Ob.Gyn. News

Sexual harassment, bullying, and gender bias are still very real occupational hazards for ob.gyn. trainees and practitioners alike — even in this female-dominated field, a systematic evidence review found.

Published in JAMA Network Open, by Ankita Gupta, MD, MPH, a urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery specialist at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, and colleagues, the analysis found rates as high as 71% for sexual harassment, coercion, or unwanted advances. It also noted high rates of bullying, gender bias, and microaggressions. “We were struck by the continued high rates of harassment,” Dr. Gupta said in an interview. “Much of the literature within academic medicine has suggested the unequal distribution of women among medical specialties is the cause of sexual and gender harassment, but despite ob.gyns. being overwhelmingly female, we found that gender bias continues to occur at alarmingly high rates.”

Furthermore, among studies where this was reported, almost 25% of respondents had experienced sexual coercion. Not unexpectedly, this mistreatment often went unreported to institutional leadership out of fear of retaliation.

“We were also surprised to find a high rate of 51% for sexual harassment among male respondents as well, suggesting that both gender and power dynamics play a role in harassment,” Dr. Gupta said.

The primary perpetrators of unwanted behaviors were other doctors, overwhelmingly attending physicians, although residents and fellows were also identified as perpetrators, especially when harassment was reported by medical students, she added. “This once again points to the underreported abuse of professional power.” Women were rarely the perpetrators — just 10% — although they were the perpetrators in 57.7% of cases when the victim was male.

“Another interesting aspect of this is gender bias and microaggressions in the operating room,” she continued. While female surgeons often experience bias coming from OR staff, the review found that 94.4% of female ob.gyns. had been mistaken for non-physicians, 88.9% had pre-apologized for asking for something from a surgical technician or nurse, and 83.3% needed to make such requests multiple times. “These instances demonstrate gender bias in both male and female operating room staff toward female ob.gyns.”

Undermining and bullying behaviors are common in surgical specialties, Dr. Gupta explained, and the tantrums, swearing, and humiliation of trainees may be considered as much a rite of passage as the long hours. “As a trainee, you are taught to ignore such behavior as reporting it comes with fear of repercussions.”

This review bore this out, with only 8%-12% of respondents across studies reporting harassment and then predominantly to another trainee. “Sexual harassment and microaggressions can further lead to loss of career opportunities and burnout and I have come across many ob.gyns. who have chosen alternate paths owing to negative experiences,” Dr. Gupta said.

The Analysis

A joint effort by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and the and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, the analysis looked at existing literature from inception through June 2023.

A total of 10 eligible studies with 5852 participants addressed prevalence and 12 eligible studies in 2906 participants addressed interventions. Among the findings across different studies:

• Sexual harassment was noted by 250 of 907 physicians (27.6%) and 181 of 255 female gynecologic oncologists (70.9%).
• Workplace discrimination ranged from 142 of 249 female gynecologic oncologists (57.0%) to 354 of 527 female gynecologic oncologists (67.2%); among male gynecologic oncologists 138 of 358 (38.5%) reported discrimination.
• Bullying was reported by 131 of 248 female gynecologic oncologists (52.8%).
• Ob.gyn. trainees commonly experienced sexual harassment: 253 of 366 respondents (69.1%); this included gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion.
• Mistreatment of medical students during ob.gyn. rotation was indicated by 168 of 668 (25.1%).
• Perpetrators of harassment included physicians (30.1%), other trainees (13.1%), and OR staff (7.7%).

These findings are consistent with those of other recent investigations. A systematic review from 2022 found that 25% of ob.gyn., 32% of general surgery, and 21% of medical interns and students reported bullying .

In another 2022 review, in which ob.gyn. program directors were mainly women and department chairs mainly men, the prevalence of sexual harassment did not differ based on the gender of program directors and chairs.

A study from 2021 reported that 27% of academic surgical trainees, including ob.gyns., reported sexual harassment.

Going back to 2004, a study across multiple medical specialties found that ob.gyn. was second only to general surgery as the specialty associated with the highest rates of sexual harassment.

Despite institutional anti-discrimination policies, real-life interventions seem ineffective. “Disappointingly, we found that most interventions to address harassment had not been appropriately evaluated and did not show a decrease in sexual harassment,” Dr. Gupta said. “Interventions that were successful in reducing mistreatment of trainees required institutional buy-in at multiple levels, including leadership, management, and administration,” she said.

Multi-pronged strategies might include providing tools to educate healthcare staff about harassment and empowering bystanders to intervene when encountering such situations. “Further, independent offices where all complaints are evaluated by an intermediary third party and requiring professionalism to be a criterion for promotion criterion can be useful strategies,” she said.

She noted that residents may model harassing behavior perpetrated by senior attending physicians, thereby creating a cycle of mistreatment. “Equipping clinicians to be better surgical educators, providing clinical support, and modeling positive behavior may help disrupt the culture of harassment.” While the best solutions may be unclear, it is clear that much work remains to be done before the ob.gyn. working environment catches up to official institutional anti-discrimination policies.

This study was supported by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. Dr. Gupta disclosed no competing interests. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical or biomedical companies.

Sexual harassment, bullying, and gender bias are still very real occupational hazards for ob.gyn. trainees and practitioners alike — even in this female-dominated field, a systematic evidence review found.

Published in JAMA Network Open, by Ankita Gupta, MD, MPH, a urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery specialist at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, and colleagues, the analysis found rates as high as 71% for sexual harassment, coercion, or unwanted advances. It also noted high rates of bullying, gender bias, and microaggressions. “We were struck by the continued high rates of harassment,” Dr. Gupta said in an interview. “Much of the literature within academic medicine has suggested the unequal distribution of women among medical specialties is the cause of sexual and gender harassment, but despite ob.gyns. being overwhelmingly female, we found that gender bias continues to occur at alarmingly high rates.”

Furthermore, among studies where this was reported, almost 25% of respondents had experienced sexual coercion. Not unexpectedly, this mistreatment often went unreported to institutional leadership out of fear of retaliation.

“We were also surprised to find a high rate of 51% for sexual harassment among male respondents as well, suggesting that both gender and power dynamics play a role in harassment,” Dr. Gupta said.

The primary perpetrators of unwanted behaviors were other doctors, overwhelmingly attending physicians, although residents and fellows were also identified as perpetrators, especially when harassment was reported by medical students, she added. “This once again points to the underreported abuse of professional power.” Women were rarely the perpetrators — just 10% — although they were the perpetrators in 57.7% of cases when the victim was male.

“Another interesting aspect of this is gender bias and microaggressions in the operating room,” she continued. While female surgeons often experience bias coming from OR staff, the review found that 94.4% of female ob.gyns. had been mistaken for non-physicians, 88.9% had pre-apologized for asking for something from a surgical technician or nurse, and 83.3% needed to make such requests multiple times. “These instances demonstrate gender bias in both male and female operating room staff toward female ob.gyns.”

Undermining and bullying behaviors are common in surgical specialties, Dr. Gupta explained, and the tantrums, swearing, and humiliation of trainees may be considered as much a rite of passage as the long hours. “As a trainee, you are taught to ignore such behavior as reporting it comes with fear of repercussions.”

This review bore this out, with only 8%-12% of respondents across studies reporting harassment and then predominantly to another trainee. “Sexual harassment and microaggressions can further lead to loss of career opportunities and burnout and I have come across many ob.gyns. who have chosen alternate paths owing to negative experiences,” Dr. Gupta said.

The Analysis

A joint effort by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and the and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, the analysis looked at existing literature from inception through June 2023.

A total of 10 eligible studies with 5852 participants addressed prevalence and 12 eligible studies in 2906 participants addressed interventions. Among the findings across different studies:

• Sexual harassment was noted by 250 of 907 physicians (27.6%) and 181 of 255 female gynecologic oncologists (70.9%).
• Workplace discrimination ranged from 142 of 249 female gynecologic oncologists (57.0%) to 354 of 527 female gynecologic oncologists (67.2%); among male gynecologic oncologists 138 of 358 (38.5%) reported discrimination.
• Bullying was reported by 131 of 248 female gynecologic oncologists (52.8%).
• Ob.gyn. trainees commonly experienced sexual harassment: 253 of 366 respondents (69.1%); this included gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion.
• Mistreatment of medical students during ob.gyn. rotation was indicated by 168 of 668 (25.1%).
• Perpetrators of harassment included physicians (30.1%), other trainees (13.1%), and OR staff (7.7%).

These findings are consistent with those of other recent investigations. A systematic review from 2022 found that 25% of ob.gyn., 32% of general surgery, and 21% of medical interns and students reported bullying .

In another 2022 review, in which ob.gyn. program directors were mainly women and department chairs mainly men, the prevalence of sexual harassment did not differ based on the gender of program directors and chairs.

A study from 2021 reported that 27% of academic surgical trainees, including ob.gyns., reported sexual harassment.

Going back to 2004, a study across multiple medical specialties found that ob.gyn. was second only to general surgery as the specialty associated with the highest rates of sexual harassment.

Despite institutional anti-discrimination policies, real-life interventions seem ineffective. “Disappointingly, we found that most interventions to address harassment had not been appropriately evaluated and did not show a decrease in sexual harassment,” Dr. Gupta said. “Interventions that were successful in reducing mistreatment of trainees required institutional buy-in at multiple levels, including leadership, management, and administration,” she said.

Multi-pronged strategies might include providing tools to educate healthcare staff about harassment and empowering bystanders to intervene when encountering such situations. “Further, independent offices where all complaints are evaluated by an intermediary third party and requiring professionalism to be a criterion for promotion criterion can be useful strategies,” she said.

She noted that residents may model harassing behavior perpetrated by senior attending physicians, thereby creating a cycle of mistreatment. “Equipping clinicians to be better surgical educators, providing clinical support, and modeling positive behavior may help disrupt the culture of harassment.” While the best solutions may be unclear, it is clear that much work remains to be done before the ob.gyn. working environment catches up to official institutional anti-discrimination policies.

This study was supported by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. Dr. Gupta disclosed no competing interests. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical or biomedical companies.

Sexual harassment, bullying, and gender bias are still very real occupational hazards for ob.gyn. trainees and practitioners alike — even in this female-dominated field, a systematic evidence review found.

Published in JAMA Network Open, by Ankita Gupta, MD, MPH, a urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery specialist at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, and colleagues, the analysis found rates as high as 71% for sexual harassment, coercion, or unwanted advances. It also noted high rates of bullying, gender bias, and microaggressions. “We were struck by the continued high rates of harassment,” Dr. Gupta said in an interview. “Much of the literature within academic medicine has suggested the unequal distribution of women among medical specialties is the cause of sexual and gender harassment, but despite ob.gyns. being overwhelmingly female, we found that gender bias continues to occur at alarmingly high rates.”

Furthermore, among studies where this was reported, almost 25% of respondents had experienced sexual coercion. Not unexpectedly, this mistreatment often went unreported to institutional leadership out of fear of retaliation.

“We were also surprised to find a high rate of 51% for sexual harassment among male respondents as well, suggesting that both gender and power dynamics play a role in harassment,” Dr. Gupta said.

The primary perpetrators of unwanted behaviors were other doctors, overwhelmingly attending physicians, although residents and fellows were also identified as perpetrators, especially when harassment was reported by medical students, she added. “This once again points to the underreported abuse of professional power.” Women were rarely the perpetrators — just 10% — although they were the perpetrators in 57.7% of cases when the victim was male.

“Another interesting aspect of this is gender bias and microaggressions in the operating room,” she continued. While female surgeons often experience bias coming from OR staff, the review found that 94.4% of female ob.gyns. had been mistaken for non-physicians, 88.9% had pre-apologized for asking for something from a surgical technician or nurse, and 83.3% needed to make such requests multiple times. “These instances demonstrate gender bias in both male and female operating room staff toward female ob.gyns.”

Undermining and bullying behaviors are common in surgical specialties, Dr. Gupta explained, and the tantrums, swearing, and humiliation of trainees may be considered as much a rite of passage as the long hours. “As a trainee, you are taught to ignore such behavior as reporting it comes with fear of repercussions.”

This review bore this out, with only 8%-12% of respondents across studies reporting harassment and then predominantly to another trainee. “Sexual harassment and microaggressions can further lead to loss of career opportunities and burnout and I have come across many ob.gyns. who have chosen alternate paths owing to negative experiences,” Dr. Gupta said.

The Analysis

A joint effort by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and the and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, the analysis looked at existing literature from inception through June 2023.

A total of 10 eligible studies with 5852 participants addressed prevalence and 12 eligible studies in 2906 participants addressed interventions. Among the findings across different studies:

• Sexual harassment was noted by 250 of 907 physicians (27.6%) and 181 of 255 female gynecologic oncologists (70.9%).
• Workplace discrimination ranged from 142 of 249 female gynecologic oncologists (57.0%) to 354 of 527 female gynecologic oncologists (67.2%); among male gynecologic oncologists 138 of 358 (38.5%) reported discrimination.
• Bullying was reported by 131 of 248 female gynecologic oncologists (52.8%).
• Ob.gyn. trainees commonly experienced sexual harassment: 253 of 366 respondents (69.1%); this included gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion.
• Mistreatment of medical students during ob.gyn. rotation was indicated by 168 of 668 (25.1%).
• Perpetrators of harassment included physicians (30.1%), other trainees (13.1%), and OR staff (7.7%).

These findings are consistent with those of other recent investigations. A systematic review from 2022 found that 25% of ob.gyn., 32% of general surgery, and 21% of medical interns and students reported bullying .

In another 2022 review, in which ob.gyn. program directors were mainly women and department chairs mainly men, the prevalence of sexual harassment did not differ based on the gender of program directors and chairs.

A study from 2021 reported that 27% of academic surgical trainees, including ob.gyns., reported sexual harassment.

Going back to 2004, a study across multiple medical specialties found that ob.gyn. was second only to general surgery as the specialty associated with the highest rates of sexual harassment.

Despite institutional anti-discrimination policies, real-life interventions seem ineffective. “Disappointingly, we found that most interventions to address harassment had not been appropriately evaluated and did not show a decrease in sexual harassment,” Dr. Gupta said. “Interventions that were successful in reducing mistreatment of trainees required institutional buy-in at multiple levels, including leadership, management, and administration,” she said.

Multi-pronged strategies might include providing tools to educate healthcare staff about harassment and empowering bystanders to intervene when encountering such situations. “Further, independent offices where all complaints are evaluated by an intermediary third party and requiring professionalism to be a criterion for promotion criterion can be useful strategies,” she said.

She noted that residents may model harassing behavior perpetrated by senior attending physicians, thereby creating a cycle of mistreatment. “Equipping clinicians to be better surgical educators, providing clinical support, and modeling positive behavior may help disrupt the culture of harassment.” While the best solutions may be unclear, it is clear that much work remains to be done before the ob.gyn. working environment catches up to official institutional anti-discrimination policies.

This study was supported by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. Dr. Gupta disclosed no competing interests. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical or biomedical companies.

