revolutionary in supporting people with HIV in low-risk situations who want to breastfeed,” Dr. Biala said, but “clear protocols for monitoring and follow-up were not in place,” which these AAP guidelines help address.
 

Prior Discordance Between Global, U.S. Guidance

An estimated 5,000 people with HIV give birth each year in the United States, and up to one third of pregnant people with HIV may be unaware of their HIV status, the AAP report notes. Pediatric healthcare professionals in the United States therefore need to be aware of recommendations related to HIV testing of pregnant people and of counseling the feeding of infants exposed to HIV. The report recommends opt-out HIV testing at the first prenatal visit and then possibly retesting in the third trimester in areas with high HIV incidence or for people at high risk for HIV or with signs or symptoms of acute HIV infection.

The report also highlights the health benefits of breastfeeding to both the infant and the breastfeeding parent, but notes the CDC’s historical recommendation against breastfeeding for people who are HIV+. The WHO, meanwhile, began recommending in 2016 that infants be breastfed through 12 to 24 months old if the parent was on ART and/or the infant was receiving antiretroviral (ARV) prophylaxis, since research showed those treatments were effective in reducing transmission risk.

Still, an estimated 30% of perinatal HIV transmission occurs via breastfeeding worldwide, primarily from people with HIV who are not on ART or are not adequately virally suppressed. Without parental ART or infant ARV prophylaxis, HIV transmission risk to infants via breastfeeding is highest, about 5%-6%, in the first 4-6 weeks of life. Risk then declines to about 0.9% a month thereafter. The AAP report goes on to describe factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of transmission during breastfeeding, but it notes that neither ART in the breastfeeding person nor ARV prophylaxis in the infant completely eliminates the risk of HIV transmission during breastfeeding. There have been rare cases where transmission occurred despite viral suppression in the person with HIV.

Among the reasons people with HIV have expressed a desire to breastfeed are wanting to bond with their infant, wanting to provide optimal nutrition and health benefits to their baby, and meeting cultural expectations, including the desire not to disclose their HIV infection status to family or friends by virtue of not breastfeeding.

“Among immigrant and refugee populations, the discordance between infant feeding guidelines in the United States and their country of birth may result in confusion, especially among parents who breastfed previous infants,” the AAP report also notes. Further, not breastfeeding could compound health disparities already more likely to be present among those living with HIV.

Discussions about infant feeding with parents with HIV should therefore “begin as early as possible and involve a multidisciplinary team that might include the pediatric primary care provider (once identified), a pediatric HIV expert, the breastfeeding parent’s HIV care and obstetric providers, and lactation consultants,” the report states. ”The parent’s motivations for breastfeeding should be explored and counseling provided on the risks and benefits of each feeding option, including breastfeeding, formula feeding, or certified, banked donor human milk.” The statement emphasizes the need for providing counseling in a “non-judgmental, respectful way, recognizing potential drivers for their decisions such as avoidance of stigma, prior experience with breastfeeding, and cultural contributors.”
 

Clear Recommendations Can Help Providers

The AAP’s statement that “replacement feeding (with formula or certified, banked donor human milk) is the only option that is 100% certain to prevent postnatal transmission of HIV” feels like it takes a “more conservative or discouraging approach” to breastfeeding than the CDC or WHO guidelines, Alissa Parker-Smith, APRN, DNP, CPNP-PC, IBCLC, a nurse practitioner and lactation consultant at PrimaryPlus, a Federally Qualified Health Clinic in Ashland, Kentucky, told MDedge. But she said they do clearly align with the CDC guidelines, and their differences from the WHO guidelines make sense in light of the different populations served by the WHO versus the U.S. agencies.

“Unclean water for formula preparation and a reduced or lack of access to formula in general can lead to many other risks of death for the infant other than the very small risk of HIV infection from breastfeeding from an HIV+ parent,” Ms. Parker-Smith said. “In the U.S. we generally have consistent access to clean water and safe formula as well as social structures to help families have access to formula, so the very small risk of HIV being passed to the infant is far greater than an infant in the U.S. dying as a result of unclean water or formula contamination.”

Ms. Parker-Smith also said the AAP recommendations seem thorough in helping pediatric practitioners counsel and support parents with HIV. “If I had a parent who is HIV+ walk in the door today wanting to breastfeed their infant, the AAP guidelines give me specific steps to make me feel confident in helping that parent breastfeed as safely as possible as well as providing education to assist that parent through the decision process,” she said.

Dr. Biala agreed, noting that the clinical report “very clearly delineates recommendations for different groups of people: those in labor or postpartum with undocumented HIV infection status, pregnant and postpartum people with HIV, those without HIV but at high risk of acquiring it, and those with suspected acute HIV infection while breastfeeding.” Dr. Biala said the report “provides concrete, detailed, and easy-to-follow guidance on comprehensive counseling, strategies to minimize risk of transmission, and infant screening timelines.”

How easily the guidelines can be implemented will depend on the existing resources at different institutions in the United States, Dr. Biala added.

“In hospitals and clinics that have, or could easily have, systems in place to ensure follow-up and regular assessment during breastfeeding, the guidelines could be implemented fairly quickly,” she said. “It might be more challenging in areas with inadequate or limited access to multidisciplinary team members, including HIV care providers and lactation consultants.”

The report did not use external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Abuogi and Ms. Parker-Smith have no disclosures.

People with HIV who wish to breastfeed their infants should have sustained viral suppression, with a viral load below 50 copies per mL, to have the least risk of transmitting HIV to their baby aside from avoiding breastfeeding altogether, according to a new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

“The risk of HIV transmission via breastfeeding from a parent with HIV who is receiving antiretroviral treatment (ART) and is virally suppressed is estimated to be less than 1%,” Lisa Abuogi, MD, an associate professor of pediatric infectious disease at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and her colleagues wrote in Pediatrics. For people living with HIV in the United States, however, the AAP recommends that “avoidance of breastfeeding is the only infant feeding option with 0% risk of HIV transmission.”

The authors go on to suggest that pediatricians “be prepared to offer a family-centered, nonjudgmental, harm reduction approach” to support people with HIV who do want to breastfeed and have sustained viral suppression. Parents with HIV who are not on ART or who do not have adequate viral suppression should be advised against breastfeeding, the report states. Members of the AAP Committee on Pediatric and Adolescent HIV and of the AAP Section on Breastfeeding coauthored the clinical report.

“The new guidelines emphasize the importance of patient-centered counseling as the foundation for shared decision-making, allowing patients and pediatric providers to make feeding decisions together and for the first time really giving support to people with HIV in the U.S. who want to breastfeed,” Danna Biala, MD, MS, an attending pediatrician at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore and an assistant professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, told MDedge News.

Dr. Biala was not involved in the development of the report, but she said the AAP’s guidance reflects the recent shift in the stance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regarding breastfeeding among people who are HIV+. Recommendations from the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) were updated in 2023.

“I’m glad that the AAP is putting out guidelines on infant feeding for people with HIV,” Dr. Biala said. “For so long in the U.S., pediatricians have been advising all mothers with HIV to avoid breastfeeding, believing that the risk of transmission outweighed the benefits of breastfeeding.”

The updated guidance from HHS in 2023 “was revolutionary in supporting people with HIV in low-risk situations who want to breastfeed,” Dr. Biala said, but “clear protocols for monitoring and follow-up were not in place,” which these AAP guidelines help address.
 

Prior Discordance Between Global, U.S. Guidance

An estimated 5,000 people with HIV give birth each year in the United States, and up to one third of pregnant people with HIV may be unaware of their HIV status, the AAP report notes. Pediatric healthcare professionals in the United States therefore need to be aware of recommendations related to HIV testing of pregnant people and of counseling the feeding of infants exposed to HIV. The report recommends opt-out HIV testing at the first prenatal visit and then possibly retesting in the third trimester in areas with high HIV incidence or for people at high risk for HIV or with signs or symptoms of acute HIV infection.

The report also highlights the health benefits of breastfeeding to both the infant and the breastfeeding parent, but notes the CDC’s historical recommendation against breastfeeding for people who are HIV+. The WHO, meanwhile, began recommending in 2016 that infants be breastfed through 12 to 24 months old if the parent was on ART and/or the infant was receiving antiretroviral (ARV) prophylaxis, since research showed those treatments were effective in reducing transmission risk.

