Women's Health

TOPLINE:

Black women in the United States have higher breast cancer (BC) mortality rates than White women across tumor subtypes. The greatest disparity in BC-specific survival was observed in those with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor 2–negative (HER2−) tumors, with Black women having a 50% higher risk for death.

METHODOLOGY:

• US Black women have a 40% higher risk for death from BC than White women, and many cancer specialists believe that disparities are worse among more treatable subtypes, such as HR+ tumors.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 US studies published during 2009-2022 that included 228,885 women (34,262 Black women; 182,466 White women) and examined racial differences in BC survival by subtype.
• The analysis included hormone receptor and HER2/neu status to define subtypes: HR+ HER2+, HR+ HER2−, HR− HER2+, and HR− HER2−.
• Random-effects models were used to generate pooled relative risks and 95% CI for BC-specific survival and overall survival.
• The primary outcome was BC-specific survival, with overall survival as a secondary analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Black women had a higher risk for BC death across all tumor subtypes than White women, with the greatest disparity observed in HR+ HER2− tumors (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.30-1.72).
• The risk for BC death was also higher for Black women with HR+ HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64); HR− HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.00-1.43); and HR− HER2− tumors (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.25).
• Overall survival was poorer for Black women across all subtypes, although estimates for HR− HER2+ tumors did not reach statistical significance.
• In analysis of two subtypes with significant heterogeneity among studies, adjustments for socioeconomic status and number of Black participants explained about half and all the variance for HR+ HER2− and HR− HER2+ tumors, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest there are both subtype-specific and subtype-independent mechanisms that contribute to disparities in breast cancer survival between Black and White women, which require multilevel interventions to address and achieve health equity,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Juliana M. Torres, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, CURE Program, Boston. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included potential heterogeneity between studies as indicated by significant heterogeneity in some analyses. The use of different subtype definitions and potential overlap in data sets may have also affected the results. Many included studies did not capture the extent to which treatments were completed or detection and treatment of recurrences. Additionally, the study’s findings may not fully capture socioeconomic inequality and other unmeasured factors contributing to disparities. The racial and ethnic disparities analysis focused only on Black and White women.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual authors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, Healthix, Merck, AstraZeneca, LabCorp, and Takeda. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Black women in the United States have higher breast cancer (BC) mortality rates than White women across tumor subtypes. The greatest disparity in BC-specific survival was observed in those with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor 2–negative (HER2−) tumors, with Black women having a 50% higher risk for death.

METHODOLOGY:

• US Black women have a 40% higher risk for death from BC than White women, and many cancer specialists believe that disparities are worse among more treatable subtypes, such as HR+ tumors.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 US studies published during 2009-2022 that included 228,885 women (34,262 Black women; 182,466 White women) and examined racial differences in BC survival by subtype.
• The analysis included hormone receptor and HER2/neu status to define subtypes: HR+ HER2+, HR+ HER2−, HR− HER2+, and HR− HER2−.
• Random-effects models were used to generate pooled relative risks and 95% CI for BC-specific survival and overall survival.
• The primary outcome was BC-specific survival, with overall survival as a secondary analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Black women had a higher risk for BC death across all tumor subtypes than White women, with the greatest disparity observed in HR+ HER2− tumors (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.30-1.72).
• The risk for BC death was also higher for Black women with HR+ HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64); HR− HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.00-1.43); and HR− HER2− tumors (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.25).
• Overall survival was poorer for Black women across all subtypes, although estimates for HR− HER2+ tumors did not reach statistical significance.
• In analysis of two subtypes with significant heterogeneity among studies, adjustments for socioeconomic status and number of Black participants explained about half and all the variance for HR+ HER2− and HR− HER2+ tumors, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest there are both subtype-specific and subtype-independent mechanisms that contribute to disparities in breast cancer survival between Black and White women, which require multilevel interventions to address and achieve health equity,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Juliana M. Torres, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, CURE Program, Boston. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included potential heterogeneity between studies as indicated by significant heterogeneity in some analyses. The use of different subtype definitions and potential overlap in data sets may have also affected the results. Many included studies did not capture the extent to which treatments were completed or detection and treatment of recurrences. Additionally, the study’s findings may not fully capture socioeconomic inequality and other unmeasured factors contributing to disparities. The racial and ethnic disparities analysis focused only on Black and White women.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual authors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, Healthix, Merck, AstraZeneca, LabCorp, and Takeda. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Black women in the United States have higher breast cancer (BC) mortality rates than White women across tumor subtypes. The greatest disparity in BC-specific survival was observed in those with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor 2–negative (HER2−) tumors, with Black women having a 50% higher risk for death.