TOPLINE:

Vaginal estrogen therapy does not increase the risk for recurrence in women with hormone receptor (HR)–negative breast cancer or in those with HR–positive tumors concurrently treated with tamoxifen but should be avoided in aromatase inhibitor users, a French study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Survivors of breast cancer often experience genitourinary symptoms due to declining estrogen levels. Vaginal estrogen therapies, including estriol and promestriene (3-propyl ethyl, 17B-methyl estradiol), can prevent these symptoms, but the effect on breast cancer outcomes remains uncertain.
• Researchers used French insurance claims data to emulate a target trial assessing the effect of initiating vaginal estrogen therapy — any molecule, promestriene, or estriol — on disease-free survival in survivors of breast cancer.
• Patients included in the study had a median age of 54 years; 85% were HR-positive, and 15% were HR–negative. The researchers conducted subgroup analyses based on HR status and endocrine therapy regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 134,942 unique patients, 1739 started vaginal estrogen therapy — 56%, promestriene; 34%, estriol; and 10%, both. 
• Initiation of vaginal estrogen therapy led to a modest decrease in disease-free survival in patients with HR–positive tumors (−2.1 percentage point at 5 years), particularly in those concurrently treated with an aromatase inhibitor (−3.0 percentage points).
• No decrease in disease-free survival was observed in patients with HR–negative tumors or in those treated with tamoxifen.
• In aromatase inhibitor users, starting estriol led to a “more severe and premature” decrease in disease-free survival (−4.2 percentage point after 3 years) compared with initiating promestriene (1.0 percentage point difference at 3 years).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study addresses a very important survivorship issue — sexual dysfunction in cancer patients — which is associated with anxiety and depression and should be considered a crucial component of survivorship care,” said study discussant Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, with University of Genova, Genova, Italy.

Our results suggest that using vaginal estrogen therapy “is safe in individuals with HR-negative tumors and in those concurrently treated with tamoxifen,” said study presenter Elise Dumas, PhD, with Institut Curie, Paris, France. For breast cancer survivors treated with aromatase inhibitors, vaginal estrogen therapy should be avoided as much as possible, but promestriene is preferred over estriol in this subgroup of patients.

SOURCE:

The research (Abstract 268MO) was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer 2024 Annual Congress on May 17, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were discussed in the presentation.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding was provided by Monoprix and the French National Cancer Institute. Dumas declared no conflicts of interest. Lambertini has financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies including Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, and others.

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

TOPLINE:

Vaginal estrogen therapy does not increase the risk for recurrence in women with hormone receptor (HR)–negative breast cancer or in those with HR–positive tumors concurrently treated with tamoxifen but should be avoided in aromatase inhibitor users, a French study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Survivors of breast cancer often experience genitourinary symptoms due to declining estrogen levels. Vaginal estrogen therapies, including estriol and promestriene (3-propyl ethyl, 17B-methyl estradiol), can prevent these symptoms, but the effect on breast cancer outcomes remains uncertain.
• Researchers used French insurance claims data to emulate a target trial assessing the effect of initiating vaginal estrogen therapy — any molecule, promestriene, or estriol — on disease-free survival in survivors of breast cancer.
• Patients included in the study had a median age of 54 years; 85% were HR-positive, and 15% were HR–negative. The researchers conducted subgroup analyses based on HR status and endocrine therapy regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 134,942 unique patients, 1739 started vaginal estrogen therapy — 56%, promestriene; 34%, estriol; and 10%, both. 
• Initiation of vaginal estrogen therapy led to a modest decrease in disease-free survival in patients with HR–positive tumors (−2.1 percentage point at 5 years), particularly in those concurrently treated with an aromatase inhibitor (−3.0 percentage points).
• No decrease in disease-free survival was observed in patients with HR–negative tumors or in those treated with tamoxifen.
• In aromatase inhibitor users, starting estriol led to a “more severe and premature” decrease in disease-free survival (−4.2 percentage point after 3 years) compared with initiating promestriene (1.0 percentage point difference at 3 years).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study addresses a very important survivorship issue — sexual dysfunction in cancer patients — which is associated with anxiety and depression and should be considered a crucial component of survivorship care,” said study discussant Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, with University of Genova, Genova, Italy.

Our results suggest that using vaginal estrogen therapy “is safe in individuals with HR-negative tumors and in those concurrently treated with tamoxifen,” said study presenter Elise Dumas, PhD, with Institut Curie, Paris, France. For breast cancer survivors treated with aromatase inhibitors, vaginal estrogen therapy should be avoided as much as possible, but promestriene is preferred over estriol in this subgroup of patients.

SOURCE:

The research (Abstract 268MO) was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer 2024 Annual Congress on May 17, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were discussed in the presentation.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding was provided by Monoprix and the French National Cancer Institute. Dumas declared no conflicts of interest. Lambertini has financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies including Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, and others.

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

TOPLINE:

Vaginal estrogen therapy does not increase the risk for recurrence in women with hormone receptor (HR)–negative breast cancer or in those with HR–positive tumors concurrently treated with tamoxifen but should be avoided in aromatase inhibitor users, a French study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Survivors of breast cancer often experience genitourinary symptoms due to declining estrogen levels. Vaginal estrogen therapies, including estriol and promestriene (3-propyl ethyl, 17B-methyl estradiol), can prevent these symptoms, but the effect on breast cancer outcomes remains uncertain.
• Researchers used French insurance claims data to emulate a target trial assessing the effect of initiating vaginal estrogen therapy — any molecule, promestriene, or estriol — on disease-free survival in survivors of breast cancer.
• Patients included in the study had a median age of 54 years; 85% were HR-positive, and 15% were HR–negative. The researchers conducted subgroup analyses based on HR status and endocrine therapy regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 134,942 unique patients, 1739 started vaginal estrogen therapy — 56%, promestriene; 34%, estriol; and 10%, both. 
• Initiation of vaginal estrogen therapy led to a modest decrease in disease-free survival in patients with HR–positive tumors (−2.1 percentage point at 5 years), particularly in those concurrently treated with an aromatase inhibitor (−3.0 percentage points).
• No decrease in disease-free survival was observed in patients with HR–negative tumors or in those treated with tamoxifen.
• In aromatase inhibitor users, starting estriol led to a “more severe and premature” decrease in disease-free survival (−4.2 percentage point after 3 years) compared with initiating promestriene (1.0 percentage point difference at 3 years).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study addresses a very important survivorship issue — sexual dysfunction in cancer patients — which is associated with anxiety and depression and should be considered a crucial component of survivorship care,” said study discussant Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, with University of Genova, Genova, Italy.

Our results suggest that using vaginal estrogen therapy “is safe in individuals with HR-negative tumors and in those concurrently treated with tamoxifen,” said study presenter Elise Dumas, PhD, with Institut Curie, Paris, France. For breast cancer survivors treated with aromatase inhibitors, vaginal estrogen therapy should be avoided as much as possible, but promestriene is preferred over estriol in this subgroup of patients.

SOURCE:

The research (Abstract 268MO) was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer 2024 Annual Congress on May 17, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were discussed in the presentation.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding was provided by Monoprix and the French National Cancer Institute. Dumas declared no conflicts of interest. Lambertini has financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies including Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, and others.

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

SAN FRANCISCO — Primary care providers placed contraceptive intrauterine devices (IUDs) incorrectly nearly twice as often as ob.gyn. providers at a single institution, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Adequate training for providers regarding proper techniques for IUD insertion is imperative for good clinical practice, patient satisfaction, and effectiveness of the LARC [long-acting reversible contraceptive],” Kerrilyn Hewell, MD, a fourth-year resident ob.gyn. at Southern Illinois University in Springfield, reported. “Primary care providers are often seen for contraception management. Therefore, the significantly higher malpositioned rate indicates the need to implement an enhanced simulation/education curriculum for IUD insertion.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor and chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, was not involved in the study but said it was not surprising.

“The reasons for obtaining an ultrasound are not discussed in the abstract, so the primary care physicians may have found more problems by ordering more ultrasounds,” Dr. Ault told this news organization. “The takeaway would be to order an ultrasound if you are unsure of placement of the IUD. Malpositioned IUDs may be at risk for expulsion and women may be at risk for unplanned pregnancy.”

The researchers conducted a retrospective review of all adult women’s ultrasounds from the ob.gyn. department of the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine between 2017 and 2020 in which an IUD was documented. Two physicians certified by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine interpreted the images to determine whether the IUD was positioned correctly.

Among 602 ultrasounds included, 562 of the IUDs were placed by an ob.gyn., and 40 were placed by a primary care provider. Most of the IUDs were properly positioned (82%) while 18% were malpositioned. When the researchers compared positioning by specialty, they found that 30% of the malpositioned IUDs had been placed by primary care providers, compared to 17% of malpositioned IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. (P = .043).

The most common type of malpositioning was placement low in the cervix (40.4%) or low but not in the cervix (25.7%). Other types of malpositioning included a deviated axis, the device being inverted or transverse, the IUD arms being folded, the device being embedded, or the device placed outside the uterus.

Of the 136 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. resident, 17% were malpositioned. Only 6 IUDs had been placed by a primary care resident, and one was malpositioned. Among midlevel providers, 17% of 78 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 33% (5) of 15 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned. Among attending physicians, 18% of the 348 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 30% of the 40 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned.

No external funding was noted, and the authors and Dr. Ault had no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO — Primary care providers placed contraceptive intrauterine devices (IUDs) incorrectly nearly twice as often as ob.gyn. providers at a single institution, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Adequate training for providers regarding proper techniques for IUD insertion is imperative for good clinical practice, patient satisfaction, and effectiveness of the LARC [long-acting reversible contraceptive],” Kerrilyn Hewell, MD, a fourth-year resident ob.gyn. at Southern Illinois University in Springfield, reported. “Primary care providers are often seen for contraception management. Therefore, the significantly higher malpositioned rate indicates the need to implement an enhanced simulation/education curriculum for IUD insertion.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor and chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, was not involved in the study but said it was not surprising.

“The reasons for obtaining an ultrasound are not discussed in the abstract, so the primary care physicians may have found more problems by ordering more ultrasounds,” Dr. Ault told this news organization. “The takeaway would be to order an ultrasound if you are unsure of placement of the IUD. Malpositioned IUDs may be at risk for expulsion and women may be at risk for unplanned pregnancy.”

The researchers conducted a retrospective review of all adult women’s ultrasounds from the ob.gyn. department of the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine between 2017 and 2020 in which an IUD was documented. Two physicians certified by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine interpreted the images to determine whether the IUD was positioned correctly.

Among 602 ultrasounds included, 562 of the IUDs were placed by an ob.gyn., and 40 were placed by a primary care provider. Most of the IUDs were properly positioned (82%) while 18% were malpositioned. When the researchers compared positioning by specialty, they found that 30% of the malpositioned IUDs had been placed by primary care providers, compared to 17% of malpositioned IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. (P = .043).

The most common type of malpositioning was placement low in the cervix (40.4%) or low but not in the cervix (25.7%). Other types of malpositioning included a deviated axis, the device being inverted or transverse, the IUD arms being folded, the device being embedded, or the device placed outside the uterus.

Of the 136 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. resident, 17% were malpositioned. Only 6 IUDs had been placed by a primary care resident, and one was malpositioned. Among midlevel providers, 17% of 78 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 33% (5) of 15 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned. Among attending physicians, 18% of the 348 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 30% of the 40 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned.

No external funding was noted, and the authors and Dr. Ault had no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO — Primary care providers placed contraceptive intrauterine devices (IUDs) incorrectly nearly twice as often as ob.gyn. providers at a single institution, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Adequate training for providers regarding proper techniques for IUD insertion is imperative for good clinical practice, patient satisfaction, and effectiveness of the LARC [long-acting reversible contraceptive],” Kerrilyn Hewell, MD, a fourth-year resident ob.gyn. at Southern Illinois University in Springfield, reported. “Primary care providers are often seen for contraception management. Therefore, the significantly higher malpositioned rate indicates the need to implement an enhanced simulation/education curriculum for IUD insertion.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor and chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, was not involved in the study but said it was not surprising.

“The reasons for obtaining an ultrasound are not discussed in the abstract, so the primary care physicians may have found more problems by ordering more ultrasounds,” Dr. Ault told this news organization. “The takeaway would be to order an ultrasound if you are unsure of placement of the IUD. Malpositioned IUDs may be at risk for expulsion and women may be at risk for unplanned pregnancy.”

The researchers conducted a retrospective review of all adult women’s ultrasounds from the ob.gyn. department of the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine between 2017 and 2020 in which an IUD was documented. Two physicians certified by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine interpreted the images to determine whether the IUD was positioned correctly.

Among 602 ultrasounds included, 562 of the IUDs were placed by an ob.gyn., and 40 were placed by a primary care provider. Most of the IUDs were properly positioned (82%) while 18% were malpositioned. When the researchers compared positioning by specialty, they found that 30% of the malpositioned IUDs had been placed by primary care providers, compared to 17% of malpositioned IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. (P = .043).

The most common type of malpositioning was placement low in the cervix (40.4%) or low but not in the cervix (25.7%). Other types of malpositioning included a deviated axis, the device being inverted or transverse, the IUD arms being folded, the device being embedded, or the device placed outside the uterus.

Of the 136 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. resident, 17% were malpositioned. Only 6 IUDs had been placed by a primary care resident, and one was malpositioned. Among midlevel providers, 17% of 78 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 33% (5) of 15 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned. Among attending physicians, 18% of the 348 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 30% of the 40 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned.

No external funding was noted, and the authors and Dr. Ault had no disclosures.

Each month I set out on an expedition to find a topic for this column. I came across a new book Rebel Health by Susannah Fox that I thought might be a good one. It’s both a treatise on the shortcomings of healthcare and a Baedeker for patients on how to find their way to being better served. Her argument is that many patients’ needs are unmet and their conditions are often invisible to us in mainstream healthcare. We fail to find solutions to help them. Patients would benefit from more open access to their records and more resources to take control of their own health, she argues. A few chapters in, I thought, “Oh, here we go, another diatribe on doctors and how we care most about how to keep patients in their rightful, subordinate place.” The “Rebel” title is provocative and implies patients need to overthrow the status quo. Well, I am part of the establishment. I stopped reading. This book doesn’t apply to me, I thought.

After all, I’m a healthcare progressive, right? My notes and results have been open for years. I encourage shared decision-making and try to empower patients as much as treat them. The idea that I or my colleagues are unwilling to do whatever is necessary to meet our patients’ needs was maddening. We dedicate our lives to it. My young daughter often greets me in the morning by asking if I’ll be working tonight. Most nights, I am — answering patient messages, collaborating with colleagues to help patients, keeping up with medical knowledge. I was angry at what felt like unjust criticism, especially that we’d neglect patients because their problems are not obvious or worse, there is not enough money to be made helping them. Harrumph.

Kaiser Permanente

That’s when I realized the best thing for me was to read the entire book and digest the arguments. I pride myself on being well-read, but I fall into a common trap: the podcasts I listen to, news I consume, and books I read mostly affirm my beliefs. It is a healthy choice to seek dispositive data and contrasting stories rather than always feeding our personal opinions.

Rebel Health was not written by Robespierre. It was penned by a thoughtful, articulate patient advocate with over 20 years experience. She has far more bona fides than I could achieve in two lifetimes. In the book, she reminds us that scientific advances in the last 100 years have made medicine more effective but also disintermediated caregivers, family, and patients. Patients and caregivers can not only help but also offer innovative and customized solutions to their problems. She describes four patient archetypes: seekers, networkers, solvers, and champions, and offers a four-quadrant model to visualize how some patients are unhelped by our current healthcare system. She advocates for frictionless, open access to health data and tries to inspire patients to connect, innovate, and create to fill the voids that exist in healthcare. We have come a long way from the immured system of a decade ago; much of that is the result of patient advocates. But healthcare is still too costly, too fragmented and too many patients unhelped. “Community is a superpower,” she writes. I agree, we should assemble all the heroes in the universe for this challenge.