Still, an estimated 30% of perinatal HIV transmission occurs via breastfeeding worldwide, primarily from people with HIV who are not on ART or are not adequately virally suppressed. Without parental ART or infant ARV prophylaxis, HIV transmission risk to infants via breastfeeding is highest, about 5%-6%, in the first 4-6 weeks of life. Risk then declines to about 0.9% a month thereafter. The AAP report goes on to describe factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of transmission during breastfeeding, but it notes that neither ART in the breastfeeding person nor ARV prophylaxis in the infant completely eliminates the risk of HIV transmission during breastfeeding. There have been rare cases where transmission occurred despite viral suppression in the person with HIV.

Among the reasons people with HIV have expressed a desire to breastfeed are wanting to bond with their infant, wanting to provide optimal nutrition and health benefits to their baby, and meeting cultural expectations, including the desire not to disclose their HIV infection status to family or friends by virtue of not breastfeeding.

“Among immigrant and refugee populations, the discordance between infant feeding guidelines in the United States and their country of birth may result in confusion, especially among parents who breastfed previous infants,” the AAP report also notes. Further, not breastfeeding could compound health disparities already more likely to be present among those living with HIV.

Discussions about infant feeding with parents with HIV should therefore “begin as early as possible and involve a multidisciplinary team that might include the pediatric primary care provider (once identified), a pediatric HIV expert, the breastfeeding parent’s HIV care and obstetric providers, and lactation consultants,” the report states. ”The parent’s motivations for breastfeeding should be explored and counseling provided on the risks and benefits of each feeding option, including breastfeeding, formula feeding, or certified, banked donor human milk.” The statement emphasizes the need for providing counseling in a “non-judgmental, respectful way, recognizing potential drivers for their decisions such as avoidance of stigma, prior experience with breastfeeding, and cultural contributors.”
 

Clear Recommendations Can Help Providers

The AAP’s statement that “replacement feeding (with formula or certified, banked donor human milk) is the only option that is 100% certain to prevent postnatal transmission of HIV” feels like it takes a “more conservative or discouraging approach” to breastfeeding than the CDC or WHO guidelines, Alissa Parker-Smith, APRN, DNP, CPNP-PC, IBCLC, a nurse practitioner and lactation consultant at PrimaryPlus, a Federally Qualified Health Clinic in Ashland, Kentucky, told MDedge. But she said they do clearly align with the CDC guidelines, and their differences from the WHO guidelines make sense in light of the different populations served by the WHO versus the U.S. agencies.

“Unclean water for formula preparation and a reduced or lack of access to formula in general can lead to many other risks of death for the infant other than the very small risk of HIV infection from breastfeeding from an HIV+ parent,” Ms. Parker-Smith said. “In the U.S. we generally have consistent access to clean water and safe formula as well as social structures to help families have access to formula, so the very small risk of HIV being passed to the infant is far greater than an infant in the U.S. dying as a result of unclean water or formula contamination.”

Ms. Parker-Smith also said the AAP recommendations seem thorough in helping pediatric practitioners counsel and support parents with HIV. “If I had a parent who is HIV+ walk in the door today wanting to breastfeed their infant, the AAP guidelines give me specific steps to make me feel confident in helping that parent breastfeed as safely as possible as well as providing education to assist that parent through the decision process,” she said.

Dr. Biala agreed, noting that the clinical report “very clearly delineates recommendations for different groups of people: those in labor or postpartum with undocumented HIV infection status, pregnant and postpartum people with HIV, those without HIV but at high risk of acquiring it, and those with suspected acute HIV infection while breastfeeding.” Dr. Biala said the report “provides concrete, detailed, and easy-to-follow guidance on comprehensive counseling, strategies to minimize risk of transmission, and infant screening timelines.”

How easily the guidelines can be implemented will depend on the existing resources at different institutions in the United States, Dr. Biala added.

“In hospitals and clinics that have, or could easily have, systems in place to ensure follow-up and regular assessment during breastfeeding, the guidelines could be implemented fairly quickly,” she said. “It might be more challenging in areas with inadequate or limited access to multidisciplinary team members, including HIV care providers and lactation consultants.”

The report did not use external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Abuogi and Ms. Parker-Smith have no disclosures.

People with HIV who wish to breastfeed their infants should have sustained viral suppression, with a viral load below 50 copies per mL, to have the least risk of transmitting HIV to their baby aside from avoiding breastfeeding altogether, according to a new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

“The risk of HIV transmission via breastfeeding from a parent with HIV who is receiving antiretroviral treatment (ART) and is virally suppressed is estimated to be less than 1%,” Lisa Abuogi, MD, an associate professor of pediatric infectious disease at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and her colleagues wrote in Pediatrics. For people living with HIV in the United States, however, the AAP recommends that “avoidance of breastfeeding is the only infant feeding option with 0% risk of HIV transmission.”

The authors go on to suggest that pediatricians “be prepared to offer a family-centered, nonjudgmental, harm reduction approach” to support people with HIV who do want to breastfeed and have sustained viral suppression. Parents with HIV who are not on ART or who do not have adequate viral suppression should be advised against breastfeeding, the report states. Members of the AAP Committee on Pediatric and Adolescent HIV and of the AAP Section on Breastfeeding coauthored the clinical report.

“The new guidelines emphasize the importance of patient-centered counseling as the foundation for shared decision-making, allowing patients and pediatric providers to make feeding decisions together and for the first time really giving support to people with HIV in the U.S. who want to breastfeed,” Danna Biala, MD, MS, an attending pediatrician at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore and an assistant professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, told MDedge News.

Dr. Biala was not involved in the development of the report, but she said the AAP’s guidance reflects the recent shift in the stance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regarding breastfeeding among people who are HIV+. Recommendations from the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) were updated in 2023.

“I’m glad that the AAP is putting out guidelines on infant feeding for people with HIV,” Dr. Biala said. “For so long in the U.S., pediatricians have been advising all mothers with HIV to avoid breastfeeding, believing that the risk of transmission outweighed the benefits of breastfeeding.”

The updated guidance from HHS in 2023 “was revolutionary in supporting people with HIV in low-risk situations who want to breastfeed,” Dr. Biala said, but “clear protocols for monitoring and follow-up were not in place,” which these AAP guidelines help address.
 

Prior Discordance Between Global, U.S. Guidance

An estimated 5,000 people with HIV give birth each year in the United States, and up to one third of pregnant people with HIV may be unaware of their HIV status, the AAP report notes. Pediatric healthcare professionals in the United States therefore need to be aware of recommendations related to HIV testing of pregnant people and of counseling the feeding of infants exposed to HIV. The report recommends opt-out HIV testing at the first prenatal visit and then possibly retesting in the third trimester in areas with high HIV incidence or for people at high risk for HIV or with signs or symptoms of acute HIV infection.

The report also highlights the health benefits of breastfeeding to both the infant and the breastfeeding parent, but notes the CDC’s historical recommendation against breastfeeding for people who are HIV+. The WHO, meanwhile, began recommending in 2016 that infants be breastfed through 12 to 24 months old if the parent was on ART and/or the infant was receiving antiretroviral (ARV) prophylaxis, since research showed those treatments were effective in reducing transmission risk.

Still, an estimated 30% of perinatal HIV transmission occurs via breastfeeding worldwide, primarily from people with HIV who are not on ART or are not adequately virally suppressed. Without parental ART or infant ARV prophylaxis, HIV transmission risk to infants via breastfeeding is highest, about 5%-6%, in the first 4-6 weeks of life. Risk then declines to about 0.9% a month thereafter. The AAP report goes on to describe factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of transmission during breastfeeding, but it notes that neither ART in the breastfeeding person nor ARV prophylaxis in the infant completely eliminates the risk of HIV transmission during breastfeeding. There have been rare cases where transmission occurred despite viral suppression in the person with HIV.

Among the reasons people with HIV have expressed a desire to breastfeed are wanting to bond with their infant, wanting to provide optimal nutrition and health benefits to their baby, and meeting cultural expectations, including the desire not to disclose their HIV infection status to family or friends by virtue of not breastfeeding.

“Among immigrant and refugee populations, the discordance between infant feeding guidelines in the United States and their country of birth may result in confusion, especially among parents who breastfed previous infants,” the AAP report also notes. Further, not breastfeeding could compound health disparities already more likely to be present among those living with HIV.

