MDedge ObGyn

MILAN, ITALY — Pregnant women with heightened amygdala activity have a reduced capacity to regulate emotions and report more symptoms of depression than those with lower activity in this brain region, a new imaging study suggested.

If validated, these findings could pave the way for identifying women at higher risk for postpartum depression, said lead researcher Franziska Weinmar, MSc, from the University of Tübingen in Germany.

The study was presented at the 37th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Congress.
 

Differences in Brain Activity

During pregnancy and the peripartum period, rising hormone levels create a “psychoneuroendocrinological window of vulnerability” for mental health in which 80% of women can develop transitory “baby blues,” and about one in seven develop more serious postpartum depression, Ms. Weinmar told this news organization.

The study included 47 women — 15 pregnant women and 32 nonpregnant controls. The nonpregnant women had normal menstrual cycles; 16 were in the early follicular phase with low estradiol levels (231.7 pmol/L), and 16 had high estradiol levels (516.6 pmol/L) after administration of estradiol.

To examine brain activity, participants were asked to view negative emotional images while undergoing functional MRI. They were then asked to use cognitive reappraisal to regulate their emotional response to the images.

The findings showed that both pregnant and nonpregnant women were equally successful at emotional regulation, but this process involved different brain activity in pregnant vs their nonpregnant counterpart.

All women had increased left middle frontal gyrus activity when regulating their emotions, but there was a difference in the amygdala between the pregnancy group and controls, Ms. Weinmar noted.

This suggests that pregnant women may have to exert more neural effort in emotional regulation, she said. “And pregnant women with higher amygdala activity were less able to regulate their emotions successfully compared to those with less amygdala activity.”

Linear regression analyses were performed to assess the relation of brain activity during down-regulation, regulation success, and self-reported depression scores, and this showed that higher amygdala activity was also associated with higher depression scores.

“We need to be cautious in interpreting this,” said Ms. Weinmar. “This is a small sample, and we are the first to undertake this work.”

Nonetheless, she said that if the findings are confirmed by larger studies, pregnant women could be assessed “in the waiting room” using existing questionnaires that evaluate emotional regulation.

If a woman has difficulties with emotion regulation, “there are adaptive strategies, like cognitive reappraisal that a counseling psychotherapist can help with,” said Ms. Weinmar.

“I could also imagine group sessions, for example, or online courses,” she said, adding that obstetricians could also be trained to identify these women.

Commenting on the findings in a press release, Susana Carmona, PhD, from Gregorio Marañón Hospital in Madrid, Spain, said research like this is crucial for gaining insight into one of the most intense physiological processes a human can undergo: pregnancy. It’s remarkable how much remains unknown.

“Recently, the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approved the first treatment for postpartum depression. However, we still have a long way to go in characterizing what happens in the brain during pregnancy, identifying biomarkers that can indicate the risk of developing perinatal mental disorders, and designing strategies to prevent mother and infant suffering during the delicate and critical peripartum period,” Dr. Carmona added.

The study was supported by the Center for Integrative Neuroscience in Tübingen, Germany, and the International Research Training Group “Women’s Mental Health Across the Reproductive Years” (IRTG 2804). Ms. Weinmar and Dr. Carmona reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN, ITALY — Pregnant women with heightened amygdala activity have a reduced capacity to regulate emotions and report more symptoms of depression than those with lower activity in this brain region, a new imaging study suggested.

If validated, these findings could pave the way for identifying women at higher risk for postpartum depression, said lead researcher Franziska Weinmar, MSc, from the University of Tübingen in Germany.

The study was presented at the 37th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Congress.
 

Differences in Brain Activity

During pregnancy and the peripartum period, rising hormone levels create a “psychoneuroendocrinological window of vulnerability” for mental health in which 80% of women can develop transitory “baby blues,” and about one in seven develop more serious postpartum depression, Ms. Weinmar told this news organization.

The study included 47 women — 15 pregnant women and 32 nonpregnant controls. The nonpregnant women had normal menstrual cycles; 16 were in the early follicular phase with low estradiol levels (231.7 pmol/L), and 16 had high estradiol levels (516.6 pmol/L) after administration of estradiol.

To examine brain activity, participants were asked to view negative emotional images while undergoing functional MRI. They were then asked to use cognitive reappraisal to regulate their emotional response to the images.

The findings showed that both pregnant and nonpregnant women were equally successful at emotional regulation, but this process involved different brain activity in pregnant vs their nonpregnant counterpart.

All women had increased left middle frontal gyrus activity when regulating their emotions, but there was a difference in the amygdala between the pregnancy group and controls, Ms. Weinmar noted.

This suggests that pregnant women may have to exert more neural effort in emotional regulation, she said. “And pregnant women with higher amygdala activity were less able to regulate their emotions successfully compared to those with less amygdala activity.”

Linear regression analyses were performed to assess the relation of brain activity during down-regulation, regulation success, and self-reported depression scores, and this showed that higher amygdala activity was also associated with higher depression scores.

“We need to be cautious in interpreting this,” said Ms. Weinmar. “This is a small sample, and we are the first to undertake this work.”

Nonetheless, she said that if the findings are confirmed by larger studies, pregnant women could be assessed “in the waiting room” using existing questionnaires that evaluate emotional regulation.

If a woman has difficulties with emotion regulation, “there are adaptive strategies, like cognitive reappraisal that a counseling psychotherapist can help with,” said Ms. Weinmar.

“I could also imagine group sessions, for example, or online courses,” she said, adding that obstetricians could also be trained to identify these women.

Commenting on the findings in a press release, Susana Carmona, PhD, from Gregorio Marañón Hospital in Madrid, Spain, said research like this is crucial for gaining insight into one of the most intense physiological processes a human can undergo: pregnancy. It’s remarkable how much remains unknown.

“Recently, the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approved the first treatment for postpartum depression. However, we still have a long way to go in characterizing what happens in the brain during pregnancy, identifying biomarkers that can indicate the risk of developing perinatal mental disorders, and designing strategies to prevent mother and infant suffering during the delicate and critical peripartum period,” Dr. Carmona added.

The study was supported by the Center for Integrative Neuroscience in Tübingen, Germany, and the International Research Training Group “Women’s Mental Health Across the Reproductive Years” (IRTG 2804). Ms. Weinmar and Dr. Carmona reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN, ITALY — Pregnant women with heightened amygdala activity have a reduced capacity to regulate emotions and report more symptoms of depression than those with lower activity in this brain region, a new imaging study suggested.

If validated, these findings could pave the way for identifying women at higher risk for postpartum depression, said lead researcher Franziska Weinmar, MSc, from the University of Tübingen in Germany.

The study was presented at the 37th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Congress.
 

Differences in Brain Activity

During pregnancy and the peripartum period, rising hormone levels create a “psychoneuroendocrinological window of vulnerability” for mental health in which 80% of women can develop transitory “baby blues,” and about one in seven develop more serious postpartum depression, Ms. Weinmar told this news organization.

The study included 47 women — 15 pregnant women and 32 nonpregnant controls. The nonpregnant women had normal menstrual cycles; 16 were in the early follicular phase with low estradiol levels (231.7 pmol/L), and 16 had high estradiol levels (516.6 pmol/L) after administration of estradiol.

To examine brain activity, participants were asked to view negative emotional images while undergoing functional MRI. They were then asked to use cognitive reappraisal to regulate their emotional response to the images.

The findings showed that both pregnant and nonpregnant women were equally successful at emotional regulation, but this process involved different brain activity in pregnant vs their nonpregnant counterpart.

All women had increased left middle frontal gyrus activity when regulating their emotions, but there was a difference in the amygdala between the pregnancy group and controls, Ms. Weinmar noted.

This suggests that pregnant women may have to exert more neural effort in emotional regulation, she said. “And pregnant women with higher amygdala activity were less able to regulate their emotions successfully compared to those with less amygdala activity.”

Linear regression analyses were performed to assess the relation of brain activity during down-regulation, regulation success, and self-reported depression scores, and this showed that higher amygdala activity was also associated with higher depression scores.

“We need to be cautious in interpreting this,” said Ms. Weinmar. “This is a small sample, and we are the first to undertake this work.”

Nonetheless, she said that if the findings are confirmed by larger studies, pregnant women could be assessed “in the waiting room” using existing questionnaires that evaluate emotional regulation.

If a woman has difficulties with emotion regulation, “there are adaptive strategies, like cognitive reappraisal that a counseling psychotherapist can help with,” said Ms. Weinmar.

“I could also imagine group sessions, for example, or online courses,” she said, adding that obstetricians could also be trained to identify these women.

Commenting on the findings in a press release, Susana Carmona, PhD, from Gregorio Marañón Hospital in Madrid, Spain, said research like this is crucial for gaining insight into one of the most intense physiological processes a human can undergo: pregnancy. It’s remarkable how much remains unknown.

“Recently, the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approved the first treatment for postpartum depression. However, we still have a long way to go in characterizing what happens in the brain during pregnancy, identifying biomarkers that can indicate the risk of developing perinatal mental disorders, and designing strategies to prevent mother and infant suffering during the delicate and critical peripartum period,” Dr. Carmona added.

The study was supported by the Center for Integrative Neuroscience in Tübingen, Germany, and the International Research Training Group “Women’s Mental Health Across the Reproductive Years” (IRTG 2804). Ms. Weinmar and Dr. Carmona reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years. 

Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.

Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression. 

These antiobesity drugs could even have a place in cancer care.

While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.

The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects. 

The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. 

Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.

“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. 

Why GLP-1s in Cancer?

GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar. 

These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer. 

Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.

In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.

Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.

Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma. 

But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.

Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population. 

Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m² (range, 23-50 kg/m²).

From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy. 

In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer. 

Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population. 

“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.

It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.

Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.

However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound. 

As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk). 

These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.

Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said

Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions. 

Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.

Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer. 

“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”

The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer. 

But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said. 

Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.

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

Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years. 

Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.

Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression. 

These antiobesity drugs could even have a place in cancer care.

While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.

The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects. 

The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. 

Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.

“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. 

Why GLP-1s in Cancer?

GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar. 

These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer. 

Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.

In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.

Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.

Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma. 

But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.

Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population. 

Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m² (range, 23-50 kg/m²).

From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy. 

In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer. 

Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population. 

“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.

It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.

Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.

However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound. 

As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk). 

These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.

Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said

Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions. 

Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.

Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer. 

“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”

The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer. 

But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said. 

Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.

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

Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years. 

Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.

Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression. 

These antiobesity drugs could even have a place in cancer care.

While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.

The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects. 

The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. 

Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.

“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. 

Why GLP-1s in Cancer?

GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar. 

These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer. 

Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.

In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.

Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.

Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma. 

But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.

Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population. 

Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m² (range, 23-50 kg/m²).

From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy. 

In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer. 

Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population. 

“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.

It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.

Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.

However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound. 

As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk). 

These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.

Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said

Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions. 

Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.

Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer. 

“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”

The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer. 

But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said. 

Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.

