Ob.Gyn. News

New evidence suggests a drug used to lower blood sugar levels may also help extend the duration of preterm pregnancies in women with preeclampsia.

The findings from a small clinical trial, published Sept. 23 in the BMJ, showed that pregnant women who received the diabetes medication metformin prolonged their pregnancy by a week compared to those who received a placebo. Although this finding was not statistically significant, researchers said they are “cautiously optimistic” about the treatment of preterm preeclampsia.

“We hope that it will encourage others to test not only metformin but also other promising therapeutic candidates to treat and prevent preeclampsia,” study author Catherine Cluver, MBChB, FCOG, PhD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, said in an interview.

Preeclampsia, a condition that occurs about 1 in 25 pregnancies in the United States, happens when a woman develops high blood pressure and protein in her urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preterm preeclampsia is a severe variant affecting 0.5% of all pregnancies, or 10% of those with preeclampsia, researchers wrote in the study. The condition is associated with more maternal and neonatal death and increases their risks of developing an illness.

Dr. Cluver said that when a mother develops preeclampsia, the lining of her blood vessels, or the endothelium, is affected and there are specific proteins in the blood that increase. Dr. Cluver’s preclinical study found that metformin improved endothelial function and decreased these biomarkers in laboratory work.

“We therefore set out to see if metformin could be used to prolong gestation in preterm preeclampsia,” she said.

For the study, Dr. Cluver and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to compare the prolongation of pregnancies among women who were at least 26 months pregnant with preterm preeclampsia. They were treated with either 3 grams of extended-release metformin (90 women), or a matching placebo (90 women).*

In the treatment group, the average time from the start of the study to delivery was 17.7 days, compared to 10.1 days in the placebo group. The median difference was 7.6 days.

The researchers also found that 40% of women in the metformin group reached 34 weeks’ gestation compared with 28% of those in the placebo group. Fewer women in the metformin group delivered because of fetal indications such as fetal distress or other issues – 33% vs. 44%. However, the researchers said those results were not statistically significant.

They said they were cautiously optimistic when they found that the median time for prolongation of pregnancy in the metformin group was 17.5 days compared with 7.9 days in the placebo group, findings that were statistically significant.

Some adverse effects participants experienced while taking metformin during their pregnancy included diarrhea and an increase in nausea.

Although the study is important in maternal-fetal medicine and is a novel approach to preterm preeclampsia, the findings weren’t strong enough, but they point to the need for further study, said Victor Klein, MD, MBA, CPHRM, a specialist in high-risk pregnancy who was not involved in the study.

“Even though they did have an improved outcome, it wasn’t strong enough. It wasn’t long enough to prove that the medicine was useful or efficacious,” said Dr. Klein, vice chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at North Shore University Hospital, New York.

Metformin is also used to treat gestational diabetes, which is an “advantage of repurposing the drug is that it is likely to be safe,” the researchers wrote. They said longer term follow-up data might be worthwhile in future trials.

None of the experts had conflicts of interest to disclose.

*This story was updated on 10/6/2021.

New evidence suggests a drug used to lower blood sugar levels may also help extend the duration of preterm pregnancies in women with preeclampsia.

The findings from a small clinical trial, published Sept. 23 in the BMJ, showed that pregnant women who received the diabetes medication metformin prolonged their pregnancy by a week compared to those who received a placebo. Although this finding was not statistically significant, researchers said they are “cautiously optimistic” about the treatment of preterm preeclampsia.

“We hope that it will encourage others to test not only metformin but also other promising therapeutic candidates to treat and prevent preeclampsia,” study author Catherine Cluver, MBChB, FCOG, PhD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, said in an interview.

Preeclampsia, a condition that occurs about 1 in 25 pregnancies in the United States, happens when a woman develops high blood pressure and protein in her urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preterm preeclampsia is a severe variant affecting 0.5% of all pregnancies, or 10% of those with preeclampsia, researchers wrote in the study. The condition is associated with more maternal and neonatal death and increases their risks of developing an illness.

Dr. Cluver said that when a mother develops preeclampsia, the lining of her blood vessels, or the endothelium, is affected and there are specific proteins in the blood that increase. Dr. Cluver’s preclinical study found that metformin improved endothelial function and decreased these biomarkers in laboratory work.

“We therefore set out to see if metformin could be used to prolong gestation in preterm preeclampsia,” she said.

For the study, Dr. Cluver and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to compare the prolongation of pregnancies among women who were at least 26 months pregnant with preterm preeclampsia. They were treated with either 3 grams of extended-release metformin (90 women), or a matching placebo (90 women).*

In the treatment group, the average time from the start of the study to delivery was 17.7 days, compared to 10.1 days in the placebo group. The median difference was 7.6 days.

The researchers also found that 40% of women in the metformin group reached 34 weeks’ gestation compared with 28% of those in the placebo group. Fewer women in the metformin group delivered because of fetal indications such as fetal distress or other issues – 33% vs. 44%. However, the researchers said those results were not statistically significant.

They said they were cautiously optimistic when they found that the median time for prolongation of pregnancy in the metformin group was 17.5 days compared with 7.9 days in the placebo group, findings that were statistically significant.

Some adverse effects participants experienced while taking metformin during their pregnancy included diarrhea and an increase in nausea.

Although the study is important in maternal-fetal medicine and is a novel approach to preterm preeclampsia, the findings weren’t strong enough, but they point to the need for further study, said Victor Klein, MD, MBA, CPHRM, a specialist in high-risk pregnancy who was not involved in the study.

“Even though they did have an improved outcome, it wasn’t strong enough. It wasn’t long enough to prove that the medicine was useful or efficacious,” said Dr. Klein, vice chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at North Shore University Hospital, New York.

Metformin is also used to treat gestational diabetes, which is an “advantage of repurposing the drug is that it is likely to be safe,” the researchers wrote. They said longer term follow-up data might be worthwhile in future trials.

None of the experts had conflicts of interest to disclose.

*This story was updated on 10/6/2021.

New evidence suggests a drug used to lower blood sugar levels may also help extend the duration of preterm pregnancies in women with preeclampsia.

The findings from a small clinical trial, published Sept. 23 in the BMJ, showed that pregnant women who received the diabetes medication metformin prolonged their pregnancy by a week compared to those who received a placebo. Although this finding was not statistically significant, researchers said they are “cautiously optimistic” about the treatment of preterm preeclampsia.

“We hope that it will encourage others to test not only metformin but also other promising therapeutic candidates to treat and prevent preeclampsia,” study author Catherine Cluver, MBChB, FCOG, PhD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, said in an interview.

Preeclampsia, a condition that occurs about 1 in 25 pregnancies in the United States, happens when a woman develops high blood pressure and protein in her urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preterm preeclampsia is a severe variant affecting 0.5% of all pregnancies, or 10% of those with preeclampsia, researchers wrote in the study. The condition is associated with more maternal and neonatal death and increases their risks of developing an illness.

Dr. Cluver said that when a mother develops preeclampsia, the lining of her blood vessels, or the endothelium, is affected and there are specific proteins in the blood that increase. Dr. Cluver’s preclinical study found that metformin improved endothelial function and decreased these biomarkers in laboratory work.

“We therefore set out to see if metformin could be used to prolong gestation in preterm preeclampsia,” she said.

For the study, Dr. Cluver and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to compare the prolongation of pregnancies among women who were at least 26 months pregnant with preterm preeclampsia. They were treated with either 3 grams of extended-release metformin (90 women), or a matching placebo (90 women).*

In the treatment group, the average time from the start of the study to delivery was 17.7 days, compared to 10.1 days in the placebo group. The median difference was 7.6 days.

The researchers also found that 40% of women in the metformin group reached 34 weeks’ gestation compared with 28% of those in the placebo group. Fewer women in the metformin group delivered because of fetal indications such as fetal distress or other issues – 33% vs. 44%. However, the researchers said those results were not statistically significant.

They said they were cautiously optimistic when they found that the median time for prolongation of pregnancy in the metformin group was 17.5 days compared with 7.9 days in the placebo group, findings that were statistically significant.

Some adverse effects participants experienced while taking metformin during their pregnancy included diarrhea and an increase in nausea.

Although the study is important in maternal-fetal medicine and is a novel approach to preterm preeclampsia, the findings weren’t strong enough, but they point to the need for further study, said Victor Klein, MD, MBA, CPHRM, a specialist in high-risk pregnancy who was not involved in the study.

“Even though they did have an improved outcome, it wasn’t strong enough. It wasn’t long enough to prove that the medicine was useful or efficacious,” said Dr. Klein, vice chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at North Shore University Hospital, New York.

Metformin is also used to treat gestational diabetes, which is an “advantage of repurposing the drug is that it is likely to be safe,” the researchers wrote. They said longer term follow-up data might be worthwhile in future trials.

None of the experts had conflicts of interest to disclose.

*This story was updated on 10/6/2021.

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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

Endometrial cancer is most commonly diagnosed at an early stage. Unfortunately, there is a trend toward the diagnosis of more advanced disease, for which cure is rare, and this is an important contributing factor toward the overall increasing mortality trend for endometrial cancer.

Histology is a major risk factor for advanced disease. For example, serous carcinoma, which accounts for approximately only 10% of all endometrial cancer diagnoses, comprises 25% of cases of advanced cases. Similarly, carcinosarcoma, a cell type known to be particularly aggressive, is relatively overrepresented among cases of advanced disease.

Advanced endometrial cancer includes cases of stage III (involvement of lymph nodes, ovaries, and vagina) and stage IV disease (with direct extension into pelvic viscera and distant metastases). In most cases of stage III disease, extrauterine metastases are microscopic and are detected only at the time of surgical staging. Bulky nodal disease within the pelvic and para-aortic nodal basins is less common but associated with worse prognosis than for patients with microscopic nodal metastases. Stage IV disease usually presents with peritoneal spread of disease including carcinomatosis, omental disease, and involvement of the small and large intestine.

Once advanced, endometrial cancer requires more than surgery alone, relying heavily on adjuvant therapies to achieve responses, particularly systemic therapy with platinum and taxane chemotherapy. In some cases, molecularly targeted therapy (such as trastuzumab for serous carcinomas that demonstrate overexpression of HER2) has been shown to be superior in efficacy.¹ Surgery may involve either radical nodal dissections to the infrarenal aortic basin, and/or peritoneal debulking procedures similar to that required for ovarian cancer. Perhaps because of patterns of disease distribution so similar to ovarian cancer, historically, sequencing of therapy focused on radical primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by chemotherapy.

In 2000, a retrospective series from Johns Hopkins University documented the outcomes of 65 patients with advanced endometrial cancer who had undergone primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy.² They noted that survival was directly associated with degree of cytoreduction, with the best outcomes seen for those patients whose surgery resulted in no gross residual disease. Following these data, PDS with complete resection of all disease became the goal of primary therapy.

However, unlike ovarian cancer (which shares a similar disease distribution with advanced endometrial cancer) patients with endometrial cancer are more obese, older, and typically have more comorbidities. Therefore, radical primary debulking surgeries may be associated with poor patient perioperative outcomes, and feasibility of complete cytoreduction, particularly in very obese patients, can be limited. For this reason, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been explored as an option. The potential virtue of NACT is that it allows for tumor deposits to decrease in size, or be eliminated, prior to surgery, resulting in a less morbid procedure for the patient.

Observed outcomes for NACT relative to PDS are mixed. When small series have compared the two for the treatment of advanced serous endometrial cancer, NACT was associated with decreased perioperative morbidity, with similar overall survival observed.^3,4

However, in larger series exploring patients within the National Cancer Database (a collection of over 1,500 hospitals accredited by the Commission on Cancer) outcomes appear different for the two approaches.^5,6 While PDS was initially associated with worse survival, at approximately 5-6 months from diagnosis, this changed and survival was observed to be consistently superior for this group. These data suggest that patients undergoing primary surgical cytoreduction may experience an early mortality risk, possibly secondary to the impact of surgery, but that if they are to survive beyond this point, they experience better outcomes. While the researchers attempted to control for risk factors of poor outcomes that might have systematically differed between the two groups, this specific database is limited in its ability to account for all fundamental differences between them. Only approximately 15% of women with advanced endometrial cancer were offered NACT during those time periods. This observation alone suggests that this likely represents a group specially selected for their poor candidacy for upfront debulking surgery, and inherently increased risk for death from all causes.