Discussions about infant feeding with parents with HIV should therefore “begin as early as possible and involve a multidisciplinary team that might include the pediatric primary care provider (once identified), a pediatric HIV expert, the breastfeeding parent’s HIV care and obstetric providers, and lactation consultants,” the report states. ”The parent’s motivations for breastfeeding should be explored and counseling provided on the risks and benefits of each feeding option, including breastfeeding, formula feeding, or certified, banked donor human milk.” The statement emphasizes the need for providing counseling in a “non-judgmental, respectful way, recognizing potential drivers for their decisions such as avoidance of stigma, prior experience with breastfeeding, and cultural contributors.”
 

Clear Recommendations Can Help Providers

The AAP’s statement that “replacement feeding (with formula or certified, banked donor human milk) is the only option that is 100% certain to prevent postnatal transmission of HIV” feels like it takes a “more conservative or discouraging approach” to breastfeeding than the CDC or WHO guidelines, Alissa Parker-Smith, APRN, DNP, CPNP-PC, IBCLC, a nurse practitioner and lactation consultant at PrimaryPlus, a Federally Qualified Health Clinic in Ashland, Kentucky, told MDedge. But she said they do clearly align with the CDC guidelines, and their differences from the WHO guidelines make sense in light of the different populations served by the WHO versus the U.S. agencies.

“Unclean water for formula preparation and a reduced or lack of access to formula in general can lead to many other risks of death for the infant other than the very small risk of HIV infection from breastfeeding from an HIV+ parent,” Ms. Parker-Smith said. “In the U.S. we generally have consistent access to clean water and safe formula as well as social structures to help families have access to formula, so the very small risk of HIV being passed to the infant is far greater than an infant in the U.S. dying as a result of unclean water or formula contamination.”

Ms. Parker-Smith also said the AAP recommendations seem thorough in helping pediatric practitioners counsel and support parents with HIV. “If I had a parent who is HIV+ walk in the door today wanting to breastfeed their infant, the AAP guidelines give me specific steps to make me feel confident in helping that parent breastfeed as safely as possible as well as providing education to assist that parent through the decision process,” she said.

Dr. Biala agreed, noting that the clinical report “very clearly delineates recommendations for different groups of people: those in labor or postpartum with undocumented HIV infection status, pregnant and postpartum people with HIV, those without HIV but at high risk of acquiring it, and those with suspected acute HIV infection while breastfeeding.” Dr. Biala said the report “provides concrete, detailed, and easy-to-follow guidance on comprehensive counseling, strategies to minimize risk of transmission, and infant screening timelines.”

How easily the guidelines can be implemented will depend on the existing resources at different institutions in the United States, Dr. Biala added.

“In hospitals and clinics that have, or could easily have, systems in place to ensure follow-up and regular assessment during breastfeeding, the guidelines could be implemented fairly quickly,” she said. “It might be more challenging in areas with inadequate or limited access to multidisciplinary team members, including HIV care providers and lactation consultants.”

The report did not use external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Abuogi and Ms. Parker-Smith have no disclosures.

The combination of atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan as first-line treatment showed encouraging anti-tumor activity in previously untreated patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), in an ongoing phase 1b/2 trial.

MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005) is evaluating multiple treatment combinations in patients with locally advanced or metastatic TNBC.

The trial’s interim clinical data was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
 

Rationale for Combining Antibody-Drug Conjugates with Immunotherapy

Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, professor at the Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine in London, England, presented interim findings from one study arm of MORPHEUS-pan BC at the meeting. The arm consisted of patients with TNBC who were treated with a combination of atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, and sacituzumab govitecan, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting the Trop-2 protein commonly expressed in TNBC.

TNBC is one of the most challenging subtypes of breast cancer to treat because of its aggressive characteristics and innate resistance to hormonal therapy and HER2-targeted treatments. However, the recent approval of immunotherapy for TNBC has provided renewed hope for patients, according to Dr. Schmid.

Atezolizumab, in combination with nab-paclitaxel, has already been approved as a first-line treatment for PD-L1–positive, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC; however, not all patients respond to this combination treatment. Sacituzumab govitecan is approved for second-line and subsequent-line treatment of metastatic TNBC.

“Cancer immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy has transformed the TNBC treatment landscape, but new combinations are needed to further improve survival outcomes,” Dr. Schmid said during his presentation. “We hoped that combining immunotherapy with an antibody-drug conjugate would not only improve safety but also increase efficacy through enhanced immune activation.”
 

Study Design

The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled patients with previously untreated, PD-L1–positive, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic TNBC. Patients were randomized to receive experimental treatment consisting of atezolizumab plus the antibody-drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan. Patients in the second arm received a control regimen of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy.

“The control regimen is part of the current standard of care for patients with PD-L1–positive TNBC,” Dr. Schmid explained in his presentation. As of the data cut-off, 11 patients were enrolled in the control arm and 31 in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm.

During the discussion session after his talk, Dr. Schmid commented on the use of PD-L1 expression to select patients for enrollment, acknowledging that PD-L1 is not the best biomarker.

“Its expression is very dynamic and can change rapidly,” he said. He added, however, that it is currently the most suitable biomarker for patient selection for treatment with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, added that, because patients were selected based on PD-L1 expression, it is unclear whether this combination therapy would show anti-tumor activity in patients with PD-L1–negative tumors. Dr. Tolaney, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who was not involved in the study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Schmid.
 

Promising Anti-tumor Activity

The combination of atezolizumab and sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity as initial treatment for this patient population. The interim analysis at 18 weeks showed an objective response rate of 76.7% (95% CI, 57.7-90.1; n = 23, including five complete responses) in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm, versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5; n = 6, all of which were partial responses) in the control arm.

“The 66% response rate in the control arm aligns with what we see in historical data from patients treated with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy,” noted Dr. Schmid during his talk.

The clinical benefit rate, which includes complete and partial responses as well as stable disease, was also encouraging at 83.3% (95% CI, 65.3-94.4) with the dual immunotherapy regimen versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5) with standard therapy.

Commenting on the potential mechanisms of the synergistic effect of this combination therapy, Dr. Tolaney said, “In addition to delivering chemotherapy payloads to cancer cells, antibody-drug conjugates can lead to dendritic cell activation, T-cell activation, and immune cell infiltration.”

She added that antibody-drug conjugates can cause Fc activation in NK cells, thereby enhancing antibody-dependent cytotoxicity.
 

Encouraging survival trends

Interim survival data showed trends favoring atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan over the control arm of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.2 months (95% CI, 7.4-not estimable) in the immunotherapy combination group versus 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.1-8.7) in the control group, yielding a hazard ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.11-0.70). The overall survival data are still immature.

During the discussion session, Dr. Schmid cautioned that, although the benefit of this combination therapy in terms of PFS seems promising, the validity of the hazard ratio is limited because of the small cohort size. He added, “The survival data is still immature, and longer follow-up is needed.”

These encouraging response and PFS rates need to be confirmed in larger studies of this immunotherapy combination as a potential new first-line standard for PD-L1–positive TNBC, according to Dr. Schmid.
 

Relationship between biomarker expression and response

The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled only patients with PD-L1–positive tumors at baseline, defined as PD-L1 expression in at least 1% of immune cells infiltrating the tumor. Tumors at baseline were also tested for Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs).

“We wanted to get an idea of whether these biomarkers are associated with treatment response,” Dr. Schmid explained during his talk.

Although the benefit of sacituzumab govitecan treatment was observed across all Trop-2 expression levels, preliminary analyses suggest that high Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal TILs may be associated with response to atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan. However, Dr. Schmid noted that validation of these associations in larger cohorts is required.
 

Safety of combination treatment

The side effect profile of atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan appeared consistent with that expected from the two individual drugs, with no new toxicity signals.

All patients in both treatment arms experienced at least one adverse event; however, there were no fatal adverse events. Grade 3-4 adverse events were more common in the experimental arm (70.0%) than in the control arm (44.4%), while serious adverse events were more common in the control group (44.4% versus 23.3%). Immune-related adverse events were considerably more common in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan group than in the control group (80.0% versus 55.6%).

The most common adverse events in patients treated with atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan were nausea, alopecia, diarrhea, and neutropenia. Dr. Schmid emphasized in his presentation that this toxicity profile was dominated by adverse events that are common in patients treated with chemotherapy.

“These safety data are significant as they suggest that the combination therapy does not introduce additional risks beyond those already associated with each drug,” he added.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Tolaney highlighted that the cohort size of this study was small and the follow-up time was insufficient to draw conclusions about survival outcomes. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed to confirm the efficacy of first-line atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan, she said.

“While this was a small study, the response data is very intriguing, with 17% of patients experiencing complete responses. The PFS data are also impressive, and there seems to be an interesting trend towards better response in patients with high Trop-2 expression and those with high levels of stromal TILs,” she added.