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

TOPLINE:

Diabetes is associated with a lower incidence of uterine fibroids in midlife women receiving diabetes treatment, especially metformin. The association between diabetes and the risk for uterine fibroids may vary based on menopausal status.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have provided inconsistent evidence regarding associations between the risk for uterine fibroids and markers of cardiometabolic health, such as fasting insulin, fasting glucose, and diabetes.
• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study to examine the association of fasting levels of cardiometabolic blood biomarkers, diabetes, and diabetes treatment with the incidence of new fibroid diagnoses in midlife women.
• They included participants from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation cohort who reported fibroid diagnoses at enrollment and during 13 follow-up visits.
• At all visits, levels of glucose, insulin, and sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) were measured in fasting blood samples, and homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was calculated.
• Discrete-time survival models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) for the associations of biomarkers and diabetes with fibroid diagnoses, adjusted for demographics and healthcare utilization.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers identified 2570 eligible women (median age, 45 years; 45% perimenopausal women), among whom approximately 3% had diabetes at baseline.
• Diabetes was associated with a 28% lower incidence of new fibroid diagnosis (adjusted HR, 0.72).
• This association was particularly strong among participants with treated diabetes, especially those on metformin, who had a 51% lower incidence of self-reported fibroids than those without diabetes. The estimates, however, had wide CIs suggesting uncertainty.
• Time-varying HOMA-IR and SHBG, insulin, and glucose levels were not significantly associated with the new fibroid diagnosis.
• When stratified by menopausal status, higher HOMA-IR and insulin levels were associated with a greater incidence of fibroid diagnosis during premenopause but not during perimenopause.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings contribute to preliminary evidence indicating a protective association between diabetes and risk of incident fibroids,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Susanna D. Mitro, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Pleasanton, California, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on self-reported fibroid diagnoses, which may result in the misclassification of cases. The sample size of participants with diabetes was small, which resulted in reduced precision and confidence in the findings. The baseline eligibility criteria (midlife participants with an intact uterus and no history of fibroid incidence) may have limited the generalizability of the findings to the wider population at risk for fibroids.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), through the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health. One author reported being a consultant and adviser for various pharmaceutical companies. Two other authors reported receiving salary support and royalties from various pharmaceutical companies and organizations.

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

TOPLINE:

Diabetes is associated with a lower incidence of uterine fibroids in midlife women receiving diabetes treatment, especially metformin. The association between diabetes and the risk for uterine fibroids may vary based on menopausal status.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have provided inconsistent evidence regarding associations between the risk for uterine fibroids and markers of cardiometabolic health, such as fasting insulin, fasting glucose, and diabetes.
• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study to examine the association of fasting levels of cardiometabolic blood biomarkers, diabetes, and diabetes treatment with the incidence of new fibroid diagnoses in midlife women.
• They included participants from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation cohort who reported fibroid diagnoses at enrollment and during 13 follow-up visits.
• At all visits, levels of glucose, insulin, and sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) were measured in fasting blood samples, and homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was calculated.
• Discrete-time survival models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) for the associations of biomarkers and diabetes with fibroid diagnoses, adjusted for demographics and healthcare utilization.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers identified 2570 eligible women (median age, 45 years; 45% perimenopausal women), among whom approximately 3% had diabetes at baseline.
• Diabetes was associated with a 28% lower incidence of new fibroid diagnosis (adjusted HR, 0.72).
• This association was particularly strong among participants with treated diabetes, especially those on metformin, who had a 51% lower incidence of self-reported fibroids than those without diabetes. The estimates, however, had wide CIs suggesting uncertainty.
• Time-varying HOMA-IR and SHBG, insulin, and glucose levels were not significantly associated with the new fibroid diagnosis.
• When stratified by menopausal status, higher HOMA-IR and insulin levels were associated with a greater incidence of fibroid diagnosis during premenopause but not during perimenopause.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings contribute to preliminary evidence indicating a protective association between diabetes and risk of incident fibroids,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Susanna D. Mitro, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Pleasanton, California, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on self-reported fibroid diagnoses, which may result in the misclassification of cases. The sample size of participants with diabetes was small, which resulted in reduced precision and confidence in the findings. The baseline eligibility criteria (midlife participants with an intact uterus and no history of fibroid incidence) may have limited the generalizability of the findings to the wider population at risk for fibroids.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), through the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health. One author reported being a consultant and adviser for various pharmaceutical companies. Two other authors reported receiving salary support and royalties from various pharmaceutical companies and organizations.

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

TOPLINE:

Diabetes is associated with a lower incidence of uterine fibroids in midlife women receiving diabetes treatment, especially metformin. The association between diabetes and the risk for uterine fibroids may vary based on menopausal status.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have provided inconsistent evidence regarding associations between the risk for uterine fibroids and markers of cardiometabolic health, such as fasting insulin, fasting glucose, and diabetes.
• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study to examine the association of fasting levels of cardiometabolic blood biomarkers, diabetes, and diabetes treatment with the incidence of new fibroid diagnoses in midlife women.
• They included participants from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation cohort who reported fibroid diagnoses at enrollment and during 13 follow-up visits.
• At all visits, levels of glucose, insulin, and sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) were measured in fasting blood samples, and homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was calculated.
• Discrete-time survival models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) for the associations of biomarkers and diabetes with fibroid diagnoses, adjusted for demographics and healthcare utilization.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers identified 2570 eligible women (median age, 45 years; 45% perimenopausal women), among whom approximately 3% had diabetes at baseline.
• Diabetes was associated with a 28% lower incidence of new fibroid diagnosis (adjusted HR, 0.72).
• This association was particularly strong among participants with treated diabetes, especially those on metformin, who had a 51% lower incidence of self-reported fibroids than those without diabetes. The estimates, however, had wide CIs suggesting uncertainty.
• Time-varying HOMA-IR and SHBG, insulin, and glucose levels were not significantly associated with the new fibroid diagnosis.
• When stratified by menopausal status, higher HOMA-IR and insulin levels were associated with a greater incidence of fibroid diagnosis during premenopause but not during perimenopause.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings contribute to preliminary evidence indicating a protective association between diabetes and risk of incident fibroids,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Susanna D. Mitro, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Pleasanton, California, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on self-reported fibroid diagnoses, which may result in the misclassification of cases. The sample size of participants with diabetes was small, which resulted in reduced precision and confidence in the findings. The baseline eligibility criteria (midlife participants with an intact uterus and no history of fibroid incidence) may have limited the generalizability of the findings to the wider population at risk for fibroids.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), through the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health. One author reported being a consultant and adviser for various pharmaceutical companies. Two other authors reported receiving salary support and royalties from various pharmaceutical companies and organizations.

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

Gestational carriers face a significantly higher risk for severe maternal morbidity and other pregnancy complications than those conceiving naturally or via in vitro fertilization (IVF), according to a recent Canadian study.

These findings suggest that more work is needed to ensure careful selection of gestational carriers, reported lead author Maria P. Velez, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues.

“Although a gestational carrier should ideally be a healthy person, with a demonstrated low-risk obstetric history, it is not clear whether this occurs in practice,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “Moreover, the risk for maternal and neonatal adversity is largely unknown in this group.”
 

Study Compared Gestational Carriage With IVF and Unassisted Conception

To address these knowledge gaps, Dr. Velez and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study in Ontario using linked administrative datasets. All singleton births at more than 20 weeks’ gestation with mothers aged 18-50 years were included from April 2012 to March 2021. Multifetal pregnancies were excluded, as were women with a history of infertility diagnosis without fertility treatment, and those who underwent intrauterine insemination or ovulation induction.

Outcomes were compared across three groups: Unassisted conception, IVF, and gestational carriage. The primary maternal outcome was severe maternal morbidity, defined by a validated composite of 41 unique indicators. The primary infant outcome was severe neonatal morbidity, comprising 19 unique indicators.

Secondary outcomes were hypertensive disorders, elective cesarean delivery, emergent cesarean delivery, preterm birth at less than 37 weeks, preterm birth at more than 32 weeks, and postpartum hemorrhage.

Logistic regression analysis adjusted for a range of covariates, including age, obesity, tobacco/drug dependence, chronic hypertension, and others. The final dataset included 846,124 births by unassisted conception (97.6%), 16,087 by IVF (1.8%), and 806 by gestational carriage (0.1%).

The weighted relative risk (wRR) for severe maternal morbidity was more than three times higher in gestational carriers than in those conceiving naturally (wRR, 3.30; 95% CI, 2.59-4.20) and 86% higher than in those conceiving via IVF (wRR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.36-2.55). These stem from absolute risks of 2.3%, 4.3%, and 7.8% for unassisted, IVF, and surrogate pregnancies, respectively.

Moreover, surrogates were 75% more likely to have hypertensive disorders, 79% more likely to have preterm birth at less than 37 weeks, and almost three times as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage.

These same three secondary outcomes were also significantly more common when comparing surrogate with IVF pregnancies, albeit to a lesser degree. In contrast, surrogate pregnancies were associated with a 21% lower risk for elective cesarean delivery than IVF pregnancies (wRR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93).

Severe neonatal morbidity was not significantly different between the groups. These findings add to a mixed body of evidence surrounding both maternal and neonatal outcomes with gestational carriers, according to the investigators.

“Prior small studies [by Söderström-Anttila et al. and Swanson et al.] reported varying risks for preterm birth in singleton gestational carriage pregnancies, whereas a recent large US registry reported no increased risk for preterm birth compared with IVF, after accounting for multifetal pregnancy,” they wrote. “This study excluded multifetal pregnancies, a common occurrence after IVF, with reported higher risks for adverse outcomes. Accordingly, adverse maternal and newborn outcomes may have been underestimated herein.”
 

Causes of Worse Outcomes Remain Unclear

While the present findings suggest greater maternal morbidity among surrogates, potential causes of these adverse outcomes remain unclear.

The investigators suggested that implantation of a nonautologous embryo could be playing a role, as oocyte donation has been linked with an increased risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

“We don’t know exactly why that can happen,” Dr. Velez said in an interview. “Maybe that embryo can be associated with an immunological response that could be associated with higher morbidity during pregnancy. We need, however, other studies that can continue testing that hypothesis.”

In the meantime, more care is needed in surrogate selection, according to Dr. Velez.

“In our study, we found that there were patients, for example, who had more than three prior C-sections, which is one of the contraindications for gestational carriers, and patients who had more than five [prior] pregnancies, which is also another limitation in the guidelines for choosing these patients,” she said. “Definitely we need to be more vigilant when we accept these gestational carriers.”

But improving surrogate selection may be easier said than done.

The quantitative thresholds cited by Dr. Velez come from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine guidelines. Alternative guidance documents from the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are less prescriptive; instead, they offer qualitative recommendations concerning obstetric history and risk assessment.

And then there is the regulatory specter looming over the entire field, evidenced by the many times that these publications cite ethical and legal considerations — far more than the average medical guidance document — when making clinical decisions related to surrogacy.
 

Present Study Offers Much-Needed Data in Understudied Field

According to Kate Swanson, MD, a perinatologist, clinical geneticist, and associate professor at the University of California San Francisco, the present study may help steer medical societies and healthcare providers away from these potential sand traps and toward conversations grounded in scientific data.

“I think one of the reasons that the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the maternal-fetal medicine community in general hasn’t been interested in this subject is that they see it as a social/ethical/legal issue rather than a medical one,” Dr. Swanson said in an interview. “One of the real benefits of this article is that it shows that this is a medical issue that the obstetric community needs to pay attention to.”

These new data could help guide decisions about risk and candidacy with both potential gestational carriers and intended parents, she said.

Still, it’s hard — if not impossible — to disentangle the medical and legal aspects of surrogacy, as shown when analyzing the present study.

In Canada, where it was conducted, intended parents are forbidden from paying surrogates for their services beyond out-of-pocket costs directly related to pregnancy. Meanwhile, surrogacy laws vary widely across the United States; some states (eg, Louisiana) allow only altruistic surrogacy like Canada, while other states (eg, California) permit commercial surrogacy with no legal limits on compensation.

Dr. Swanson and Dr. Velez offered starkly different views on this topic.

“I think there should be more regulations in terms of compensating [gestational carriers],” Dr. Velez said. “I don’t think being a gestational carrier should be like a job or a way of making a living.”

Dr. Swanson, who has published multiple studies on gestational carriage and experienced the process as an intended parent, said compensation beyond expenses is essential.

“I do think it’s incredibly reasonable to pay someone — a woman is taking on quite a lot of inconvenience and risk — in order to perform this service for another family,” she said. “I think it’s incredibly appropriate to compensate her for all of that.”

Reasons for compensation go beyond the ethical, Dr. Swanson added, and may explain some of the findings from the present study.

“A lot of these gestational carriers [in the present dataset] wouldn’t necessarily meet criteria through the American Society of Reproductive Medicine,” Dr. Swanson said, pointing out surrogates who had never had a pregnancy before or reported the use of tobacco or other drugs. “Really, it shows me that a lot of the people participating as gestational carriers were maybe not ideal candidates. I think one of the reasons that we might see that in this Canadian population is ... that you can’t compensate someone, so I think their pool of people willing to be gestational carriers is a lot smaller, and they may be a little bit less selective sometimes.”