The question remains, is NACT appropriate for all patients or just those who are considered poor surgical candidates? Could all patients benefit from the decreased morbidity associated with surgery after NACT without compromising survival? Randomized controlled trials are necessary to answer this question as they are the only way to ensure that risk factors for poor outcomes (such as histology, disease distribution, medical comorbidities) are equally distributed among both groups.

In the meantime, gynecologic oncologists should take a cautious approach to decision making regarding sequencing of surgery and chemotherapy in the setting of a new diagnosis of advanced endometrial cancer. Arguably more important than surgical interventions, access to molecularly targeted systemic therapy is likely to bring the best outcomes for advanced endometrial cancer. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are the current gold standard of care for frontline systemic therapy; however, response rates with this regimen are less favorable for endometrial cancer than for ovarian cancer. Work is being done to test novel therapies against actionable targets to use as alternatives or as adjuncts to traditional chemotherapy regimens. In doing so, clinicians are learning to distinguish endometrial cancers by more than simply their histologic features, but also by their molecular profiles.

Advanced endometrial cancer is a serious disease with high lethality. Future research should focus on ways to ensure toxicities of therapy, including surgery, are minimized while improving upon existing poor clinical outcomes.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no financial disclosures.

References

1. Fader AN et al. J Clin Oncol 2018;36(20):2044-51.

2. Bristow RE et al. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78(2):85-91.

3. Bogani G et al. Tumori 2019;105(1):92-97.

4. Wilkinson-Ryan I et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(1):63-8.

5. Tobias CJ et al. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3(12):e2028612.

6. Chambers LM et al. Gynecol Oncol 2021;160(2):405-12.

Endometrial cancer is most commonly diagnosed at an early stage. Unfortunately, there is a trend toward the diagnosis of more advanced disease, for which cure is rare, and this is an important contributing factor toward the overall increasing mortality trend for endometrial cancer.

Histology is a major risk factor for advanced disease. For example, serous carcinoma, which accounts for approximately only 10% of all endometrial cancer diagnoses, comprises 25% of cases of advanced cases. Similarly, carcinosarcoma, a cell type known to be particularly aggressive, is relatively overrepresented among cases of advanced disease.

Advanced endometrial cancer includes cases of stage III (involvement of lymph nodes, ovaries, and vagina) and stage IV disease (with direct extension into pelvic viscera and distant metastases). In most cases of stage III disease, extrauterine metastases are microscopic and are detected only at the time of surgical staging. Bulky nodal disease within the pelvic and para-aortic nodal basins is less common but associated with worse prognosis than for patients with microscopic nodal metastases. Stage IV disease usually presents with peritoneal spread of disease including carcinomatosis, omental disease, and involvement of the small and large intestine.

Once advanced, endometrial cancer requires more than surgery alone, relying heavily on adjuvant therapies to achieve responses, particularly systemic therapy with platinum and taxane chemotherapy. In some cases, molecularly targeted therapy (such as trastuzumab for serous carcinomas that demonstrate overexpression of HER2) has been shown to be superior in efficacy.¹ Surgery may involve either radical nodal dissections to the infrarenal aortic basin, and/or peritoneal debulking procedures similar to that required for ovarian cancer. Perhaps because of patterns of disease distribution so similar to ovarian cancer, historically, sequencing of therapy focused on radical primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by chemotherapy.

In 2000, a retrospective series from Johns Hopkins University documented the outcomes of 65 patients with advanced endometrial cancer who had undergone primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy.² They noted that survival was directly associated with degree of cytoreduction, with the best outcomes seen for those patients whose surgery resulted in no gross residual disease. Following these data, PDS with complete resection of all disease became the goal of primary therapy.

However, unlike ovarian cancer (which shares a similar disease distribution with advanced endometrial cancer) patients with endometrial cancer are more obese, older, and typically have more comorbidities. Therefore, radical primary debulking surgeries may be associated with poor patient perioperative outcomes, and feasibility of complete cytoreduction, particularly in very obese patients, can be limited. For this reason, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been explored as an option. The potential virtue of NACT is that it allows for tumor deposits to decrease in size, or be eliminated, prior to surgery, resulting in a less morbid procedure for the patient.

Observed outcomes for NACT relative to PDS are mixed. When small series have compared the two for the treatment of advanced serous endometrial cancer, NACT was associated with decreased perioperative morbidity, with similar overall survival observed.^3,4

However, in larger series exploring patients within the National Cancer Database (a collection of over 1,500 hospitals accredited by the Commission on Cancer) outcomes appear different for the two approaches.^5,6 While PDS was initially associated with worse survival, at approximately 5-6 months from diagnosis, this changed and survival was observed to be consistently superior for this group. These data suggest that patients undergoing primary surgical cytoreduction may experience an early mortality risk, possibly secondary to the impact of surgery, but that if they are to survive beyond this point, they experience better outcomes. While the researchers attempted to control for risk factors of poor outcomes that might have systematically differed between the two groups, this specific database is limited in its ability to account for all fundamental differences between them. Only approximately 15% of women with advanced endometrial cancer were offered NACT during those time periods. This observation alone suggests that this likely represents a group specially selected for their poor candidacy for upfront debulking surgery, and inherently increased risk for death from all causes.

The question remains, is NACT appropriate for all patients or just those who are considered poor surgical candidates? Could all patients benefit from the decreased morbidity associated with surgery after NACT without compromising survival? Randomized controlled trials are necessary to answer this question as they are the only way to ensure that risk factors for poor outcomes (such as histology, disease distribution, medical comorbidities) are equally distributed among both groups.

In the meantime, gynecologic oncologists should take a cautious approach to decision making regarding sequencing of surgery and chemotherapy in the setting of a new diagnosis of advanced endometrial cancer. Arguably more important than surgical interventions, access to molecularly targeted systemic therapy is likely to bring the best outcomes for advanced endometrial cancer. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are the current gold standard of care for frontline systemic therapy; however, response rates with this regimen are less favorable for endometrial cancer than for ovarian cancer. Work is being done to test novel therapies against actionable targets to use as alternatives or as adjuncts to traditional chemotherapy regimens. In doing so, clinicians are learning to distinguish endometrial cancers by more than simply their histologic features, but also by their molecular profiles.

Advanced endometrial cancer is a serious disease with high lethality. Future research should focus on ways to ensure toxicities of therapy, including surgery, are minimized while improving upon existing poor clinical outcomes.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no financial disclosures.

References

1. Fader AN et al. J Clin Oncol 2018;36(20):2044-51.

2. Bristow RE et al. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78(2):85-91.

3. Bogani G et al. Tumori 2019;105(1):92-97.

4. Wilkinson-Ryan I et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(1):63-8.

5. Tobias CJ et al. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3(12):e2028612.

6. Chambers LM et al. Gynecol Oncol 2021;160(2):405-12.

Endometrial cancer is most commonly diagnosed at an early stage. Unfortunately, there is a trend toward the diagnosis of more advanced disease, for which cure is rare, and this is an important contributing factor toward the overall increasing mortality trend for endometrial cancer.

Histology is a major risk factor for advanced disease. For example, serous carcinoma, which accounts for approximately only 10% of all endometrial cancer diagnoses, comprises 25% of cases of advanced cases. Similarly, carcinosarcoma, a cell type known to be particularly aggressive, is relatively overrepresented among cases of advanced disease.

Advanced endometrial cancer includes cases of stage III (involvement of lymph nodes, ovaries, and vagina) and stage IV disease (with direct extension into pelvic viscera and distant metastases). In most cases of stage III disease, extrauterine metastases are microscopic and are detected only at the time of surgical staging. Bulky nodal disease within the pelvic and para-aortic nodal basins is less common but associated with worse prognosis than for patients with microscopic nodal metastases. Stage IV disease usually presents with peritoneal spread of disease including carcinomatosis, omental disease, and involvement of the small and large intestine.

Once advanced, endometrial cancer requires more than surgery alone, relying heavily on adjuvant therapies to achieve responses, particularly systemic therapy with platinum and taxane chemotherapy. In some cases, molecularly targeted therapy (such as trastuzumab for serous carcinomas that demonstrate overexpression of HER2) has been shown to be superior in efficacy.¹ Surgery may involve either radical nodal dissections to the infrarenal aortic basin, and/or peritoneal debulking procedures similar to that required for ovarian cancer. Perhaps because of patterns of disease distribution so similar to ovarian cancer, historically, sequencing of therapy focused on radical primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by chemotherapy.

In 2000, a retrospective series from Johns Hopkins University documented the outcomes of 65 patients with advanced endometrial cancer who had undergone primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy.² They noted that survival was directly associated with degree of cytoreduction, with the best outcomes seen for those patients whose surgery resulted in no gross residual disease. Following these data, PDS with complete resection of all disease became the goal of primary therapy.

However, unlike ovarian cancer (which shares a similar disease distribution with advanced endometrial cancer) patients with endometrial cancer are more obese, older, and typically have more comorbidities. Therefore, radical primary debulking surgeries may be associated with poor patient perioperative outcomes, and feasibility of complete cytoreduction, particularly in very obese patients, can be limited. For this reason, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been explored as an option. The potential virtue of NACT is that it allows for tumor deposits to decrease in size, or be eliminated, prior to surgery, resulting in a less morbid procedure for the patient.

Observed outcomes for NACT relative to PDS are mixed. When small series have compared the two for the treatment of advanced serous endometrial cancer, NACT was associated with decreased perioperative morbidity, with similar overall survival observed.^3,4

However, in larger series exploring patients within the National Cancer Database (a collection of over 1,500 hospitals accredited by the Commission on Cancer) outcomes appear different for the two approaches.^5,6 While PDS was initially associated with worse survival, at approximately 5-6 months from diagnosis, this changed and survival was observed to be consistently superior for this group. These data suggest that patients undergoing primary surgical cytoreduction may experience an early mortality risk, possibly secondary to the impact of surgery, but that if they are to survive beyond this point, they experience better outcomes. While the researchers attempted to control for risk factors of poor outcomes that might have systematically differed between the two groups, this specific database is limited in its ability to account for all fundamental differences between them. Only approximately 15% of women with advanced endometrial cancer were offered NACT during those time periods. This observation alone suggests that this likely represents a group specially selected for their poor candidacy for upfront debulking surgery, and inherently increased risk for death from all causes.

The question remains, is NACT appropriate for all patients or just those who are considered poor surgical candidates? Could all patients benefit from the decreased morbidity associated with surgery after NACT without compromising survival? Randomized controlled trials are necessary to answer this question as they are the only way to ensure that risk factors for poor outcomes (such as histology, disease distribution, medical comorbidities) are equally distributed among both groups.

In the meantime, gynecologic oncologists should take a cautious approach to decision making regarding sequencing of surgery and chemotherapy in the setting of a new diagnosis of advanced endometrial cancer. Arguably more important than surgical interventions, access to molecularly targeted systemic therapy is likely to bring the best outcomes for advanced endometrial cancer. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are the current gold standard of care for frontline systemic therapy; however, response rates with this regimen are less favorable for endometrial cancer than for ovarian cancer. Work is being done to test novel therapies against actionable targets to use as alternatives or as adjuncts to traditional chemotherapy regimens. In doing so, clinicians are learning to distinguish endometrial cancers by more than simply their histologic features, but also by their molecular profiles.

Advanced endometrial cancer is a serious disease with high lethality. Future research should focus on ways to ensure toxicities of therapy, including surgery, are minimized while improving upon existing poor clinical outcomes.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no financial disclosures.

References

1. Fader AN et al. J Clin Oncol 2018;36(20):2044-51.

2. Bristow RE et al. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78(2):85-91.

3. Bogani G et al. Tumori 2019;105(1):92-97.

4. Wilkinson-Ryan I et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(1):63-8.

5. Tobias CJ et al. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3(12):e2028612.

6. Chambers LM et al. Gynecol Oncol 2021;160(2):405-12.

Remarkable advances in care for early pregnancy loss (EPL) have occurred over the past several years. Misoprostol with mifepristone pretreatment is now the gold standard for medical management after recent research showed that this regimen improves both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of medical management.¹ Manual vacuum aspiration (MVA)’s portability, effectiveness, and safety ensure that providers can offer procedural EPL management in almost any clinical setting. Medication management and in-office uterine aspiration are two evidence-based options for EPL management that may increase access for the 25% of pregnant women who experience EPL. Unfortunately, many women do not have access to either option. Equitable access to early pregnancy loss management can be achieved by expanding access to mifepristone and office-based MVA.