Dr. Tolaney also noted that the response rates and PFS data presented are similar to those of one of the treatment arms in the BEGONIA trial (NCT03742102), which investigated different combinations of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic TNBC. Like MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005), this study evaluated the efficacy of a different antibody-drug conjugate with chemotherapy. Patients in the study arm of the BEGONIA trial she was referring to received durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 agent) and datopotamab deruxtecan (an antibody-drug conjugate).

Dr. Schmid said that biomarker analyses are ongoing to assess whether there is a correlation between Trop-2 expression levels and the benefits of sacituzumab govitecan. Studies are also needed to determine whether this combination can improve pathologic complete response rates in early-stage TNBC.

Dr. Tolaney echoed the importance of evaluating the efficacy of antibody-drug conjugates plus immune checkpoint inhibitors in different settings, including patients with PD-L1–negative or immunologically cold tumors and those with early-stage disease. “Ultimately, we want this combination treatment to move forward to early-stage TNBC to see if we could cure more patients,” she said, during the discussion.

Dr. Schmid reported financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (consulting or advisory roles); Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (honoraria); and AstraZeneca, Genentech, Roche, Oncogenex, Novartis, Astellas, and Medivation (research funding). Dr. Tolaney reported financial relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc., Beyond Spring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Infinity Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals (consulting or advisory roles); Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Nanostring, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Cyclacel, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics (research funding).

The combination of atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan as first-line treatment showed encouraging anti-tumor activity in previously untreated patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), in an ongoing phase 1b/2 trial.

MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005) is evaluating multiple treatment combinations in patients with locally advanced or metastatic TNBC.

The trial’s interim clinical data was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
 

Rationale for Combining Antibody-Drug Conjugates with Immunotherapy

Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, professor at the Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine in London, England, presented interim findings from one study arm of MORPHEUS-pan BC at the meeting. The arm consisted of patients with TNBC who were treated with a combination of atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, and sacituzumab govitecan, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting the Trop-2 protein commonly expressed in TNBC.

TNBC is one of the most challenging subtypes of breast cancer to treat because of its aggressive characteristics and innate resistance to hormonal therapy and HER2-targeted treatments. However, the recent approval of immunotherapy for TNBC has provided renewed hope for patients, according to Dr. Schmid.

Atezolizumab, in combination with nab-paclitaxel, has already been approved as a first-line treatment for PD-L1–positive, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC; however, not all patients respond to this combination treatment. Sacituzumab govitecan is approved for second-line and subsequent-line treatment of metastatic TNBC.

“Cancer immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy has transformed the TNBC treatment landscape, but new combinations are needed to further improve survival outcomes,” Dr. Schmid said during his presentation. “We hoped that combining immunotherapy with an antibody-drug conjugate would not only improve safety but also increase efficacy through enhanced immune activation.”
 

Study Design

The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled patients with previously untreated, PD-L1–positive, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic TNBC. Patients were randomized to receive experimental treatment consisting of atezolizumab plus the antibody-drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan. Patients in the second arm received a control regimen of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy.

“The control regimen is part of the current standard of care for patients with PD-L1–positive TNBC,” Dr. Schmid explained in his presentation. As of the data cut-off, 11 patients were enrolled in the control arm and 31 in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm.

During the discussion session after his talk, Dr. Schmid commented on the use of PD-L1 expression to select patients for enrollment, acknowledging that PD-L1 is not the best biomarker.

“Its expression is very dynamic and can change rapidly,” he said. He added, however, that it is currently the most suitable biomarker for patient selection for treatment with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, added that, because patients were selected based on PD-L1 expression, it is unclear whether this combination therapy would show anti-tumor activity in patients with PD-L1–negative tumors. Dr. Tolaney, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who was not involved in the study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Schmid.
 

Promising Anti-tumor Activity

The combination of atezolizumab and sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity as initial treatment for this patient population. The interim analysis at 18 weeks showed an objective response rate of 76.7% (95% CI, 57.7-90.1; n = 23, including five complete responses) in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm, versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5; n = 6, all of which were partial responses) in the control arm.

“The 66% response rate in the control arm aligns with what we see in historical data from patients treated with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy,” noted Dr. Schmid during his talk.

The clinical benefit rate, which includes complete and partial responses as well as stable disease, was also encouraging at 83.3% (95% CI, 65.3-94.4) with the dual immunotherapy regimen versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5) with standard therapy.

Commenting on the potential mechanisms of the synergistic effect of this combination therapy, Dr. Tolaney said, “In addition to delivering chemotherapy payloads to cancer cells, antibody-drug conjugates can lead to dendritic cell activation, T-cell activation, and immune cell infiltration.”

She added that antibody-drug conjugates can cause Fc activation in NK cells, thereby enhancing antibody-dependent cytotoxicity.
 

Encouraging survival trends

Interim survival data showed trends favoring atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan over the control arm of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.2 months (95% CI, 7.4-not estimable) in the immunotherapy combination group versus 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.1-8.7) in the control group, yielding a hazard ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.11-0.70). The overall survival data are still immature.

During the discussion session, Dr. Schmid cautioned that, although the benefit of this combination therapy in terms of PFS seems promising, the validity of the hazard ratio is limited because of the small cohort size. He added, “The survival data is still immature, and longer follow-up is needed.”

These encouraging response and PFS rates need to be confirmed in larger studies of this immunotherapy combination as a potential new first-line standard for PD-L1–positive TNBC, according to Dr. Schmid.
 

Relationship between biomarker expression and response

The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled only patients with PD-L1–positive tumors at baseline, defined as PD-L1 expression in at least 1% of immune cells infiltrating the tumor. Tumors at baseline were also tested for Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs).

“We wanted to get an idea of whether these biomarkers are associated with treatment response,” Dr. Schmid explained during his talk.

Although the benefit of sacituzumab govitecan treatment was observed across all Trop-2 expression levels, preliminary analyses suggest that high Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal TILs may be associated with response to atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan. However, Dr. Schmid noted that validation of these associations in larger cohorts is required.
 

Safety of combination treatment

The side effect profile of atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan appeared consistent with that expected from the two individual drugs, with no new toxicity signals.

All patients in both treatment arms experienced at least one adverse event; however, there were no fatal adverse events. Grade 3-4 adverse events were more common in the experimental arm (70.0%) than in the control arm (44.4%), while serious adverse events were more common in the control group (44.4% versus 23.3%). Immune-related adverse events were considerably more common in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan group than in the control group (80.0% versus 55.6%).

The most common adverse events in patients treated with atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan were nausea, alopecia, diarrhea, and neutropenia. Dr. Schmid emphasized in his presentation that this toxicity profile was dominated by adverse events that are common in patients treated with chemotherapy.

“These safety data are significant as they suggest that the combination therapy does not introduce additional risks beyond those already associated with each drug,” he added.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Tolaney highlighted that the cohort size of this study was small and the follow-up time was insufficient to draw conclusions about survival outcomes. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed to confirm the efficacy of first-line atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan, she said.

“While this was a small study, the response data is very intriguing, with 17% of patients experiencing complete responses. The PFS data are also impressive, and there seems to be an interesting trend towards better response in patients with high Trop-2 expression and those with high levels of stromal TILs,” she added.

Dr. Tolaney also noted that the response rates and PFS data presented are similar to those of one of the treatment arms in the BEGONIA trial (NCT03742102), which investigated different combinations of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic TNBC. Like MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005), this study evaluated the efficacy of a different antibody-drug conjugate with chemotherapy. Patients in the study arm of the BEGONIA trial she was referring to received durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 agent) and datopotamab deruxtecan (an antibody-drug conjugate).

Dr. Schmid said that biomarker analyses are ongoing to assess whether there is a correlation between Trop-2 expression levels and the benefits of sacituzumab govitecan. Studies are also needed to determine whether this combination can improve pathologic complete response rates in early-stage TNBC.

Dr. Tolaney echoed the importance of evaluating the efficacy of antibody-drug conjugates plus immune checkpoint inhibitors in different settings, including patients with PD-L1–negative or immunologically cold tumors and those with early-stage disease. “Ultimately, we want this combination treatment to move forward to early-stage TNBC to see if we could cure more patients,” she said, during the discussion.

Dr. Schmid reported financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (consulting or advisory roles); Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (honoraria); and AstraZeneca, Genentech, Roche, Oncogenex, Novartis, Astellas, and Medivation (research funding). Dr. Tolaney reported financial relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc., Beyond Spring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Infinity Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals (consulting or advisory roles); Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Nanostring, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Cyclacel, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics (research funding).