Fox also tells stories of patients who solved diagnostic dilemmas through their own research and advocacy. I thought of my own contrasting experiences of patients whose DIY care was based on misinformation and how their false confidence led to poorer outcomes for them. I want to share with her readers how physicians feel hurt when patients question our competence or place the opinion of an adversarial Redditor over ours. Physicians are sometimes wrong and often in doubt. Most of us care deeply about our patients regardless of how visible their diagnosis or how easy they are to appease.

We don’t have time to engage back-and-forth on an insignificantly abnormal test they find in their open chart or why B12 and hormone testing would not be helpful for their disease. It’s also not the patients’ fault. Having unfettered access to their data might add work, but it also adds value. They are trying to learn and be active in their care. Physicians are frustrated mostly because we don’t have time to meet these unmet needs. Everyone is trying their best and we all want the same thing: patients to be satisfied and well.

As for learning the skill of being open-minded, an excellent reference is Adam Grant’s Think Again. It’s inspiring and instructive of how we can all be more open, including how to have productive arguments rather than fruitless fights. We live in divisive times. Perhaps if we all put in effort to be open-minded, push down righteous indignation, and advance more honest humility we’d all be a bit better off.

Patients are the primary audience for the Rebel Health book. Yet, as we care about them and we all want to make healthcare better, it is worth reading in its entirety. I told my daughter I don’t have to work tonight because I’ve written my article this month. When she’s a little older, I’ll tell her all about it. To be successful, she’ll have to be as open-minded as she is smart. She can learn both.

I have no conflict of interest in the book.

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

Each month I set out on an expedition to find a topic for this column. I came across a new book Rebel Health by Susannah Fox that I thought might be a good one. It’s both a treatise on the shortcomings of healthcare and a Baedeker for patients on how to find their way to being better served. Her argument is that many patients’ needs are unmet and their conditions are often invisible to us in mainstream healthcare. We fail to find solutions to help them. Patients would benefit from more open access to their records and more resources to take control of their own health, she argues. A few chapters in, I thought, “Oh, here we go, another diatribe on doctors and how we care most about how to keep patients in their rightful, subordinate place.” The “Rebel” title is provocative and implies patients need to overthrow the status quo. Well, I am part of the establishment. I stopped reading. This book doesn’t apply to me, I thought.

After all, I’m a healthcare progressive, right? My notes and results have been open for years. I encourage shared decision-making and try to empower patients as much as treat them. The idea that I or my colleagues are unwilling to do whatever is necessary to meet our patients’ needs was maddening. We dedicate our lives to it. My young daughter often greets me in the morning by asking if I’ll be working tonight. Most nights, I am — answering patient messages, collaborating with colleagues to help patients, keeping up with medical knowledge. I was angry at what felt like unjust criticism, especially that we’d neglect patients because their problems are not obvious or worse, there is not enough money to be made helping them. Harrumph.

Kaiser Permanente

That’s when I realized the best thing for me was to read the entire book and digest the arguments. I pride myself on being well-read, but I fall into a common trap: the podcasts I listen to, news I consume, and books I read mostly affirm my beliefs. It is a healthy choice to seek dispositive data and contrasting stories rather than always feeding our personal opinions.

Rebel Health was not written by Robespierre. It was penned by a thoughtful, articulate patient advocate with over 20 years experience. She has far more bona fides than I could achieve in two lifetimes. In the book, she reminds us that scientific advances in the last 100 years have made medicine more effective but also disintermediated caregivers, family, and patients. Patients and caregivers can not only help but also offer innovative and customized solutions to their problems. She describes four patient archetypes: seekers, networkers, solvers, and champions, and offers a four-quadrant model to visualize how some patients are unhelped by our current healthcare system. She advocates for frictionless, open access to health data and tries to inspire patients to connect, innovate, and create to fill the voids that exist in healthcare. We have come a long way from the immured system of a decade ago; much of that is the result of patient advocates. But healthcare is still too costly, too fragmented and too many patients unhelped. “Community is a superpower,” she writes. I agree, we should assemble all the heroes in the universe for this challenge.

Fox also tells stories of patients who solved diagnostic dilemmas through their own research and advocacy. I thought of my own contrasting experiences of patients whose DIY care was based on misinformation and how their false confidence led to poorer outcomes for them. I want to share with her readers how physicians feel hurt when patients question our competence or place the opinion of an adversarial Redditor over ours. Physicians are sometimes wrong and often in doubt. Most of us care deeply about our patients regardless of how visible their diagnosis or how easy they are to appease.

We don’t have time to engage back-and-forth on an insignificantly abnormal test they find in their open chart or why B12 and hormone testing would not be helpful for their disease. It’s also not the patients’ fault. Having unfettered access to their data might add work, but it also adds value. They are trying to learn and be active in their care. Physicians are frustrated mostly because we don’t have time to meet these unmet needs. Everyone is trying their best and we all want the same thing: patients to be satisfied and well.

As for learning the skill of being open-minded, an excellent reference is Adam Grant’s Think Again. It’s inspiring and instructive of how we can all be more open, including how to have productive arguments rather than fruitless fights. We live in divisive times. Perhaps if we all put in effort to be open-minded, push down righteous indignation, and advance more honest humility we’d all be a bit better off.

Patients are the primary audience for the Rebel Health book. Yet, as we care about them and we all want to make healthcare better, it is worth reading in its entirety. I told my daughter I don’t have to work tonight because I’ve written my article this month. When she’s a little older, I’ll tell her all about it. To be successful, she’ll have to be as open-minded as she is smart. She can learn both.

I have no conflict of interest in the book.

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

Each month I set out on an expedition to find a topic for this column. I came across a new book Rebel Health by Susannah Fox that I thought might be a good one. It’s both a treatise on the shortcomings of healthcare and a Baedeker for patients on how to find their way to being better served. Her argument is that many patients’ needs are unmet and their conditions are often invisible to us in mainstream healthcare. We fail to find solutions to help them. Patients would benefit from more open access to their records and more resources to take control of their own health, she argues. A few chapters in, I thought, “Oh, here we go, another diatribe on doctors and how we care most about how to keep patients in their rightful, subordinate place.” The “Rebel” title is provocative and implies patients need to overthrow the status quo. Well, I am part of the establishment. I stopped reading. This book doesn’t apply to me, I thought.

After all, I’m a healthcare progressive, right? My notes and results have been open for years. I encourage shared decision-making and try to empower patients as much as treat them. The idea that I or my colleagues are unwilling to do whatever is necessary to meet our patients’ needs was maddening. We dedicate our lives to it. My young daughter often greets me in the morning by asking if I’ll be working tonight. Most nights, I am — answering patient messages, collaborating with colleagues to help patients, keeping up with medical knowledge. I was angry at what felt like unjust criticism, especially that we’d neglect patients because their problems are not obvious or worse, there is not enough money to be made helping them. Harrumph.

Kaiser Permanente

That’s when I realized the best thing for me was to read the entire book and digest the arguments. I pride myself on being well-read, but I fall into a common trap: the podcasts I listen to, news I consume, and books I read mostly affirm my beliefs. It is a healthy choice to seek dispositive data and contrasting stories rather than always feeding our personal opinions.

Rebel Health was not written by Robespierre. It was penned by a thoughtful, articulate patient advocate with over 20 years experience. She has far more bona fides than I could achieve in two lifetimes. In the book, she reminds us that scientific advances in the last 100 years have made medicine more effective but also disintermediated caregivers, family, and patients. Patients and caregivers can not only help but also offer innovative and customized solutions to their problems. She describes four patient archetypes: seekers, networkers, solvers, and champions, and offers a four-quadrant model to visualize how some patients are unhelped by our current healthcare system. She advocates for frictionless, open access to health data and tries to inspire patients to connect, innovate, and create to fill the voids that exist in healthcare. We have come a long way from the immured system of a decade ago; much of that is the result of patient advocates. But healthcare is still too costly, too fragmented and too many patients unhelped. “Community is a superpower,” she writes. I agree, we should assemble all the heroes in the universe for this challenge.

Fox also tells stories of patients who solved diagnostic dilemmas through their own research and advocacy. I thought of my own contrasting experiences of patients whose DIY care was based on misinformation and how their false confidence led to poorer outcomes for them. I want to share with her readers how physicians feel hurt when patients question our competence or place the opinion of an adversarial Redditor over ours. Physicians are sometimes wrong and often in doubt. Most of us care deeply about our patients regardless of how visible their diagnosis or how easy they are to appease.

We don’t have time to engage back-and-forth on an insignificantly abnormal test they find in their open chart or why B12 and hormone testing would not be helpful for their disease. It’s also not the patients’ fault. Having unfettered access to their data might add work, but it also adds value. They are trying to learn and be active in their care. Physicians are frustrated mostly because we don’t have time to meet these unmet needs. Everyone is trying their best and we all want the same thing: patients to be satisfied and well.

As for learning the skill of being open-minded, an excellent reference is Adam Grant’s Think Again. It’s inspiring and instructive of how we can all be more open, including how to have productive arguments rather than fruitless fights. We live in divisive times. Perhaps if we all put in effort to be open-minded, push down righteous indignation, and advance more honest humility we’d all be a bit better off.

Patients are the primary audience for the Rebel Health book. Yet, as we care about them and we all want to make healthcare better, it is worth reading in its entirety. I told my daughter I don’t have to work tonight because I’ve written my article this month. When she’s a little older, I’ll tell her all about it. To be successful, she’ll have to be as open-minded as she is smart. She can learn both.

I have no conflict of interest in the book.

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

The first of May is marked as the World Maternal Mental Health Day, a time for patient groups, medical societies, clinicians, and other colleagues who care for women to highlight maternal mental health and to advocate for increased awareness, enhanced access to care, decrease in stigma, and development of the most effective treatments.

In this spirit, and within the context of greater mental health awareness, I wanted to highlight the ironic dichotomy we see in reproductive psychiatry today. Namely, although we have many useful treatments available in the field to treat maternal psychiatric illness, there are barriers to accessing mental healthcare that prevent women from receiving treatment and getting well.

Thinking back on the last few years from the other side of the pandemic, when COVID concerns turned the experience of motherhood on its side in so many ways, we can only acknowledge that it is an important time in the field of reproductive psychiatry. We have seen not only the development of new pharmacologic (neurosteroids) and nonpharmacologic therapies (transcranial magnetic stimulation, cognitive-behaviorial therapy for perinatal depression), but also the focus on new digital apps for perinatal depression that may be scalable and that may help bridge the voids in access to effective treatment from the most rural to the most urban settings.

In a previous column, I wrote about the potential difficulties of identifying at-risk women with postpartum psychiatric illness, particularly within the context of disparate data collection methods and management of data. Hospital systems that favor paper screening methods rather than digital platforms pose special problems. I also noted an even larger concern: namely, once screened, it can be very challenging to engage women with postpartum depression in treatment, and women may ultimately not navigate to care for a variety of reasons. These components are but one part of the so-called “perinatal treatment cascade.” When we look at access to care, patients would ideally move from depression screening as an example and, following endorsement of significant symptoms, would receive a referral, which would result in the patient being seen, followed up, and getting well. But that is not what is happening.

A recent preliminary study published as a short communication in the Archives of Women’s Mental Health highlighted this issue. The authors used the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to follow symptoms of depression in 145 pregnant women in ob.gyn. services, and found that there were low levels of adherence to psychiatric screenings and referrals in the perinatal period. Another study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry found 30.8% of women with postpartum depression were identified clinically, 15.8% received treatment, and 3.2% achieved remission. That is the gulf, in 2024, that we have not managed to bridge.

The findings show the difficulty women experience accessing perinatal mental health resources. While we’ve known for a long time that the “perinatal treatment cascade” is real, what we don’t understand are the variables in the mix, particularly for patients in marginalized groups. We also do not know where women fall off the curve with regard to accessing care. In my mind, if we’re going to make a difference, we need to know the answer to that question.

Part of the issue is that the research into understanding why women fall off the curve is incomplete. You cannot simply hand a sheet to a woman with an EPDS score of 12 who’s depressed and has a newborn and expect her to navigate to care. What we should really be doing is investing in care navigation for women.

The situation is analogous to diagnosing and treating cardiac abnormalities in a catheterization laboratory. If a patient has a blocked coronary artery and needs a stent, then they need to go to the cath lab. We haven’t yet figured out the process in reproductive psychiatry to optimize the likelihood that patients will be screened and then referred to receive the best available treatment.

Some of our ob.gyn. colleagues have been working to improve access to perinatal mental health services, such as offering on-site services, and offering training and services to patients and providers on screening, assessment, and treatment. At the Center for Women’s Mental Health, we are conducting the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression study, which is a universal screening and referral program for women at our center. While some progress is being made, there are still far too many women who are falling through the cracks and not receiving the care they need.

It is both ironic and sad that the growing number of available treatments in reproductive psychiatry are scalable, yet we haven’t figured out how to facilitate access to care. While we should be excited about new treatments, we also need to take the time to understand what the barriers are for at-risk women accessing mental healthcare in the postpartum period.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The first of May is marked as the World Maternal Mental Health Day, a time for patient groups, medical societies, clinicians, and other colleagues who care for women to highlight maternal mental health and to advocate for increased awareness, enhanced access to care, decrease in stigma, and development of the most effective treatments.

In this spirit, and within the context of greater mental health awareness, I wanted to highlight the ironic dichotomy we see in reproductive psychiatry today. Namely, although we have many useful treatments available in the field to treat maternal psychiatric illness, there are barriers to accessing mental healthcare that prevent women from receiving treatment and getting well.

Thinking back on the last few years from the other side of the pandemic, when COVID concerns turned the experience of motherhood on its side in so many ways, we can only acknowledge that it is an important time in the field of reproductive psychiatry. We have seen not only the development of new pharmacologic (neurosteroids) and nonpharmacologic therapies (transcranial magnetic stimulation, cognitive-behaviorial therapy for perinatal depression), but also the focus on new digital apps for perinatal depression that may be scalable and that may help bridge the voids in access to effective treatment from the most rural to the most urban settings.

In a previous column, I wrote about the potential difficulties of identifying at-risk women with postpartum psychiatric illness, particularly within the context of disparate data collection methods and management of data. Hospital systems that favor paper screening methods rather than digital platforms pose special problems. I also noted an even larger concern: namely, once screened, it can be very challenging to engage women with postpartum depression in treatment, and women may ultimately not navigate to care for a variety of reasons. These components are but one part of the so-called “perinatal treatment cascade.” When we look at access to care, patients would ideally move from depression screening as an example and, following endorsement of significant symptoms, would receive a referral, which would result in the patient being seen, followed up, and getting well. But that is not what is happening.

A recent preliminary study published as a short communication in the Archives of Women’s Mental Health highlighted this issue. The authors used the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to follow symptoms of depression in 145 pregnant women in ob.gyn. services, and found that there were low levels of adherence to psychiatric screenings and referrals in the perinatal period. Another study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry found 30.8% of women with postpartum depression were identified clinically, 15.8% received treatment, and 3.2% achieved remission. That is the gulf, in 2024, that we have not managed to bridge.