However, access to mifepristone and initiating office-based MVA is challenging. Mifepristone is one of several medications regulated under the Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Management Strategies (REMS) program.²

The REMS guidelines restrict clinicians in prescribing and dispensing mifepristone, including the key provision that mifepristone may be dispensed only in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals. Clinicians cannot write a prescription for mifepristone for a patient to pick up at the pharmacy. Efforts are underway to roll back the REMS. Barriers to office-based MVA include time, culture shift among staff, gathering equipment, and creating protocols. Clinicians can improve access to EPL management in a variety of ways:

• MVA training: Ob.gyns. who lack training in MVA use can take advantage of several programs designed to teach the skill to clinicians, including programs such as Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management (TEAMM).^3,4 MVA is easy to learn for ob.gyns. and procedural complications are uncommon. In the office setting, complications requiring transfer to a higher level of care are rare.⁵ With adequate training, whether during residency or afterward, ob.gyns. can learn to safely and effectively use MVA for procedural EPL management in the office and in the emergency department.
• Partnerships with pharmacists to reduce barriers to mifepristone: Ob.gyns. working in a variety of clinical settings, including independent clinics, critical access hospitals, community hospitals, and academic medical centers, have worked closely with on-site pharmacists to place mifepristone on their practice sites’ formularies.⁶ These ob.gyn.–pharmacist collaborations often require explanations to institutional Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) committees of the benefits of mifepristone to patients, detailed indications for mifepristone’s use, and methods to secure mifepristone on site.
• Partnerships with emergency department and outpatient nursing and administration to promote MVA: Provision of MVA is ideal for safe, effective, and cost-efficient procedural EPL management in both the emergency department and outpatient setting. However, access to MVA in emergency rooms and outpatient clinical settings is suboptimal. Some clinicians push back against MVA use in the emergency department, citing fears that performing the procedure in the emergency department unnecessarily uses staff and resources reserved for patients with more critical illnesses. Ob.gyns. should also work with emergency medicine physicians and emergency department nursing staff and hospital administrators in explaining that MVA in the emergency room is patient centered and cost effective.

Interdisciplinary collaboration and training are two strategies that can increase access to mifepristone and MVA for EPL management. Use of mifepristone/misoprostol and office/emergency department MVA for treatment of EPL is patient centered, evidence based, feasible, highly effective, and timely. These two health care interventions are practical in almost any setting, including rural and other low-resource settings. By using these strategies to overcome the logistical and institutional challenges, ob.gyns. can help countless women with EPL gain access to the best EPL care.
 

Dr. Espey is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Dr. Jackson is an obstetrician/gynecologist at Michigan State University in Flint. They have no disclosures to report.

References

1. Schreiber CA et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 7;378(23):2161-70.

2. Food and Drug Administration. Mifeprex (mifepristone) information.

3. The TEAMM (Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management) Project. Training interprofessional teams to manage miscarriage. Accessed March 15, 2021.

4. Quinley KE et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Jul;72(1):86-92.

5. Milingos DS et al. BJOG. 2009 Aug;116(9):1268-71.

6. Calloway D et al. Contraception. 2021 Jul;104(1):24-8.

Remarkable advances in care for early pregnancy loss (EPL) have occurred over the past several years. Misoprostol with mifepristone pretreatment is now the gold standard for medical management after recent research showed that this regimen improves both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of medical management.¹ Manual vacuum aspiration (MVA)’s portability, effectiveness, and safety ensure that providers can offer procedural EPL management in almost any clinical setting. Medication management and in-office uterine aspiration are two evidence-based options for EPL management that may increase access for the 25% of pregnant women who experience EPL. Unfortunately, many women do not have access to either option. Equitable access to early pregnancy loss management can be achieved by expanding access to mifepristone and office-based MVA.

However, access to mifepristone and initiating office-based MVA is challenging. Mifepristone is one of several medications regulated under the Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Management Strategies (REMS) program.²

The REMS guidelines restrict clinicians in prescribing and dispensing mifepristone, including the key provision that mifepristone may be dispensed only in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals. Clinicians cannot write a prescription for mifepristone for a patient to pick up at the pharmacy. Efforts are underway to roll back the REMS. Barriers to office-based MVA include time, culture shift among staff, gathering equipment, and creating protocols. Clinicians can improve access to EPL management in a variety of ways:

• MVA training: Ob.gyns. who lack training in MVA use can take advantage of several programs designed to teach the skill to clinicians, including programs such as Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management (TEAMM).^3,4 MVA is easy to learn for ob.gyns. and procedural complications are uncommon. In the office setting, complications requiring transfer to a higher level of care are rare.⁵ With adequate training, whether during residency or afterward, ob.gyns. can learn to safely and effectively use MVA for procedural EPL management in the office and in the emergency department.
• Partnerships with pharmacists to reduce barriers to mifepristone: Ob.gyns. working in a variety of clinical settings, including independent clinics, critical access hospitals, community hospitals, and academic medical centers, have worked closely with on-site pharmacists to place mifepristone on their practice sites’ formularies.⁶ These ob.gyn.–pharmacist collaborations often require explanations to institutional Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) committees of the benefits of mifepristone to patients, detailed indications for mifepristone’s use, and methods to secure mifepristone on site.
• Partnerships with emergency department and outpatient nursing and administration to promote MVA: Provision of MVA is ideal for safe, effective, and cost-efficient procedural EPL management in both the emergency department and outpatient setting. However, access to MVA in emergency rooms and outpatient clinical settings is suboptimal. Some clinicians push back against MVA use in the emergency department, citing fears that performing the procedure in the emergency department unnecessarily uses staff and resources reserved for patients with more critical illnesses. Ob.gyns. should also work with emergency medicine physicians and emergency department nursing staff and hospital administrators in explaining that MVA in the emergency room is patient centered and cost effective.

Interdisciplinary collaboration and training are two strategies that can increase access to mifepristone and MVA for EPL management. Use of mifepristone/misoprostol and office/emergency department MVA for treatment of EPL is patient centered, evidence based, feasible, highly effective, and timely. These two health care interventions are practical in almost any setting, including rural and other low-resource settings. By using these strategies to overcome the logistical and institutional challenges, ob.gyns. can help countless women with EPL gain access to the best EPL care.
 

Dr. Espey is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Dr. Jackson is an obstetrician/gynecologist at Michigan State University in Flint. They have no disclosures to report.

References

1. Schreiber CA et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 7;378(23):2161-70.

2. Food and Drug Administration. Mifeprex (mifepristone) information.

3. The TEAMM (Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management) Project. Training interprofessional teams to manage miscarriage. Accessed March 15, 2021.

4. Quinley KE et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Jul;72(1):86-92.

5. Milingos DS et al. BJOG. 2009 Aug;116(9):1268-71.

6. Calloway D et al. Contraception. 2021 Jul;104(1):24-8.

Remarkable advances in care for early pregnancy loss (EPL) have occurred over the past several years. Misoprostol with mifepristone pretreatment is now the gold standard for medical management after recent research showed that this regimen improves both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of medical management.¹ Manual vacuum aspiration (MVA)’s portability, effectiveness, and safety ensure that providers can offer procedural EPL management in almost any clinical setting. Medication management and in-office uterine aspiration are two evidence-based options for EPL management that may increase access for the 25% of pregnant women who experience EPL. Unfortunately, many women do not have access to either option. Equitable access to early pregnancy loss management can be achieved by expanding access to mifepristone and office-based MVA.

However, access to mifepristone and initiating office-based MVA is challenging. Mifepristone is one of several medications regulated under the Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Management Strategies (REMS) program.²

The REMS guidelines restrict clinicians in prescribing and dispensing mifepristone, including the key provision that mifepristone may be dispensed only in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals. Clinicians cannot write a prescription for mifepristone for a patient to pick up at the pharmacy. Efforts are underway to roll back the REMS. Barriers to office-based MVA include time, culture shift among staff, gathering equipment, and creating protocols. Clinicians can improve access to EPL management in a variety of ways:

• MVA training: Ob.gyns. who lack training in MVA use can take advantage of several programs designed to teach the skill to clinicians, including programs such as Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management (TEAMM).^3,4 MVA is easy to learn for ob.gyns. and procedural complications are uncommon. In the office setting, complications requiring transfer to a higher level of care are rare.⁵ With adequate training, whether during residency or afterward, ob.gyns. can learn to safely and effectively use MVA for procedural EPL management in the office and in the emergency department.
• Partnerships with pharmacists to reduce barriers to mifepristone: Ob.gyns. working in a variety of clinical settings, including independent clinics, critical access hospitals, community hospitals, and academic medical centers, have worked closely with on-site pharmacists to place mifepristone on their practice sites’ formularies.⁶ These ob.gyn.–pharmacist collaborations often require explanations to institutional Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) committees of the benefits of mifepristone to patients, detailed indications for mifepristone’s use, and methods to secure mifepristone on site.
• Partnerships with emergency department and outpatient nursing and administration to promote MVA: Provision of MVA is ideal for safe, effective, and cost-efficient procedural EPL management in both the emergency department and outpatient setting. However, access to MVA in emergency rooms and outpatient clinical settings is suboptimal. Some clinicians push back against MVA use in the emergency department, citing fears that performing the procedure in the emergency department unnecessarily uses staff and resources reserved for patients with more critical illnesses. Ob.gyns. should also work with emergency medicine physicians and emergency department nursing staff and hospital administrators in explaining that MVA in the emergency room is patient centered and cost effective.

Interdisciplinary collaboration and training are two strategies that can increase access to mifepristone and MVA for EPL management. Use of mifepristone/misoprostol and office/emergency department MVA for treatment of EPL is patient centered, evidence based, feasible, highly effective, and timely. These two health care interventions are practical in almost any setting, including rural and other low-resource settings. By using these strategies to overcome the logistical and institutional challenges, ob.gyns. can help countless women with EPL gain access to the best EPL care.
 

Dr. Espey is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Dr. Jackson is an obstetrician/gynecologist at Michigan State University in Flint. They have no disclosures to report.

References

1. Schreiber CA et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 7;378(23):2161-70.

2. Food and Drug Administration. Mifeprex (mifepristone) information.

3. The TEAMM (Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management) Project. Training interprofessional teams to manage miscarriage. Accessed March 15, 2021.

4. Quinley KE et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Jul;72(1):86-92.

5. Milingos DS et al. BJOG. 2009 Aug;116(9):1268-71.

6. Calloway D et al. Contraception. 2021 Jul;104(1):24-8.

A strain of COVID-19 first reported in Japan surfaced at a Kentucky nursing home in the spring.

Deadline, citing a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, said 26 residents and 20 workers tested positive for COVID-19 at a skilled care nursing home. The facility has 83 residents and 116 employees.

On March 1, 28 specimens that had been subjected to whole genome sequencing were found to have “mutations aligning with the R.1 lineage,” Deadline said.

About 90% of the facility’s residents and 52% of the staff had received two COVID vaccine doses, the CDC said. Because of the high vaccination rate, the finding raises concerns about “reduced protective immunity” in relation to the R.1 variant, the CDC said.

However, the nursing home case appears to show that the vaccine keeps most people from getting extremely sick, the CDC said. The vaccine was 86.5% protective against symptomatic illness among residents and 87.1% protective for employees.

“Compared with unvaccinated persons, vaccinated persons had reduced risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19,” the CDC said. The vaccination of nursing home residents and health care workers “is essential to reduce the risk for symptomatic COVID-19, as is continued focus on infection prevention and control practices,” the CDC said.

Since being reported in Kentucky, R.1 has been detected more than 10,000 times in the United States, Forbes reported, basing that number on entries in the GISAID SARS-CoV-2 database.

Overall, more than 42 million cases of COVID have been reported since the start of the pandemic.

Deadline reported that the R.1 strain was first detected in Japan in January among three members of one family. The family members had no history of traveling abroad, Deadline said, citing an National Institutes of Health report.

The CDC has not classified R.1 as a variant of concern yet but noted it has “several mutations of importance” and “demonstrates evidence of increasing virus transmissibility.”

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

A strain of COVID-19 first reported in Japan surfaced at a Kentucky nursing home in the spring.

Deadline, citing a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, said 26 residents and 20 workers tested positive for COVID-19 at a skilled care nursing home. The facility has 83 residents and 116 employees.

On March 1, 28 specimens that had been subjected to whole genome sequencing were found to have “mutations aligning with the R.1 lineage,” Deadline said.