The combination of atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan as first-line treatment showed encouraging anti-tumor activity in previously untreated patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), in an ongoing phase 1b/2 trial.

MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005) is evaluating multiple treatment combinations in patients with locally advanced or metastatic TNBC.

The trial’s interim clinical data was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
 

Rationale for Combining Antibody-Drug Conjugates with Immunotherapy

Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, professor at the Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine in London, England, presented interim findings from one study arm of MORPHEUS-pan BC at the meeting. The arm consisted of patients with TNBC who were treated with a combination of atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, and sacituzumab govitecan, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting the Trop-2 protein commonly expressed in TNBC.

TNBC is one of the most challenging subtypes of breast cancer to treat because of its aggressive characteristics and innate resistance to hormonal therapy and HER2-targeted treatments. However, the recent approval of immunotherapy for TNBC has provided renewed hope for patients, according to Dr. Schmid.

Atezolizumab, in combination with nab-paclitaxel, has already been approved as a first-line treatment for PD-L1–positive, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC; however, not all patients respond to this combination treatment. Sacituzumab govitecan is approved for second-line and subsequent-line treatment of metastatic TNBC.

“Cancer immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy has transformed the TNBC treatment landscape, but new combinations are needed to further improve survival outcomes,” Dr. Schmid said during his presentation. “We hoped that combining immunotherapy with an antibody-drug conjugate would not only improve safety but also increase efficacy through enhanced immune activation.”
 

Study Design

The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled patients with previously untreated, PD-L1–positive, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic TNBC. Patients were randomized to receive experimental treatment consisting of atezolizumab plus the antibody-drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan. Patients in the second arm received a control regimen of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy.

“The control regimen is part of the current standard of care for patients with PD-L1–positive TNBC,” Dr. Schmid explained in his presentation. As of the data cut-off, 11 patients were enrolled in the control arm and 31 in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm.

During the discussion session after his talk, Dr. Schmid commented on the use of PD-L1 expression to select patients for enrollment, acknowledging that PD-L1 is not the best biomarker.

“Its expression is very dynamic and can change rapidly,” he said. He added, however, that it is currently the most suitable biomarker for patient selection for treatment with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, added that, because patients were selected based on PD-L1 expression, it is unclear whether this combination therapy would show anti-tumor activity in patients with PD-L1–negative tumors. Dr. Tolaney, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who was not involved in the study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Schmid.
 

Promising Anti-tumor Activity

The combination of atezolizumab and sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity as initial treatment for this patient population. The interim analysis at 18 weeks showed an objective response rate of 76.7% (95% CI, 57.7-90.1; n = 23, including five complete responses) in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm, versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5; n = 6, all of which were partial responses) in the control arm.

“The 66% response rate in the control arm aligns with what we see in historical data from patients treated with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy,” noted Dr. Schmid during his talk.

The clinical benefit rate, which includes complete and partial responses as well as stable disease, was also encouraging at 83.3% (95% CI, 65.3-94.4) with the dual immunotherapy regimen versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5) with standard therapy.

Commenting on the potential mechanisms of the synergistic effect of this combination therapy, Dr. Tolaney said, “In addition to delivering chemotherapy payloads to cancer cells, antibody-drug conjugates can lead to dendritic cell activation, T-cell activation, and immune cell infiltration.”

She added that antibody-drug conjugates can cause Fc activation in NK cells, thereby enhancing antibody-dependent cytotoxicity.
 

Encouraging survival trends

Interim survival data showed trends favoring atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan over the control arm of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.2 months (95% CI, 7.4-not estimable) in the immunotherapy combination group versus 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.1-8.7) in the control group, yielding a hazard ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.11-0.70). The overall survival data are still immature.

During the discussion session, Dr. Schmid cautioned that, although the benefit of this combination therapy in terms of PFS seems promising, the validity of the hazard ratio is limited because of the small cohort size. He added, “The survival data is still immature, and longer follow-up is needed.”

These encouraging response and PFS rates need to be confirmed in larger studies of this immunotherapy combination as a potential new first-line standard for PD-L1–positive TNBC, according to Dr. Schmid.
 

Relationship between biomarker expression and response

The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled only patients with PD-L1–positive tumors at baseline, defined as PD-L1 expression in at least 1% of immune cells infiltrating the tumor. Tumors at baseline were also tested for Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs).

“We wanted to get an idea of whether these biomarkers are associated with treatment response,” Dr. Schmid explained during his talk.

Although the benefit of sacituzumab govitecan treatment was observed across all Trop-2 expression levels, preliminary analyses suggest that high Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal TILs may be associated with response to atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan. However, Dr. Schmid noted that validation of these associations in larger cohorts is required.
 

Safety of combination treatment

The side effect profile of atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan appeared consistent with that expected from the two individual drugs, with no new toxicity signals.

All patients in both treatment arms experienced at least one adverse event; however, there were no fatal adverse events. Grade 3-4 adverse events were more common in the experimental arm (70.0%) than in the control arm (44.4%), while serious adverse events were more common in the control group (44.4% versus 23.3%). Immune-related adverse events were considerably more common in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan group than in the control group (80.0% versus 55.6%).

The most common adverse events in patients treated with atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan were nausea, alopecia, diarrhea, and neutropenia. Dr. Schmid emphasized in his presentation that this toxicity profile was dominated by adverse events that are common in patients treated with chemotherapy.

“These safety data are significant as they suggest that the combination therapy does not introduce additional risks beyond those already associated with each drug,” he added.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Tolaney highlighted that the cohort size of this study was small and the follow-up time was insufficient to draw conclusions about survival outcomes. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed to confirm the efficacy of first-line atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan, she said.

“While this was a small study, the response data is very intriguing, with 17% of patients experiencing complete responses. The PFS data are also impressive, and there seems to be an interesting trend towards better response in patients with high Trop-2 expression and those with high levels of stromal TILs,” she added.

Dr. Tolaney also noted that the response rates and PFS data presented are similar to those of one of the treatment arms in the BEGONIA trial (NCT03742102), which investigated different combinations of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic TNBC. Like MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005), this study evaluated the efficacy of a different antibody-drug conjugate with chemotherapy. Patients in the study arm of the BEGONIA trial she was referring to received durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 agent) and datopotamab deruxtecan (an antibody-drug conjugate).

Dr. Schmid said that biomarker analyses are ongoing to assess whether there is a correlation between Trop-2 expression levels and the benefits of sacituzumab govitecan. Studies are also needed to determine whether this combination can improve pathologic complete response rates in early-stage TNBC.

Dr. Tolaney echoed the importance of evaluating the efficacy of antibody-drug conjugates plus immune checkpoint inhibitors in different settings, including patients with PD-L1–negative or immunologically cold tumors and those with early-stage disease. “Ultimately, we want this combination treatment to move forward to early-stage TNBC to see if we could cure more patients,” she said, during the discussion.

Dr. Schmid reported financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (consulting or advisory roles); Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (honoraria); and AstraZeneca, Genentech, Roche, Oncogenex, Novartis, Astellas, and Medivation (research funding). Dr. Tolaney reported financial relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc., Beyond Spring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Infinity Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals (consulting or advisory roles); Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Nanostring, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Cyclacel, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics (research funding).

New expert guidance to help clinicians manage the treatment of patients with epilepsy during pregnancy has been released.

Issued by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Epilepsy Society, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the new practice guideline covers the use of antiseizure medications (ASMs) and folic acid supplementation before conception and during pregnancy.

“Most children born to people with epilepsy are healthy, but there is a small risk of pregnancy-related problems, partly due to seizures and partly due to the effects of antiseizure medications,” the guidelines’ lead author Alison M. Pack, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and chief of the Epilepsy and Sleep Division, Columbia University, New York City, said in a news release.

“This guideline provides recommendations regarding the effects of antiseizure medications and folic acid supplementation on malformations at birth and the development of children during pregnancy, so that doctors and people with epilepsy can determine which treatments may be best for them,” she added. 

The guideline was published online in Neurology.
 

Why Now? 

The new guideline updates the 2009 guidance on epilepsy management during pregnancy. Since then, Dr. Pack told this news organization, there has been a wealth of new data on differential effects of different ASMs — notably, lamotrigine and levetiracetam — the most commonly prescribed medications in this population.