The findings show the difficulty women experience accessing perinatal mental health resources. While we’ve known for a long time that the “perinatal treatment cascade” is real, what we don’t understand are the variables in the mix, particularly for patients in marginalized groups. We also do not know where women fall off the curve with regard to accessing care. In my mind, if we’re going to make a difference, we need to know the answer to that question.

Part of the issue is that the research into understanding why women fall off the curve is incomplete. You cannot simply hand a sheet to a woman with an EPDS score of 12 who’s depressed and has a newborn and expect her to navigate to care. What we should really be doing is investing in care navigation for women.

The situation is analogous to diagnosing and treating cardiac abnormalities in a catheterization laboratory. If a patient has a blocked coronary artery and needs a stent, then they need to go to the cath lab. We haven’t yet figured out the process in reproductive psychiatry to optimize the likelihood that patients will be screened and then referred to receive the best available treatment.

Some of our ob.gyn. colleagues have been working to improve access to perinatal mental health services, such as offering on-site services, and offering training and services to patients and providers on screening, assessment, and treatment. At the Center for Women’s Mental Health, we are conducting the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression study, which is a universal screening and referral program for women at our center. While some progress is being made, there are still far too many women who are falling through the cracks and not receiving the care they need.

It is both ironic and sad that the growing number of available treatments in reproductive psychiatry are scalable, yet we haven’t figured out how to facilitate access to care. While we should be excited about new treatments, we also need to take the time to understand what the barriers are for at-risk women accessing mental healthcare in the postpartum period.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The first of May is marked as the World Maternal Mental Health Day, a time for patient groups, medical societies, clinicians, and other colleagues who care for women to highlight maternal mental health and to advocate for increased awareness, enhanced access to care, decrease in stigma, and development of the most effective treatments.

In this spirit, and within the context of greater mental health awareness, I wanted to highlight the ironic dichotomy we see in reproductive psychiatry today. Namely, although we have many useful treatments available in the field to treat maternal psychiatric illness, there are barriers to accessing mental healthcare that prevent women from receiving treatment and getting well.

Thinking back on the last few years from the other side of the pandemic, when COVID concerns turned the experience of motherhood on its side in so many ways, we can only acknowledge that it is an important time in the field of reproductive psychiatry. We have seen not only the development of new pharmacologic (neurosteroids) and nonpharmacologic therapies (transcranial magnetic stimulation, cognitive-behaviorial therapy for perinatal depression), but also the focus on new digital apps for perinatal depression that may be scalable and that may help bridge the voids in access to effective treatment from the most rural to the most urban settings.

In a previous column, I wrote about the potential difficulties of identifying at-risk women with postpartum psychiatric illness, particularly within the context of disparate data collection methods and management of data. Hospital systems that favor paper screening methods rather than digital platforms pose special problems. I also noted an even larger concern: namely, once screened, it can be very challenging to engage women with postpartum depression in treatment, and women may ultimately not navigate to care for a variety of reasons. These components are but one part of the so-called “perinatal treatment cascade.” When we look at access to care, patients would ideally move from depression screening as an example and, following endorsement of significant symptoms, would receive a referral, which would result in the patient being seen, followed up, and getting well. But that is not what is happening.

A recent preliminary study published as a short communication in the Archives of Women’s Mental Health highlighted this issue. The authors used the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to follow symptoms of depression in 145 pregnant women in ob.gyn. services, and found that there were low levels of adherence to psychiatric screenings and referrals in the perinatal period. Another study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry found 30.8% of women with postpartum depression were identified clinically, 15.8% received treatment, and 3.2% achieved remission. That is the gulf, in 2024, that we have not managed to bridge.

The findings show the difficulty women experience accessing perinatal mental health resources. While we’ve known for a long time that the “perinatal treatment cascade” is real, what we don’t understand are the variables in the mix, particularly for patients in marginalized groups. We also do not know where women fall off the curve with regard to accessing care. In my mind, if we’re going to make a difference, we need to know the answer to that question.

Part of the issue is that the research into understanding why women fall off the curve is incomplete. You cannot simply hand a sheet to a woman with an EPDS score of 12 who’s depressed and has a newborn and expect her to navigate to care. What we should really be doing is investing in care navigation for women.

The situation is analogous to diagnosing and treating cardiac abnormalities in a catheterization laboratory. If a patient has a blocked coronary artery and needs a stent, then they need to go to the cath lab. We haven’t yet figured out the process in reproductive psychiatry to optimize the likelihood that patients will be screened and then referred to receive the best available treatment.

Some of our ob.gyn. colleagues have been working to improve access to perinatal mental health services, such as offering on-site services, and offering training and services to patients and providers on screening, assessment, and treatment. At the Center for Women’s Mental Health, we are conducting the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression study, which is a universal screening and referral program for women at our center. While some progress is being made, there are still far too many women who are falling through the cracks and not receiving the care they need.

It is both ironic and sad that the growing number of available treatments in reproductive psychiatry are scalable, yet we haven’t figured out how to facilitate access to care. While we should be excited about new treatments, we also need to take the time to understand what the barriers are for at-risk women accessing mental healthcare in the postpartum period.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

In April, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), by a vote of 3-2, opened a long-anticipated can of worms by approving its final rule that effectively bans employers’ use of all non-compete agreements (with very limited exceptions). The final rule will not go into effect until 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which took place on May 7, and numerous legal challenges appear to be on the horizon.

The principal components of the rule are as follows:

• After the effective date, most non-compete agreements (which prevent departing employees from signing with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area) are banned nationwide.
• The rule exempts certain “senior executives,” ie individuals who earn more than $151,164 annually and serve in policy-making positions.
• There is another major exception for non-competes connected with a sale of a business.
• While not explicitly stated, the rule arguably exempts non-profits, tax-exempt hospitals, and other tax-exempt entities.
• Employers must provide verbal and written notice to employees regarding existing agreements, which would be voided under the rule.

The final rule is the latest skirmish in an ongoing, years-long debate. Twelve states have already put non-compete bans in place, according to a recent paper, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each state rule varies in its specifics as states respond to local market conditions. While some states ban all non-compete agreements outright, others limit them based on variables, such as income and employment circumstances. Of course, should the federal ban take effect, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In April, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), by a vote of 3-2, opened a long-anticipated can of worms by approving its final rule that effectively bans employers’ use of all non-compete agreements (with very limited exceptions). The final rule will not go into effect until 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which took place on May 7, and numerous legal challenges appear to be on the horizon.

The principal components of the rule are as follows:

• After the effective date, most non-compete agreements (which prevent departing employees from signing with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area) are banned nationwide.
• The rule exempts certain “senior executives,” ie individuals who earn more than $151,164 annually and serve in policy-making positions.
• There is another major exception for non-competes connected with a sale of a business.
• While not explicitly stated, the rule arguably exempts non-profits, tax-exempt hospitals, and other tax-exempt entities.
• Employers must provide verbal and written notice to employees regarding existing agreements, which would be voided under the rule.

The final rule is the latest skirmish in an ongoing, years-long debate. Twelve states have already put non-compete bans in place, according to a recent paper, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each state rule varies in its specifics as states respond to local market conditions. While some states ban all non-compete agreements outright, others limit them based on variables, such as income and employment circumstances. Of course, should the federal ban take effect, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In April, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), by a vote of 3-2, opened a long-anticipated can of worms by approving its final rule that effectively bans employers’ use of all non-compete agreements (with very limited exceptions). The final rule will not go into effect until 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which took place on May 7, and numerous legal challenges appear to be on the horizon.

The principal components of the rule are as follows:

• After the effective date, most non-compete agreements (which prevent departing employees from signing with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area) are banned nationwide.
• The rule exempts certain “senior executives,” ie individuals who earn more than $151,164 annually and serve in policy-making positions.
• There is another major exception for non-competes connected with a sale of a business.
• While not explicitly stated, the rule arguably exempts non-profits, tax-exempt hospitals, and other tax-exempt entities.
• Employers must provide verbal and written notice to employees regarding existing agreements, which would be voided under the rule.

The final rule is the latest skirmish in an ongoing, years-long debate. Twelve states have already put non-compete bans in place, according to a recent paper, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each state rule varies in its specifics as states respond to local market conditions. While some states ban all non-compete agreements outright, others limit them based on variables, such as income and employment circumstances. Of course, should the federal ban take effect, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I recently looked back at my folder full of these medical study commentaries, this weekly video series we call Impact Factor, and realized that I’ve been doing this for a long time. More than 400 articles, believe it or not. 

I’ve learned a lot in that time — about medicine, of course — but also about how people react to certain topics. If you’ve been with me this whole time, or even for just a chunk of it, you’ll know that I tend to take a measured approach to most topics. No one study is ever truly definitive, after all. But regardless of how even-keeled I may be, there are some topics that I just know in advance are going to be a bit divisive: studies about gun control; studies about vitamin D; and, of course, studies about fluoride.
 

Shall We Shake This Hornet’s Nest? 

The fluoridation of the US water system began in 1945 with the goal of reducing cavities in the population. The CDC named water fluoridation one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century, along with such inarguable achievements as the recognition of tobacco as a health hazard.

But fluoridation has never been without its detractors. One problem is that the spectrum of beliefs about the potential harm of fluoridation is huge. On one end, you have science-based concerns such as the recognition that excessive fluoride intake can cause fluorosis and stain tooth enamel. I’ll note that the EPA regulates fluoride levels — there is a fair amount of naturally occurring fluoride in water tables around the world — to prevent this. And, of course, on the other end of the spectrum, you have beliefs that are essentially conspiracy theories: “They” add fluoride to the water supply to control us.

The challenge for me is that when one “side” of a scientific debate includes the crazy theories, it can be hard to discuss that whole spectrum, since there are those who will see evidence of any adverse fluoride effect as confirmation that the conspiracy theory is true. 

I can’t help this. So I’ll just say this up front: I am about to tell you about a study that shows some potential risk from fluoride exposure. I will tell you up front that there are some significant caveats to the study that call the results into question. And I will tell you up front that no one is controlling your mind, or my mind, with fluoride; they do it with social media.
 

Let’s Dive Into These Shark-Infested, Fluoridated Waters

We’re talking about the study, “Maternal Urinary Fluoride and Child Neurobehavior at Age 36 Months,” which appears in JAMA Network Open.

It’s a study of 229 mother-child pairs from the Los Angeles area. The moms had their urinary fluoride level measured once before 30 weeks of gestation. A neurobehavioral battery called the Preschool Child Behavior Checklist was administered to the children at age 36 months. 

The main thing you’ll hear about this study — in headlines, Facebook posts, and manifestos locked in drawers somewhere — is the primary result: A 0.68-mg/L increase in urinary fluoride in the mothers, about 25 percentile points, was associated with a doubling of the risk for neurobehavioral problems in their kids when they were 3 years old.

Yikes.

But this is not a randomized trial. Researchers didn’t randomly assign some women to have high fluoride intake and some women to have low fluoride intake. They knew that other factors that might lead to neurobehavioral problems could also lead to higher fluoride intake. They represent these factors in what’s known as a directed acyclic graph, as seen here, and account for them statistically using a regression equation.

Jama Network Open

Los Angeles County Department of Public Health

Is Urinary Fluoride a Good Measure of Blood Fluoride?

It’s not great. Empirically, we have data that tell us that levels of urine fluoride are not all that similar to levels of serum fluoride. In 2014, a study investigated the correlation between urine and serum fluoride in a cohort of 60 schoolchildren and found a correlation coefficient of around 0.5. 

Why isn’t urine fluoride a great proxy for serum fluoride? The most obvious reason is the urine concentration. Human urine concentration can range from about 50 mmol to 1200 mmol (a 24-fold difference) depending on hydration status. Over the course of 24 hours, for example, the amount of fluoride you put out in your urine may be fairly stable in relation to intake, but for a spot urine sample it would be wildly variable. The authors know this, of course, and so they divide the measured urine fluoride by the specific gravity of the urine to give a sort of “dilution adjusted” value. That’s what is actually used in this study. But specific gravity is, itself, an imperfect measure of how dilute the urine is. 

This is something that comes up a lot in urinary biomarker research and it’s not that hard to get around. The best thing would be to just measure blood levels of fluoride. The second best option is 24-hour fluoride excretion. After that, the next best thing would be to adjust the spot concentration by other markers of urinary dilution — creatinine or osmolality — as sensitivity analyses. Any of these approaches would lend credence to the results of the study.

Urinary fluoride excretion is pH dependent. The more acidic the urine, the less fluoride is excreted. Many things — including, importantly, diet — affect urine pH. And it is not a stretch to think that diet may also affect the developing fetus. Neither urine pH nor dietary habits were accounted for in this study. 

So, here we are. We have an observational study suggesting a harm that may be associated with fluoride. There may be a causal link here, in which case we need further studies to weigh the harm against the more well-established public health benefit. Or, this is all correlation — an illusion created by the limitations of observational data, and the unique challenges of estimating intake from a single urine sample. In other words, this study has something for everyone, fluoride boosters and skeptics alike. Let the arguments begin. But, if possible, leave me out of it.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I recently looked back at my folder full of these medical study commentaries, this weekly video series we call Impact Factor, and realized that I’ve been doing this for a long time. More than 400 articles, believe it or not. 

I’ve learned a lot in that time — about medicine, of course — but also about how people react to certain topics. If you’ve been with me this whole time, or even for just a chunk of it, you’ll know that I tend to take a measured approach to most topics. No one study is ever truly definitive, after all. But regardless of how even-keeled I may be, there are some topics that I just know in advance are going to be a bit divisive: studies about gun control; studies about vitamin D; and, of course, studies about fluoride.
 

Shall We Shake This Hornet’s Nest? 

The fluoridation of the US water system began in 1945 with the goal of reducing cavities in the population. The CDC named water fluoridation one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century, along with such inarguable achievements as the recognition of tobacco as a health hazard.

But fluoridation has never been without its detractors. One problem is that the spectrum of beliefs about the potential harm of fluoridation is huge. On one end, you have science-based concerns such as the recognition that excessive fluoride intake can cause fluorosis and stain tooth enamel. I’ll note that the EPA regulates fluoride levels — there is a fair amount of naturally occurring fluoride in water tables around the world — to prevent this. And, of course, on the other end of the spectrum, you have beliefs that are essentially conspiracy theories: “They” add fluoride to the water supply to control us.

The challenge for me is that when one “side” of a scientific debate includes the crazy theories, it can be hard to discuss that whole spectrum, since there are those who will see evidence of any adverse fluoride effect as confirmation that the conspiracy theory is true. 

I can’t help this. So I’ll just say this up front: I am about to tell you about a study that shows some potential risk from fluoride exposure. I will tell you up front that there are some significant caveats to the study that call the results into question. And I will tell you up front that no one is controlling your mind, or my mind, with fluoride; they do it with social media.
 

Let’s Dive Into These Shark-Infested, Fluoridated Waters

We’re talking about the study, “Maternal Urinary Fluoride and Child Neurobehavior at Age 36 Months,” which appears in JAMA Network Open.

It’s a study of 229 mother-child pairs from the Los Angeles area. The moms had their urinary fluoride level measured once before 30 weeks of gestation. A neurobehavioral battery called the Preschool Child Behavior Checklist was administered to the children at age 36 months. 