About 90% of the facility’s residents and 52% of the staff had received two COVID vaccine doses, the CDC said. Because of the high vaccination rate, the finding raises concerns about “reduced protective immunity” in relation to the R.1 variant, the CDC said.

However, the nursing home case appears to show that the vaccine keeps most people from getting extremely sick, the CDC said. The vaccine was 86.5% protective against symptomatic illness among residents and 87.1% protective for employees.

“Compared with unvaccinated persons, vaccinated persons had reduced risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19,” the CDC said. The vaccination of nursing home residents and health care workers “is essential to reduce the risk for symptomatic COVID-19, as is continued focus on infection prevention and control practices,” the CDC said.

Since being reported in Kentucky, R.1 has been detected more than 10,000 times in the United States, Forbes reported, basing that number on entries in the GISAID SARS-CoV-2 database.

Overall, more than 42 million cases of COVID have been reported since the start of the pandemic.

Deadline reported that the R.1 strain was first detected in Japan in January among three members of one family. The family members had no history of traveling abroad, Deadline said, citing an National Institutes of Health report.

The CDC has not classified R.1 as a variant of concern yet but noted it has “several mutations of importance” and “demonstrates evidence of increasing virus transmissibility.”

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

A strain of COVID-19 first reported in Japan surfaced at a Kentucky nursing home in the spring.

Deadline, citing a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, said 26 residents and 20 workers tested positive for COVID-19 at a skilled care nursing home. The facility has 83 residents and 116 employees.

On March 1, 28 specimens that had been subjected to whole genome sequencing were found to have “mutations aligning with the R.1 lineage,” Deadline said.

About 90% of the facility’s residents and 52% of the staff had received two COVID vaccine doses, the CDC said. Because of the high vaccination rate, the finding raises concerns about “reduced protective immunity” in relation to the R.1 variant, the CDC said.

However, the nursing home case appears to show that the vaccine keeps most people from getting extremely sick, the CDC said. The vaccine was 86.5% protective against symptomatic illness among residents and 87.1% protective for employees.

“Compared with unvaccinated persons, vaccinated persons had reduced risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19,” the CDC said. The vaccination of nursing home residents and health care workers “is essential to reduce the risk for symptomatic COVID-19, as is continued focus on infection prevention and control practices,” the CDC said.

Since being reported in Kentucky, R.1 has been detected more than 10,000 times in the United States, Forbes reported, basing that number on entries in the GISAID SARS-CoV-2 database.

Overall, more than 42 million cases of COVID have been reported since the start of the pandemic.

Deadline reported that the R.1 strain was first detected in Japan in January among three members of one family. The family members had no history of traveling abroad, Deadline said, citing an National Institutes of Health report.

The CDC has not classified R.1 as a variant of concern yet but noted it has “several mutations of importance” and “demonstrates evidence of increasing virus transmissibility.”

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

Traumatic experiences, especially sexual assault, may put women at greater risk for poor brain health.

In the Ms Brain study, middle-aged women with trauma exposure had a greater volume of white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) than those without trauma. In addition, the differences persisted even after adjusting for depressive or post-traumatic stress symptoms. 

WMHs are “an important indicator of small vessel disease in the brain and have been linked to future stroke risk, dementia risk, and mortality,” lead investigator Rebecca Thurston, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, told this news organization.

“What I take from this is, really, that sexual assault has implications for women’s health, far beyond exclusively mental health outcomes, but also for their cardiovascular health, as we have shown in other work and for their stroke and dementia risk as we are seeing in the present work,” Dr. Thurston added.

The study was presented at the North American Menopause Society (NAMS) Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., and has been accepted for publication in the journal Brain Imaging and Behavior.
 

Beyond the usual suspects

As part of the study, 145 women (mean age, 59 years) free of clinical cardiovascular disease, stroke, or dementia provided their medical history, including history of traumatic experiences, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder and underwent magnetic resonance brain imaging for WMHs.

More than two-thirds (68%) of the women reported at least one trauma, most commonly sexual assault (23%).

In multivariate analysis, women with trauma exposure had greater WMH volume than women without trauma (P = .01), with sexual assault most strongly associated with greater WMH volume (P = .02).

The associations persisted after adjusting for depressive or post-traumatic stress symptoms.

“A history of sexual assault was particularly related to white matter hyperintensities in the parietal lobe, and these kinds of white matter hyperintensities have been linked to Alzheimer’s disease in a fairly pronounced way,” Dr. Thurston said.

“When we think about risk factors for stroke, dementia, we need to think beyond exclusively our usual suspects and also think about women [who experienced] psychological trauma and experienced sexual assault in particular. So ask about it and consider it part of your screening regimen,” she added.
 

‘Burgeoning’ literature

Commenting on the findings, Charles Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, and director of its Institute for Early Life Adversity Research, said the research adds to the “burgeoning literature on the long term neurobiological consequences of trauma and more specifically, sexual abuse, on brain imaging measures.”

“Our group and others reported several years ago that patients with mood disorders, more specifically bipolar disorder and major depression, had higher rates of WMH than matched controls. Those older studies did not control for a history of early life adversity such as childhood maltreatment,” Dr. Nemeroff said.

“In addition to this finding of increased WMH in subjects exposed to trauma is a very large literature documenting other central nervous system (CNS) changes in this population, including cortical thinning in certain brain areas and clearly an emerging finding that different forms of childhood maltreatment are associated with quite distinct structural brain alterations in adulthood,” he noted. 

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Thurston and Dr. Nemeroff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Traumatic experiences, especially sexual assault, may put women at greater risk for poor brain health.

In the Ms Brain study, middle-aged women with trauma exposure had a greater volume of white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) than those without trauma. In addition, the differences persisted even after adjusting for depressive or post-traumatic stress symptoms. 

WMHs are “an important indicator of small vessel disease in the brain and have been linked to future stroke risk, dementia risk, and mortality,” lead investigator Rebecca Thurston, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, told this news organization.

“What I take from this is, really, that sexual assault has implications for women’s health, far beyond exclusively mental health outcomes, but also for their cardiovascular health, as we have shown in other work and for their stroke and dementia risk as we are seeing in the present work,” Dr. Thurston added.

The study was presented at the North American Menopause Society (NAMS) Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., and has been accepted for publication in the journal Brain Imaging and Behavior.
 

Beyond the usual suspects

As part of the study, 145 women (mean age, 59 years) free of clinical cardiovascular disease, stroke, or dementia provided their medical history, including history of traumatic experiences, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder and underwent magnetic resonance brain imaging for WMHs.

More than two-thirds (68%) of the women reported at least one trauma, most commonly sexual assault (23%).

In multivariate analysis, women with trauma exposure had greater WMH volume than women without trauma (P = .01), with sexual assault most strongly associated with greater WMH volume (P = .02).

The associations persisted after adjusting for depressive or post-traumatic stress symptoms.

“A history of sexual assault was particularly related to white matter hyperintensities in the parietal lobe, and these kinds of white matter hyperintensities have been linked to Alzheimer’s disease in a fairly pronounced way,” Dr. Thurston said.

“When we think about risk factors for stroke, dementia, we need to think beyond exclusively our usual suspects and also think about women [who experienced] psychological trauma and experienced sexual assault in particular. So ask about it and consider it part of your screening regimen,” she added.
 

‘Burgeoning’ literature

Commenting on the findings, Charles Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, and director of its Institute for Early Life Adversity Research, said the research adds to the “burgeoning literature on the long term neurobiological consequences of trauma and more specifically, sexual abuse, on brain imaging measures.”

“Our group and others reported several years ago that patients with mood disorders, more specifically bipolar disorder and major depression, had higher rates of WMH than matched controls. Those older studies did not control for a history of early life adversity such as childhood maltreatment,” Dr. Nemeroff said.

“In addition to this finding of increased WMH in subjects exposed to trauma is a very large literature documenting other central nervous system (CNS) changes in this population, including cortical thinning in certain brain areas and clearly an emerging finding that different forms of childhood maltreatment are associated with quite distinct structural brain alterations in adulthood,” he noted. 

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Thurston and Dr. Nemeroff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Traumatic experiences, especially sexual assault, may put women at greater risk for poor brain health.

In the Ms Brain study, middle-aged women with trauma exposure had a greater volume of white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) than those without trauma. In addition, the differences persisted even after adjusting for depressive or post-traumatic stress symptoms. 

WMHs are “an important indicator of small vessel disease in the brain and have been linked to future stroke risk, dementia risk, and mortality,” lead investigator Rebecca Thurston, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, told this news organization.

“What I take from this is, really, that sexual assault has implications for women’s health, far beyond exclusively mental health outcomes, but also for their cardiovascular health, as we have shown in other work and for their stroke and dementia risk as we are seeing in the present work,” Dr. Thurston added.

The study was presented at the North American Menopause Society (NAMS) Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., and has been accepted for publication in the journal Brain Imaging and Behavior.
 

Beyond the usual suspects

As part of the study, 145 women (mean age, 59 years) free of clinical cardiovascular disease, stroke, or dementia provided their medical history, including history of traumatic experiences, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder and underwent magnetic resonance brain imaging for WMHs.

More than two-thirds (68%) of the women reported at least one trauma, most commonly sexual assault (23%).

In multivariate analysis, women with trauma exposure had greater WMH volume than women without trauma (P = .01), with sexual assault most strongly associated with greater WMH volume (P = .02).

The associations persisted after adjusting for depressive or post-traumatic stress symptoms.

“A history of sexual assault was particularly related to white matter hyperintensities in the parietal lobe, and these kinds of white matter hyperintensities have been linked to Alzheimer’s disease in a fairly pronounced way,” Dr. Thurston said.

“When we think about risk factors for stroke, dementia, we need to think beyond exclusively our usual suspects and also think about women [who experienced] psychological trauma and experienced sexual assault in particular. So ask about it and consider it part of your screening regimen,” she added.
 

‘Burgeoning’ literature

Commenting on the findings, Charles Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, and director of its Institute for Early Life Adversity Research, said the research adds to the “burgeoning literature on the long term neurobiological consequences of trauma and more specifically, sexual abuse, on brain imaging measures.”

“Our group and others reported several years ago that patients with mood disorders, more specifically bipolar disorder and major depression, had higher rates of WMH than matched controls. Those older studies did not control for a history of early life adversity such as childhood maltreatment,” Dr. Nemeroff said.

“In addition to this finding of increased WMH in subjects exposed to trauma is a very large literature documenting other central nervous system (CNS) changes in this population, including cortical thinning in certain brain areas and clearly an emerging finding that different forms of childhood maltreatment are associated with quite distinct structural brain alterations in adulthood,” he noted. 

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Thurston and Dr. Nemeroff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women who receive COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy pass antibodies to their babies, which could protect newborns from the disease, research has shown.

In a new study that examines umbilical cord blood from 36 deliveries, researchers provide additional evidence that vaccines – and not COVID-19 infections – elicited the antibodies detected in this cohort.

Researchers with New York University Langone Health conducted a study that included pregnant women who had received at least one dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna) by June 4.

All neonates had antibodies to the spike protein at high titers, the researchers found.

Unlike similar prior studies, the researchers also looked for antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, which would have indicated the presence of antibodies from natural COVID-19 infection. They did not detect antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, and the lack of these antibodies suggests that the antibodies to the spike protein resulted from vaccination and not from prior infection, the researchers said.

The participants had a median time from completion of the vaccine series to delivery of 13 weeks. The study was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM.

“The presence of these anti-spike antibodies in the cord blood should, at least in theory, offer these newborns some degree of protection,” said study investigator Ashley S. Roman, MD, director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine at NYU Langone Health. “While the primary rationale for vaccination during pregnancy is to keep moms healthy and keep moms out of the hospital, the outstanding question to us was whether there is any fetal or neonatal benefit conferred by receiving the vaccine during pregnancy.”

Questions remain about the degree and durability of protection for newborns from these antibodies. An ongoing study, MOMI-VAX, aims to systematically measure antibody levels in mothers who receive COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy and in their babies over time.

The present study contributes welcome preliminary evidence suggesting a benefit to infants, said Emily Adhikari, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not involved in the study.

Still, “the main concern and our priority as obstetricians is to vaccinate pregnant women to protect them from severe or critical illness,” she said.