Dr. Velez acknowledged that the present study was limited by a shortage of potentially relevant information concerning the surrogacy selection process, including underlying reasons for becoming a gestational carrier. More work is needed to understand the health and outcomes of these women, she said, including topics ranging from immunologic mechanisms to mental health.

She also called for more discussions surrounding maternal safety, with participation from all stakeholders, including governments, surrogates, intended parents, and physicians too.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Swanson disclosed a relationship with Mitera.
 

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

Gestational carriers face a significantly higher risk for severe maternal morbidity and other pregnancy complications than those conceiving naturally or via in vitro fertilization (IVF), according to a recent Canadian study.

These findings suggest that more work is needed to ensure careful selection of gestational carriers, reported lead author Maria P. Velez, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues.

“Although a gestational carrier should ideally be a healthy person, with a demonstrated low-risk obstetric history, it is not clear whether this occurs in practice,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “Moreover, the risk for maternal and neonatal adversity is largely unknown in this group.”
 

Study Compared Gestational Carriage With IVF and Unassisted Conception

To address these knowledge gaps, Dr. Velez and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study in Ontario using linked administrative datasets. All singleton births at more than 20 weeks’ gestation with mothers aged 18-50 years were included from April 2012 to March 2021. Multifetal pregnancies were excluded, as were women with a history of infertility diagnosis without fertility treatment, and those who underwent intrauterine insemination or ovulation induction.

Outcomes were compared across three groups: Unassisted conception, IVF, and gestational carriage. The primary maternal outcome was severe maternal morbidity, defined by a validated composite of 41 unique indicators. The primary infant outcome was severe neonatal morbidity, comprising 19 unique indicators.

Secondary outcomes were hypertensive disorders, elective cesarean delivery, emergent cesarean delivery, preterm birth at less than 37 weeks, preterm birth at more than 32 weeks, and postpartum hemorrhage.

Logistic regression analysis adjusted for a range of covariates, including age, obesity, tobacco/drug dependence, chronic hypertension, and others. The final dataset included 846,124 births by unassisted conception (97.6%), 16,087 by IVF (1.8%), and 806 by gestational carriage (0.1%).

The weighted relative risk (wRR) for severe maternal morbidity was more than three times higher in gestational carriers than in those conceiving naturally (wRR, 3.30; 95% CI, 2.59-4.20) and 86% higher than in those conceiving via IVF (wRR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.36-2.55). These stem from absolute risks of 2.3%, 4.3%, and 7.8% for unassisted, IVF, and surrogate pregnancies, respectively.

Moreover, surrogates were 75% more likely to have hypertensive disorders, 79% more likely to have preterm birth at less than 37 weeks, and almost three times as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage.

These same three secondary outcomes were also significantly more common when comparing surrogate with IVF pregnancies, albeit to a lesser degree. In contrast, surrogate pregnancies were associated with a 21% lower risk for elective cesarean delivery than IVF pregnancies (wRR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93).

Severe neonatal morbidity was not significantly different between the groups. These findings add to a mixed body of evidence surrounding both maternal and neonatal outcomes with gestational carriers, according to the investigators.

“Prior small studies [by Söderström-Anttila et al. and Swanson et al.] reported varying risks for preterm birth in singleton gestational carriage pregnancies, whereas a recent large US registry reported no increased risk for preterm birth compared with IVF, after accounting for multifetal pregnancy,” they wrote. “This study excluded multifetal pregnancies, a common occurrence after IVF, with reported higher risks for adverse outcomes. Accordingly, adverse maternal and newborn outcomes may have been underestimated herein.”
 

Causes of Worse Outcomes Remain Unclear

While the present findings suggest greater maternal morbidity among surrogates, potential causes of these adverse outcomes remain unclear.

The investigators suggested that implantation of a nonautologous embryo could be playing a role, as oocyte donation has been linked with an increased risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

“We don’t know exactly why that can happen,” Dr. Velez said in an interview. “Maybe that embryo can be associated with an immunological response that could be associated with higher morbidity during pregnancy. We need, however, other studies that can continue testing that hypothesis.”

In the meantime, more care is needed in surrogate selection, according to Dr. Velez.

“In our study, we found that there were patients, for example, who had more than three prior C-sections, which is one of the contraindications for gestational carriers, and patients who had more than five [prior] pregnancies, which is also another limitation in the guidelines for choosing these patients,” she said. “Definitely we need to be more vigilant when we accept these gestational carriers.”

But improving surrogate selection may be easier said than done.

The quantitative thresholds cited by Dr. Velez come from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine guidelines. Alternative guidance documents from the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are less prescriptive; instead, they offer qualitative recommendations concerning obstetric history and risk assessment.

And then there is the regulatory specter looming over the entire field, evidenced by the many times that these publications cite ethical and legal considerations — far more than the average medical guidance document — when making clinical decisions related to surrogacy.
 

Present Study Offers Much-Needed Data in Understudied Field

According to Kate Swanson, MD, a perinatologist, clinical geneticist, and associate professor at the University of California San Francisco, the present study may help steer medical societies and healthcare providers away from these potential sand traps and toward conversations grounded in scientific data.

“I think one of the reasons that the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the maternal-fetal medicine community in general hasn’t been interested in this subject is that they see it as a social/ethical/legal issue rather than a medical one,” Dr. Swanson said in an interview. “One of the real benefits of this article is that it shows that this is a medical issue that the obstetric community needs to pay attention to.”

These new data could help guide decisions about risk and candidacy with both potential gestational carriers and intended parents, she said.

Still, it’s hard — if not impossible — to disentangle the medical and legal aspects of surrogacy, as shown when analyzing the present study.

In Canada, where it was conducted, intended parents are forbidden from paying surrogates for their services beyond out-of-pocket costs directly related to pregnancy. Meanwhile, surrogacy laws vary widely across the United States; some states (eg, Louisiana) allow only altruistic surrogacy like Canada, while other states (eg, California) permit commercial surrogacy with no legal limits on compensation.

Dr. Swanson and Dr. Velez offered starkly different views on this topic.

“I think there should be more regulations in terms of compensating [gestational carriers],” Dr. Velez said. “I don’t think being a gestational carrier should be like a job or a way of making a living.”

Dr. Swanson, who has published multiple studies on gestational carriage and experienced the process as an intended parent, said compensation beyond expenses is essential.

“I do think it’s incredibly reasonable to pay someone — a woman is taking on quite a lot of inconvenience and risk — in order to perform this service for another family,” she said. “I think it’s incredibly appropriate to compensate her for all of that.”

Reasons for compensation go beyond the ethical, Dr. Swanson added, and may explain some of the findings from the present study.

“A lot of these gestational carriers [in the present dataset] wouldn’t necessarily meet criteria through the American Society of Reproductive Medicine,” Dr. Swanson said, pointing out surrogates who had never had a pregnancy before or reported the use of tobacco or other drugs. “Really, it shows me that a lot of the people participating as gestational carriers were maybe not ideal candidates. I think one of the reasons that we might see that in this Canadian population is ... that you can’t compensate someone, so I think their pool of people willing to be gestational carriers is a lot smaller, and they may be a little bit less selective sometimes.”

Dr. Velez acknowledged that the present study was limited by a shortage of potentially relevant information concerning the surrogacy selection process, including underlying reasons for becoming a gestational carrier. More work is needed to understand the health and outcomes of these women, she said, including topics ranging from immunologic mechanisms to mental health.

She also called for more discussions surrounding maternal safety, with participation from all stakeholders, including governments, surrogates, intended parents, and physicians too.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Swanson disclosed a relationship with Mitera.
 

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

Gestational carriers face a significantly higher risk for severe maternal morbidity and other pregnancy complications than those conceiving naturally or via in vitro fertilization (IVF), according to a recent Canadian study.

These findings suggest that more work is needed to ensure careful selection of gestational carriers, reported lead author Maria P. Velez, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues.

“Although a gestational carrier should ideally be a healthy person, with a demonstrated low-risk obstetric history, it is not clear whether this occurs in practice,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “Moreover, the risk for maternal and neonatal adversity is largely unknown in this group.”
 

Study Compared Gestational Carriage With IVF and Unassisted Conception

To address these knowledge gaps, Dr. Velez and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study in Ontario using linked administrative datasets. All singleton births at more than 20 weeks’ gestation with mothers aged 18-50 years were included from April 2012 to March 2021. Multifetal pregnancies were excluded, as were women with a history of infertility diagnosis without fertility treatment, and those who underwent intrauterine insemination or ovulation induction.

Outcomes were compared across three groups: Unassisted conception, IVF, and gestational carriage. The primary maternal outcome was severe maternal morbidity, defined by a validated composite of 41 unique indicators. The primary infant outcome was severe neonatal morbidity, comprising 19 unique indicators.

Secondary outcomes were hypertensive disorders, elective cesarean delivery, emergent cesarean delivery, preterm birth at less than 37 weeks, preterm birth at more than 32 weeks, and postpartum hemorrhage.

Logistic regression analysis adjusted for a range of covariates, including age, obesity, tobacco/drug dependence, chronic hypertension, and others. The final dataset included 846,124 births by unassisted conception (97.6%), 16,087 by IVF (1.8%), and 806 by gestational carriage (0.1%).

The weighted relative risk (wRR) for severe maternal morbidity was more than three times higher in gestational carriers than in those conceiving naturally (wRR, 3.30; 95% CI, 2.59-4.20) and 86% higher than in those conceiving via IVF (wRR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.36-2.55). These stem from absolute risks of 2.3%, 4.3%, and 7.8% for unassisted, IVF, and surrogate pregnancies, respectively.

Moreover, surrogates were 75% more likely to have hypertensive disorders, 79% more likely to have preterm birth at less than 37 weeks, and almost three times as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage.

These same three secondary outcomes were also significantly more common when comparing surrogate with IVF pregnancies, albeit to a lesser degree. In contrast, surrogate pregnancies were associated with a 21% lower risk for elective cesarean delivery than IVF pregnancies (wRR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93).

Severe neonatal morbidity was not significantly different between the groups. These findings add to a mixed body of evidence surrounding both maternal and neonatal outcomes with gestational carriers, according to the investigators.

“Prior small studies [by Söderström-Anttila et al. and Swanson et al.] reported varying risks for preterm birth in singleton gestational carriage pregnancies, whereas a recent large US registry reported no increased risk for preterm birth compared with IVF, after accounting for multifetal pregnancy,” they wrote. “This study excluded multifetal pregnancies, a common occurrence after IVF, with reported higher risks for adverse outcomes. Accordingly, adverse maternal and newborn outcomes may have been underestimated herein.”
 

Causes of Worse Outcomes Remain Unclear

While the present findings suggest greater maternal morbidity among surrogates, potential causes of these adverse outcomes remain unclear.

The investigators suggested that implantation of a nonautologous embryo could be playing a role, as oocyte donation has been linked with an increased risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

“We don’t know exactly why that can happen,” Dr. Velez said in an interview. “Maybe that embryo can be associated with an immunological response that could be associated with higher morbidity during pregnancy. We need, however, other studies that can continue testing that hypothesis.”

In the meantime, more care is needed in surrogate selection, according to Dr. Velez.

“In our study, we found that there were patients, for example, who had more than three prior C-sections, which is one of the contraindications for gestational carriers, and patients who had more than five [prior] pregnancies, which is also another limitation in the guidelines for choosing these patients,” she said. “Definitely we need to be more vigilant when we accept these gestational carriers.”

But improving surrogate selection may be easier said than done.

The quantitative thresholds cited by Dr. Velez come from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine guidelines. Alternative guidance documents from the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are less prescriptive; instead, they offer qualitative recommendations concerning obstetric history and risk assessment.