The main thing you’ll hear about this study — in headlines, Facebook posts, and manifestos locked in drawers somewhere — is the primary result: A 0.68-mg/L increase in urinary fluoride in the mothers, about 25 percentile points, was associated with a doubling of the risk for neurobehavioral problems in their kids when they were 3 years old.

Yikes.

But this is not a randomized trial. Researchers didn’t randomly assign some women to have high fluoride intake and some women to have low fluoride intake. They knew that other factors that might lead to neurobehavioral problems could also lead to higher fluoride intake. They represent these factors in what’s known as a directed acyclic graph, as seen here, and account for them statistically using a regression equation.

Jama Network Open

Los Angeles County Department of Public Health

Is Urinary Fluoride a Good Measure of Blood Fluoride?

It’s not great. Empirically, we have data that tell us that levels of urine fluoride are not all that similar to levels of serum fluoride. In 2014, a study investigated the correlation between urine and serum fluoride in a cohort of 60 schoolchildren and found a correlation coefficient of around 0.5. 

Why isn’t urine fluoride a great proxy for serum fluoride? The most obvious reason is the urine concentration. Human urine concentration can range from about 50 mmol to 1200 mmol (a 24-fold difference) depending on hydration status. Over the course of 24 hours, for example, the amount of fluoride you put out in your urine may be fairly stable in relation to intake, but for a spot urine sample it would be wildly variable. The authors know this, of course, and so they divide the measured urine fluoride by the specific gravity of the urine to give a sort of “dilution adjusted” value. That’s what is actually used in this study. But specific gravity is, itself, an imperfect measure of how dilute the urine is. 

This is something that comes up a lot in urinary biomarker research and it’s not that hard to get around. The best thing would be to just measure blood levels of fluoride. The second best option is 24-hour fluoride excretion. After that, the next best thing would be to adjust the spot concentration by other markers of urinary dilution — creatinine or osmolality — as sensitivity analyses. Any of these approaches would lend credence to the results of the study.

Urinary fluoride excretion is pH dependent. The more acidic the urine, the less fluoride is excreted. Many things — including, importantly, diet — affect urine pH. And it is not a stretch to think that diet may also affect the developing fetus. Neither urine pH nor dietary habits were accounted for in this study. 

So, here we are. We have an observational study suggesting a harm that may be associated with fluoride. There may be a causal link here, in which case we need further studies to weigh the harm against the more well-established public health benefit. Or, this is all correlation — an illusion created by the limitations of observational data, and the unique challenges of estimating intake from a single urine sample. In other words, this study has something for everyone, fluoride boosters and skeptics alike. Let the arguments begin. But, if possible, leave me out of it.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I recently looked back at my folder full of these medical study commentaries, this weekly video series we call Impact Factor, and realized that I’ve been doing this for a long time. More than 400 articles, believe it or not. 

I’ve learned a lot in that time — about medicine, of course — but also about how people react to certain topics. If you’ve been with me this whole time, or even for just a chunk of it, you’ll know that I tend to take a measured approach to most topics. No one study is ever truly definitive, after all. But regardless of how even-keeled I may be, there are some topics that I just know in advance are going to be a bit divisive: studies about gun control; studies about vitamin D; and, of course, studies about fluoride.
 

Shall We Shake This Hornet’s Nest? 

The fluoridation of the US water system began in 1945 with the goal of reducing cavities in the population. The CDC named water fluoridation one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century, along with such inarguable achievements as the recognition of tobacco as a health hazard.

But fluoridation has never been without its detractors. One problem is that the spectrum of beliefs about the potential harm of fluoridation is huge. On one end, you have science-based concerns such as the recognition that excessive fluoride intake can cause fluorosis and stain tooth enamel. I’ll note that the EPA regulates fluoride levels — there is a fair amount of naturally occurring fluoride in water tables around the world — to prevent this. And, of course, on the other end of the spectrum, you have beliefs that are essentially conspiracy theories: “They” add fluoride to the water supply to control us.

The challenge for me is that when one “side” of a scientific debate includes the crazy theories, it can be hard to discuss that whole spectrum, since there are those who will see evidence of any adverse fluoride effect as confirmation that the conspiracy theory is true. 

I can’t help this. So I’ll just say this up front: I am about to tell you about a study that shows some potential risk from fluoride exposure. I will tell you up front that there are some significant caveats to the study that call the results into question. And I will tell you up front that no one is controlling your mind, or my mind, with fluoride; they do it with social media.
 

Let’s Dive Into These Shark-Infested, Fluoridated Waters

We’re talking about the study, “Maternal Urinary Fluoride and Child Neurobehavior at Age 36 Months,” which appears in JAMA Network Open.

It’s a study of 229 mother-child pairs from the Los Angeles area. The moms had their urinary fluoride level measured once before 30 weeks of gestation. A neurobehavioral battery called the Preschool Child Behavior Checklist was administered to the children at age 36 months. 

The main thing you’ll hear about this study — in headlines, Facebook posts, and manifestos locked in drawers somewhere — is the primary result: A 0.68-mg/L increase in urinary fluoride in the mothers, about 25 percentile points, was associated with a doubling of the risk for neurobehavioral problems in their kids when they were 3 years old.

Yikes.

But this is not a randomized trial. Researchers didn’t randomly assign some women to have high fluoride intake and some women to have low fluoride intake. They knew that other factors that might lead to neurobehavioral problems could also lead to higher fluoride intake. They represent these factors in what’s known as a directed acyclic graph, as seen here, and account for them statistically using a regression equation.

Jama Network Open

Los Angeles County Department of Public Health

Is Urinary Fluoride a Good Measure of Blood Fluoride?

It’s not great. Empirically, we have data that tell us that levels of urine fluoride are not all that similar to levels of serum fluoride. In 2014, a study investigated the correlation between urine and serum fluoride in a cohort of 60 schoolchildren and found a correlation coefficient of around 0.5. 

Why isn’t urine fluoride a great proxy for serum fluoride? The most obvious reason is the urine concentration. Human urine concentration can range from about 50 mmol to 1200 mmol (a 24-fold difference) depending on hydration status. Over the course of 24 hours, for example, the amount of fluoride you put out in your urine may be fairly stable in relation to intake, but for a spot urine sample it would be wildly variable. The authors know this, of course, and so they divide the measured urine fluoride by the specific gravity of the urine to give a sort of “dilution adjusted” value. That’s what is actually used in this study. But specific gravity is, itself, an imperfect measure of how dilute the urine is. 

This is something that comes up a lot in urinary biomarker research and it’s not that hard to get around. The best thing would be to just measure blood levels of fluoride. The second best option is 24-hour fluoride excretion. After that, the next best thing would be to adjust the spot concentration by other markers of urinary dilution — creatinine or osmolality — as sensitivity analyses. Any of these approaches would lend credence to the results of the study.

Urinary fluoride excretion is pH dependent. The more acidic the urine, the less fluoride is excreted. Many things — including, importantly, diet — affect urine pH. And it is not a stretch to think that diet may also affect the developing fetus. Neither urine pH nor dietary habits were accounted for in this study. 

So, here we are. We have an observational study suggesting a harm that may be associated with fluoride. There may be a causal link here, in which case we need further studies to weigh the harm against the more well-established public health benefit. Or, this is all correlation — an illusion created by the limitations of observational data, and the unique challenges of estimating intake from a single urine sample. In other words, this study has something for everyone, fluoride boosters and skeptics alike. Let the arguments begin. But, if possible, leave me out of it.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO — An estimated two out of five adult women in the United States have obesity, and given the potential challenges of losing pregnancy weight postpartum or staving off the weight gain associated with menopause, women are likely to be receptive toward weight management help from their ob.gyns. A whole new armamentarium of anti-obesity medications has become available in the past decade, providing physicians and patients with more treatment options.

Ob.gyns. are therefore well-poised to offer counseling and treatment for obesity management for their patients, Johanna G. Finkle, MD, clinical assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology and a weight management specialist at the University of Kansas Heath System, told attendees at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dr. Finkle provided an extensive overview of what ob.gyns. need to know if they are interested in prescribing anti-obesity medications or simply providing their patients with information about the available drugs.

Kitila S. Heyward, MD, an ob.gyn. at Atrium Health in Monroe, North Carolina, who attended the talk, tries to prescribe anti-obesity medications but has run into roadblocks that Dr. Finkle’s talk helped her understand how to overcome.

“I thought it was very helpful because [I] and one of my midwives, in practice, have been trying to get things prescribed, and we can’t figure out the loopholes,” Dr. Heyward said. “Also, the failure rates are really helpful to us so that we know how to counsel people.”

Even for clinicians who aren’t prescribing these medications, Dr. Heyward said the talk was illuminating. “It offered a better understanding of the medications that your patients are on and how it can affect things like birth control, management of surgery, pregnancy, and things along those lines from a clinical day-by-day standpoint,” she said.
 

Starting With the Basics

Dr. Finkle began by emphasizing the importance of using patient-first language in discussing obesity, which means using terms such as “weight, excess weight, overweight, body mass index,” and “affected by obesity” instead of “obese, morbidly obese, heaviness, or large.” She also cited the Obesity Medicine Association’s definition of obesity: “a chronic, relapsing and treatable multifactorial, neurobehavioral disease, wherein an increase in body fat promotes adipose tissue dysfunction and abnormal fat mass physical forces, resulting in adverse metabolic, biomechanical, and psychosocial health consequences.”

Though Dr. Finkle acknowledged the limitations of relying on BMI for defining obesity, it remains the standard tool in current practice, with a BMI of 25-29.9 defining overweight and a BMI of 30 or greater defining obesity. Other diagnostic criteria for obesity in women, however, include a percentage body fat over 32% or a waist circumference of more than 35 inches.

“Women are at risk for weight gain through their entire lifespan” Dr. Finkle said, and in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, 60%-80% have pre-obesity or obesity. In menopause, the triple threat of decreased estrogen, decreased activity, and changes in diet all contribute to obesity risk and no evidence suggests that hormone therapy can prevent weight gain.

Healthy nutrition, physical activity, and behavioral modification remain key pillars of weight management, but interventions such as surgery or medications are also important tools, she said.

“One size does not fit all in terms of treatment,” Dr. Finkle said. ”When I talk to a patient, I think about other medical complications that I can treat with these medications.”

Women for whom anti-obesity medications may be indicated are those with a BMI of 30 or greater, and those with a BMI of at least 27 along with at least one obesity-related comorbidity, such as hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, or sleep apnea. The goal of treating obesity with medication is at least a 5%-10% reduction of body weight.
 

Three Pharmacotherapy Categories

Dr. Finkle reviewed three basic categories of anti-obesity medications: Food and Drug Administration–approved short-term and long-term medications and then off-label drugs that can also aid in healthy weight loss. Short-term options include phentermine, diethylpropion, phendimetrazine, and benzphetamine. Long-term options include orlistat, phentermine/topiramate ER, naltrexone HCl/bupropion HCl ER, and the three GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs, liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide.

The short-term medications are stimulants that increase satiety, but adverse effects can include tachycardia, hypertension, insomnia, dry mouth, constipation, and diarrhea.

These medications are contraindicated for anyone with uncontrolled hypertension, hyperthyroidism, cardiovascular disease, MAOI use, glaucoma, or history of substance use. The goal is a 5% weight loss in 3 months, and 3 months is the maximum prescribing term.

Then Dr. Finkle reviewed the side effects and contraindications for the oral long-term medications. Orlistat, which can aid in up to 5% weight loss, can result in oily stools and fecal incontinence and is contraindicated for people with chronic malabsorption or cholestasis.

Phentermine/topiramate ER, which can aid in up to 10% weight loss, can result in hypertension, paresthesia, or constipation, and is contraindicated for those with glaucoma, hyperthyroidism, and kidney stones. After the starting dose of 3.75 mg/23 mg, Dr. Finkle increases patients’ dose every 2 weeks, ”but if they’re not tolerating it, if they’re having significant side effects, or they’re losing weight, you do not increase the medication.”

Side effects of naltrexone HCl/bupropion HCl ER, which can lead to 5%-6% weight loss, can include hypertension, suicidal ideation, and glaucoma, and it’s contraindicated in those taking opioids or with a history of seizures or anorexia.
 

The GLP-1 Receptor Agonists

Next Dr. Finkle discussed the newest but most effective medications, the GLP-1 agonists liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide. The main contraindications for these drugs are a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia type II syndrome, or any hypersensitivity to this drug class. The two main serious risks are pancreatitis — a 1% risk — and gallstones. Though Dr. Finkle included suicidal ideation as a potential risk of these drugs, the most recent evidence suggests there is no link between suicidal ideation and GLP-1 agonists. The most common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, dyspepsia, and an increased heart rate, though these eventually resolve.

“We always start low with these medications,” Dr. Finkle said, and then titrate the dose up each week, “but if they are having awful side effects, just stay on that dose longer.”

The mechanisms of all three drugs for treating obesity are similar; they work to curb central satiety and slow gastric emptying, though they also have additional mechanisms with benefits for blood glucose levels and for the liver and heart.

• Liraglutide, the first of these drugs approved, is a daily subcutaneous injection that starts at a dose of 0.6 mg and goes up to 3 mg. Patients should lose 4% of weight in 16 weeks or else they are non-responders, Dr. Finkle said.
• Semaglutide, a GLP-1 agonist given as a weekly subcutaneous injection, starts at a dose of 0.25 mg and goes up to 2.4 mg; patients should expect a 5% weight loss in 16 weeks if they are responders. Long term, however, patients lose up to an average 15% of body weight with semaglutide; a third of patients lost more than 20% of body weight in clinical trials, compared with 7%-8% body weight loss with liraglutide. An additional benefit of semaglutide is a 20% reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease.
• Tirzepatide is a combined GLP-1 and GIP agonist, also delivered as a weekly subcutaneous injection, that should result in an estimated 5% weight loss in 16 weeks for responders. But tirzepatide is the most effective of the three, with 91% of patients losing at least 5% body weight and more than half of patients (56%) losing at least 20%.

The big drawbacks to the GLP-1 agonists, however, are their high cost, common lack of insurance coverage, and continued shortages. Dr. Finkle recommended using manufacturer coupons, comparison shopping on Good Rx, and appealing prior authorization requirements to help patients pay for the GLP-1 agonists.

“Drug availability is my second problem. There’s not enough drug,” she said, and her patients often have to call around to different pharmacies to find out which ones are carrying the drug and at what doses. She will sometimes switch their doses as needed based on availability.

It’s also important for physicians to be aware of guidance from the American Society of Anesthesiologists regarding GLP-1 agonist use prior to surgery because of their slowed gastric-emptying mechanism. To reduce the risk of aspiration, patients undergoing general anesthesia should not take liraglutide on the day of surgery, and semaglutide and tirzepatide should be held for 1 week prior to the procedure. New research in JAMA Surgery, however, suggests holding these medications for longer than a week may be wiser.
 

Getting Patients Started

All the short-term and long-term medications are contraindicated during pregnancy and breastfeeding, Dr. Finkle said. Animal studies with GLP-1 agonists suggest adverse fetal effects when used during pregnancy, but the limited data in human studies so far have not shown a risk of major malformations. Dr. Finkle said the recommendations for now are to stop all GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs 2 months before patients attempt to become pregnant and not to begin them again until after they are no longer breastfeeding.