“In this guideline, we were able to assess differential effects of different ASMs on outcomes of interest, including major congenital malformations [MCMs], perinatal outcomes, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. In addition, we looked at the effect of folic acid supplementation on each of these outcomes,” she said.

The overarching goals of care for patients are to “optimize health outcomes both for individuals and their future offspring,” the authors wrote. Shared decision-making, they add, leads to better decision-making by providing a better understanding of the available treatment options and their potential risks, resulting in enhanced decision-making that aligns with personal values.

Clinicians should recommend ASMs that optimize seizure control and fetal outcomes, in the event of a pregnancy, at the earliest possible preconception time, the guideline authors note.

“Overall, treating clinicians need to balance treating the person with epilepsy to control convulsive seizures (generalized tonic-clonic seizures and focal-to-bilateral tonic-clonic seizures) to minimize potential risks to the birth parent and the possible risks of certain ASMs on the fetus if pregnancy occurs,” they wrote.

If a patient is already pregnant, the experts recommend that clinicians “exercise caution” in removing or replacing an ASM that controls convulsive seizures, even if it’s “not an optimal choice” for the fetus. 

In addition, they advise that ASM levels should be monitored throughout the pregnancy, guided by individual ASM pharmacokinetics and an individual patient’s clinical presentation. ASM dose, they note, should be adjusted during pregnancy in response to decreasing serum ASM levels or worsening seizure control.

The authors point out that there are limited data on “pregnancy-related outcomes with respect to acetazolamide, eslicarbazepine, ethosuximide, lacosamide, nitrazepam, perampanel, piracetam, pregabalin, rufinamide, stiripentol, tiagabine, and vigabatrin.”

Patients should be informed that the birth prevalence of any major congenital malformation in the general population ranges between 2.4% and 2.9%.
 

If Feasible, Avoid Valproic Acid 

“One of the most important take-home messages is that valproic acid has the highest unadjusted birth prevalence of all major congenital malformations — 9.7% — and the highest unadjusted birth prevalence of neural tube defects at 1.4%,” Dr. Pack said. As a result, the guideline authors advise against using valproic acid, if clinically feasible.

Valproic acid also has the highest prevalence of negative neurodevelopmental outcomes, including a reduction in global IQ and an increased prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Patients should be counseled accordingly and advised of the increased risk for ASD and decreased IQ resulting from valproic acid.

Clinicians should consider using lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or oxcarbazepine when appropriate. Serum concentrations of most ASMs have a “defined therapeutic window” for effective seizure control and that concentration may decrease during pregnancy, particularly with lamotrigine and levetiracetam, the authors note.

Phenobarbital, topiramate, and valproic acid should because of the increased risk for cardiac malformations, oral clefts, and urogenital and renal malformations.

Fetal screening for major congenital malformations is recommended to enable early detection and timely intervention in patients treated with any ASM during pregnancy Patients receiving phenobarbital during pregnancy should also undergo fetal cardiac screenings.

Valproic acid and topiramate are also associated with children who are small for their gestational age. To enable early identification of fetal growth restriction, patients taking valproic acid or topiramate should be monitored. In addition, children exposed to these medications in utero should be monitored during childhood to ensure they are meeting age-appropriate developmental milestones. 

Folic acid taken during pregnancy can reduce the prevalence of negative neurodevelopment outcomes, but not major congenital malformations, Dr. Pack noted. 

“Due to limited available data, we were unable to define an optimal dose of folic acid supplementation beyond at least 0.4 mg/d,” Dr. Pack said. “Future studies, preferably randomized clinical trials, are needed to better define the optimal dose.”

She emphasized that epilepsy is one of the most common neurologic disorders, and 1 in 5 of those affected are people of childbearing potential. Understanding the effects of ASMs on pregnancy outcomes is critical for physicians who manage these patients.
 

Uncertainty Remains 

Commenting for this news organization, Kimford Meador, MD, a professor in the Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine , Stanford Neuroscience Health Center, Palo Alto, California, noted that the new guidelines reflect the gains in knowledge since 2009 and that the recommendations are “reasonable, based on available data.”

However, “one very important point is how much remains unknown,” said Dr. Meador, who was not involved in writing the current guideline. “Many ASMs have no data, and several have estimates based on small samples or a single observational study.” Thus, “the risks for the majority of ASMs are uncertain.”

Given that randomized trials “are not possible in this population, and that all observational studies are subject to residual confounding, a reliable signal across multiple studies in humans is required to be certain of findings,” he stated.

This practice guideline was developed with financial support from the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Pack serves on the editorial board for the journal Epilepsy Currents, receives royalties from UpToDate, receives funding from the National Institutes of Health for serving as coinvestigator and site principal investigator for the Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD) study, and receives funding from Bayer for serving as a co-investigator on a study on women with epilepsy initiating a progestin intrauterine device. One of Dr. Pack’s immediate family members has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of REGENEXBIO. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Meador has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, Veterans Administration, Eisai, Inc, and Suno Medtronic Navigation, Inc, and the Epilepsy Study Consortium pays Dr. Meador’s university for his research on the Human Epilepsy Project and consultant time related to Eisai, UCB Pharma, and Xenon.

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

New expert guidance to help clinicians manage the treatment of patients with epilepsy during pregnancy has been released.

Issued by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Epilepsy Society, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the new practice guideline covers the use of antiseizure medications (ASMs) and folic acid supplementation before conception and during pregnancy.

“Most children born to people with epilepsy are healthy, but there is a small risk of pregnancy-related problems, partly due to seizures and partly due to the effects of antiseizure medications,” the guidelines’ lead author Alison M. Pack, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and chief of the Epilepsy and Sleep Division, Columbia University, New York City, said in a news release.

“This guideline provides recommendations regarding the effects of antiseizure medications and folic acid supplementation on malformations at birth and the development of children during pregnancy, so that doctors and people with epilepsy can determine which treatments may be best for them,” she added. 

The guideline was published online in Neurology.
 

Why Now? 

The new guideline updates the 2009 guidance on epilepsy management during pregnancy. Since then, Dr. Pack told this news organization, there has been a wealth of new data on differential effects of different ASMs — notably, lamotrigine and levetiracetam — the most commonly prescribed medications in this population.

“In this guideline, we were able to assess differential effects of different ASMs on outcomes of interest, including major congenital malformations [MCMs], perinatal outcomes, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. In addition, we looked at the effect of folic acid supplementation on each of these outcomes,” she said.

The overarching goals of care for patients are to “optimize health outcomes both for individuals and their future offspring,” the authors wrote. Shared decision-making, they add, leads to better decision-making by providing a better understanding of the available treatment options and their potential risks, resulting in enhanced decision-making that aligns with personal values.

Clinicians should recommend ASMs that optimize seizure control and fetal outcomes, in the event of a pregnancy, at the earliest possible preconception time, the guideline authors note.

“Overall, treating clinicians need to balance treating the person with epilepsy to control convulsive seizures (generalized tonic-clonic seizures and focal-to-bilateral tonic-clonic seizures) to minimize potential risks to the birth parent and the possible risks of certain ASMs on the fetus if pregnancy occurs,” they wrote.

If a patient is already pregnant, the experts recommend that clinicians “exercise caution” in removing or replacing an ASM that controls convulsive seizures, even if it’s “not an optimal choice” for the fetus. 

In addition, they advise that ASM levels should be monitored throughout the pregnancy, guided by individual ASM pharmacokinetics and an individual patient’s clinical presentation. ASM dose, they note, should be adjusted during pregnancy in response to decreasing serum ASM levels or worsening seizure control.

The authors point out that there are limited data on “pregnancy-related outcomes with respect to acetazolamide, eslicarbazepine, ethosuximide, lacosamide, nitrazepam, perampanel, piracetam, pregabalin, rufinamide, stiripentol, tiagabine, and vigabatrin.”

Patients should be informed that the birth prevalence of any major congenital malformation in the general population ranges between 2.4% and 2.9%.
 

If Feasible, Avoid Valproic Acid 

“One of the most important take-home messages is that valproic acid has the highest unadjusted birth prevalence of all major congenital malformations — 9.7% — and the highest unadjusted birth prevalence of neural tube defects at 1.4%,” Dr. Pack said. As a result, the guideline authors advise against using valproic acid, if clinically feasible.

Valproic acid also has the highest prevalence of negative neurodevelopmental outcomes, including a reduction in global IQ and an increased prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Patients should be counseled accordingly and advised of the increased risk for ASD and decreased IQ resulting from valproic acid.