And then there is the regulatory specter looming over the entire field, evidenced by the many times that these publications cite ethical and legal considerations — far more than the average medical guidance document — when making clinical decisions related to surrogacy.
 

Present Study Offers Much-Needed Data in Understudied Field

According to Kate Swanson, MD, a perinatologist, clinical geneticist, and associate professor at the University of California San Francisco, the present study may help steer medical societies and healthcare providers away from these potential sand traps and toward conversations grounded in scientific data.

“I think one of the reasons that the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the maternal-fetal medicine community in general hasn’t been interested in this subject is that they see it as a social/ethical/legal issue rather than a medical one,” Dr. Swanson said in an interview. “One of the real benefits of this article is that it shows that this is a medical issue that the obstetric community needs to pay attention to.”

These new data could help guide decisions about risk and candidacy with both potential gestational carriers and intended parents, she said.

Still, it’s hard — if not impossible — to disentangle the medical and legal aspects of surrogacy, as shown when analyzing the present study.

In Canada, where it was conducted, intended parents are forbidden from paying surrogates for their services beyond out-of-pocket costs directly related to pregnancy. Meanwhile, surrogacy laws vary widely across the United States; some states (eg, Louisiana) allow only altruistic surrogacy like Canada, while other states (eg, California) permit commercial surrogacy with no legal limits on compensation.

Dr. Swanson and Dr. Velez offered starkly different views on this topic.

“I think there should be more regulations in terms of compensating [gestational carriers],” Dr. Velez said. “I don’t think being a gestational carrier should be like a job or a way of making a living.”

Dr. Swanson, who has published multiple studies on gestational carriage and experienced the process as an intended parent, said compensation beyond expenses is essential.

“I do think it’s incredibly reasonable to pay someone — a woman is taking on quite a lot of inconvenience and risk — in order to perform this service for another family,” she said. “I think it’s incredibly appropriate to compensate her for all of that.”

Reasons for compensation go beyond the ethical, Dr. Swanson added, and may explain some of the findings from the present study.

“A lot of these gestational carriers [in the present dataset] wouldn’t necessarily meet criteria through the American Society of Reproductive Medicine,” Dr. Swanson said, pointing out surrogates who had never had a pregnancy before or reported the use of tobacco or other drugs. “Really, it shows me that a lot of the people participating as gestational carriers were maybe not ideal candidates. I think one of the reasons that we might see that in this Canadian population is ... that you can’t compensate someone, so I think their pool of people willing to be gestational carriers is a lot smaller, and they may be a little bit less selective sometimes.”

Dr. Velez acknowledged that the present study was limited by a shortage of potentially relevant information concerning the surrogacy selection process, including underlying reasons for becoming a gestational carrier. More work is needed to understand the health and outcomes of these women, she said, including topics ranging from immunologic mechanisms to mental health.

She also called for more discussions surrounding maternal safety, with participation from all stakeholders, including governments, surrogates, intended parents, and physicians too.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Swanson disclosed a relationship with Mitera.
 

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

Residency programs across the country may have a few more slots for incoming residents due to a recent bump in Medicare funding.

Case in point: The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The state has one of the top stroke rates in the country, and yet UAB has the only hospital in the state training future doctors to help stroke patients recover. “Our hospital cares for Alabama’s sickest patients, many who need rehabilitation services,” said Craig Hoesley, MD, senior associate dean for medical education, who oversees graduate medical education (GME) or residency programs.

After decades of stagnant support, a recent bump in Medicare funding will allow UAB to add two more physical medicine and rehabilitation residents to the four residencies already receiving such funding.

Medicare also awarded UAB more funding last year to add an addiction medicine fellowship, one of two such training programs in the state for the specialty that helps treat patients fighting addiction.

UAB is among healthcare systems and hospitals nationwide benefiting from a recent hike in Medicare funding for residency programs after some 25 years at the same level of federal support. Medicare is the largest funder of training positions. Otherwise, hospitals finance training through means such as state support.

The latest round of funding, which went into effect in July, adds 200 positions to the doctor pipeline, creating more openings for residents seeking positions after medical school.

In the next few months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will notify teaching hospitals whether they’ll receive the next round of Medicare funding for more residency positions. At that time, CMS will have awarded nearly half of the 1200 residency training slots Congress approved in the past few years. In 2020 — for the first time since 1996 — Congress approved adding 1000 residency slots at teaching hospitals nationwide. CMS awards the money for 200 slots each year for 5 years.

More than half of the initial round of funding focused on training primary care specialists, with other slots designated for mental health specialists. Last year, Congress also approved a separate allocation of 200 more Medicare-funded residency positions, with at least half designated for psychiatry and related subspecialty residencies to help meet the growing need for more mental health specialists. On August 1, CMS announced it would distribute the funds next year, effective in 2026.

The additional Medicare funding attempts to address the shortage of healthcare providers and ensure future access to care, including in rural and underserved communities. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the nation will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036, including primary care doctors and specialists.

In addition, more than 100 million Americans, nearly a third of the nation, don’t have access to primary care due to the physician shortages in their communities, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.

Major medical organizations, medical schools, and hospital groups have been pushing for years for increased Medicare funding to train new doctors to keep up with the demand for healthcare services and offset the physician shortage. As a cost-saving measure, Medicare set its cap in 1996 for how much it will reimburse each hospital offering GME training. However, according to the medical groups that continue to advocate to Congress for more funding, the funding hasn’t kept pace with the growing healthcare needs or rising medical school enrollment.
 

Adding Residency Spots

In April, Dr. Hoesley of UAB spoke at a Congressional briefing among health systems and hospitals that benefited from the additional funding. He told Congressional leaders how the increased number of GME positions affects UAB Medicine and its ability to care for rural areas.

“We have entire counties in Alabama that don’t have physicians. One way to address the physician shortage is to grow the GME programs. The funding we received will help us grow these programs and care for residents in our state.”

Still, the Medicare funding is only a drop in the bucket, Dr. Hoesley said. “We rely on Medicare funding alongside other funding partners to train residents and expand our care across the state.” He said many UAB residency programs are over their Medicare funding cap and would like to grow, but they can’t without more funding.

Mount Sinai Health System in New York City also will be able to expand its residency program after receiving Medicare support in the latest round of funding. The health system will use the federal funds to train an additional vascular surgeon. Mount Sinai currently receives CMS funding to train three residents in the specialty.

Over a 5-year program, that means CMS funding will help train 20 residents in the specialty that treats blood vessel blockages and diseases of the veins and arteries generally associated with aging.

“The funding is amazing,” said Peter L. Faries, MD, a surgery professor and system chief of vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who directs the residency program.

“We don’t have the capacity to provide an individual training program without the funding. It’s not economically feasible.”

The need for more vascular surgeons increases as the population continues to age, he said. Mount Sinai treats patients throughout New York, including underserved areas in Harlem, the Bronx, Washington Heights, Brooklyn, and Queens. “These individuals might not receive an appropriate level of vascular care if we don’t have clinicians to treat them.”

Of the recent funding, Dr. Faries said it’s taken the residency program 15 years of advocacy to increase by two slots. “It’s a long process to get funding.” Vascular training programs can remain very selective with Medicare funding, typically receiving two applicants for every position,” said Dr. Faries.
 

Pushing for More Funds

Nearly 98,000 students enrolled in medical school this year, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A total of 44,853 applicants vied for the 38,494 first-year residency positions and 3009 second-year slots, leaving 3350 medical school graduates without a match.

“There are not enough spots to meet the growing demand,” said Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, immediate past president of the American Medical Association. “Graduate medical education funding has not kept up.”

Despite the increase in medical school graduates over the past two decades, Medicare-supported training opportunities remained frozen at the 1996 level. A limited number of training positions meant residency programs couldn’t expand the physician pipeline to offset an aging workforce, contributing to the shortage. “The way to solve this is to expand GME,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We continue to advocate to remove the cap.”

Dr. Ehrenfeld also told this news organization that he doesn’t mind that Congress recently designated GME funding to certain specialties, such as psychiatry, because he believes the need is great for residency spots across the board. “The good news is people recognize it’s challenging to get much through Congress.” He’s optimistic, though, about recent legislative efforts to increase funding.

AAMC, representing about a third of the nation’s 1100 teaching hospitals and health systems, feels the same. Congress “acknowledges and continues to recognize that the shortage is not getting better, and one way to address it is to increase Medicare-supported GME positions,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy.

Still, he said that the Medicare funding bump is only making a small dent in the need. AAMC estimates the average cost to train residents is $23 billion annually, and Medicare only funds 20% of that, or $5 billion. “Our members are at the point where they say: We already can’t add new training positions,” Mr. Marquez said. He added that without increasing residency slots, patient care will suffer. “We have to do anything possible we can to increase access to care.”

Mr. Marquez also believes Medicare funding should increase residency positions across the specialty spectrum, not just for psychiatry and primary care. He said that the targeted funding may prevent some teaching hospitals from applying for residency positions if they need other types of specialists based on their community’s needs.

Among the current proposals before Congress, the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would add 14,000 Medicare-supported residency slots over 7 years. Mr. Marquez said it may be more realistic to expect fewer new slots. A decision on potential legislation is expected at the end of the year. He said that if the medical groups aren’t pleased with the decision, they’ll advocate again in 2025.
 

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

Residency programs across the country may have a few more slots for incoming residents due to a recent bump in Medicare funding.

Case in point: The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The state has one of the top stroke rates in the country, and yet UAB has the only hospital in the state training future doctors to help stroke patients recover. “Our hospital cares for Alabama’s sickest patients, many who need rehabilitation services,” said Craig Hoesley, MD, senior associate dean for medical education, who oversees graduate medical education (GME) or residency programs.

After decades of stagnant support, a recent bump in Medicare funding will allow UAB to add two more physical medicine and rehabilitation residents to the four residencies already receiving such funding.

Medicare also awarded UAB more funding last year to add an addiction medicine fellowship, one of two such training programs in the state for the specialty that helps treat patients fighting addiction.

UAB is among healthcare systems and hospitals nationwide benefiting from a recent hike in Medicare funding for residency programs after some 25 years at the same level of federal support. Medicare is the largest funder of training positions. Otherwise, hospitals finance training through means such as state support.

The latest round of funding, which went into effect in July, adds 200 positions to the doctor pipeline, creating more openings for residents seeking positions after medical school.

In the next few months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will notify teaching hospitals whether they’ll receive the next round of Medicare funding for more residency positions. At that time, CMS will have awarded nearly half of the 1200 residency training slots Congress approved in the past few years. In 2020 — for the first time since 1996 — Congress approved adding 1000 residency slots at teaching hospitals nationwide. CMS awards the money for 200 slots each year for 5 years.

More than half of the initial round of funding focused on training primary care specialists, with other slots designated for mental health specialists. Last year, Congress also approved a separate allocation of 200 more Medicare-funded residency positions, with at least half designated for psychiatry and related subspecialty residencies to help meet the growing need for more mental health specialists. On August 1, CMS announced it would distribute the funds next year, effective in 2026.

The additional Medicare funding attempts to address the shortage of healthcare providers and ensure future access to care, including in rural and underserved communities. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the nation will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036, including primary care doctors and specialists.

In addition, more than 100 million Americans, nearly a third of the nation, don’t have access to primary care due to the physician shortages in their communities, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.

Major medical organizations, medical schools, and hospital groups have been pushing for years for increased Medicare funding to train new doctors to keep up with the demand for healthcare services and offset the physician shortage. As a cost-saving measure, Medicare set its cap in 1996 for how much it will reimburse each hospital offering GME training. However, according to the medical groups that continue to advocate to Congress for more funding, the funding hasn’t kept pace with the growing healthcare needs or rising medical school enrollment.
 

Adding Residency Spots

In April, Dr. Hoesley of UAB spoke at a Congressional briefing among health systems and hospitals that benefited from the additional funding. He told Congressional leaders how the increased number of GME positions affects UAB Medicine and its ability to care for rural areas.