Although most individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 recover, a significant portion of pregnant women get seriously sick, Dr. Adhikari said. “With this recent Delta surge, we are seeing more pregnant patients who are sicker,” said Dr. Adhikari, who has published research from one hospital describing this trend.

When weighing whether patients should receive COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy, the risks from infection have outweighed any risk from vaccination to such an extent that there is “not a comparison to make,” Dr. Adhikari said. “The risks of the infection are so much higher.

“For me, it is a matter of making sure that my patient understands that we have really good safety data on these vaccines and there is no reason to think that a pregnant person would be harmed by them. On the contrary, the benefit is to protect and maybe even save your life,” Dr. Adhikari said. “And now we have more evidence that the fetus may also benefit.”

The rationale for vaccinations during pregnancy can vary, Dr. Roman said. Flu shots in pregnancy mainly are intended to protect the mother, though they confer protection for newborns as well. With the whooping cough vaccine given in the third trimester, however, the primary aim is to protect the baby from whooping cough in the first months of life, Dr. Roman said.

“I think it is really important for pregnant women to understand that antibodies crossing the placenta is a good thing,” she added.

As patients who already have received COVID-19 vaccines become pregnant and may become eligible for a booster dose, Dr. Adhikari will offer it, she said, though she has confidence in the protection provided by the initial immune response.

Dr. Roman and Dr. Adhikari had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Women who receive COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy pass antibodies to their babies, which could protect newborns from the disease, research has shown.

In a new study that examines umbilical cord blood from 36 deliveries, researchers provide additional evidence that vaccines – and not COVID-19 infections – elicited the antibodies detected in this cohort.

Researchers with New York University Langone Health conducted a study that included pregnant women who had received at least one dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna) by June 4.

All neonates had antibodies to the spike protein at high titers, the researchers found.

Unlike similar prior studies, the researchers also looked for antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, which would have indicated the presence of antibodies from natural COVID-19 infection. They did not detect antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, and the lack of these antibodies suggests that the antibodies to the spike protein resulted from vaccination and not from prior infection, the researchers said.

The participants had a median time from completion of the vaccine series to delivery of 13 weeks. The study was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM.

“The presence of these anti-spike antibodies in the cord blood should, at least in theory, offer these newborns some degree of protection,” said study investigator Ashley S. Roman, MD, director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine at NYU Langone Health. “While the primary rationale for vaccination during pregnancy is to keep moms healthy and keep moms out of the hospital, the outstanding question to us was whether there is any fetal or neonatal benefit conferred by receiving the vaccine during pregnancy.”

Questions remain about the degree and durability of protection for newborns from these antibodies. An ongoing study, MOMI-VAX, aims to systematically measure antibody levels in mothers who receive COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy and in their babies over time.

The present study contributes welcome preliminary evidence suggesting a benefit to infants, said Emily Adhikari, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not involved in the study.

Still, “the main concern and our priority as obstetricians is to vaccinate pregnant women to protect them from severe or critical illness,” she said.

Although most individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 recover, a significant portion of pregnant women get seriously sick, Dr. Adhikari said. “With this recent Delta surge, we are seeing more pregnant patients who are sicker,” said Dr. Adhikari, who has published research from one hospital describing this trend.

When weighing whether patients should receive COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy, the risks from infection have outweighed any risk from vaccination to such an extent that there is “not a comparison to make,” Dr. Adhikari said. “The risks of the infection are so much higher.

“For me, it is a matter of making sure that my patient understands that we have really good safety data on these vaccines and there is no reason to think that a pregnant person would be harmed by them. On the contrary, the benefit is to protect and maybe even save your life,” Dr. Adhikari said. “And now we have more evidence that the fetus may also benefit.”

The rationale for vaccinations during pregnancy can vary, Dr. Roman said. Flu shots in pregnancy mainly are intended to protect the mother, though they confer protection for newborns as well. With the whooping cough vaccine given in the third trimester, however, the primary aim is to protect the baby from whooping cough in the first months of life, Dr. Roman said.

“I think it is really important for pregnant women to understand that antibodies crossing the placenta is a good thing,” she added.

As patients who already have received COVID-19 vaccines become pregnant and may become eligible for a booster dose, Dr. Adhikari will offer it, she said, though she has confidence in the protection provided by the initial immune response.

Dr. Roman and Dr. Adhikari had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Women who receive COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy pass antibodies to their babies, which could protect newborns from the disease, research has shown.

In a new study that examines umbilical cord blood from 36 deliveries, researchers provide additional evidence that vaccines – and not COVID-19 infections – elicited the antibodies detected in this cohort.

Researchers with New York University Langone Health conducted a study that included pregnant women who had received at least one dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna) by June 4.

All neonates had antibodies to the spike protein at high titers, the researchers found.

Unlike similar prior studies, the researchers also looked for antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, which would have indicated the presence of antibodies from natural COVID-19 infection. They did not detect antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, and the lack of these antibodies suggests that the antibodies to the spike protein resulted from vaccination and not from prior infection, the researchers said.

The participants had a median time from completion of the vaccine series to delivery of 13 weeks. The study was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM.

“The presence of these anti-spike antibodies in the cord blood should, at least in theory, offer these newborns some degree of protection,” said study investigator Ashley S. Roman, MD, director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine at NYU Langone Health. “While the primary rationale for vaccination during pregnancy is to keep moms healthy and keep moms out of the hospital, the outstanding question to us was whether there is any fetal or neonatal benefit conferred by receiving the vaccine during pregnancy.”

Questions remain about the degree and durability of protection for newborns from these antibodies. An ongoing study, MOMI-VAX, aims to systematically measure antibody levels in mothers who receive COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy and in their babies over time.

The present study contributes welcome preliminary evidence suggesting a benefit to infants, said Emily Adhikari, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not involved in the study.

Still, “the main concern and our priority as obstetricians is to vaccinate pregnant women to protect them from severe or critical illness,” she said.

Although most individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 recover, a significant portion of pregnant women get seriously sick, Dr. Adhikari said. “With this recent Delta surge, we are seeing more pregnant patients who are sicker,” said Dr. Adhikari, who has published research from one hospital describing this trend.

When weighing whether patients should receive COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy, the risks from infection have outweighed any risk from vaccination to such an extent that there is “not a comparison to make,” Dr. Adhikari said. “The risks of the infection are so much higher.

“For me, it is a matter of making sure that my patient understands that we have really good safety data on these vaccines and there is no reason to think that a pregnant person would be harmed by them. On the contrary, the benefit is to protect and maybe even save your life,” Dr. Adhikari said. “And now we have more evidence that the fetus may also benefit.”

The rationale for vaccinations during pregnancy can vary, Dr. Roman said. Flu shots in pregnancy mainly are intended to protect the mother, though they confer protection for newborns as well. With the whooping cough vaccine given in the third trimester, however, the primary aim is to protect the baby from whooping cough in the first months of life, Dr. Roman said.

“I think it is really important for pregnant women to understand that antibodies crossing the placenta is a good thing,” she added.

As patients who already have received COVID-19 vaccines become pregnant and may become eligible for a booster dose, Dr. Adhikari will offer it, she said, though she has confidence in the protection provided by the initial immune response.

Dr. Roman and Dr. Adhikari had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Teens are identifying as transgender in record numbers. In 2017, 3-4 in 100 teens in the United States reported that they are or may be transgender. A more recent 2021 study suggests that the rate of transgender identification among America’s youth may be as high as 9 in 100. All of the major gender centers in the world have reported a several-thousand-percent increase in youth presenting with gender distress.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

How do we reconcile these numbers with 2013 data reporting the prevalence of adult gender dysphoria to be a rare 2-14 in 100,000? Reflection is warranted because many U.S. medical societies support providing youth who have transgender identification (over 1 million children and adolescents, using the latest estimates) with access to powerful endocrine interventions.

GnRH analogues (colloquially known as “puberty blockers”) are now available at Tanner stage 2 of puberty – a threshold crossed by females as young as 8-9 years old. Cross-sex hormones and surgeries follow, and mastectomies are now available to children as young as 13. Genital-altering surgeries, as well as the removal of the ovaries, uterus, and testes, can be obtained as soon as a patient turns 18.

What’s driving this massive increase in trans-identified youth? What are the risks, benefits, and uncertainties associated with hormonal and surgical interventions? Do such interventions improve the long-term psychological health of gender-dysphoric youth? How many will regret the irreversible changes made to their bodies during what may have been a temporary phase in their development?

We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we need to figure them out before offering such interventions. Frontline clinicians – especially those working with youth – will not be able to remain on the sidelines of this issue for much longer. Each clinician considering writing a prescription for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or generating a referral for surgery, will need to answer for themselves: Just because I can, does it mean I should?

What’s contributing to the rapid rise of gender-dysphoric youth?

The etiology of the rapid rise of transgender identifications in young people is vigorously debated. Proponents of hormonal and surgical interventions for youth argue that the several-thousand-percent increase in the numbers of youth seeking gender reassignment is a reflection of more social acceptance of transgender identities, allowing more young people to “come out.” But closer examination of this claim reveals several inconsistencies.

Because adolescent and young adult females now account for 6-8 in 10 of the presenting cases (previously, prepubertal males were more common), one would expect a commensurate increase in the rate of transgender identification in older females. This has not occurred. In addition, more than three-quarters of currently presenting cases have significant mental health problems or suffer from neurocognitive comorbidities such as autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – a much higher burden of mental health comorbidities than the historical cohort with gender dysphoria.

There is legitimate concern that these comorbid mental health conditions, as well as the influence of social groups and online immersion into transgender topics, may be playing a role in the rapidly growing rate of transgender identification among these particularly vulnerable youth.

The initial study positing the theory that social influence is playing a role in the increased incidence of “late” or adolescent-onset (vs. childhood-onset) transgender-identified youth was harshly attacked by proponents of medical transitioning of youth, despite the fact that the study utilized methods similar to those used in other areas of health research. The study underwent an unprecedented second peer review and emerged with largely unchanged conclusions.

Since the study’s publication, a number of mental health clinicians working directly with gender-distressed youth have corroborated a rapid onset of transgender identification among teens with previously gender-normative childhoods.

Pioneers in gender dysphoria treatment are changing course

Several European countries that were pioneers in pediatric medical transition are now reversing course toward far more caution after their own evidence evaluations failed to show that medically transitioning gender-distressed youth improves mental health outcomes. In Sweden, following Karolinska Hospital’s announcement that it will no longer transition people under 18 outside of strictly regulated clinical trials, a number of other pediatric gender clinics followed suit and made the same decision.

In the United Kingdom, Keira Bell – a young woman who was treated with “affirmative” hormonal and surgical interventions before detransitioning – brought a challenge against the national gender clinic. Her landmark case and the UK High Court’s original judgement against the clinic have highlighted the urgency to reassess treatment approaches for the increasingly varied presentations of gender dysphoria in young people. As this article went to press, the UK’s national gender clinic won its appeal against Keira Bell, meaning that doctors there will once again be able to decide whether their patients under 16 can properly consent to puberty blockers. Keira Bell said she is disappointed with this decision and will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. She said the medical service had become “politicized,” and added: “A global conversation has begun and has been shaped by this case. It has shone a light into the dark corners of a medical scandal that is harming children and harmed me. There is more to be done.”

And the UK National Health Service (NHS) has already commissioned an independent systematic review of data, which concluded that the evidence of benefit of hormonal interventions in gender dysphoric youth is of very low certainty and must be carefully weighed against the risks. An independent taskforce has also been convened to reassess the country’s approach to treating gender dysphoric youth.

Finland has arguably undertaken the biggest change of all. An early adopter of pediatric medical transition, researchers there noticed that adolescents who had mental health struggles at baseline failed to improve after transition. The Finnish national Gender Identity Development services issued new treatment guidelines in 2020 stating that psychotherapy, rather than gender reassignment, should be the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

Leaders of America’s medical societies have been slower to respond. Recently, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine applied to share information about youth gender transitions at the yearly meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The application was denied without explanation, despite the fact that 80% of rank-and-file pediatricians who voted on AAP resolutions days earlier endorsed a resolution calling for a reassessment of the evidence and more caution regarding gender transitions of minors.

The AAP leadership apparently ignored the resounding support for this resolution, but the clear message from that vote is that frontline pediatricians do not agree with the “one size fits all” approach of automatically affirming gender-distressed youth as transgender and proceeding to gender reassignment.