Clinicians should consider using lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or oxcarbazepine when appropriate. Serum concentrations of most ASMs have a “defined therapeutic window” for effective seizure control and that concentration may decrease during pregnancy, particularly with lamotrigine and levetiracetam, the authors note.

Phenobarbital, topiramate, and valproic acid should because of the increased risk for cardiac malformations, oral clefts, and urogenital and renal malformations.

Fetal screening for major congenital malformations is recommended to enable early detection and timely intervention in patients treated with any ASM during pregnancy Patients receiving phenobarbital during pregnancy should also undergo fetal cardiac screenings.

Valproic acid and topiramate are also associated with children who are small for their gestational age. To enable early identification of fetal growth restriction, patients taking valproic acid or topiramate should be monitored. In addition, children exposed to these medications in utero should be monitored during childhood to ensure they are meeting age-appropriate developmental milestones. 

Folic acid taken during pregnancy can reduce the prevalence of negative neurodevelopment outcomes, but not major congenital malformations, Dr. Pack noted. 

“Due to limited available data, we were unable to define an optimal dose of folic acid supplementation beyond at least 0.4 mg/d,” Dr. Pack said. “Future studies, preferably randomized clinical trials, are needed to better define the optimal dose.”

She emphasized that epilepsy is one of the most common neurologic disorders, and 1 in 5 of those affected are people of childbearing potential. Understanding the effects of ASMs on pregnancy outcomes is critical for physicians who manage these patients.
 

Uncertainty Remains 

Commenting for this news organization, Kimford Meador, MD, a professor in the Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine , Stanford Neuroscience Health Center, Palo Alto, California, noted that the new guidelines reflect the gains in knowledge since 2009 and that the recommendations are “reasonable, based on available data.”

However, “one very important point is how much remains unknown,” said Dr. Meador, who was not involved in writing the current guideline. “Many ASMs have no data, and several have estimates based on small samples or a single observational study.” Thus, “the risks for the majority of ASMs are uncertain.”

Given that randomized trials “are not possible in this population, and that all observational studies are subject to residual confounding, a reliable signal across multiple studies in humans is required to be certain of findings,” he stated.

This practice guideline was developed with financial support from the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Pack serves on the editorial board for the journal Epilepsy Currents, receives royalties from UpToDate, receives funding from the National Institutes of Health for serving as coinvestigator and site principal investigator for the Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD) study, and receives funding from Bayer for serving as a co-investigator on a study on women with epilepsy initiating a progestin intrauterine device. One of Dr. Pack’s immediate family members has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of REGENEXBIO. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Meador has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, Veterans Administration, Eisai, Inc, and Suno Medtronic Navigation, Inc, and the Epilepsy Study Consortium pays Dr. Meador’s university for his research on the Human Epilepsy Project and consultant time related to Eisai, UCB Pharma, and Xenon.

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

New expert guidance to help clinicians manage the treatment of patients with epilepsy during pregnancy has been released.

Issued by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Epilepsy Society, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the new practice guideline covers the use of antiseizure medications (ASMs) and folic acid supplementation before conception and during pregnancy.

“Most children born to people with epilepsy are healthy, but there is a small risk of pregnancy-related problems, partly due to seizures and partly due to the effects of antiseizure medications,” the guidelines’ lead author Alison M. Pack, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and chief of the Epilepsy and Sleep Division, Columbia University, New York City, said in a news release.

“This guideline provides recommendations regarding the effects of antiseizure medications and folic acid supplementation on malformations at birth and the development of children during pregnancy, so that doctors and people with epilepsy can determine which treatments may be best for them,” she added. 

The guideline was published online in Neurology.
 

Why Now? 

The new guideline updates the 2009 guidance on epilepsy management during pregnancy. Since then, Dr. Pack told this news organization, there has been a wealth of new data on differential effects of different ASMs — notably, lamotrigine and levetiracetam — the most commonly prescribed medications in this population.

“In this guideline, we were able to assess differential effects of different ASMs on outcomes of interest, including major congenital malformations [MCMs], perinatal outcomes, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. In addition, we looked at the effect of folic acid supplementation on each of these outcomes,” she said.

The overarching goals of care for patients are to “optimize health outcomes both for individuals and their future offspring,” the authors wrote. Shared decision-making, they add, leads to better decision-making by providing a better understanding of the available treatment options and their potential risks, resulting in enhanced decision-making that aligns with personal values.

Clinicians should recommend ASMs that optimize seizure control and fetal outcomes, in the event of a pregnancy, at the earliest possible preconception time, the guideline authors note.

“Overall, treating clinicians need to balance treating the person with epilepsy to control convulsive seizures (generalized tonic-clonic seizures and focal-to-bilateral tonic-clonic seizures) to minimize potential risks to the birth parent and the possible risks of certain ASMs on the fetus if pregnancy occurs,” they wrote.

If a patient is already pregnant, the experts recommend that clinicians “exercise caution” in removing or replacing an ASM that controls convulsive seizures, even if it’s “not an optimal choice” for the fetus. 

In addition, they advise that ASM levels should be monitored throughout the pregnancy, guided by individual ASM pharmacokinetics and an individual patient’s clinical presentation. ASM dose, they note, should be adjusted during pregnancy in response to decreasing serum ASM levels or worsening seizure control.

The authors point out that there are limited data on “pregnancy-related outcomes with respect to acetazolamide, eslicarbazepine, ethosuximide, lacosamide, nitrazepam, perampanel, piracetam, pregabalin, rufinamide, stiripentol, tiagabine, and vigabatrin.”

Patients should be informed that the birth prevalence of any major congenital malformation in the general population ranges between 2.4% and 2.9%.
 

If Feasible, Avoid Valproic Acid 

“One of the most important take-home messages is that valproic acid has the highest unadjusted birth prevalence of all major congenital malformations — 9.7% — and the highest unadjusted birth prevalence of neural tube defects at 1.4%,” Dr. Pack said. As a result, the guideline authors advise against using valproic acid, if clinically feasible.

Valproic acid also has the highest prevalence of negative neurodevelopmental outcomes, including a reduction in global IQ and an increased prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Patients should be counseled accordingly and advised of the increased risk for ASD and decreased IQ resulting from valproic acid.

Clinicians should consider using lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or oxcarbazepine when appropriate. Serum concentrations of most ASMs have a “defined therapeutic window” for effective seizure control and that concentration may decrease during pregnancy, particularly with lamotrigine and levetiracetam, the authors note.

Phenobarbital, topiramate, and valproic acid should because of the increased risk for cardiac malformations, oral clefts, and urogenital and renal malformations.

Fetal screening for major congenital malformations is recommended to enable early detection and timely intervention in patients treated with any ASM during pregnancy Patients receiving phenobarbital during pregnancy should also undergo fetal cardiac screenings.

Valproic acid and topiramate are also associated with children who are small for their gestational age. To enable early identification of fetal growth restriction, patients taking valproic acid or topiramate should be monitored. In addition, children exposed to these medications in utero should be monitored during childhood to ensure they are meeting age-appropriate developmental milestones. 

Folic acid taken during pregnancy can reduce the prevalence of negative neurodevelopment outcomes, but not major congenital malformations, Dr. Pack noted. 

“Due to limited available data, we were unable to define an optimal dose of folic acid supplementation beyond at least 0.4 mg/d,” Dr. Pack said. “Future studies, preferably randomized clinical trials, are needed to better define the optimal dose.”

She emphasized that epilepsy is one of the most common neurologic disorders, and 1 in 5 of those affected are people of childbearing potential. Understanding the effects of ASMs on pregnancy outcomes is critical for physicians who manage these patients.
 

Uncertainty Remains 

Commenting for this news organization, Kimford Meador, MD, a professor in the Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine , Stanford Neuroscience Health Center, Palo Alto, California, noted that the new guidelines reflect the gains in knowledge since 2009 and that the recommendations are “reasonable, based on available data.”

However, “one very important point is how much remains unknown,” said Dr. Meador, who was not involved in writing the current guideline. “Many ASMs have no data, and several have estimates based on small samples or a single observational study.” Thus, “the risks for the majority of ASMs are uncertain.”

Given that randomized trials “are not possible in this population, and that all observational studies are subject to residual confounding, a reliable signal across multiple studies in humans is required to be certain of findings,” he stated.