“We have entire counties in Alabama that don’t have physicians. One way to address the physician shortage is to grow the GME programs. The funding we received will help us grow these programs and care for residents in our state.”

Still, the Medicare funding is only a drop in the bucket, Dr. Hoesley said. “We rely on Medicare funding alongside other funding partners to train residents and expand our care across the state.” He said many UAB residency programs are over their Medicare funding cap and would like to grow, but they can’t without more funding.

Mount Sinai Health System in New York City also will be able to expand its residency program after receiving Medicare support in the latest round of funding. The health system will use the federal funds to train an additional vascular surgeon. Mount Sinai currently receives CMS funding to train three residents in the specialty.

Over a 5-year program, that means CMS funding will help train 20 residents in the specialty that treats blood vessel blockages and diseases of the veins and arteries generally associated with aging.

“The funding is amazing,” said Peter L. Faries, MD, a surgery professor and system chief of vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who directs the residency program.

“We don’t have the capacity to provide an individual training program without the funding. It’s not economically feasible.”

The need for more vascular surgeons increases as the population continues to age, he said. Mount Sinai treats patients throughout New York, including underserved areas in Harlem, the Bronx, Washington Heights, Brooklyn, and Queens. “These individuals might not receive an appropriate level of vascular care if we don’t have clinicians to treat them.”

Of the recent funding, Dr. Faries said it’s taken the residency program 15 years of advocacy to increase by two slots. “It’s a long process to get funding.” Vascular training programs can remain very selective with Medicare funding, typically receiving two applicants for every position,” said Dr. Faries.
 

Pushing for More Funds

Nearly 98,000 students enrolled in medical school this year, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A total of 44,853 applicants vied for the 38,494 first-year residency positions and 3009 second-year slots, leaving 3350 medical school graduates without a match.

“There are not enough spots to meet the growing demand,” said Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, immediate past president of the American Medical Association. “Graduate medical education funding has not kept up.”

Despite the increase in medical school graduates over the past two decades, Medicare-supported training opportunities remained frozen at the 1996 level. A limited number of training positions meant residency programs couldn’t expand the physician pipeline to offset an aging workforce, contributing to the shortage. “The way to solve this is to expand GME,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We continue to advocate to remove the cap.”

Dr. Ehrenfeld also told this news organization that he doesn’t mind that Congress recently designated GME funding to certain specialties, such as psychiatry, because he believes the need is great for residency spots across the board. “The good news is people recognize it’s challenging to get much through Congress.” He’s optimistic, though, about recent legislative efforts to increase funding.

AAMC, representing about a third of the nation’s 1100 teaching hospitals and health systems, feels the same. Congress “acknowledges and continues to recognize that the shortage is not getting better, and one way to address it is to increase Medicare-supported GME positions,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy.

Still, he said that the Medicare funding bump is only making a small dent in the need. AAMC estimates the average cost to train residents is $23 billion annually, and Medicare only funds 20% of that, or $5 billion. “Our members are at the point where they say: We already can’t add new training positions,” Mr. Marquez said. He added that without increasing residency slots, patient care will suffer. “We have to do anything possible we can to increase access to care.”

Mr. Marquez also believes Medicare funding should increase residency positions across the specialty spectrum, not just for psychiatry and primary care. He said that the targeted funding may prevent some teaching hospitals from applying for residency positions if they need other types of specialists based on their community’s needs.

Among the current proposals before Congress, the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would add 14,000 Medicare-supported residency slots over 7 years. Mr. Marquez said it may be more realistic to expect fewer new slots. A decision on potential legislation is expected at the end of the year. He said that if the medical groups aren’t pleased with the decision, they’ll advocate again in 2025.
 

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

Residency programs across the country may have a few more slots for incoming residents due to a recent bump in Medicare funding.

Case in point: The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The state has one of the top stroke rates in the country, and yet UAB has the only hospital in the state training future doctors to help stroke patients recover. “Our hospital cares for Alabama’s sickest patients, many who need rehabilitation services,” said Craig Hoesley, MD, senior associate dean for medical education, who oversees graduate medical education (GME) or residency programs.

After decades of stagnant support, a recent bump in Medicare funding will allow UAB to add two more physical medicine and rehabilitation residents to the four residencies already receiving such funding.

Medicare also awarded UAB more funding last year to add an addiction medicine fellowship, one of two such training programs in the state for the specialty that helps treat patients fighting addiction.

UAB is among healthcare systems and hospitals nationwide benefiting from a recent hike in Medicare funding for residency programs after some 25 years at the same level of federal support. Medicare is the largest funder of training positions. Otherwise, hospitals finance training through means such as state support.

The latest round of funding, which went into effect in July, adds 200 positions to the doctor pipeline, creating more openings for residents seeking positions after medical school.

In the next few months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will notify teaching hospitals whether they’ll receive the next round of Medicare funding for more residency positions. At that time, CMS will have awarded nearly half of the 1200 residency training slots Congress approved in the past few years. In 2020 — for the first time since 1996 — Congress approved adding 1000 residency slots at teaching hospitals nationwide. CMS awards the money for 200 slots each year for 5 years.

More than half of the initial round of funding focused on training primary care specialists, with other slots designated for mental health specialists. Last year, Congress also approved a separate allocation of 200 more Medicare-funded residency positions, with at least half designated for psychiatry and related subspecialty residencies to help meet the growing need for more mental health specialists. On August 1, CMS announced it would distribute the funds next year, effective in 2026.

The additional Medicare funding attempts to address the shortage of healthcare providers and ensure future access to care, including in rural and underserved communities. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the nation will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036, including primary care doctors and specialists.

In addition, more than 100 million Americans, nearly a third of the nation, don’t have access to primary care due to the physician shortages in their communities, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.

Major medical organizations, medical schools, and hospital groups have been pushing for years for increased Medicare funding to train new doctors to keep up with the demand for healthcare services and offset the physician shortage. As a cost-saving measure, Medicare set its cap in 1996 for how much it will reimburse each hospital offering GME training. However, according to the medical groups that continue to advocate to Congress for more funding, the funding hasn’t kept pace with the growing healthcare needs or rising medical school enrollment.
 

Adding Residency Spots

In April, Dr. Hoesley of UAB spoke at a Congressional briefing among health systems and hospitals that benefited from the additional funding. He told Congressional leaders how the increased number of GME positions affects UAB Medicine and its ability to care for rural areas.

“We have entire counties in Alabama that don’t have physicians. One way to address the physician shortage is to grow the GME programs. The funding we received will help us grow these programs and care for residents in our state.”

Still, the Medicare funding is only a drop in the bucket, Dr. Hoesley said. “We rely on Medicare funding alongside other funding partners to train residents and expand our care across the state.” He said many UAB residency programs are over their Medicare funding cap and would like to grow, but they can’t without more funding.

Mount Sinai Health System in New York City also will be able to expand its residency program after receiving Medicare support in the latest round of funding. The health system will use the federal funds to train an additional vascular surgeon. Mount Sinai currently receives CMS funding to train three residents in the specialty.

Over a 5-year program, that means CMS funding will help train 20 residents in the specialty that treats blood vessel blockages and diseases of the veins and arteries generally associated with aging.

“The funding is amazing,” said Peter L. Faries, MD, a surgery professor and system chief of vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who directs the residency program.

“We don’t have the capacity to provide an individual training program without the funding. It’s not economically feasible.”

The need for more vascular surgeons increases as the population continues to age, he said. Mount Sinai treats patients throughout New York, including underserved areas in Harlem, the Bronx, Washington Heights, Brooklyn, and Queens. “These individuals might not receive an appropriate level of vascular care if we don’t have clinicians to treat them.”

Of the recent funding, Dr. Faries said it’s taken the residency program 15 years of advocacy to increase by two slots. “It’s a long process to get funding.” Vascular training programs can remain very selective with Medicare funding, typically receiving two applicants for every position,” said Dr. Faries.
 

Pushing for More Funds

Nearly 98,000 students enrolled in medical school this year, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A total of 44,853 applicants vied for the 38,494 first-year residency positions and 3009 second-year slots, leaving 3350 medical school graduates without a match.

“There are not enough spots to meet the growing demand,” said Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, immediate past president of the American Medical Association. “Graduate medical education funding has not kept up.”

Despite the increase in medical school graduates over the past two decades, Medicare-supported training opportunities remained frozen at the 1996 level. A limited number of training positions meant residency programs couldn’t expand the physician pipeline to offset an aging workforce, contributing to the shortage. “The way to solve this is to expand GME,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We continue to advocate to remove the cap.”

Dr. Ehrenfeld also told this news organization that he doesn’t mind that Congress recently designated GME funding to certain specialties, such as psychiatry, because he believes the need is great for residency spots across the board. “The good news is people recognize it’s challenging to get much through Congress.” He’s optimistic, though, about recent legislative efforts to increase funding.

AAMC, representing about a third of the nation’s 1100 teaching hospitals and health systems, feels the same. Congress “acknowledges and continues to recognize that the shortage is not getting better, and one way to address it is to increase Medicare-supported GME positions,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy.

Still, he said that the Medicare funding bump is only making a small dent in the need. AAMC estimates the average cost to train residents is $23 billion annually, and Medicare only funds 20% of that, or $5 billion. “Our members are at the point where they say: We already can’t add new training positions,” Mr. Marquez said. He added that without increasing residency slots, patient care will suffer. “We have to do anything possible we can to increase access to care.”

Mr. Marquez also believes Medicare funding should increase residency positions across the specialty spectrum, not just for psychiatry and primary care. He said that the targeted funding may prevent some teaching hospitals from applying for residency positions if they need other types of specialists based on their community’s needs.

Among the current proposals before Congress, the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would add 14,000 Medicare-supported residency slots over 7 years. Mr. Marquez said it may be more realistic to expect fewer new slots. A decision on potential legislation is expected at the end of the year. He said that if the medical groups aren’t pleased with the decision, they’ll advocate again in 2025.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

Our dermatology department is composed of 25 doctors spread across 4 offices. It can be difficult to sustain cohesion so we have a few rituals to help hold us together. One is the morning huddle. This is a stand-up meeting lasting 3-5 minutes at 8:42 a.m. (just before the 8:45 a.m. patients). Led by our staff, huddle is a quick review of the priorities, issues, and celebrations across our department. While enthusiastically celebrating a staff member’s promotion one morning, a patient swung open the exam door and shouted, “What’s going on out here?! I’m sitting here waiting!” before slamming the door closed again. “Well, that was unnecessary,” our morning lead interjected as she went to reprimand him.

His behavior was easily recognizable to any doctor with children. It was an emotional outburst we call a tantrum. Although a graphic of tantrums by age would show a steep curve that drops precipitously after 4-years-old (please God, I hope), it persists throughout life. Even adults have tantrums. After? When I broke my pinky toe saving the family from flaming tornadoes a few weeks ago (I ran into the sofa), I flung the ice bag across the room in frustration. “You’ve a right to be mad,” my wife said returning the ice to where I was elevating my foot. She was spot on, it is understandable that I would be angry. It will be weeks before I can run again. And also my toe was broken. Both things were true.

Dr. Benabio

“Two things are true” is a technique for managing tantrums in toddlers. I first learned of it from Dr. Becky Kennedy, a clinical psychologist specializing in family therapy. She has a popular podcast called “Good Inside” based on her book of the same name. Her approach is to use positive psychology with an emphasis on connecting with children to not only shape behavior, but also to help them learn to manage their emotions. I read her book to level up dad skills and realized many of her principles are applicable to various types of relationships. Instead of viewing behaviors as an end, she instead recommends using them as an opportunity to probe for understanding. When someone exhibits poor behavior rather than assume they are being a jerk, try to find the most generous interpretation of what just happened. Assume they are doing the best they can. When my 4-year-old obstinately refused to go to bed despite the usual colored night lights and bedtime rituals, it seemed she was being a typical tantrum-y toddler. The more I insisted — lights-out! the more she resisted. It wasn’t until I asked why that I learned she was worried that the trash truck was going to come overnight. What seemed like just a behavioral problem, time for bed, was actually an opportunity for her to be seen and for us to connect.