Finally, Dr. Finkle reviewed off-label medications that can result in modest weight loss, including topiramate, phentermine (not to be used for longer than 12 weeks), bupropion, naltrexone, and metformin. Metformin is likely to result in only 2% weight loss, but it may enhance the effects of GLP-1s, she said.

For ob.gyns. who want to get their patients started on one of these medications, Dr. Finkle first recommends asking patients if it’s okay to discuss their weight. ”Studies show that if you just ask permission to discuss someone’s weight, they go on to lose weight and lose more than someone who has never been asked,” Dr. Finkle said. Then she takes a history.

”When I see a patient, I ask, ‘Tell me why you’re here today,’ ” Dr. Finkle said.

This gives me a lot of insight as to why they’re coming in and it helps me understand where they’re at in terms of other things, such as depression or anxiety with weight, and it helps me to tailor my treatment.”

A full medical history is important for learning about potential contraindications or picking medications that might help with other conditions, such as topiramate for migraines. Finally, Dr. Finkle advises a lab screening with a comprehensive metabolic panel, lipid panel, HbA1c, and vitamin D.

“The [comprehensive metabolic panel] allows me to know about creatinine and liver function,” she said. If these are elevated, she will still prescribe GLP-1s but will monitor the values more closely. “Then I discuss options with the patient. They may be eligible for bariatric surgery or medications. We talk about lifestyle behavioral management, and then I go through the medications and we set goals.”

Goals include nutrition and exercise; start modest and have them work their way up by doing activities they enjoy. In addition, patients taking GLP-1s need to eat enough protein — 80 to 100 grams a day, though she starts them at 60 grams — and do regular muscle strengthening since they can lose muscle mass.

Indications for referral to an obesity medicine specialist are a history of gastric bypass/sleeve surgery, having type 2 diabetes, having an eating disorder, or having failed one of these anti-obesity medications.

Finally, Dr. Finkle reviewed medications that can cause weight gain: medroxyprogesterone acetate for birth control; beta blockers for hypertension or migraine; the antidepressants amitriptyline, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and trazodone; the mood stabilizers gabapentin, lithium, valproate, and carbamazepine; and diphenhydramine and zolpidem for sleep.

No external funding was used for the talk. Dr. Finkle and Dr. Heyward had no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO — An estimated two out of five adult women in the United States have obesity, and given the potential challenges of losing pregnancy weight postpartum or staving off the weight gain associated with menopause, women are likely to be receptive toward weight management help from their ob.gyns. A whole new armamentarium of anti-obesity medications has become available in the past decade, providing physicians and patients with more treatment options.

Ob.gyns. are therefore well-poised to offer counseling and treatment for obesity management for their patients, Johanna G. Finkle, MD, clinical assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology and a weight management specialist at the University of Kansas Heath System, told attendees at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dr. Finkle provided an extensive overview of what ob.gyns. need to know if they are interested in prescribing anti-obesity medications or simply providing their patients with information about the available drugs.

Kitila S. Heyward, MD, an ob.gyn. at Atrium Health in Monroe, North Carolina, who attended the talk, tries to prescribe anti-obesity medications but has run into roadblocks that Dr. Finkle’s talk helped her understand how to overcome.

“I thought it was very helpful because [I] and one of my midwives, in practice, have been trying to get things prescribed, and we can’t figure out the loopholes,” Dr. Heyward said. “Also, the failure rates are really helpful to us so that we know how to counsel people.”

Even for clinicians who aren’t prescribing these medications, Dr. Heyward said the talk was illuminating. “It offered a better understanding of the medications that your patients are on and how it can affect things like birth control, management of surgery, pregnancy, and things along those lines from a clinical day-by-day standpoint,” she said.
 

Starting With the Basics

Dr. Finkle began by emphasizing the importance of using patient-first language in discussing obesity, which means using terms such as “weight, excess weight, overweight, body mass index,” and “affected by obesity” instead of “obese, morbidly obese, heaviness, or large.” She also cited the Obesity Medicine Association’s definition of obesity: “a chronic, relapsing and treatable multifactorial, neurobehavioral disease, wherein an increase in body fat promotes adipose tissue dysfunction and abnormal fat mass physical forces, resulting in adverse metabolic, biomechanical, and psychosocial health consequences.”

Though Dr. Finkle acknowledged the limitations of relying on BMI for defining obesity, it remains the standard tool in current practice, with a BMI of 25-29.9 defining overweight and a BMI of 30 or greater defining obesity. Other diagnostic criteria for obesity in women, however, include a percentage body fat over 32% or a waist circumference of more than 35 inches.

“Women are at risk for weight gain through their entire lifespan” Dr. Finkle said, and in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, 60%-80% have pre-obesity or obesity. In menopause, the triple threat of decreased estrogen, decreased activity, and changes in diet all contribute to obesity risk and no evidence suggests that hormone therapy can prevent weight gain.

Healthy nutrition, physical activity, and behavioral modification remain key pillars of weight management, but interventions such as surgery or medications are also important tools, she said.

“One size does not fit all in terms of treatment,” Dr. Finkle said. ”When I talk to a patient, I think about other medical complications that I can treat with these medications.”

Women for whom anti-obesity medications may be indicated are those with a BMI of 30 or greater, and those with a BMI of at least 27 along with at least one obesity-related comorbidity, such as hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, or sleep apnea. The goal of treating obesity with medication is at least a 5%-10% reduction of body weight.
 

Three Pharmacotherapy Categories

Dr. Finkle reviewed three basic categories of anti-obesity medications: Food and Drug Administration–approved short-term and long-term medications and then off-label drugs that can also aid in healthy weight loss. Short-term options include phentermine, diethylpropion, phendimetrazine, and benzphetamine. Long-term options include orlistat, phentermine/topiramate ER, naltrexone HCl/bupropion HCl ER, and the three GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs, liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide.

The short-term medications are stimulants that increase satiety, but adverse effects can include tachycardia, hypertension, insomnia, dry mouth, constipation, and diarrhea.

These medications are contraindicated for anyone with uncontrolled hypertension, hyperthyroidism, cardiovascular disease, MAOI use, glaucoma, or history of substance use. The goal is a 5% weight loss in 3 months, and 3 months is the maximum prescribing term.

Then Dr. Finkle reviewed the side effects and contraindications for the oral long-term medications. Orlistat, which can aid in up to 5% weight loss, can result in oily stools and fecal incontinence and is contraindicated for people with chronic malabsorption or cholestasis.

Phentermine/topiramate ER, which can aid in up to 10% weight loss, can result in hypertension, paresthesia, or constipation, and is contraindicated for those with glaucoma, hyperthyroidism, and kidney stones. After the starting dose of 3.75 mg/23 mg, Dr. Finkle increases patients’ dose every 2 weeks, ”but if they’re not tolerating it, if they’re having significant side effects, or they’re losing weight, you do not increase the medication.”

Side effects of naltrexone HCl/bupropion HCl ER, which can lead to 5%-6% weight loss, can include hypertension, suicidal ideation, and glaucoma, and it’s contraindicated in those taking opioids or with a history of seizures or anorexia.
 

The GLP-1 Receptor Agonists

Next Dr. Finkle discussed the newest but most effective medications, the GLP-1 agonists liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide. The main contraindications for these drugs are a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia type II syndrome, or any hypersensitivity to this drug class. The two main serious risks are pancreatitis — a 1% risk — and gallstones. Though Dr. Finkle included suicidal ideation as a potential risk of these drugs, the most recent evidence suggests there is no link between suicidal ideation and GLP-1 agonists. The most common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, dyspepsia, and an increased heart rate, though these eventually resolve.

“We always start low with these medications,” Dr. Finkle said, and then titrate the dose up each week, “but if they are having awful side effects, just stay on that dose longer.”

The mechanisms of all three drugs for treating obesity are similar; they work to curb central satiety and slow gastric emptying, though they also have additional mechanisms with benefits for blood glucose levels and for the liver and heart.

• Liraglutide, the first of these drugs approved, is a daily subcutaneous injection that starts at a dose of 0.6 mg and goes up to 3 mg. Patients should lose 4% of weight in 16 weeks or else they are non-responders, Dr. Finkle said.
• Semaglutide, a GLP-1 agonist given as a weekly subcutaneous injection, starts at a dose of 0.25 mg and goes up to 2.4 mg; patients should expect a 5% weight loss in 16 weeks if they are responders. Long term, however, patients lose up to an average 15% of body weight with semaglutide; a third of patients lost more than 20% of body weight in clinical trials, compared with 7%-8% body weight loss with liraglutide. An additional benefit of semaglutide is a 20% reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease.
• Tirzepatide is a combined GLP-1 and GIP agonist, also delivered as a weekly subcutaneous injection, that should result in an estimated 5% weight loss in 16 weeks for responders. But tirzepatide is the most effective of the three, with 91% of patients losing at least 5% body weight and more than half of patients (56%) losing at least 20%.

The big drawbacks to the GLP-1 agonists, however, are their high cost, common lack of insurance coverage, and continued shortages. Dr. Finkle recommended using manufacturer coupons, comparison shopping on Good Rx, and appealing prior authorization requirements to help patients pay for the GLP-1 agonists.

“Drug availability is my second problem. There’s not enough drug,” she said, and her patients often have to call around to different pharmacies to find out which ones are carrying the drug and at what doses. She will sometimes switch their doses as needed based on availability.

It’s also important for physicians to be aware of guidance from the American Society of Anesthesiologists regarding GLP-1 agonist use prior to surgery because of their slowed gastric-emptying mechanism. To reduce the risk of aspiration, patients undergoing general anesthesia should not take liraglutide on the day of surgery, and semaglutide and tirzepatide should be held for 1 week prior to the procedure. New research in JAMA Surgery, however, suggests holding these medications for longer than a week may be wiser.
 

Getting Patients Started

All the short-term and long-term medications are contraindicated during pregnancy and breastfeeding, Dr. Finkle said. Animal studies with GLP-1 agonists suggest adverse fetal effects when used during pregnancy, but the limited data in human studies so far have not shown a risk of major malformations. Dr. Finkle said the recommendations for now are to stop all GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs 2 months before patients attempt to become pregnant and not to begin them again until after they are no longer breastfeeding.

Finally, Dr. Finkle reviewed off-label medications that can result in modest weight loss, including topiramate, phentermine (not to be used for longer than 12 weeks), bupropion, naltrexone, and metformin. Metformin is likely to result in only 2% weight loss, but it may enhance the effects of GLP-1s, she said.

For ob.gyns. who want to get their patients started on one of these medications, Dr. Finkle first recommends asking patients if it’s okay to discuss their weight. ”Studies show that if you just ask permission to discuss someone’s weight, they go on to lose weight and lose more than someone who has never been asked,” Dr. Finkle said. Then she takes a history.

”When I see a patient, I ask, ‘Tell me why you’re here today,’ ” Dr. Finkle said.

This gives me a lot of insight as to why they’re coming in and it helps me understand where they’re at in terms of other things, such as depression or anxiety with weight, and it helps me to tailor my treatment.”

A full medical history is important for learning about potential contraindications or picking medications that might help with other conditions, such as topiramate for migraines. Finally, Dr. Finkle advises a lab screening with a comprehensive metabolic panel, lipid panel, HbA1c, and vitamin D.

“The [comprehensive metabolic panel] allows me to know about creatinine and liver function,” she said. If these are elevated, she will still prescribe GLP-1s but will monitor the values more closely. “Then I discuss options with the patient. They may be eligible for bariatric surgery or medications. We talk about lifestyle behavioral management, and then I go through the medications and we set goals.”

Goals include nutrition and exercise; start modest and have them work their way up by doing activities they enjoy. In addition, patients taking GLP-1s need to eat enough protein — 80 to 100 grams a day, though she starts them at 60 grams — and do regular muscle strengthening since they can lose muscle mass.

Indications for referral to an obesity medicine specialist are a history of gastric bypass/sleeve surgery, having type 2 diabetes, having an eating disorder, or having failed one of these anti-obesity medications.

Finally, Dr. Finkle reviewed medications that can cause weight gain: medroxyprogesterone acetate for birth control; beta blockers for hypertension or migraine; the antidepressants amitriptyline, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and trazodone; the mood stabilizers gabapentin, lithium, valproate, and carbamazepine; and diphenhydramine and zolpidem for sleep.

No external funding was used for the talk. Dr. Finkle and Dr. Heyward had no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO — An estimated two out of five adult women in the United States have obesity, and given the potential challenges of losing pregnancy weight postpartum or staving off the weight gain associated with menopause, women are likely to be receptive toward weight management help from their ob.gyns. A whole new armamentarium of anti-obesity medications has become available in the past decade, providing physicians and patients with more treatment options.

Ob.gyns. are therefore well-poised to offer counseling and treatment for obesity management for their patients, Johanna G. Finkle, MD, clinical assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology and a weight management specialist at the University of Kansas Heath System, told attendees at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dr. Finkle provided an extensive overview of what ob.gyns. need to know if they are interested in prescribing anti-obesity medications or simply providing their patients with information about the available drugs.

Kitila S. Heyward, MD, an ob.gyn. at Atrium Health in Monroe, North Carolina, who attended the talk, tries to prescribe anti-obesity medications but has run into roadblocks that Dr. Finkle’s talk helped her understand how to overcome.

“I thought it was very helpful because [I] and one of my midwives, in practice, have been trying to get things prescribed, and we can’t figure out the loopholes,” Dr. Heyward said. “Also, the failure rates are really helpful to us so that we know how to counsel people.”

Even for clinicians who aren’t prescribing these medications, Dr. Heyward said the talk was illuminating. “It offered a better understanding of the medications that your patients are on and how it can affect things like birth control, management of surgery, pregnancy, and things along those lines from a clinical day-by-day standpoint,” she said.
 

Starting With the Basics

Dr. Finkle began by emphasizing the importance of using patient-first language in discussing obesity, which means using terms such as “weight, excess weight, overweight, body mass index,” and “affected by obesity” instead of “obese, morbidly obese, heaviness, or large.” She also cited the Obesity Medicine Association’s definition of obesity: “a chronic, relapsing and treatable multifactorial, neurobehavioral disease, wherein an increase in body fat promotes adipose tissue dysfunction and abnormal fat mass physical forces, resulting in adverse metabolic, biomechanical, and psychosocial health consequences.”

Though Dr. Finkle acknowledged the limitations of relying on BMI for defining obesity, it remains the standard tool in current practice, with a BMI of 25-29.9 defining overweight and a BMI of 30 or greater defining obesity. Other diagnostic criteria for obesity in women, however, include a percentage body fat over 32% or a waist circumference of more than 35 inches.

“Women are at risk for weight gain through their entire lifespan” Dr. Finkle said, and in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, 60%-80% have pre-obesity or obesity. In menopause, the triple threat of decreased estrogen, decreased activity, and changes in diet all contribute to obesity risk and no evidence suggests that hormone therapy can prevent weight gain.

Healthy nutrition, physical activity, and behavioral modification remain key pillars of weight management, but interventions such as surgery or medications are also important tools, she said.

“One size does not fit all in terms of treatment,” Dr. Finkle said. ”When I talk to a patient, I think about other medical complications that I can treat with these medications.”

Women for whom anti-obesity medications may be indicated are those with a BMI of 30 or greater, and those with a BMI of at least 27 along with at least one obesity-related comorbidity, such as hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, or sleep apnea. The goal of treating obesity with medication is at least a 5%-10% reduction of body weight.
 