What we know and don’t know


There is now growing evidence that the “gender-affirming” model, based on the unproven assumption that gender reassignment is the best way to help gender-distressed youth, is not living up to its promise. This should not be surprising. Despite more than 50 years of experience with mature adult gender transitions, there is a lack of convincing evidence that transitions improve the psychological functioning of those with gender dysphoria, and studies on regret have been plagued by high dropout rates that prevent meaningful conclusions for practitioners and patients alike. Pediatric transitions are a much more recent phenomenon, with little to no quality data to guide decision-making.

We are witnessing a growing number of vocal regretters who underwent gender reassignment as teens and young adults under “gender-affirming” care protocols in recent years. A review of stories on the subreddit r/detrans, which counts over 20,000 members (not all are detransitioners, as the forum is open to those fully detransitioned, partially detransitioned, desisted [those who identified as transgender for a period of time in their youth but no longer do], and questioning their transition) is flush with first-hand accounts of regret and should be mandatory reading for any clinician who is considering becoming a prescriber of gender-affirmative care.  

Here is a brief outline of what we know – and more importantly, what we don’t know – about the practice of medically transitioning minors.

Most cases of early childhood-onset gender dysphoria self-resolve. Eleven out of 11 studies that followed the trajectory of gender-variant youth show that the most common outcome is natural resolution of gender dysphoria around or after puberty. Among those diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, 67% no longer met the diagnostic criteria as adults; among those subthreshold for diagnosis, 93% were not gender dysphoric as adults. Gender dysphoria in childhood is a far better predictor of future homosexuality than of future trans identity.

The future trajectory of people whose transgender identity emerged during or after puberty is entirely unknown. No one has studied future trajectories of patients whose transgender identity emerged for the first time after the onset of puberty – a previously rare but now increasingly common presentation. Growing numbers of young detransitioners and desisters are precisely from this demographic, suggesting that a transgender identity that emerges in adolescence may not be durable.

Social transition does not improve mental health outcomes. Recent studies show that while socially transitioned children can thrive in the short term, they do not fare any better than their non–socially transitioned dysphoric peers. It appears that peer relations, not the social transition status, predict mental health in gender-dysphoric children. We don’t yet know the long-term trajectories of socially transitioned minors, but emerging evidence suggests that they may be more likely to persist with gender-related distress rather than outgrow it, as previously observed. This in turn necessitates decades of invasive and risky medical interventions. In fact, the Dutch researchers who pioneered the protocol used to medically transition minors explicitly and strongly discouraged social transition of children and early adolescents.

Nearly 100% of children who begin puberty blockers will proceed to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. The two main studies that have evaluated the effects of puberty blockers on mental health found no improvements or improvements of marginal clinical significance. Both studies are also at critical risk of bias due to the absence of control groups.

Four additional studies looking at the mental health effects of puberty blockers were plagued by design limitations and also failed to show any convincing positive effects on psychological health. However, one effect of puberty blockers has been consistently replicated: At least four studies show that virtually all of the children who start puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones. This suggests that rather than being a pause button, puberty blockers may serve as the “gas pedal” for gender transition.

Most of the long-term health risks are largely unknown. No long-term studies exist of patients who underwent medical transition as teens or young adults. Therefore, our ability to assess risks vs. benefits is limited. Puberty blockers have been demonstrated to significantly impair bone health, and it is not clear whether this will result in future osteoporosis. Cross-sex hormones are associated with roughly 3-5 times the risk for heart attacks and strokes, though long-term studies are of insufficient quality for accurate risk assessments. Other risks associated with these endocrine interventions will come to light as the practice continues to scale and as young people spend years and decades on these interventions. The risks to fertility are largely unknown, but it is almost certain that if puberty blockers are given at the early stages of puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones, sterility will result.

The medical pathway of “affirmative care” rests on a single Dutch study that is not applicable to the current populations of gender-dysphoric youth. Most of the youth presenting for care today would have been explicitly disqualified by the original Dutch protocol, as most have significant mental health comorbidities and post-puberty onset of trans identities. This fact has been recognized by the principal investigators of the Dutch protocol itself, who have recently begun to sound the alarm about the potential misapplication of their protocol and who suggest that psychotherapy – rather than gender reassignment – is more appropriate for many of the currently presenting cases.

On suicidality

The urgency to put gender-dysphoric youth through gender reassignment despite the dearth of evidence appears to stem from the notion that if we don’t intervene medically and in short order, these youth will commit suicide. However, studies using quality data reveal a markedly different reality.

While gender-dysphoric youth do have elevated rates of suicidality, it’s not uniquely high. In fact, it’s roughly similar to the rate of suicidality found in populations of youth referred for other mental health conditions. Quality long-term studies that explored whether transition leads to reduced suicidality have not been able to demonstrate a reduction.

Medicine has a pattern of enthusiastically embracing unproven medical interventions, only to find out years or decades later that the harms from those interventions outweigh the benefits. We owe it to our patients to be transparent about the limits of our knowledge and the fact that the “affirmative care” pathway is largely irreversible.

When the benefits of an intervention have not been shown to outweigh the risks, medical ethics dictate that such interventions should not occur outside of clinical trials. We must not conflate medical care for gender-dysphoric youth with experimental and risky interventions that are based on low-quality evidence. It’s time to hit pause on gender transitions for youth.

A brief history of the Dutch protocol

Before the mid-1990s, medical transition was primarily reserved for mature adults. However, noting the “never-disappearing masculine appearance” of many adult male transitioners, a team of Dutch researchers hypothesized that it might be appropriate to provide early intervention to a carefully selected group of adolescents before the irreversible physical changes of puberty occur.

To differentiate the majority of gender-dysphoric children who would outgrow their cross-sex identification by adulthood from the few who would probably not have resolution and would wish to transition later in life, the Dutch gender clinic designed a rigorous screening protocol, with multidisciplinary teams closely following prospective candidates for several years.

To qualify for early intervention, the adolescents had to have had persistent and severe cross-sex identification from early childhood (cases of adolescent-onset trans identity were disqualified); the distress had to worsen during puberty; and the adolescents had to be free from any other significant mental health conditions. For qualifying adolescents, puberty blockers were initiated no earlier than 12 years of age, cross-sex hormones at 16, and surgeries upon turning 18. Ongoing psychotherapy was provided through the entire assessment and intervention period.

The Dutch team published the final results of their research in 2014. The authors reported that at the average age of 21 (approximately 1.5 years post surgery), the young people were free from gender dysphoria and functioning well. Despite a postsurgical death from infection, several new diagnoses of metabolic illness, and multiple dropouts, the Western world enthusiastically embraced the early-intervention model. Concerningly, the only attempt to replicate the Dutch protocol outside of the Netherlands failed to show any psychological improvements, and to date, no long-term outcome data are available for the cohort of the 55 treated Dutch adolescents.

These progressively irreversible interventions form the basis of the “Dutch Protocol.” Currently, this protocol is being scaled in ways it was never designed for. For example, it strongly discouraged childhood social transition and did not transition adolescents with postpubertal onset of transgender identity or those with significant mental health comorbidities. Yet, treating such cases with the interventions outlined in the Dutch protocol is now common, and the age of eligibility for hormonal and surgical interventions has progressively lowered, with children as young as 8 now eligible to begin puberty blockers.

William Malone, MD, is an assistant professor of endocrinology practicing in Southern Idaho and an adviser to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Teens are identifying as transgender in record numbers. In 2017, 3-4 in 100 teens in the United States reported that they are or may be transgender. A more recent 2021 study suggests that the rate of transgender identification among America’s youth may be as high as 9 in 100. All of the major gender centers in the world have reported a several-thousand-percent increase in youth presenting with gender distress.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

How do we reconcile these numbers with 2013 data reporting the prevalence of adult gender dysphoria to be a rare 2-14 in 100,000? Reflection is warranted because many U.S. medical societies support providing youth who have transgender identification (over 1 million children and adolescents, using the latest estimates) with access to powerful endocrine interventions.

GnRH analogues (colloquially known as “puberty blockers”) are now available at Tanner stage 2 of puberty – a threshold crossed by females as young as 8-9 years old. Cross-sex hormones and surgeries follow, and mastectomies are now available to children as young as 13. Genital-altering surgeries, as well as the removal of the ovaries, uterus, and testes, can be obtained as soon as a patient turns 18.

What’s driving this massive increase in trans-identified youth? What are the risks, benefits, and uncertainties associated with hormonal and surgical interventions? Do such interventions improve the long-term psychological health of gender-dysphoric youth? How many will regret the irreversible changes made to their bodies during what may have been a temporary phase in their development?

We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we need to figure them out before offering such interventions. Frontline clinicians – especially those working with youth – will not be able to remain on the sidelines of this issue for much longer. Each clinician considering writing a prescription for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or generating a referral for surgery, will need to answer for themselves: Just because I can, does it mean I should?

What’s contributing to the rapid rise of gender-dysphoric youth?

The etiology of the rapid rise of transgender identifications in young people is vigorously debated. Proponents of hormonal and surgical interventions for youth argue that the several-thousand-percent increase in the numbers of youth seeking gender reassignment is a reflection of more social acceptance of transgender identities, allowing more young people to “come out.” But closer examination of this claim reveals several inconsistencies.

Because adolescent and young adult females now account for 6-8 in 10 of the presenting cases (previously, prepubertal males were more common), one would expect a commensurate increase in the rate of transgender identification in older females. This has not occurred. In addition, more than three-quarters of currently presenting cases have significant mental health problems or suffer from neurocognitive comorbidities such as autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – a much higher burden of mental health comorbidities than the historical cohort with gender dysphoria.

There is legitimate concern that these comorbid mental health conditions, as well as the influence of social groups and online immersion into transgender topics, may be playing a role in the rapidly growing rate of transgender identification among these particularly vulnerable youth.

The initial study positing the theory that social influence is playing a role in the increased incidence of “late” or adolescent-onset (vs. childhood-onset) transgender-identified youth was harshly attacked by proponents of medical transitioning of youth, despite the fact that the study utilized methods similar to those used in other areas of health research. The study underwent an unprecedented second peer review and emerged with largely unchanged conclusions.

Since the study’s publication, a number of mental health clinicians working directly with gender-distressed youth have corroborated a rapid onset of transgender identification among teens with previously gender-normative childhoods.

Pioneers in gender dysphoria treatment are changing course

Several European countries that were pioneers in pediatric medical transition are now reversing course toward far more caution after their own evidence evaluations failed to show that medically transitioning gender-distressed youth improves mental health outcomes. In Sweden, following Karolinska Hospital’s announcement that it will no longer transition people under 18 outside of strictly regulated clinical trials, a number of other pediatric gender clinics followed suit and made the same decision.

In the United Kingdom, Keira Bell – a young woman who was treated with “affirmative” hormonal and surgical interventions before detransitioning – brought a challenge against the national gender clinic. Her landmark case and the UK High Court’s original judgement against the clinic have highlighted the urgency to reassess treatment approaches for the increasingly varied presentations of gender dysphoria in young people. As this article went to press, the UK’s national gender clinic won its appeal against Keira Bell, meaning that doctors there will once again be able to decide whether their patients under 16 can properly consent to puberty blockers. Keira Bell said she is disappointed with this decision and will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. She said the medical service had become “politicized,” and added: “A global conversation has begun and has been shaped by this case. It has shone a light into the dark corners of a medical scandal that is harming children and harmed me. There is more to be done.”

And the UK National Health Service (NHS) has already commissioned an independent systematic review of data, which concluded that the evidence of benefit of hormonal interventions in gender dysphoric youth is of very low certainty and must be carefully weighed against the risks. An independent taskforce has also been convened to reassess the country’s approach to treating gender dysphoric youth.

Finland has arguably undertaken the biggest change of all. An early adopter of pediatric medical transition, researchers there noticed that adolescents who had mental health struggles at baseline failed to improve after transition. The Finnish national Gender Identity Development services issued new treatment guidelines in 2020 stating that psychotherapy, rather than gender reassignment, should be the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

Leaders of America’s medical societies have been slower to respond. Recently, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine applied to share information about youth gender transitions at the yearly meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The application was denied without explanation, despite the fact that 80% of rank-and-file pediatricians who voted on AAP resolutions days earlier endorsed a resolution calling for a reassessment of the evidence and more caution regarding gender transitions of minors.

The AAP leadership apparently ignored the resounding support for this resolution, but the clear message from that vote is that frontline pediatricians do not agree with the “one size fits all” approach of automatically affirming gender-distressed youth as transgender and proceeding to gender reassignment.