I was finishing up with a patient last week when my medical assistant interrupted to advise my next patient was leaving. I walked out to see her storm into the corridor heading for the exit. “I am sorry, you must be quite frustrated having to wait for me.” “Yes, you don’t respect my time,” she said loudly enough for everyone pretending to not notice. I coaxed her back into the room and sat down. After apologizing for her wait and explaining it was because an urgent patient had been added to my schedule, she calmed down and allowed me to continue. At her previous visit, I had biopsied a firm dermal papule on her upper abdomen that turned out to be metastatic breast cancer. She was treated years ago and believed she was in complete remission. Now she was alone, terrified, and wanted her full appointment with me. Because I was running late, she assumed I wouldn’t have the time for her. It was an opportunity for me to connect with her and help her feel safe. I would have missed that opportunity if I had labeled her as just another angry “Karen” brassly asserting herself.

Dr. Kennedy talks a lot in her book about taking the “Most generous interpretation” of whatever behavioral issue arises. Take the time to validate what they are feeling and empathize as best as we can. Acknowledge that it’s normal to be angry and also these are the truths we have to work with. Two truths commonly appear in these emotional episodes. One, the immutable facts, for example, insurance doesn’t cover that drug, and two, your right to be frustrated by that. Above all, remember you, the doctor, are good inside as is your discourteous patient, disaffected staff member or sometimes mendacious teenager. “All good decisions start with feeling secure and nothing feels more secure than being recognized for the good people we are,” says Dr. Kennedy. True I believe even if we sometimes slam the door.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

Our dermatology department is composed of 25 doctors spread across 4 offices. It can be difficult to sustain cohesion so we have a few rituals to help hold us together. One is the morning huddle. This is a stand-up meeting lasting 3-5 minutes at 8:42 a.m. (just before the 8:45 a.m. patients). Led by our staff, huddle is a quick review of the priorities, issues, and celebrations across our department. While enthusiastically celebrating a staff member’s promotion one morning, a patient swung open the exam door and shouted, “What’s going on out here?! I’m sitting here waiting!” before slamming the door closed again. “Well, that was unnecessary,” our morning lead interjected as she went to reprimand him.

His behavior was easily recognizable to any doctor with children. It was an emotional outburst we call a tantrum. Although a graphic of tantrums by age would show a steep curve that drops precipitously after 4-years-old (please God, I hope), it persists throughout life. Even adults have tantrums. After? When I broke my pinky toe saving the family from flaming tornadoes a few weeks ago (I ran into the sofa), I flung the ice bag across the room in frustration. “You’ve a right to be mad,” my wife said returning the ice to where I was elevating my foot. She was spot on, it is understandable that I would be angry. It will be weeks before I can run again. And also my toe was broken. Both things were true.

Dr. Benabio

“Two things are true” is a technique for managing tantrums in toddlers. I first learned of it from Dr. Becky Kennedy, a clinical psychologist specializing in family therapy. She has a popular podcast called “Good Inside” based on her book of the same name. Her approach is to use positive psychology with an emphasis on connecting with children to not only shape behavior, but also to help them learn to manage their emotions. I read her book to level up dad skills and realized many of her principles are applicable to various types of relationships. Instead of viewing behaviors as an end, she instead recommends using them as an opportunity to probe for understanding. When someone exhibits poor behavior rather than assume they are being a jerk, try to find the most generous interpretation of what just happened. Assume they are doing the best they can. When my 4-year-old obstinately refused to go to bed despite the usual colored night lights and bedtime rituals, it seemed she was being a typical tantrum-y toddler. The more I insisted — lights-out! the more she resisted. It wasn’t until I asked why that I learned she was worried that the trash truck was going to come overnight. What seemed like just a behavioral problem, time for bed, was actually an opportunity for her to be seen and for us to connect.

I was finishing up with a patient last week when my medical assistant interrupted to advise my next patient was leaving. I walked out to see her storm into the corridor heading for the exit. “I am sorry, you must be quite frustrated having to wait for me.” “Yes, you don’t respect my time,” she said loudly enough for everyone pretending to not notice. I coaxed her back into the room and sat down. After apologizing for her wait and explaining it was because an urgent patient had been added to my schedule, she calmed down and allowed me to continue. At her previous visit, I had biopsied a firm dermal papule on her upper abdomen that turned out to be metastatic breast cancer. She was treated years ago and believed she was in complete remission. Now she was alone, terrified, and wanted her full appointment with me. Because I was running late, she assumed I wouldn’t have the time for her. It was an opportunity for me to connect with her and help her feel safe. I would have missed that opportunity if I had labeled her as just another angry “Karen” brassly asserting herself.

Dr. Kennedy talks a lot in her book about taking the “Most generous interpretation” of whatever behavioral issue arises. Take the time to validate what they are feeling and empathize as best as we can. Acknowledge that it’s normal to be angry and also these are the truths we have to work with. Two truths commonly appear in these emotional episodes. One, the immutable facts, for example, insurance doesn’t cover that drug, and two, your right to be frustrated by that. Above all, remember you, the doctor, are good inside as is your discourteous patient, disaffected staff member or sometimes mendacious teenager. “All good decisions start with feeling secure and nothing feels more secure than being recognized for the good people we are,” says Dr. Kennedy. True I believe even if we sometimes slam the door.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

Our dermatology department is composed of 25 doctors spread across 4 offices. It can be difficult to sustain cohesion so we have a few rituals to help hold us together. One is the morning huddle. This is a stand-up meeting lasting 3-5 minutes at 8:42 a.m. (just before the 8:45 a.m. patients). Led by our staff, huddle is a quick review of the priorities, issues, and celebrations across our department. While enthusiastically celebrating a staff member’s promotion one morning, a patient swung open the exam door and shouted, “What’s going on out here?! I’m sitting here waiting!” before slamming the door closed again. “Well, that was unnecessary,” our morning lead interjected as she went to reprimand him.

His behavior was easily recognizable to any doctor with children. It was an emotional outburst we call a tantrum. Although a graphic of tantrums by age would show a steep curve that drops precipitously after 4-years-old (please God, I hope), it persists throughout life. Even adults have tantrums. After? When I broke my pinky toe saving the family from flaming tornadoes a few weeks ago (I ran into the sofa), I flung the ice bag across the room in frustration. “You’ve a right to be mad,” my wife said returning the ice to where I was elevating my foot. She was spot on, it is understandable that I would be angry. It will be weeks before I can run again. And also my toe was broken. Both things were true.

Dr. Benabio

“Two things are true” is a technique for managing tantrums in toddlers. I first learned of it from Dr. Becky Kennedy, a clinical psychologist specializing in family therapy. She has a popular podcast called “Good Inside” based on her book of the same name. Her approach is to use positive psychology with an emphasis on connecting with children to not only shape behavior, but also to help them learn to manage their emotions. I read her book to level up dad skills and realized many of her principles are applicable to various types of relationships. Instead of viewing behaviors as an end, she instead recommends using them as an opportunity to probe for understanding. When someone exhibits poor behavior rather than assume they are being a jerk, try to find the most generous interpretation of what just happened. Assume they are doing the best they can. When my 4-year-old obstinately refused to go to bed despite the usual colored night lights and bedtime rituals, it seemed she was being a typical tantrum-y toddler. The more I insisted — lights-out! the more she resisted. It wasn’t until I asked why that I learned she was worried that the trash truck was going to come overnight. What seemed like just a behavioral problem, time for bed, was actually an opportunity for her to be seen and for us to connect.

I was finishing up with a patient last week when my medical assistant interrupted to advise my next patient was leaving. I walked out to see her storm into the corridor heading for the exit. “I am sorry, you must be quite frustrated having to wait for me.” “Yes, you don’t respect my time,” she said loudly enough for everyone pretending to not notice. I coaxed her back into the room and sat down. After apologizing for her wait and explaining it was because an urgent patient had been added to my schedule, she calmed down and allowed me to continue. At her previous visit, I had biopsied a firm dermal papule on her upper abdomen that turned out to be metastatic breast cancer. She was treated years ago and believed she was in complete remission. Now she was alone, terrified, and wanted her full appointment with me. Because I was running late, she assumed I wouldn’t have the time for her. It was an opportunity for me to connect with her and help her feel safe. I would have missed that opportunity if I had labeled her as just another angry “Karen” brassly asserting herself.

Dr. Kennedy talks a lot in her book about taking the “Most generous interpretation” of whatever behavioral issue arises. Take the time to validate what they are feeling and empathize as best as we can. Acknowledge that it’s normal to be angry and also these are the truths we have to work with. Two truths commonly appear in these emotional episodes. One, the immutable facts, for example, insurance doesn’t cover that drug, and two, your right to be frustrated by that. Above all, remember you, the doctor, are good inside as is your discourteous patient, disaffected staff member or sometimes mendacious teenager. “All good decisions start with feeling secure and nothing feels more secure than being recognized for the good people we are,” says Dr. Kennedy. True I believe even if we sometimes slam the door.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

TOPLINE:

Electronic health record (EHR)–derived family history identified 29,913 patients with familial risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, but 82% had no evidence of genetic testing. Seven-question family history screening (FHS7)–positive status was associated with a threefold increase in BRCA1/2 positivity and a 44% increase in cancer risk among women.

METHODOLOGY:

• A cross-sectional and retrospective cohort analysis used EHR data from Renown Health in northern Nevada. The study period spanned from January 1, 2018, to February 1, 2024, with data on demographic variables, healthcare utilization, and cancer diagnoses.
• The study aimed to use the FHS7 to identify patients meeting family history criteria for genetic testing (familial risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) in their EHRs; patients meeting the FHS7 criteria were deemed to be FHS7-positive.
• A total of 835,727 patients aged 18-79 years were included, with genotype data available for 38,003 participants from the Healthy Nevada Project, which notified 330 individuals with BRCA1/2 variants of their genetic risk.
• The primary outcomes were the presence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in specific genes and the diagnosis of cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• FHS7-positive status was associated with a 3.34-fold increase in BRCA1/2 positivity among female participants and a 3.35-fold increase among male participants (95% CI, 2.48-4.47 and 1.93-5.56, respectively).
• Female FHS7-positive participants had a 1.62-fold increase in CHEK2 positivity and a 2.84-fold increase in PALB2 positivity (95% CI, 1.05-2.43 and 1.23-6.16, respectively).
• Age-adjusted cancer incidence rates were higher for FHS7-positive patients, with 367.2 cases per 100,000 per year for women and 309.9 cases per 100,000 per year for men.
• The number needed to test to detect one BRCA1/2-positive patient decreased from 128 to 53 for women and from 119 to 42 for men when prescreening with FHS7.

IN PRACTICE:

“EHR-derived FHS7 identified thousands of patients with familial risk for breast cancer, indicating a substantial gap in genetic testing,” the study authors wrote. “Survey results suggest that most patients who are FHS7-positive in their EHR truly meet family history criteria, but that EHR-derived FHS7 may miss many patients who would be FHS7-positive if approached with a direct questionnaire,” the author wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Daniel Kiser, MS, University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s observational design may introduce self-selection biases, particularly among Healthy Nevada Project participants. The 21.8% response rate to the survey suggests potential self-selection among respondents. The tendency of less healthy patients to have more data available in their EHRs could influence the authors’ analysis of cancer incidence rates, despite adjustments for healthcare utilization levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Daniel Kiser and Joseph J. Grzymski, PhD, reported holding patents outside the submitted work. Dr. Grzymski also disclosed receiving grants from Gilead Sciences. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Electronic health record (EHR)–derived family history identified 29,913 patients with familial risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, but 82% had no evidence of genetic testing. Seven-question family history screening (FHS7)–positive status was associated with a threefold increase in BRCA1/2 positivity and a 44% increase in cancer risk among women.