Three Pharmacotherapy Categories

Dr. Finkle reviewed three basic categories of anti-obesity medications: Food and Drug Administration–approved short-term and long-term medications and then off-label drugs that can also aid in healthy weight loss. Short-term options include phentermine, diethylpropion, phendimetrazine, and benzphetamine. Long-term options include orlistat, phentermine/topiramate ER, naltrexone HCl/bupropion HCl ER, and the three GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs, liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide.

The short-term medications are stimulants that increase satiety, but adverse effects can include tachycardia, hypertension, insomnia, dry mouth, constipation, and diarrhea.

These medications are contraindicated for anyone with uncontrolled hypertension, hyperthyroidism, cardiovascular disease, MAOI use, glaucoma, or history of substance use. The goal is a 5% weight loss in 3 months, and 3 months is the maximum prescribing term.

Then Dr. Finkle reviewed the side effects and contraindications for the oral long-term medications. Orlistat, which can aid in up to 5% weight loss, can result in oily stools and fecal incontinence and is contraindicated for people with chronic malabsorption or cholestasis.

Phentermine/topiramate ER, which can aid in up to 10% weight loss, can result in hypertension, paresthesia, or constipation, and is contraindicated for those with glaucoma, hyperthyroidism, and kidney stones. After the starting dose of 3.75 mg/23 mg, Dr. Finkle increases patients’ dose every 2 weeks, ”but if they’re not tolerating it, if they’re having significant side effects, or they’re losing weight, you do not increase the medication.”

Side effects of naltrexone HCl/bupropion HCl ER, which can lead to 5%-6% weight loss, can include hypertension, suicidal ideation, and glaucoma, and it’s contraindicated in those taking opioids or with a history of seizures or anorexia.
 

The GLP-1 Receptor Agonists

Next Dr. Finkle discussed the newest but most effective medications, the GLP-1 agonists liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide. The main contraindications for these drugs are a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia type II syndrome, or any hypersensitivity to this drug class. The two main serious risks are pancreatitis — a 1% risk — and gallstones. Though Dr. Finkle included suicidal ideation as a potential risk of these drugs, the most recent evidence suggests there is no link between suicidal ideation and GLP-1 agonists. The most common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, dyspepsia, and an increased heart rate, though these eventually resolve.

“We always start low with these medications,” Dr. Finkle said, and then titrate the dose up each week, “but if they are having awful side effects, just stay on that dose longer.”

The mechanisms of all three drugs for treating obesity are similar; they work to curb central satiety and slow gastric emptying, though they also have additional mechanisms with benefits for blood glucose levels and for the liver and heart.

• Liraglutide, the first of these drugs approved, is a daily subcutaneous injection that starts at a dose of 0.6 mg and goes up to 3 mg. Patients should lose 4% of weight in 16 weeks or else they are non-responders, Dr. Finkle said.
• Semaglutide, a GLP-1 agonist given as a weekly subcutaneous injection, starts at a dose of 0.25 mg and goes up to 2.4 mg; patients should expect a 5% weight loss in 16 weeks if they are responders. Long term, however, patients lose up to an average 15% of body weight with semaglutide; a third of patients lost more than 20% of body weight in clinical trials, compared with 7%-8% body weight loss with liraglutide. An additional benefit of semaglutide is a 20% reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease.
• Tirzepatide is a combined GLP-1 and GIP agonist, also delivered as a weekly subcutaneous injection, that should result in an estimated 5% weight loss in 16 weeks for responders. But tirzepatide is the most effective of the three, with 91% of patients losing at least 5% body weight and more than half of patients (56%) losing at least 20%.

The big drawbacks to the GLP-1 agonists, however, are their high cost, common lack of insurance coverage, and continued shortages. Dr. Finkle recommended using manufacturer coupons, comparison shopping on Good Rx, and appealing prior authorization requirements to help patients pay for the GLP-1 agonists.

“Drug availability is my second problem. There’s not enough drug,” she said, and her patients often have to call around to different pharmacies to find out which ones are carrying the drug and at what doses. She will sometimes switch their doses as needed based on availability.

It’s also important for physicians to be aware of guidance from the American Society of Anesthesiologists regarding GLP-1 agonist use prior to surgery because of their slowed gastric-emptying mechanism. To reduce the risk of aspiration, patients undergoing general anesthesia should not take liraglutide on the day of surgery, and semaglutide and tirzepatide should be held for 1 week prior to the procedure. New research in JAMA Surgery, however, suggests holding these medications for longer than a week may be wiser.
 

Getting Patients Started

All the short-term and long-term medications are contraindicated during pregnancy and breastfeeding, Dr. Finkle said. Animal studies with GLP-1 agonists suggest adverse fetal effects when used during pregnancy, but the limited data in human studies so far have not shown a risk of major malformations. Dr. Finkle said the recommendations for now are to stop all GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs 2 months before patients attempt to become pregnant and not to begin them again until after they are no longer breastfeeding.

Finally, Dr. Finkle reviewed off-label medications that can result in modest weight loss, including topiramate, phentermine (not to be used for longer than 12 weeks), bupropion, naltrexone, and metformin. Metformin is likely to result in only 2% weight loss, but it may enhance the effects of GLP-1s, she said.

For ob.gyns. who want to get their patients started on one of these medications, Dr. Finkle first recommends asking patients if it’s okay to discuss their weight. ”Studies show that if you just ask permission to discuss someone’s weight, they go on to lose weight and lose more than someone who has never been asked,” Dr. Finkle said. Then she takes a history.

”When I see a patient, I ask, ‘Tell me why you’re here today,’ ” Dr. Finkle said.

This gives me a lot of insight as to why they’re coming in and it helps me understand where they’re at in terms of other things, such as depression or anxiety with weight, and it helps me to tailor my treatment.”

A full medical history is important for learning about potential contraindications or picking medications that might help with other conditions, such as topiramate for migraines. Finally, Dr. Finkle advises a lab screening with a comprehensive metabolic panel, lipid panel, HbA1c, and vitamin D.

“The [comprehensive metabolic panel] allows me to know about creatinine and liver function,” she said. If these are elevated, she will still prescribe GLP-1s but will monitor the values more closely. “Then I discuss options with the patient. They may be eligible for bariatric surgery or medications. We talk about lifestyle behavioral management, and then I go through the medications and we set goals.”

Goals include nutrition and exercise; start modest and have them work their way up by doing activities they enjoy. In addition, patients taking GLP-1s need to eat enough protein — 80 to 100 grams a day, though she starts them at 60 grams — and do regular muscle strengthening since they can lose muscle mass.

Indications for referral to an obesity medicine specialist are a history of gastric bypass/sleeve surgery, having type 2 diabetes, having an eating disorder, or having failed one of these anti-obesity medications.

Finally, Dr. Finkle reviewed medications that can cause weight gain: medroxyprogesterone acetate for birth control; beta blockers for hypertension or migraine; the antidepressants amitriptyline, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and trazodone; the mood stabilizers gabapentin, lithium, valproate, and carbamazepine; and diphenhydramine and zolpidem for sleep.

No external funding was used for the talk. Dr. Finkle and Dr. Heyward had no disclosures.

NEW ORLEANS — Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis may not be receiving all the recommended tests to rule out secondary causes of bone loss prior to treatment initiation, new research found.

In a single-center chart review of 150 postmenopausal women who had been diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis, most had received a complete blood cell count, basic metabolic panel, thyroid screening, and vitamin D testing. However, one in four had not been tested for a parathyroid hormone (PTH) level, and in nearly two thirds, a 24-hour urine calcium collection had not been ordered.

Overall, less than a third had received the complete workup for secondary osteoporosis causes as recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and the Endocrine Society.

“An appropriate evaluation for secondary causes of osteoporosis is essential because it impacts different treatment options and modalities. We discovered low rates of complete testing for secondary causes of osteoporosis in our patient population prior to treatment initiation,” said Kajol Manglani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, and colleagues, in a poster at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) annual meeting held on May 9-12, 2024.

First author Sheetal Bulchandani, MD, said in an interview, “It depends a lot on clinical judgment, but there are certain things that everybody with osteoporosis should be evaluated for. We looked for the things that all the guidelines recommend.”

Studies have suggested that up to 30% of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis have secondary causes, noted Dr. Bulchandani, who conducted the study as a postdoctoral fellow with colleagues at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital and is now in private endocrine practice in Petersburg, Virginia.

“It’s important not to assume that every woman who walks in with osteoporosis has postmenopausal osteoporosis. I think it would be appropriate to at least discuss with the patients what would warrant certain kinds of clinical workup. … If you don’t figure out if there is an underlying cause, you may end up using an unnecessary medication,” Dr. Bulchandani said.
 

Are You Missing Something Treatable?

For example, she said, if the patient has underlying hyperparathyroidism and is treated with osteoporosis medications, “you might not see the desired or expected outcome in their bone density.”

Asked to comment, Rachel Pessah-Pollack, MD, clinical associate professor at the Holman Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at New York University School of Medicine, New York City, told this news organization, “Certainly, if you have patients who have osteoporosis, it’s important to take a good history and consider secondary causes of bone loss because you may find a treatable etiology that actually can improve their bone density without even starting on a medication.”

Dr. Pessah-Pollack, who was an author of the 2020 AACE/American College of Endocrinology 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteoporosis, said a 24-hour urine calcium collection, not a spot calcium check, is “super important because you’re looking to see if there’s any evidence of hypercalciuria or malabsorption that may be associated with higher rates of bone loss. … These may be a little more cumbersome and harder to get patients to do and more logistics to arrange. But clearly, if you pick up hypercalciuria, that is a potentially treatable etiology and can improve bone density as well.”

Another example, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said, is “if they have a low serum calcium level and high PTH, that would be a real reason to look for celiac disease. By not getting that PTH level, you may be missing that potential diagnosis. There is a wide range of additional causes of osteoporosis ranging from common conditions such as hyperthyroidism to rare conditions such as Cushing disease.”
 

Differences in Ordering Found Across Specialties

The 150 postmenopausal women were all receiving treatment with either alendronate, denosumab, or zoledronic acid. Their average age was 64.7 years, and 63% were seeing an endocrinologist.

Complete workups as per AACE and Endocrine Society guidelines had been performed in just 28% of those who saw an endocrinologist and 12.5% of patients seen by a rheumatologist, in contrast to 84% of those who saw the head of the hospital’s fracture prevention program.

Overall, across all specialties, just 28.67% had the complete recommended workup for secondary osteoporosis causes.

The most missed test was a 24-hour urine calcium collection, ordered for just 38% of the patients, while PTH was ordered for 73% and phosphorus for 80%. The rest were more commonly ordered: Thyroid-stimulating hormone level for 92.7%, complete blood cell count for 91.3%, basic metabolic panel for 100%, and vitamin D level for 96%.

The high rate of vitamin D testing is noteworthy, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said. “The fact that 96% of women are having vitamin D levels checked as part of an osteoporosis evaluation means that everybody’s aware about vitamin D deficiency, and people want to know what their vitamin D levels are. … That’s good because we want to identify vitamin D deficiency in our osteoporosis patients.”

But the low rate of complete secondary screening even by endocrinologists is concerning. “I look at this study as an opportunity for education that we can reinforce the importance of a secondary evaluation for our osteoporosis patients and really tailor which additional tests should be ordered for the individual patient,” Dr. Pessah-Pollack said.

In the poster, Dr. Bulchandani and colleagues wrote, “Further intervention will be aimed to ensure physicians undertake adequate evaluation before considering further treatment directions.” Possibilities that have been discussed include electronic health record alerts and educational materials for primary care providers, she told this news organization.

Dr. Manglani and Dr. Bulchandani had no disclosures. Dr. Pessah-Pollack is an advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS — Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis may not be receiving all the recommended tests to rule out secondary causes of bone loss prior to treatment initiation, new research found.

In a single-center chart review of 150 postmenopausal women who had been diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis, most had received a complete blood cell count, basic metabolic panel, thyroid screening, and vitamin D testing. However, one in four had not been tested for a parathyroid hormone (PTH) level, and in nearly two thirds, a 24-hour urine calcium collection had not been ordered.

Overall, less than a third had received the complete workup for secondary osteoporosis causes as recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and the Endocrine Society.

“An appropriate evaluation for secondary causes of osteoporosis is essential because it impacts different treatment options and modalities. We discovered low rates of complete testing for secondary causes of osteoporosis in our patient population prior to treatment initiation,” said Kajol Manglani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, and colleagues, in a poster at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) annual meeting held on May 9-12, 2024.

First author Sheetal Bulchandani, MD, said in an interview, “It depends a lot on clinical judgment, but there are certain things that everybody with osteoporosis should be evaluated for. We looked for the things that all the guidelines recommend.”

Studies have suggested that up to 30% of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis have secondary causes, noted Dr. Bulchandani, who conducted the study as a postdoctoral fellow with colleagues at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital and is now in private endocrine practice in Petersburg, Virginia.

“It’s important not to assume that every woman who walks in with osteoporosis has postmenopausal osteoporosis. I think it would be appropriate to at least discuss with the patients what would warrant certain kinds of clinical workup. … If you don’t figure out if there is an underlying cause, you may end up using an unnecessary medication,” Dr. Bulchandani said.
 

Are You Missing Something Treatable?

For example, she said, if the patient has underlying hyperparathyroidism and is treated with osteoporosis medications, “you might not see the desired or expected outcome in their bone density.”

Asked to comment, Rachel Pessah-Pollack, MD, clinical associate professor at the Holman Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at New York University School of Medicine, New York City, told this news organization, “Certainly, if you have patients who have osteoporosis, it’s important to take a good history and consider secondary causes of bone loss because you may find a treatable etiology that actually can improve their bone density without even starting on a medication.”

Dr. Pessah-Pollack, who was an author of the 2020 AACE/American College of Endocrinology 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteoporosis, said a 24-hour urine calcium collection, not a spot calcium check, is “super important because you’re looking to see if there’s any evidence of hypercalciuria or malabsorption that may be associated with higher rates of bone loss. … These may be a little more cumbersome and harder to get patients to do and more logistics to arrange. But clearly, if you pick up hypercalciuria, that is a potentially treatable etiology and can improve bone density as well.”

Another example, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said, is “if they have a low serum calcium level and high PTH, that would be a real reason to look for celiac disease. By not getting that PTH level, you may be missing that potential diagnosis. There is a wide range of additional causes of osteoporosis ranging from common conditions such as hyperthyroidism to rare conditions such as Cushing disease.”
 

Differences in Ordering Found Across Specialties

The 150 postmenopausal women were all receiving treatment with either alendronate, denosumab, or zoledronic acid. Their average age was 64.7 years, and 63% were seeing an endocrinologist.

Complete workups as per AACE and Endocrine Society guidelines had been performed in just 28% of those who saw an endocrinologist and 12.5% of patients seen by a rheumatologist, in contrast to 84% of those who saw the head of the hospital’s fracture prevention program.

Overall, across all specialties, just 28.67% had the complete recommended workup for secondary osteoporosis causes.

The most missed test was a 24-hour urine calcium collection, ordered for just 38% of the patients, while PTH was ordered for 73% and phosphorus for 80%. The rest were more commonly ordered: Thyroid-stimulating hormone level for 92.7%, complete blood cell count for 91.3%, basic metabolic panel for 100%, and vitamin D level for 96%.