What we know and don’t know


There is now growing evidence that the “gender-affirming” model, based on the unproven assumption that gender reassignment is the best way to help gender-distressed youth, is not living up to its promise. This should not be surprising. Despite more than 50 years of experience with mature adult gender transitions, there is a lack of convincing evidence that transitions improve the psychological functioning of those with gender dysphoria, and studies on regret have been plagued by high dropout rates that prevent meaningful conclusions for practitioners and patients alike. Pediatric transitions are a much more recent phenomenon, with little to no quality data to guide decision-making.

We are witnessing a growing number of vocal regretters who underwent gender reassignment as teens and young adults under “gender-affirming” care protocols in recent years. A review of stories on the subreddit r/detrans, which counts over 20,000 members (not all are detransitioners, as the forum is open to those fully detransitioned, partially detransitioned, desisted [those who identified as transgender for a period of time in their youth but no longer do], and questioning their transition) is flush with first-hand accounts of regret and should be mandatory reading for any clinician who is considering becoming a prescriber of gender-affirmative care.  

Here is a brief outline of what we know – and more importantly, what we don’t know – about the practice of medically transitioning minors.

Most cases of early childhood-onset gender dysphoria self-resolve. Eleven out of 11 studies that followed the trajectory of gender-variant youth show that the most common outcome is natural resolution of gender dysphoria around or after puberty. Among those diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, 67% no longer met the diagnostic criteria as adults; among those subthreshold for diagnosis, 93% were not gender dysphoric as adults. Gender dysphoria in childhood is a far better predictor of future homosexuality than of future trans identity.

The future trajectory of people whose transgender identity emerged during or after puberty is entirely unknown. No one has studied future trajectories of patients whose transgender identity emerged for the first time after the onset of puberty – a previously rare but now increasingly common presentation. Growing numbers of young detransitioners and desisters are precisely from this demographic, suggesting that a transgender identity that emerges in adolescence may not be durable.

Social transition does not improve mental health outcomes. Recent studies show that while socially transitioned children can thrive in the short term, they do not fare any better than their non–socially transitioned dysphoric peers. It appears that peer relations, not the social transition status, predict mental health in gender-dysphoric children. We don’t yet know the long-term trajectories of socially transitioned minors, but emerging evidence suggests that they may be more likely to persist with gender-related distress rather than outgrow it, as previously observed. This in turn necessitates decades of invasive and risky medical interventions. In fact, the Dutch researchers who pioneered the protocol used to medically transition minors explicitly and strongly discouraged social transition of children and early adolescents.

Nearly 100% of children who begin puberty blockers will proceed to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. The two main studies that have evaluated the effects of puberty blockers on mental health found no improvements or improvements of marginal clinical significance. Both studies are also at critical risk of bias due to the absence of control groups.

Four additional studies looking at the mental health effects of puberty blockers were plagued by design limitations and also failed to show any convincing positive effects on psychological health. However, one effect of puberty blockers has been consistently replicated: At least four studies show that virtually all of the children who start puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones. This suggests that rather than being a pause button, puberty blockers may serve as the “gas pedal” for gender transition.

Most of the long-term health risks are largely unknown. No long-term studies exist of patients who underwent medical transition as teens or young adults. Therefore, our ability to assess risks vs. benefits is limited. Puberty blockers have been demonstrated to significantly impair bone health, and it is not clear whether this will result in future osteoporosis. Cross-sex hormones are associated with roughly 3-5 times the risk for heart attacks and strokes, though long-term studies are of insufficient quality for accurate risk assessments. Other risks associated with these endocrine interventions will come to light as the practice continues to scale and as young people spend years and decades on these interventions. The risks to fertility are largely unknown, but it is almost certain that if puberty blockers are given at the early stages of puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones, sterility will result.

The medical pathway of “affirmative care” rests on a single Dutch study that is not applicable to the current populations of gender-dysphoric youth. Most of the youth presenting for care today would have been explicitly disqualified by the original Dutch protocol, as most have significant mental health comorbidities and post-puberty onset of trans identities. This fact has been recognized by the principal investigators of the Dutch protocol itself, who have recently begun to sound the alarm about the potential misapplication of their protocol and who suggest that psychotherapy – rather than gender reassignment – is more appropriate for many of the currently presenting cases.

On suicidality

The urgency to put gender-dysphoric youth through gender reassignment despite the dearth of evidence appears to stem from the notion that if we don’t intervene medically and in short order, these youth will commit suicide. However, studies using quality data reveal a markedly different reality.

While gender-dysphoric youth do have elevated rates of suicidality, it’s not uniquely high. In fact, it’s roughly similar to the rate of suicidality found in populations of youth referred for other mental health conditions. Quality long-term studies that explored whether transition leads to reduced suicidality have not been able to demonstrate a reduction.

Medicine has a pattern of enthusiastically embracing unproven medical interventions, only to find out years or decades later that the harms from those interventions outweigh the benefits. We owe it to our patients to be transparent about the limits of our knowledge and the fact that the “affirmative care” pathway is largely irreversible.

When the benefits of an intervention have not been shown to outweigh the risks, medical ethics dictate that such interventions should not occur outside of clinical trials. We must not conflate medical care for gender-dysphoric youth with experimental and risky interventions that are based on low-quality evidence. It’s time to hit pause on gender transitions for youth.

A brief history of the Dutch protocol

Before the mid-1990s, medical transition was primarily reserved for mature adults. However, noting the “never-disappearing masculine appearance” of many adult male transitioners, a team of Dutch researchers hypothesized that it might be appropriate to provide early intervention to a carefully selected group of adolescents before the irreversible physical changes of puberty occur.

To differentiate the majority of gender-dysphoric children who would outgrow their cross-sex identification by adulthood from the few who would probably not have resolution and would wish to transition later in life, the Dutch gender clinic designed a rigorous screening protocol, with multidisciplinary teams closely following prospective candidates for several years.

To qualify for early intervention, the adolescents had to have had persistent and severe cross-sex identification from early childhood (cases of adolescent-onset trans identity were disqualified); the distress had to worsen during puberty; and the adolescents had to be free from any other significant mental health conditions. For qualifying adolescents, puberty blockers were initiated no earlier than 12 years of age, cross-sex hormones at 16, and surgeries upon turning 18. Ongoing psychotherapy was provided through the entire assessment and intervention period.

The Dutch team published the final results of their research in 2014. The authors reported that at the average age of 21 (approximately 1.5 years post surgery), the young people were free from gender dysphoria and functioning well. Despite a postsurgical death from infection, several new diagnoses of metabolic illness, and multiple dropouts, the Western world enthusiastically embraced the early-intervention model. Concerningly, the only attempt to replicate the Dutch protocol outside of the Netherlands failed to show any psychological improvements, and to date, no long-term outcome data are available for the cohort of the 55 treated Dutch adolescents.

These progressively irreversible interventions form the basis of the “Dutch Protocol.” Currently, this protocol is being scaled in ways it was never designed for. For example, it strongly discouraged childhood social transition and did not transition adolescents with postpubertal onset of transgender identity or those with significant mental health comorbidities. Yet, treating such cases with the interventions outlined in the Dutch protocol is now common, and the age of eligibility for hormonal and surgical interventions has progressively lowered, with children as young as 8 now eligible to begin puberty blockers.

William Malone, MD, is an assistant professor of endocrinology practicing in Southern Idaho and an adviser to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Teens are identifying as transgender in record numbers. In 2017, 3-4 in 100 teens in the United States reported that they are or may be transgender. A more recent 2021 study suggests that the rate of transgender identification among America’s youth may be as high as 9 in 100. All of the major gender centers in the world have reported a several-thousand-percent increase in youth presenting with gender distress.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

How do we reconcile these numbers with 2013 data reporting the prevalence of adult gender dysphoria to be a rare 2-14 in 100,000? Reflection is warranted because many U.S. medical societies support providing youth who have transgender identification (over 1 million children and adolescents, using the latest estimates) with access to powerful endocrine interventions.

GnRH analogues (colloquially known as “puberty blockers”) are now available at Tanner stage 2 of puberty – a threshold crossed by females as young as 8-9 years old. Cross-sex hormones and surgeries follow, and mastectomies are now available to children as young as 13. Genital-altering surgeries, as well as the removal of the ovaries, uterus, and testes, can be obtained as soon as a patient turns 18.

What’s driving this massive increase in trans-identified youth? What are the risks, benefits, and uncertainties associated with hormonal and surgical interventions? Do such interventions improve the long-term psychological health of gender-dysphoric youth? How many will regret the irreversible changes made to their bodies during what may have been a temporary phase in their development?

We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we need to figure them out before offering such interventions. Frontline clinicians – especially those working with youth – will not be able to remain on the sidelines of this issue for much longer. Each clinician considering writing a prescription for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or generating a referral for surgery, will need to answer for themselves: Just because I can, does it mean I should?

What’s contributing to the rapid rise of gender-dysphoric youth?

The etiology of the rapid rise of transgender identifications in young people is vigorously debated. Proponents of hormonal and surgical interventions for youth argue that the several-thousand-percent increase in the numbers of youth seeking gender reassignment is a reflection of more social acceptance of transgender identities, allowing more young people to “come out.” But closer examination of this claim reveals several inconsistencies.

Because adolescent and young adult females now account for 6-8 in 10 of the presenting cases (previously, prepubertal males were more common), one would expect a commensurate increase in the rate of transgender identification in older females. This has not occurred. In addition, more than three-quarters of currently presenting cases have significant mental health problems or suffer from neurocognitive comorbidities such as autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – a much higher burden of mental health comorbidities than the historical cohort with gender dysphoria.

There is legitimate concern that these comorbid mental health conditions, as well as the influence of social groups and online immersion into transgender topics, may be playing a role in the rapidly growing rate of transgender identification among these particularly vulnerable youth.

The initial study positing the theory that social influence is playing a role in the increased incidence of “late” or adolescent-onset (vs. childhood-onset) transgender-identified youth was harshly attacked by proponents of medical transitioning of youth, despite the fact that the study utilized methods similar to those used in other areas of health research. The study underwent an unprecedented second peer review and emerged with largely unchanged conclusions.

Since the study’s publication, a number of mental health clinicians working directly with gender-distressed youth have corroborated a rapid onset of transgender identification among teens with previously gender-normative childhoods.

Pioneers in gender dysphoria treatment are changing course

Several European countries that were pioneers in pediatric medical transition are now reversing course toward far more caution after their own evidence evaluations failed to show that medically transitioning gender-distressed youth improves mental health outcomes. In Sweden, following Karolinska Hospital’s announcement that it will no longer transition people under 18 outside of strictly regulated clinical trials, a number of other pediatric gender clinics followed suit and made the same decision.

In the United Kingdom, Keira Bell – a young woman who was treated with “affirmative” hormonal and surgical interventions before detransitioning – brought a challenge against the national gender clinic. Her landmark case and the UK High Court’s original judgement against the clinic have highlighted the urgency to reassess treatment approaches for the increasingly varied presentations of gender dysphoria in young people. As this article went to press, the UK’s national gender clinic won its appeal against Keira Bell, meaning that doctors there will once again be able to decide whether their patients under 16 can properly consent to puberty blockers. Keira Bell said she is disappointed with this decision and will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. She said the medical service had become “politicized,” and added: “A global conversation has begun and has been shaped by this case. It has shone a light into the dark corners of a medical scandal that is harming children and harmed me. There is more to be done.”

And the UK National Health Service (NHS) has already commissioned an independent systematic review of data, which concluded that the evidence of benefit of hormonal interventions in gender dysphoric youth is of very low certainty and must be carefully weighed against the risks. An independent taskforce has also been convened to reassess the country’s approach to treating gender dysphoric youth.

Finland has arguably undertaken the biggest change of all. An early adopter of pediatric medical transition, researchers there noticed that adolescents who had mental health struggles at baseline failed to improve after transition. The Finnish national Gender Identity Development services issued new treatment guidelines in 2020 stating that psychotherapy, rather than gender reassignment, should be the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

Leaders of America’s medical societies have been slower to respond. Recently, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine applied to share information about youth gender transitions at the yearly meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The application was denied without explanation, despite the fact that 80% of rank-and-file pediatricians who voted on AAP resolutions days earlier endorsed a resolution calling for a reassessment of the evidence and more caution regarding gender transitions of minors.