METHODOLOGY:

• A cross-sectional and retrospective cohort analysis used EHR data from Renown Health in northern Nevada. The study period spanned from January 1, 2018, to February 1, 2024, with data on demographic variables, healthcare utilization, and cancer diagnoses.
• The study aimed to use the FHS7 to identify patients meeting family history criteria for genetic testing (familial risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) in their EHRs; patients meeting the FHS7 criteria were deemed to be FHS7-positive.
• A total of 835,727 patients aged 18-79 years were included, with genotype data available for 38,003 participants from the Healthy Nevada Project, which notified 330 individuals with BRCA1/2 variants of their genetic risk.
• The primary outcomes were the presence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in specific genes and the diagnosis of cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• FHS7-positive status was associated with a 3.34-fold increase in BRCA1/2 positivity among female participants and a 3.35-fold increase among male participants (95% CI, 2.48-4.47 and 1.93-5.56, respectively).
• Female FHS7-positive participants had a 1.62-fold increase in CHEK2 positivity and a 2.84-fold increase in PALB2 positivity (95% CI, 1.05-2.43 and 1.23-6.16, respectively).
• Age-adjusted cancer incidence rates were higher for FHS7-positive patients, with 367.2 cases per 100,000 per year for women and 309.9 cases per 100,000 per year for men.
• The number needed to test to detect one BRCA1/2-positive patient decreased from 128 to 53 for women and from 119 to 42 for men when prescreening with FHS7.

IN PRACTICE:

“EHR-derived FHS7 identified thousands of patients with familial risk for breast cancer, indicating a substantial gap in genetic testing,” the study authors wrote. “Survey results suggest that most patients who are FHS7-positive in their EHR truly meet family history criteria, but that EHR-derived FHS7 may miss many patients who would be FHS7-positive if approached with a direct questionnaire,” the author wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Daniel Kiser, MS, University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s observational design may introduce self-selection biases, particularly among Healthy Nevada Project participants. The 21.8% response rate to the survey suggests potential self-selection among respondents. The tendency of less healthy patients to have more data available in their EHRs could influence the authors’ analysis of cancer incidence rates, despite adjustments for healthcare utilization levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Daniel Kiser and Joseph J. Grzymski, PhD, reported holding patents outside the submitted work. Dr. Grzymski also disclosed receiving grants from Gilead Sciences. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Electronic health record (EHR)–derived family history identified 29,913 patients with familial risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, but 82% had no evidence of genetic testing. Seven-question family history screening (FHS7)–positive status was associated with a threefold increase in BRCA1/2 positivity and a 44% increase in cancer risk among women.

METHODOLOGY:

• A cross-sectional and retrospective cohort analysis used EHR data from Renown Health in northern Nevada. The study period spanned from January 1, 2018, to February 1, 2024, with data on demographic variables, healthcare utilization, and cancer diagnoses.
• The study aimed to use the FHS7 to identify patients meeting family history criteria for genetic testing (familial risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) in their EHRs; patients meeting the FHS7 criteria were deemed to be FHS7-positive.
• A total of 835,727 patients aged 18-79 years were included, with genotype data available for 38,003 participants from the Healthy Nevada Project, which notified 330 individuals with BRCA1/2 variants of their genetic risk.
• The primary outcomes were the presence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in specific genes and the diagnosis of cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• FHS7-positive status was associated with a 3.34-fold increase in BRCA1/2 positivity among female participants and a 3.35-fold increase among male participants (95% CI, 2.48-4.47 and 1.93-5.56, respectively).
• Female FHS7-positive participants had a 1.62-fold increase in CHEK2 positivity and a 2.84-fold increase in PALB2 positivity (95% CI, 1.05-2.43 and 1.23-6.16, respectively).
• Age-adjusted cancer incidence rates were higher for FHS7-positive patients, with 367.2 cases per 100,000 per year for women and 309.9 cases per 100,000 per year for men.
• The number needed to test to detect one BRCA1/2-positive patient decreased from 128 to 53 for women and from 119 to 42 for men when prescreening with FHS7.

IN PRACTICE:

“EHR-derived FHS7 identified thousands of patients with familial risk for breast cancer, indicating a substantial gap in genetic testing,” the study authors wrote. “Survey results suggest that most patients who are FHS7-positive in their EHR truly meet family history criteria, but that EHR-derived FHS7 may miss many patients who would be FHS7-positive if approached with a direct questionnaire,” the author wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Daniel Kiser, MS, University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s observational design may introduce self-selection biases, particularly among Healthy Nevada Project participants. The 21.8% response rate to the survey suggests potential self-selection among respondents. The tendency of less healthy patients to have more data available in their EHRs could influence the authors’ analysis of cancer incidence rates, despite adjustments for healthcare utilization levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Daniel Kiser and Joseph J. Grzymski, PhD, reported holding patents outside the submitted work. Dr. Grzymski also disclosed receiving grants from Gilead Sciences. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

During the month of September, Sexual Health Awareness Month, it may help to notice something: Men and their doctors have significantly more options to help with sexual function than do women and their clinicians. Moreover, the education of physicians regarding the examination and treatment of women for sexual dysfunction has been and remains, even now in 2024, much less thorough than for men. 

Not convinced? Let’s take a quick tour.
 

The New Sexual Revolution and the Growing Anger

Around the time of the release of the book and movie Fifty Shades of Grey, Newsweek put the cultural sensation on its cover.

I bought the magazine at the airport and, while waiting for my plane, showed the story to a woman sitting next to me. “What do you think — is this the new ‘sexual revolution’?” I asked her.

She glanced at the cover and answered as accurately as if she had written the article: “In the ’60s, it became okay for women to have sex; now, it’s okay for women to demand good sex.”

I would add to that: Women are demanding good sex, and they want to define for themselves what “good” means.

That social revolution rages, still.

You would think that the demand would bring a corresponding response in clinical medicine. You would be wrong. Although efforts in some sectors are heroic, overall, the results are lagging the forward movement of women wanting better sex.
 

The Lag in Sexual Education

To examine the progression of the education of physicians regarding the treatment of female sexual dysfunction (FSD), Codispoti and colleagues examined the curricula of seven medical schools in and around Chicago. They found the following: Only one institution identified all anatomic components of the clitoris — one! Four of the seven discussed the physiology of the female orgasm. Only three of the seven highlighted the prevalence and epidemiology of FSD or the treatments for FSD. Only one of the seven explained how to do a genitourinary physical exam specific to assessing FSD. 

When assessing obstetrics and gynecology clinical materials, sexual pleasure, arousal, and libido were not included anywhere in the curricula.

I have been teaching physicians about the therapies I developed (over 5000 clinicians in 50-plus countries over the past 14 years). During those sessions, I often stop the class and ask, “Who in here was taught how to retract the foreskin and examine the penis for phimosis?”

All hands will go up.

Then I will ask, “Who in here was taught in medical school how to retract the clitoral hood and examine the clitoris for phimosis?”

Not once has anyone raised a hand.
 

The Sex Remedies Gap

When I first published research offering support for using platelet-rich plasma to improve sexual function in women, women had not one drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of sexual dysfunction — none. Men had over 20. Today, men have a growing number of FDA-approved drugs for erectile dysfunction, including the “fils”; women have three. 

Women have access to only one FDA-approved medication that primarily affects the genitalia: prasterone. This drug is indicated only for the treatment of pain in postmenopausal women. It does not directly enhance desire or improve orgasms. Said another way, although the incidence of sexual dysfunction is higher in premenopausal women than in other groups, they do not have a single approved medication designed to improve the function of their genitalia. 

The other two of the three available drugs — flibanserin and bremelanotide — primarily affect the brain and could accurately be called psychoactive agents. They are available only for premenopausal women to improve desire. Flibanserin resulted in one extra sexual encounter per month on average, and patients are advised to avoid alcohol while using the drug. The other can make you vomit.

I do think all three of these treatments can be of great help to some women. I am not advising their disappearance. But in contrast to what is available to men, they are woefully inadequate.
 

Historical Perspective

In 1980, the medical establishment believed “most instances of acquired impotence are psychogenic.” Then, with the accidental discovery of the benefits of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, we realized that most cases of male sexual dysfunction involve the vasculature of the genitalia, not the neuroses of the brain. Yet, our two FDA-approved drugs for women with sexual dysfunction are designed to affect the brain. Women have nothing but off-label therapies to improve the function of the genitalia.

Despite the fact research supports the use of testosterone in women for both libido and orgasm, and despite the fact millions of women are treated with testosterone off-label for the benefit of sexual function, the only widely used FDA-approved class of drugs for women that affects testosterone — birth control pills, by blocking pituitary hormone production (the way they prevent pregnancy) — lowers the production of testosterone. 

One might wonder, considering our expanded understanding of the endocrinology of both men and women, at the irony of why it is acceptable to lower the testosterone level of an adolescent girl knowingly, as if her development did not require the hormone (such would never be acceptable in an adolescent male unless sexual transitioning were the goal); yet, we are fearful of giving testosterone to grown women who can no longer make it.
 

Premenopausal Women: An Orphan Population

The concept of “orphan populations” can partially explain the gap in available therapies between men and women.

Women of childbearing age are risky to study; so, with testosterone, for example, it is safer and cheaper for pharmaceutical companies to prove the benefits for men and ride the profits from the off-label use for women. I don’t mean to condemn the manufacturers of testosterone, only to point out the phenomenon of why up to 30% of the prescriptions written by a primary care physician are off-label; off-label use is common among cardiologists (46%); up to 90% of children in the hospital receive at least one off-label drug; and approval of drugs for premenopausal women is more expensive than approval of drugs for men. 
 

What Can Be Done?

The regrettable situation does not reflect evil intent on the part of regulators, educators, or physicians. But the gap between what women want and what medical education and the pharmaceutical-regulatory complex are providing is intolerably wide.

First, I would recommend a standard, required curriculum for the study of female sexual anatomy and function be established and widely adopted by medical schools. The reproductive system contains different components and a different purpose from the orgasm system, with modest overlap. Both systems should be taught in every medical school.

Second, physicians should be required to undergo a course in understanding their own sexuality. Research demonstrates doctors will avoid conversations about sex, and it seems to me this could be secondary to being uncomfortable with their own sexuality. After all, to talk with a patient about sex, you cannot be fearful of where the conversation may lead.

Third, the FDA might reconsider the requirements for the approval of drugs for FSD. Currently, to approve a drug for men, an objective finding — ie, an erection — can be sufficient. However, a higher bar, “satisfaction,” which is subjective, must be obtained with women.

Regenerative therapies have proved helpful but are not yet widely adopted; more grant money for the study of regenerative therapies would be a good start here. 

Finally, by the definition of FSD, a woman must be psychologically distressed. The idea of sex is not pleasure alone. Sexual function affects family relationships, emotional health, confidence, even sleep, as well as the emotional well-being of the children who live in the house. Saying women are wonderfully and mysteriously made may be poetic, but it is not an excuse for not learning more and closing the gaps.

Dr. Runels is medical director of the Cellular Medicine Association, Fairhope, Alabama. He reported conflicts of interest with the Cellular Medicine Association, Runels Research Institute, Institute for Lichen Sclerosus, and Vulvar Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

During the month of September, Sexual Health Awareness Month, it may help to notice something: Men and their doctors have significantly more options to help with sexual function than do women and their clinicians. Moreover, the education of physicians regarding the examination and treatment of women for sexual dysfunction has been and remains, even now in 2024, much less thorough than for men. 

Not convinced? Let’s take a quick tour.
 

The New Sexual Revolution and the Growing Anger

Around the time of the release of the book and movie Fifty Shades of Grey, Newsweek put the cultural sensation on its cover.

I bought the magazine at the airport and, while waiting for my plane, showed the story to a woman sitting next to me. “What do you think — is this the new ‘sexual revolution’?” I asked her.

She glanced at the cover and answered as accurately as if she had written the article: “In the ’60s, it became okay for women to have sex; now, it’s okay for women to demand good sex.”