The high rate of vitamin D testing is noteworthy, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said. “The fact that 96% of women are having vitamin D levels checked as part of an osteoporosis evaluation means that everybody’s aware about vitamin D deficiency, and people want to know what their vitamin D levels are. … That’s good because we want to identify vitamin D deficiency in our osteoporosis patients.”

But the low rate of complete secondary screening even by endocrinologists is concerning. “I look at this study as an opportunity for education that we can reinforce the importance of a secondary evaluation for our osteoporosis patients and really tailor which additional tests should be ordered for the individual patient,” Dr. Pessah-Pollack said.

In the poster, Dr. Bulchandani and colleagues wrote, “Further intervention will be aimed to ensure physicians undertake adequate evaluation before considering further treatment directions.” Possibilities that have been discussed include electronic health record alerts and educational materials for primary care providers, she told this news organization.

Dr. Manglani and Dr. Bulchandani had no disclosures. Dr. Pessah-Pollack is an advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS — Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis may not be receiving all the recommended tests to rule out secondary causes of bone loss prior to treatment initiation, new research found.

In a single-center chart review of 150 postmenopausal women who had been diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis, most had received a complete blood cell count, basic metabolic panel, thyroid screening, and vitamin D testing. However, one in four had not been tested for a parathyroid hormone (PTH) level, and in nearly two thirds, a 24-hour urine calcium collection had not been ordered.

Overall, less than a third had received the complete workup for secondary osteoporosis causes as recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and the Endocrine Society.

“An appropriate evaluation for secondary causes of osteoporosis is essential because it impacts different treatment options and modalities. We discovered low rates of complete testing for secondary causes of osteoporosis in our patient population prior to treatment initiation,” said Kajol Manglani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, and colleagues, in a poster at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) annual meeting held on May 9-12, 2024.

First author Sheetal Bulchandani, MD, said in an interview, “It depends a lot on clinical judgment, but there are certain things that everybody with osteoporosis should be evaluated for. We looked for the things that all the guidelines recommend.”

Studies have suggested that up to 30% of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis have secondary causes, noted Dr. Bulchandani, who conducted the study as a postdoctoral fellow with colleagues at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital and is now in private endocrine practice in Petersburg, Virginia.

“It’s important not to assume that every woman who walks in with osteoporosis has postmenopausal osteoporosis. I think it would be appropriate to at least discuss with the patients what would warrant certain kinds of clinical workup. … If you don’t figure out if there is an underlying cause, you may end up using an unnecessary medication,” Dr. Bulchandani said.
 

Are You Missing Something Treatable?

For example, she said, if the patient has underlying hyperparathyroidism and is treated with osteoporosis medications, “you might not see the desired or expected outcome in their bone density.”

Asked to comment, Rachel Pessah-Pollack, MD, clinical associate professor at the Holman Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at New York University School of Medicine, New York City, told this news organization, “Certainly, if you have patients who have osteoporosis, it’s important to take a good history and consider secondary causes of bone loss because you may find a treatable etiology that actually can improve their bone density without even starting on a medication.”

Dr. Pessah-Pollack, who was an author of the 2020 AACE/American College of Endocrinology 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteoporosis, said a 24-hour urine calcium collection, not a spot calcium check, is “super important because you’re looking to see if there’s any evidence of hypercalciuria or malabsorption that may be associated with higher rates of bone loss. … These may be a little more cumbersome and harder to get patients to do and more logistics to arrange. But clearly, if you pick up hypercalciuria, that is a potentially treatable etiology and can improve bone density as well.”

Another example, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said, is “if they have a low serum calcium level and high PTH, that would be a real reason to look for celiac disease. By not getting that PTH level, you may be missing that potential diagnosis. There is a wide range of additional causes of osteoporosis ranging from common conditions such as hyperthyroidism to rare conditions such as Cushing disease.”
 

Differences in Ordering Found Across Specialties

The 150 postmenopausal women were all receiving treatment with either alendronate, denosumab, or zoledronic acid. Their average age was 64.7 years, and 63% were seeing an endocrinologist.

Complete workups as per AACE and Endocrine Society guidelines had been performed in just 28% of those who saw an endocrinologist and 12.5% of patients seen by a rheumatologist, in contrast to 84% of those who saw the head of the hospital’s fracture prevention program.

Overall, across all specialties, just 28.67% had the complete recommended workup for secondary osteoporosis causes.

The most missed test was a 24-hour urine calcium collection, ordered for just 38% of the patients, while PTH was ordered for 73% and phosphorus for 80%. The rest were more commonly ordered: Thyroid-stimulating hormone level for 92.7%, complete blood cell count for 91.3%, basic metabolic panel for 100%, and vitamin D level for 96%.

The high rate of vitamin D testing is noteworthy, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said. “The fact that 96% of women are having vitamin D levels checked as part of an osteoporosis evaluation means that everybody’s aware about vitamin D deficiency, and people want to know what their vitamin D levels are. … That’s good because we want to identify vitamin D deficiency in our osteoporosis patients.”

But the low rate of complete secondary screening even by endocrinologists is concerning. “I look at this study as an opportunity for education that we can reinforce the importance of a secondary evaluation for our osteoporosis patients and really tailor which additional tests should be ordered for the individual patient,” Dr. Pessah-Pollack said.

In the poster, Dr. Bulchandani and colleagues wrote, “Further intervention will be aimed to ensure physicians undertake adequate evaluation before considering further treatment directions.” Possibilities that have been discussed include electronic health record alerts and educational materials for primary care providers, she told this news organization.

Dr. Manglani and Dr. Bulchandani had no disclosures. Dr. Pessah-Pollack is an advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five experts discussed research that they considered to be highlights of the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress during a “Key Takeaways” session at the meeting.

Among the topics the speakers addressed were breast cancer prevention, early breast cancer, advanced breast cancer, and supportive care.

In recent years, the way clinicians look at carcinogenesis in breast cancer has changed, and many new targets for potential early detection and prevention have emerged, said Suzette Delaloge, MD, of Gustave Roussy, Paris, France, in her presentation at the meeting.

Instant risk assessment at different time points could potentially intercept cancer among high-risk individuals, she said.

A study by Mikael Eriksson, PhD, and colleagues focused on external validation of the Profound AI tool to identify breast cancer risk in the general population. The researchers showed an area under the curve of 0.72 in their AI risk model, which has the potential to be clinically meaningful, although it must be prospectively validated, Dr. Delaloge said in her presentation.

She also reviewed two studies on the use of genes to further refine breast cancer risk among carriers. One of these, a prospective study presented in a session by Kelly-Anne Phillips, MD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Australia, used the CANRISK online risk assessment tool and validated increased breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, with AUCs of 0.79 and 0.78, respectively. The other study, which was by Maria Rezqallah Aron, MD, and colleagues examined polygenic scores as a way to refine breast cancer risk stratification among carriers of the ALM and PALB2 genes as well. These genes might be useful in identifying individuals who could benefit from early intervention, including surgery, Dr. Delaloge said.
 

Translational Research

“Preparing my talk, I felt like a kid in a candy store,” because of the amount of new translational research presented, including several studies of endocrine treatment–based approaches to therapy, said Marleen Kok, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

In her presentation, Dr. Kok highlighted findings from an analysis of patients in the monarchE study (a trial of high-risk patients) showing a consistent improvement in invasive disease-free survival for the subset of patients with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations who received abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy.

The value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) on patients who are not receiving chemotherapy is important because of the focus on prognosis, and prospective trials are underway, she said.

A poster on the impact of chemotherapy and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) in stage I triple-negative breast cancer showed no association between chemotherapy and better outcomes regardless of sTILs in patients who did and did not receive chemotherapy, which has implications for potential treatment sparing in this population, Dr. Kok noted.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) was the subject of several posters at the meeting, and Dr. Kok identified a multisite European study of an automated HER2 scoring system as notable for its size and accuracy. In the study, the accuracy among pathologists was much higher with the assistance of AI, she said. Using AI for more complex analysis has shown success, she said.

Dr. Kok ended her talk with a poster that surveyed breast cancer patients about their understanding of their disease. The results showed that less than half (44%) of patients reported that their healthcare providers had given them enough information to learn about their breast cancer type, and less than one third could recall terminology about biomarkers; the study is important because it shows that clinicians need to do better in explaining these terms to patients, Dr. Kok said.
 

Early Breast Cancer

Right-sizing therapy, meaning identifying the right treatment for every patient, is a key element of new research in early breast cancer, said Erika Hamilton, MD, of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn.

She highlighted safety and treatment duration updates from the NATALEE study, which compared adjuvant ribociclib plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) to NSAI alone for ER+/HER2- breast cancer. The current analysis presented at the meeting showed significant benefits with the addition of ribociclib and no evidence of new safety signals or adverse event exacerbations at 3 years, she said. Dose modifications had no significant impact on efficacy, she added.

The findings of no impact of dose reduction on efficacy in both the NATALEE and monarchE studies provide important information on whether dosage can be reduced in patients, which will increase the odds that patients will tolerate extended therapy with good outcomes and stay on their prescribed therapies, Dr. Hamilton emphasized.

The CARABELA study, a phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant letrozole plus abemaciclib vs adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC), showed clinically similar response rates but did not meet its endpoint for residual cancer burden (RCB) scores. These data add to results from other studies and show that it is too soon to universally replace neoadjuvant chemotherapy as first-line treatment for highly proliferative ER+ breast cancer, Dr. Hamilton said in her presentation.
 

Advanced Breast Cancer

Take-home messages about advanced breast cancer include growing evidence for the potential benefits of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), said Eva Ciruelos, MD, of University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. The TROPION-BREAST01 study, a phase 3 randomized trial, showed significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival in patients with previously treated, inoperable, or metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer who received datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) compared with those who received chemotherapy.

Data from an additional safety analysis were presented at the meeting; although Dato-DXd, a trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (TROP2)–directed antibody-drug conjugate, was well-tolerated, it is important to remain aware of toxicities, notably oral mucositis, which occurred in 55.6% of the patients in the study across all grades, and ocular surface toxicity, which occurred in 40% of patients across all grades, Dr. Ciruelos emphasized.

Key research in the area of advanced triple-negative breast cancer included data from the IMPASSION 132 study. This study is “specifically centered on early relapsers,” a population often excluded from other trials, Dr. Ciruelos said. In this study, patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer were randomized to chemotherapy with or without atezolizumab, and the study showed no benefits with atezolizumab for overall survival, progression-free survival, or overall response rate, she said. “This is something to work with, because this is a very refractory population,” Dr. Ciruelos noted.

New immunotherapy combinations are needed to improve survival in advanced breast cancer patients, Dr. Ciruelos said. At the meeting, researchers presented interim data from a subset of patients in the MORPHEUS-pan breast cancer trial, a phase 1B/2 study involving multiple treatment combinations in locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer patients.

The interim analysis included 18-week data from triple-negative breast cancer patients and compared outcomes for patients randomized to atezolizumab with or without sacituzumab govitecan (SG).

The study was small, with only 31 patients in the combination arm and 11 controls, but the results were promising, with an overall response rate of 76.7% in the combination arm vs 66.7% in the control arm, Dr. Ciruelos said.

Supportive Care

Key supportive care takeaways included data on pregnancy in young breast cancer survivors and the safety of vaginal estrogen therapy in breast cancer patients with genitourinary symptoms, said Anne May, MD, of the University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.

A study previously published in JAMA including nearly 5000 BRCA carriers who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at age 40 years or younger showed no association between pregnancy after breast cancer and adverse maternal or fetal outcomes, and pregnancy had no significant impact on overall survival. The authors presented new data on the safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) based on the 543 pregnancies in the original study, at the meeting. Of these, 436 conceived naturally, and 107 used ART. After a median of 9.1 years, ART had no effect on disease-free survival compared to natural conception (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64). Based on these findings, fertility preservation should be offered to all women who receive a breast cancer diagnosis and are interested in future fertility, Dr. May said.

Conceiving after breast cancer treatment and follow-up should not be contraindicated for young BRCA carriers, she added.No trial data are available for the effects of vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) on disease-free survival in breast cancer survivors with genitourinary symptoms caused by declining estrogen levels, Dr. May said. However, researchers in France and Switzerland conducted an emulation of a hypothetical target trial using data from the French National social security system for more than 130,000 individuals. Although VET therapy had no impact on disease-free survival in most breast cancer survivors overall, it did have a negative impact in a subset of patients with HR-positive and HR-negative tumors who were treated with aromatase inhibitors. The study was hypothetical, but important because the results suggest that clinicians can safely propose VTE to patients who report genitourinary symptoms after treatment for early-stage breast cancer with tamoxifen, but VTE should be avoided in patients treated with aromatase inhibitors, Dr. May said.

Dr. Delaloge disclosed research support to her institution from AstraZeneca, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Taiho, Novartis, European Commission, INCa, Banque des Territoires, and Fondation Philanthropia. She also disclosed honoraria to her institution from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Novartis, Elsan, Besins, Sanofi, Exact Sciences, and Lilly, as well as travel support from Novartis.

Dr. Kok disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daichi, and Roche, and advisory board membership/speaker’s fees from Alderaan Biotechnology, BIONTECH, Domain Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Daichi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Medscape, MSD, and Roche.

Dr. Hamilton disclosed a consulting advisory role (to her institution) for Accutar Biotechology, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Ellipses Pharma, Entos, Forsum Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Greenwich LifeSciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Medical Pharma Services, Mersana, Novartis, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Orum Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, Stemline Therapeutics, ands others. She also disclosed contracted research/grant support to her institution only from Abbvie, Acerta Pharma, Accutar Biotechnology , ADC Therapeutics, AKESOBIO Australia , Amgen, Aravive, ArQule, Artios, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, AtlasMedx, BeiGene, Black Diamond and others.

Dr. Ciruelos disclosed serving as an external advisor for Roche, MSD, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Reveal Genomics, Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly, as well as serving as a speaker for Roche, MSD, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Reveal Genomics, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and Pierre Fabre. She also disclosed travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, and research grants from Seagen and Roche.

Dr. May had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Five experts discussed research that they considered to be highlights of the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress during a “Key Takeaways” session at the meeting.

Among the topics the speakers addressed were breast cancer prevention, early breast cancer, advanced breast cancer, and supportive care.

In recent years, the way clinicians look at carcinogenesis in breast cancer has changed, and many new targets for potential early detection and prevention have emerged, said Suzette Delaloge, MD, of Gustave Roussy, Paris, France, in her presentation at the meeting.

Instant risk assessment at different time points could potentially intercept cancer among high-risk individuals, she said.

A study by Mikael Eriksson, PhD, and colleagues focused on external validation of the Profound AI tool to identify breast cancer risk in the general population. The researchers showed an area under the curve of 0.72 in their AI risk model, which has the potential to be clinically meaningful, although it must be prospectively validated, Dr. Delaloge said in her presentation.

She also reviewed two studies on the use of genes to further refine breast cancer risk among carriers. One of these, a prospective study presented in a session by Kelly-Anne Phillips, MD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Australia, used the CANRISK online risk assessment tool and validated increased breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, with AUCs of 0.79 and 0.78, respectively. The other study, which was by Maria Rezqallah Aron, MD, and colleagues examined polygenic scores as a way to refine breast cancer risk stratification among carriers of the ALM and PALB2 genes as well. These genes might be useful in identifying individuals who could benefit from early intervention, including surgery, Dr. Delaloge said.