The AAP leadership apparently ignored the resounding support for this resolution, but the clear message from that vote is that frontline pediatricians do not agree with the “one size fits all” approach of automatically affirming gender-distressed youth as transgender and proceeding to gender reassignment.

What we know and don’t know


There is now growing evidence that the “gender-affirming” model, based on the unproven assumption that gender reassignment is the best way to help gender-distressed youth, is not living up to its promise. This should not be surprising. Despite more than 50 years of experience with mature adult gender transitions, there is a lack of convincing evidence that transitions improve the psychological functioning of those with gender dysphoria, and studies on regret have been plagued by high dropout rates that prevent meaningful conclusions for practitioners and patients alike. Pediatric transitions are a much more recent phenomenon, with little to no quality data to guide decision-making.

We are witnessing a growing number of vocal regretters who underwent gender reassignment as teens and young adults under “gender-affirming” care protocols in recent years. A review of stories on the subreddit r/detrans, which counts over 20,000 members (not all are detransitioners, as the forum is open to those fully detransitioned, partially detransitioned, desisted [those who identified as transgender for a period of time in their youth but no longer do], and questioning their transition) is flush with first-hand accounts of regret and should be mandatory reading for any clinician who is considering becoming a prescriber of gender-affirmative care.  

Here is a brief outline of what we know – and more importantly, what we don’t know – about the practice of medically transitioning minors.

Most cases of early childhood-onset gender dysphoria self-resolve. Eleven out of 11 studies that followed the trajectory of gender-variant youth show that the most common outcome is natural resolution of gender dysphoria around or after puberty. Among those diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, 67% no longer met the diagnostic criteria as adults; among those subthreshold for diagnosis, 93% were not gender dysphoric as adults. Gender dysphoria in childhood is a far better predictor of future homosexuality than of future trans identity.

The future trajectory of people whose transgender identity emerged during or after puberty is entirely unknown. No one has studied future trajectories of patients whose transgender identity emerged for the first time after the onset of puberty – a previously rare but now increasingly common presentation. Growing numbers of young detransitioners and desisters are precisely from this demographic, suggesting that a transgender identity that emerges in adolescence may not be durable.

Social transition does not improve mental health outcomes. Recent studies show that while socially transitioned children can thrive in the short term, they do not fare any better than their non–socially transitioned dysphoric peers. It appears that peer relations, not the social transition status, predict mental health in gender-dysphoric children. We don’t yet know the long-term trajectories of socially transitioned minors, but emerging evidence suggests that they may be more likely to persist with gender-related distress rather than outgrow it, as previously observed. This in turn necessitates decades of invasive and risky medical interventions. In fact, the Dutch researchers who pioneered the protocol used to medically transition minors explicitly and strongly discouraged social transition of children and early adolescents.

Nearly 100% of children who begin puberty blockers will proceed to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. The two main studies that have evaluated the effects of puberty blockers on mental health found no improvements or improvements of marginal clinical significance. Both studies are also at critical risk of bias due to the absence of control groups.

Four additional studies looking at the mental health effects of puberty blockers were plagued by design limitations and also failed to show any convincing positive effects on psychological health. However, one effect of puberty blockers has been consistently replicated: At least four studies show that virtually all of the children who start puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones. This suggests that rather than being a pause button, puberty blockers may serve as the “gas pedal” for gender transition.

Most of the long-term health risks are largely unknown. No long-term studies exist of patients who underwent medical transition as teens or young adults. Therefore, our ability to assess risks vs. benefits is limited. Puberty blockers have been demonstrated to significantly impair bone health, and it is not clear whether this will result in future osteoporosis. Cross-sex hormones are associated with roughly 3-5 times the risk for heart attacks and strokes, though long-term studies are of insufficient quality for accurate risk assessments. Other risks associated with these endocrine interventions will come to light as the practice continues to scale and as young people spend years and decades on these interventions. The risks to fertility are largely unknown, but it is almost certain that if puberty blockers are given at the early stages of puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones, sterility will result.

The medical pathway of “affirmative care” rests on a single Dutch study that is not applicable to the current populations of gender-dysphoric youth. Most of the youth presenting for care today would have been explicitly disqualified by the original Dutch protocol, as most have significant mental health comorbidities and post-puberty onset of trans identities. This fact has been recognized by the principal investigators of the Dutch protocol itself, who have recently begun to sound the alarm about the potential misapplication of their protocol and who suggest that psychotherapy – rather than gender reassignment – is more appropriate for many of the currently presenting cases.

On suicidality

The urgency to put gender-dysphoric youth through gender reassignment despite the dearth of evidence appears to stem from the notion that if we don’t intervene medically and in short order, these youth will commit suicide. However, studies using quality data reveal a markedly different reality.

While gender-dysphoric youth do have elevated rates of suicidality, it’s not uniquely high. In fact, it’s roughly similar to the rate of suicidality found in populations of youth referred for other mental health conditions. Quality long-term studies that explored whether transition leads to reduced suicidality have not been able to demonstrate a reduction.

Medicine has a pattern of enthusiastically embracing unproven medical interventions, only to find out years or decades later that the harms from those interventions outweigh the benefits. We owe it to our patients to be transparent about the limits of our knowledge and the fact that the “affirmative care” pathway is largely irreversible.

When the benefits of an intervention have not been shown to outweigh the risks, medical ethics dictate that such interventions should not occur outside of clinical trials. We must not conflate medical care for gender-dysphoric youth with experimental and risky interventions that are based on low-quality evidence. It’s time to hit pause on gender transitions for youth.

A brief history of the Dutch protocol

Before the mid-1990s, medical transition was primarily reserved for mature adults. However, noting the “never-disappearing masculine appearance” of many adult male transitioners, a team of Dutch researchers hypothesized that it might be appropriate to provide early intervention to a carefully selected group of adolescents before the irreversible physical changes of puberty occur.

To differentiate the majority of gender-dysphoric children who would outgrow their cross-sex identification by adulthood from the few who would probably not have resolution and would wish to transition later in life, the Dutch gender clinic designed a rigorous screening protocol, with multidisciplinary teams closely following prospective candidates for several years.

To qualify for early intervention, the adolescents had to have had persistent and severe cross-sex identification from early childhood (cases of adolescent-onset trans identity were disqualified); the distress had to worsen during puberty; and the adolescents had to be free from any other significant mental health conditions. For qualifying adolescents, puberty blockers were initiated no earlier than 12 years of age, cross-sex hormones at 16, and surgeries upon turning 18. Ongoing psychotherapy was provided through the entire assessment and intervention period.

The Dutch team published the final results of their research in 2014. The authors reported that at the average age of 21 (approximately 1.5 years post surgery), the young people were free from gender dysphoria and functioning well. Despite a postsurgical death from infection, several new diagnoses of metabolic illness, and multiple dropouts, the Western world enthusiastically embraced the early-intervention model. Concerningly, the only attempt to replicate the Dutch protocol outside of the Netherlands failed to show any psychological improvements, and to date, no long-term outcome data are available for the cohort of the 55 treated Dutch adolescents.

These progressively irreversible interventions form the basis of the “Dutch Protocol.” Currently, this protocol is being scaled in ways it was never designed for. For example, it strongly discouraged childhood social transition and did not transition adolescents with postpubertal onset of transgender identity or those with significant mental health comorbidities. Yet, treating such cases with the interventions outlined in the Dutch protocol is now common, and the age of eligibility for hormonal and surgical interventions has progressively lowered, with children as young as 8 now eligible to begin puberty blockers.

William Malone, MD, is an assistant professor of endocrinology practicing in Southern Idaho and an adviser to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant women should use paracetamol/acetaminophen only with a medical indication and at the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time, according to an international consensus statement published online Sept. 23 in Nature Reviews Endocrinology.

With global rates of use high and risks considered negligible, the expert panel of 13 U.S. and European authors call for focused research into how this analgesic and febrifuge may impair fetal development and lead to adverse outcomes in children. They outline several precautionary measures to be taken in the meantime.

According to first author and epidemiologist Ann Z. Bauer, ScD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Massachusetts in Lowell, and colleagues, this drug is used by an estimated 65% of pregnant women in the United States, and more than 50% worldwide. It is currently the active ingredient in more than 600 prescription and nonprescription medications, including Tylenol, which historically has been deemed safe in all trimesters of pregnancy.

But a growing body of experimental and epidemiological evidence suggests prenatal exposure to paracetamol (N-acetyl-p-aminophenol, or APAP) might alter fetal development and elevate the risks of neurodevelopmental, reproductive and urogenital disorders in both sexes. Exposure in utero has been linked, for example, to potential behavioral problems in children.

The new recommendations are based on a review of experimental animal and cell-based research as well as human epidemiological data published from January 1995 to October 2020. The authors include clinicians, epidemiologists, and scientists specializing in toxicology, endocrinology, reproductive medicine and neurodevelopment.
 

Recommendations

Although the new guidance does not differ markedly from current advice, the authors believe stronger communication and greater awareness of risks are needed. In addition to restricting use of this medication to low doses for short periods when medically necessary, expectant mothers should receive counseling before conception or early in pregnancy. If uncertain about its use, they should consult their physicians or pharmacists.

In other recommendations, the panel said:

• The 2015 FDA Drug Safety Communication recommendations should be updated based on evaluation of all available scientific evidence.
• The European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee should review the most recent epidemiologic and experimental research and issue an updated Drug Safety Communication.
• Obstetric and gynecological associations should update their guidance after reviewing all available research.
• The Acetaminophen Awareness Coalition (“Know Your Dose” Campaign) should add standardized warnings and specifically advise pregnant women to forgo APAP unless it’s medically indicated.
• All sales of APAP-containing medications should be accompanied by recommendations specifically for use in pregnancy. This information should include warning labels on packaging, and if possible, APAP should be sold only in pharmacies (as in France).

Mechanism of action

APAP is an endocrine disruptor (Neuroscientist. 2020 Sep 11. doi: 10.1177/1073858420952046). “Chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system are concerning because they can interfere with the activity of endogenous hormones that are essential for healthy neurological, urogenital, and reproductive development,” researchers wrote.

“The precise mechanism is not clear but its toxicity is thought to be due mainly to hormone disruption,” Dr. Bauer said in an interview.

Moreover, APAP readily crosses the placenta and blood–brain barrier, and changes in APAP metabolism during pregnancy might make women and their fetuses more vulnerable to its toxic effects. For instance, the molar dose fraction of APAP converted to the oxidative metabolite N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine increases during pregnancy. In addition to its hepatotoxicity, this poisonous byproduct is thought to be a genotoxin that increases DNA cleavage by acting on the enzyme topoisomerase II.

Asked for her perspective on the statement, Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, called the expert panel’s statement thoughtful and comprehensive, but she urged caution in interpreting the role of acetaminophen.

The challenge in linking any commonly used medication to adverse effects and congenital defects, she said, is “teasing out an association from causation. Given the commonality of the use of acetaminophen with the relative rarity of the outcomes, it is clear that not all cases of exposure result in adverse outcomes.”

As for judicious use, she said, one would be to reduce a high fever, which can cause miscarriage, neural tube defects, and potential heart disease in adulthood. Acetaminophen is the drug of choice in this case since nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen are not recommended owing to their known risks to the fetal heart.

Dr. Aagaard emphasized that while acetaminophen use is temporally associated with learning and behavioral problems, and urogenital disorders at birth in male infants such as like hypospadias, so is exposure to multiple environmental chemicals and pollutants, as well as climate change. “It would be a real mistake with real life implications if we associated any congenital disease or disorder with a commonly used medication with known benefits if the true causal link lies elsewhere.”

She said the precautionary statements fall into the time-honored therapeutic principle of first do no harm. “However, the call for research action must be undertaken earnestly and sincerely.”

According to Dr. Bauer, the statement’s essential take-home message is that “physicians should educate themselves and educate women about what we’re learning about the risks of acetaminophen in pregnancy.” Risk can be minimized by using the lowest effective dose for the shortest time and only when medically indicated. “Pregnant women should speak to their physicians about acetaminophen. It’s about empowerment and making smart decisions,” she said.

This study received no specific funding. Coauthor Dr. R.T. Mitchell is supported by a UK Research Institute fellowship.

Pregnant women should use paracetamol/acetaminophen only with a medical indication and at the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time, according to an international consensus statement published online Sept. 23 in Nature Reviews Endocrinology.