I would add to that: Women are demanding good sex, and they want to define for themselves what “good” means.

That social revolution rages, still.

You would think that the demand would bring a corresponding response in clinical medicine. You would be wrong. Although efforts in some sectors are heroic, overall, the results are lagging the forward movement of women wanting better sex.
 

The Lag in Sexual Education

To examine the progression of the education of physicians regarding the treatment of female sexual dysfunction (FSD), Codispoti and colleagues examined the curricula of seven medical schools in and around Chicago. They found the following: Only one institution identified all anatomic components of the clitoris — one! Four of the seven discussed the physiology of the female orgasm. Only three of the seven highlighted the prevalence and epidemiology of FSD or the treatments for FSD. Only one of the seven explained how to do a genitourinary physical exam specific to assessing FSD. 

When assessing obstetrics and gynecology clinical materials, sexual pleasure, arousal, and libido were not included anywhere in the curricula.

I have been teaching physicians about the therapies I developed (over 5000 clinicians in 50-plus countries over the past 14 years). During those sessions, I often stop the class and ask, “Who in here was taught how to retract the foreskin and examine the penis for phimosis?”

All hands will go up.

Then I will ask, “Who in here was taught in medical school how to retract the clitoral hood and examine the clitoris for phimosis?”

Not once has anyone raised a hand.
 

The Sex Remedies Gap

When I first published research offering support for using platelet-rich plasma to improve sexual function in women, women had not one drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of sexual dysfunction — none. Men had over 20. Today, men have a growing number of FDA-approved drugs for erectile dysfunction, including the “fils”; women have three. 

Women have access to only one FDA-approved medication that primarily affects the genitalia: prasterone. This drug is indicated only for the treatment of pain in postmenopausal women. It does not directly enhance desire or improve orgasms. Said another way, although the incidence of sexual dysfunction is higher in premenopausal women than in other groups, they do not have a single approved medication designed to improve the function of their genitalia. 

The other two of the three available drugs — flibanserin and bremelanotide — primarily affect the brain and could accurately be called psychoactive agents. They are available only for premenopausal women to improve desire. Flibanserin resulted in one extra sexual encounter per month on average, and patients are advised to avoid alcohol while using the drug. The other can make you vomit.

I do think all three of these treatments can be of great help to some women. I am not advising their disappearance. But in contrast to what is available to men, they are woefully inadequate.
 

Historical Perspective

In 1980, the medical establishment believed “most instances of acquired impotence are psychogenic.” Then, with the accidental discovery of the benefits of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, we realized that most cases of male sexual dysfunction involve the vasculature of the genitalia, not the neuroses of the brain. Yet, our two FDA-approved drugs for women with sexual dysfunction are designed to affect the brain. Women have nothing but off-label therapies to improve the function of the genitalia.

Despite the fact research supports the use of testosterone in women for both libido and orgasm, and despite the fact millions of women are treated with testosterone off-label for the benefit of sexual function, the only widely used FDA-approved class of drugs for women that affects testosterone — birth control pills, by blocking pituitary hormone production (the way they prevent pregnancy) — lowers the production of testosterone. 

One might wonder, considering our expanded understanding of the endocrinology of both men and women, at the irony of why it is acceptable to lower the testosterone level of an adolescent girl knowingly, as if her development did not require the hormone (such would never be acceptable in an adolescent male unless sexual transitioning were the goal); yet, we are fearful of giving testosterone to grown women who can no longer make it.
 

Premenopausal Women: An Orphan Population

The concept of “orphan populations” can partially explain the gap in available therapies between men and women.

Women of childbearing age are risky to study; so, with testosterone, for example, it is safer and cheaper for pharmaceutical companies to prove the benefits for men and ride the profits from the off-label use for women. I don’t mean to condemn the manufacturers of testosterone, only to point out the phenomenon of why up to 30% of the prescriptions written by a primary care physician are off-label; off-label use is common among cardiologists (46%); up to 90% of children in the hospital receive at least one off-label drug; and approval of drugs for premenopausal women is more expensive than approval of drugs for men. 
 

What Can Be Done?

The regrettable situation does not reflect evil intent on the part of regulators, educators, or physicians. But the gap between what women want and what medical education and the pharmaceutical-regulatory complex are providing is intolerably wide.

First, I would recommend a standard, required curriculum for the study of female sexual anatomy and function be established and widely adopted by medical schools. The reproductive system contains different components and a different purpose from the orgasm system, with modest overlap. Both systems should be taught in every medical school.

Second, physicians should be required to undergo a course in understanding their own sexuality. Research demonstrates doctors will avoid conversations about sex, and it seems to me this could be secondary to being uncomfortable with their own sexuality. After all, to talk with a patient about sex, you cannot be fearful of where the conversation may lead.

Third, the FDA might reconsider the requirements for the approval of drugs for FSD. Currently, to approve a drug for men, an objective finding — ie, an erection — can be sufficient. However, a higher bar, “satisfaction,” which is subjective, must be obtained with women.

Regenerative therapies have proved helpful but are not yet widely adopted; more grant money for the study of regenerative therapies would be a good start here. 

Finally, by the definition of FSD, a woman must be psychologically distressed. The idea of sex is not pleasure alone. Sexual function affects family relationships, emotional health, confidence, even sleep, as well as the emotional well-being of the children who live in the house. Saying women are wonderfully and mysteriously made may be poetic, but it is not an excuse for not learning more and closing the gaps.

Dr. Runels is medical director of the Cellular Medicine Association, Fairhope, Alabama. He reported conflicts of interest with the Cellular Medicine Association, Runels Research Institute, Institute for Lichen Sclerosus, and Vulvar Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

During the month of September, Sexual Health Awareness Month, it may help to notice something: Men and their doctors have significantly more options to help with sexual function than do women and their clinicians. Moreover, the education of physicians regarding the examination and treatment of women for sexual dysfunction has been and remains, even now in 2024, much less thorough than for men. 

Not convinced? Let’s take a quick tour.
 

The New Sexual Revolution and the Growing Anger

Around the time of the release of the book and movie Fifty Shades of Grey, Newsweek put the cultural sensation on its cover.

I bought the magazine at the airport and, while waiting for my plane, showed the story to a woman sitting next to me. “What do you think — is this the new ‘sexual revolution’?” I asked her.

She glanced at the cover and answered as accurately as if she had written the article: “In the ’60s, it became okay for women to have sex; now, it’s okay for women to demand good sex.”

I would add to that: Women are demanding good sex, and they want to define for themselves what “good” means.

That social revolution rages, still.

You would think that the demand would bring a corresponding response in clinical medicine. You would be wrong. Although efforts in some sectors are heroic, overall, the results are lagging the forward movement of women wanting better sex.
 

The Lag in Sexual Education

To examine the progression of the education of physicians regarding the treatment of female sexual dysfunction (FSD), Codispoti and colleagues examined the curricula of seven medical schools in and around Chicago. They found the following: Only one institution identified all anatomic components of the clitoris — one! Four of the seven discussed the physiology of the female orgasm. Only three of the seven highlighted the prevalence and epidemiology of FSD or the treatments for FSD. Only one of the seven explained how to do a genitourinary physical exam specific to assessing FSD. 

When assessing obstetrics and gynecology clinical materials, sexual pleasure, arousal, and libido were not included anywhere in the curricula.

I have been teaching physicians about the therapies I developed (over 5000 clinicians in 50-plus countries over the past 14 years). During those sessions, I often stop the class and ask, “Who in here was taught how to retract the foreskin and examine the penis for phimosis?”

All hands will go up.

Then I will ask, “Who in here was taught in medical school how to retract the clitoral hood and examine the clitoris for phimosis?”

Not once has anyone raised a hand.
 

The Sex Remedies Gap

When I first published research offering support for using platelet-rich plasma to improve sexual function in women, women had not one drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of sexual dysfunction — none. Men had over 20. Today, men have a growing number of FDA-approved drugs for erectile dysfunction, including the “fils”; women have three. 

Women have access to only one FDA-approved medication that primarily affects the genitalia: prasterone. This drug is indicated only for the treatment of pain in postmenopausal women. It does not directly enhance desire or improve orgasms. Said another way, although the incidence of sexual dysfunction is higher in premenopausal women than in other groups, they do not have a single approved medication designed to improve the function of their genitalia. 

The other two of the three available drugs — flibanserin and bremelanotide — primarily affect the brain and could accurately be called psychoactive agents. They are available only for premenopausal women to improve desire. Flibanserin resulted in one extra sexual encounter per month on average, and patients are advised to avoid alcohol while using the drug. The other can make you vomit.

I do think all three of these treatments can be of great help to some women. I am not advising their disappearance. But in contrast to what is available to men, they are woefully inadequate.
 

Historical Perspective

In 1980, the medical establishment believed “most instances of acquired impotence are psychogenic.” Then, with the accidental discovery of the benefits of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, we realized that most cases of male sexual dysfunction involve the vasculature of the genitalia, not the neuroses of the brain. Yet, our two FDA-approved drugs for women with sexual dysfunction are designed to affect the brain. Women have nothing but off-label therapies to improve the function of the genitalia.

Despite the fact research supports the use of testosterone in women for both libido and orgasm, and despite the fact millions of women are treated with testosterone off-label for the benefit of sexual function, the only widely used FDA-approved class of drugs for women that affects testosterone — birth control pills, by blocking pituitary hormone production (the way they prevent pregnancy) — lowers the production of testosterone. 

One might wonder, considering our expanded understanding of the endocrinology of both men and women, at the irony of why it is acceptable to lower the testosterone level of an adolescent girl knowingly, as if her development did not require the hormone (such would never be acceptable in an adolescent male unless sexual transitioning were the goal); yet, we are fearful of giving testosterone to grown women who can no longer make it.
 

Premenopausal Women: An Orphan Population

The concept of “orphan populations” can partially explain the gap in available therapies between men and women.

Women of childbearing age are risky to study; so, with testosterone, for example, it is safer and cheaper for pharmaceutical companies to prove the benefits for men and ride the profits from the off-label use for women. I don’t mean to condemn the manufacturers of testosterone, only to point out the phenomenon of why up to 30% of the prescriptions written by a primary care physician are off-label; off-label use is common among cardiologists (46%); up to 90% of children in the hospital receive at least one off-label drug; and approval of drugs for premenopausal women is more expensive than approval of drugs for men. 
 

What Can Be Done?

The regrettable situation does not reflect evil intent on the part of regulators, educators, or physicians. But the gap between what women want and what medical education and the pharmaceutical-regulatory complex are providing is intolerably wide.

First, I would recommend a standard, required curriculum for the study of female sexual anatomy and function be established and widely adopted by medical schools. The reproductive system contains different components and a different purpose from the orgasm system, with modest overlap. Both systems should be taught in every medical school.

Second, physicians should be required to undergo a course in understanding their own sexuality. Research demonstrates doctors will avoid conversations about sex, and it seems to me this could be secondary to being uncomfortable with their own sexuality. After all, to talk with a patient about sex, you cannot be fearful of where the conversation may lead.

Third, the FDA might reconsider the requirements for the approval of drugs for FSD. Currently, to approve a drug for men, an objective finding — ie, an erection — can be sufficient. However, a higher bar, “satisfaction,” which is subjective, must be obtained with women.

Regenerative therapies have proved helpful but are not yet widely adopted; more grant money for the study of regenerative therapies would be a good start here. 

Finally, by the definition of FSD, a woman must be psychologically distressed. The idea of sex is not pleasure alone. Sexual function affects family relationships, emotional health, confidence, even sleep, as well as the emotional well-being of the children who live in the house. Saying women are wonderfully and mysteriously made may be poetic, but it is not an excuse for not learning more and closing the gaps.

Dr. Runels is medical director of the Cellular Medicine Association, Fairhope, Alabama. He reported conflicts of interest with the Cellular Medicine Association, Runels Research Institute, Institute for Lichen Sclerosus, and Vulvar Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.