This practice guideline was developed with financial support from the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Pack serves on the editorial board for the journal Epilepsy Currents, receives royalties from UpToDate, receives funding from the National Institutes of Health for serving as coinvestigator and site principal investigator for the Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD) study, and receives funding from Bayer for serving as a co-investigator on a study on women with epilepsy initiating a progestin intrauterine device. One of Dr. Pack’s immediate family members has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of REGENEXBIO. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Meador has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, Veterans Administration, Eisai, Inc, and Suno Medtronic Navigation, Inc, and the Epilepsy Study Consortium pays Dr. Meador’s university for his research on the Human Epilepsy Project and consultant time related to Eisai, UCB Pharma, and Xenon.

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

SAN FRANCISCO — Discussion of gestational weight gain occurred in only half of first-time obstetric visits, most often brought up by the provider, according to data presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Weight can be a challenging and sensitive topic at a healthcare visit,” Malini Harinath, an undergraduate research assistant at Magee-Women’s Research Institute at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, told attendees. “Providers discussed weight gain recommendations in less than half of conversations.”

The researchers analyzed an existing dataset of audio-recorded first obstetric visits to find out how often gestational weight gain was brought up, who initiated the discussion, whether ACOG guidelines were discussed, and what the provider’s comments were.

Among 150 visits, half (50%) involved discussion of weight, with patients bringing it up 24% of the time and providers bringing it up 72% of the time. In the other 3% of visits, it was brought up by a third party, such as a partner or other family member with the patient.

Only two of those visits mentioned body mass index (BMI) specifically, and ACOG guidelines on gestational weight gain were brought up in only six visits (8% of the visits where weight was mentioned). However, mention of recommendations on gestational weight gain was more frequent, coming up in nearly half (46.7%) of the visits where weight was mentioned, though that was still just 23% of all visits.

Concern about weight was brought up in 25.3% of visits where weight was discussed, and the provider’s reassurance to the patient occurred in about a third (32%) of those visits. General comments about the patient’s body occurred in 16% of visits, such as a clinician saying, “Usually we start trying [to find the heartbeat] at about 15 weeks, but you are so skinny we might be able to find it now.”

Ms. Harinath intends to look in future research at whether patient race or BMI are associated with the frequency and content of gestational weight gain conversations and to explore how patients react to different ways that discussion of weight is brought up.

Katherine Kaak, MD, a second-year resident at the University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine in Knoxville, was surprised that weight was brought up in only half of the visits. “The clinical takeaway is just how important counseling in the prenatal time is and how a lot of this discussion is preventive medicine,” Dr. Kaak said. “Even though we think of those visits as being quick, it’s good to keep in mind that we need to really take our time and make sure we counsel the patient as best we can.”

There’s a fair amount of research suggesting that existing recommendations on gestational weight gain are not very good because they’re very generic, Jill Maples, PhD, associate professor of ob.gyn. research at the University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, said in an interview. For example, the guidelines are generally the same for everyone with a BMI over 30, but a person with a BMI of 30 is very different from someone with a BMI of 50, she said.

“There’s not even a lot of clarity on what is appropriate weight gain for that group because some people have seen good outcomes on the lower end of gestational weight gain,” Dr. Maples said. She said it’s important that clinicians not forget about the importance of these discussions, however, because lifestyle habits and gestational weight gain are related to maternal and neonatal outcomes.

The authors, Dr. Kaak, and Dr. Maples had no disclosures. The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

SAN FRANCISCO — Discussion of gestational weight gain occurred in only half of first-time obstetric visits, most often brought up by the provider, according to data presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Weight can be a challenging and sensitive topic at a healthcare visit,” Malini Harinath, an undergraduate research assistant at Magee-Women’s Research Institute at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, told attendees. “Providers discussed weight gain recommendations in less than half of conversations.”

The researchers analyzed an existing dataset of audio-recorded first obstetric visits to find out how often gestational weight gain was brought up, who initiated the discussion, whether ACOG guidelines were discussed, and what the provider’s comments were.

Among 150 visits, half (50%) involved discussion of weight, with patients bringing it up 24% of the time and providers bringing it up 72% of the time. In the other 3% of visits, it was brought up by a third party, such as a partner or other family member with the patient.

Only two of those visits mentioned body mass index (BMI) specifically, and ACOG guidelines on gestational weight gain were brought up in only six visits (8% of the visits where weight was mentioned). However, mention of recommendations on gestational weight gain was more frequent, coming up in nearly half (46.7%) of the visits where weight was mentioned, though that was still just 23% of all visits.

Concern about weight was brought up in 25.3% of visits where weight was discussed, and the provider’s reassurance to the patient occurred in about a third (32%) of those visits. General comments about the patient’s body occurred in 16% of visits, such as a clinician saying, “Usually we start trying [to find the heartbeat] at about 15 weeks, but you are so skinny we might be able to find it now.”

Ms. Harinath intends to look in future research at whether patient race or BMI are associated with the frequency and content of gestational weight gain conversations and to explore how patients react to different ways that discussion of weight is brought up.

Katherine Kaak, MD, a second-year resident at the University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine in Knoxville, was surprised that weight was brought up in only half of the visits. “The clinical takeaway is just how important counseling in the prenatal time is and how a lot of this discussion is preventive medicine,” Dr. Kaak said. “Even though we think of those visits as being quick, it’s good to keep in mind that we need to really take our time and make sure we counsel the patient as best we can.”

There’s a fair amount of research suggesting that existing recommendations on gestational weight gain are not very good because they’re very generic, Jill Maples, PhD, associate professor of ob.gyn. research at the University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, said in an interview. For example, the guidelines are generally the same for everyone with a BMI over 30, but a person with a BMI of 30 is very different from someone with a BMI of 50, she said.

“There’s not even a lot of clarity on what is appropriate weight gain for that group because some people have seen good outcomes on the lower end of gestational weight gain,” Dr. Maples said. She said it’s important that clinicians not forget about the importance of these discussions, however, because lifestyle habits and gestational weight gain are related to maternal and neonatal outcomes.

The authors, Dr. Kaak, and Dr. Maples had no disclosures. The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

SAN FRANCISCO — Discussion of gestational weight gain occurred in only half of first-time obstetric visits, most often brought up by the provider, according to data presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Weight can be a challenging and sensitive topic at a healthcare visit,” Malini Harinath, an undergraduate research assistant at Magee-Women’s Research Institute at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, told attendees. “Providers discussed weight gain recommendations in less than half of conversations.”

The researchers analyzed an existing dataset of audio-recorded first obstetric visits to find out how often gestational weight gain was brought up, who initiated the discussion, whether ACOG guidelines were discussed, and what the provider’s comments were.

Among 150 visits, half (50%) involved discussion of weight, with patients bringing it up 24% of the time and providers bringing it up 72% of the time. In the other 3% of visits, it was brought up by a third party, such as a partner or other family member with the patient.

Only two of those visits mentioned body mass index (BMI) specifically, and ACOG guidelines on gestational weight gain were brought up in only six visits (8% of the visits where weight was mentioned). However, mention of recommendations on gestational weight gain was more frequent, coming up in nearly half (46.7%) of the visits where weight was mentioned, though that was still just 23% of all visits.

Concern about weight was brought up in 25.3% of visits where weight was discussed, and the provider’s reassurance to the patient occurred in about a third (32%) of those visits. General comments about the patient’s body occurred in 16% of visits, such as a clinician saying, “Usually we start trying [to find the heartbeat] at about 15 weeks, but you are so skinny we might be able to find it now.”

Ms. Harinath intends to look in future research at whether patient race or BMI are associated with the frequency and content of gestational weight gain conversations and to explore how patients react to different ways that discussion of weight is brought up.

Katherine Kaak, MD, a second-year resident at the University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine in Knoxville, was surprised that weight was brought up in only half of the visits. “The clinical takeaway is just how important counseling in the prenatal time is and how a lot of this discussion is preventive medicine,” Dr. Kaak said. “Even though we think of those visits as being quick, it’s good to keep in mind that we need to really take our time and make sure we counsel the patient as best we can.”

There’s a fair amount of research suggesting that existing recommendations on gestational weight gain are not very good because they’re very generic, Jill Maples, PhD, associate professor of ob.gyn. research at the University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, said in an interview. For example, the guidelines are generally the same for everyone with a BMI over 30, but a person with a BMI of 30 is very different from someone with a BMI of 50, she said.

“There’s not even a lot of clarity on what is appropriate weight gain for that group because some people have seen good outcomes on the lower end of gestational weight gain,” Dr. Maples said. She said it’s important that clinicians not forget about the importance of these discussions, however, because lifestyle habits and gestational weight gain are related to maternal and neonatal outcomes.

The authors, Dr. Kaak, and Dr. Maples had no disclosures. The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.