METHODOLOGY:

• US Black women have a 40% higher risk for death from BC than White women, and many cancer specialists believe that disparities are worse among more treatable subtypes, such as HR+ tumors.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 US studies published during 2009-2022 that included 228,885 women (34,262 Black women; 182,466 White women) and examined racial differences in BC survival by subtype.
• The analysis included hormone receptor and HER2/neu status to define subtypes: HR+ HER2+, HR+ HER2−, HR− HER2+, and HR− HER2−.
• Random-effects models were used to generate pooled relative risks and 95% CI for BC-specific survival and overall survival.
• The primary outcome was BC-specific survival, with overall survival as a secondary analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Black women had a higher risk for BC death across all tumor subtypes than White women, with the greatest disparity observed in HR+ HER2− tumors (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.30-1.72).
• The risk for BC death was also higher for Black women with HR+ HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64); HR− HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.00-1.43); and HR− HER2− tumors (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.25).
• Overall survival was poorer for Black women across all subtypes, although estimates for HR− HER2+ tumors did not reach statistical significance.
• In analysis of two subtypes with significant heterogeneity among studies, adjustments for socioeconomic status and number of Black participants explained about half and all the variance for HR+ HER2− and HR− HER2+ tumors, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest there are both subtype-specific and subtype-independent mechanisms that contribute to disparities in breast cancer survival between Black and White women, which require multilevel interventions to address and achieve health equity,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Juliana M. Torres, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, CURE Program, Boston. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included potential heterogeneity between studies as indicated by significant heterogeneity in some analyses. The use of different subtype definitions and potential overlap in data sets may have also affected the results. Many included studies did not capture the extent to which treatments were completed or detection and treatment of recurrences. Additionally, the study’s findings may not fully capture socioeconomic inequality and other unmeasured factors contributing to disparities. The racial and ethnic disparities analysis focused only on Black and White women.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual authors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, Healthix, Merck, AstraZeneca, LabCorp, and Takeda. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ribociclib (Kisqali, Novartis) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor for adult patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative stages II and III breast cancer at high risk for recurrence following surgery.

FDA also approved ribociclib and the aromatase inhibitor letrozole packaged together (Kisqali Femara Co-Pack, Novartis) for the same indication.

A rival cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio, Eli Lilly) carries a similar adjuvant indication, but use of this agent requires patients to be lymph node–positive.

There’s no such restriction for the new ribociclib indication, which “allows us to offer treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor to a significantly broader group of people,” lead investigator Dennis J. Slamon, MD, breast oncologist at the University of California Los Angeless, said in a Novartis press release.

The new indication joins ribociclib’s previous approval for advanced or metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in combination with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant.

The current approval was based on data from the NATALEE trial. NATALEE randomized 5101 patients with early-stage HR-positive, HER2-negative disease to either 400 mg ribociclib with an aromatase inhibitor or to an aromatase inhibitor alone following surgery. 

Invasive disease-free survival at 36 months was 90.7% in the ribociclib arm vs 87.6% with aromatase inhibitor monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.749; P = .0006). The trial included patients with and without lymph node involvement.

At 4 years (well beyond NATALEE’s 3-year treatment window), the ribociclib group continued to do better, with an invasive disease-free survival rate of 88.5% vs 83.6% in the control arm.

Overall survival data remain immature but with a trend towards improved survival in the ribociclib arm (HR, 0.715; P < .0001), according to a recent report from the 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

There were no new safety signals in the trial. Adverse events in the ribociclib group included neutropenia (62.5% overall; 44.3% grade 3/4), liver-related events (26.4% overall; 8.6% grade 3/4), QT prolongation (5.3% overall; 1.0% grade 3/4), and interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis (1.5% overall; 0.0% grade 3/4), according to Novartis.

Ribociclib dosing for the adjuvant indication is lower than for metastatic disease, but patients are on the same schedule — two 200 mg tablets once daily for 21 days followed by 7 days off in 28-day cycles. Treatment continues for 3 years.

Forty-two 200 mg tablets cost about $15,000, according to drugs.com. A patient assistance program is available through Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ribociclib (Kisqali, Novartis) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor for adult patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative stages II and III breast cancer at high risk for recurrence following surgery.

FDA also approved ribociclib and the aromatase inhibitor letrozole packaged together (Kisqali Femara Co-Pack, Novartis) for the same indication.

A rival cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio, Eli Lilly) carries a similar adjuvant indication, but use of this agent requires patients to be lymph node–positive.

There’s no such restriction for the new ribociclib indication, which “allows us to offer treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor to a significantly broader group of people,” lead investigator Dennis J. Slamon, MD, breast oncologist at the University of California Los Angeless, said in a Novartis press release.

The new indication joins ribociclib’s previous approval for advanced or metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in combination with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant.

The current approval was based on data from the NATALEE trial. NATALEE randomized 5101 patients with early-stage HR-positive, HER2-negative disease to either 400 mg ribociclib with an aromatase inhibitor or to an aromatase inhibitor alone following surgery. 

Invasive disease-free survival at 36 months was 90.7% in the ribociclib arm vs 87.6% with aromatase inhibitor monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.749; P = .0006). The trial included patients with and without lymph node involvement.

At 4 years (well beyond NATALEE’s 3-year treatment window), the ribociclib group continued to do better, with an invasive disease-free survival rate of 88.5% vs 83.6% in the control arm.

Overall survival data remain immature but with a trend towards improved survival in the ribociclib arm (HR, 0.715; P < .0001), according to a recent report from the 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

There were no new safety signals in the trial. Adverse events in the ribociclib group included neutropenia (62.5% overall; 44.3% grade 3/4), liver-related events (26.4% overall; 8.6% grade 3/4), QT prolongation (5.3% overall; 1.0% grade 3/4), and interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis (1.5% overall; 0.0% grade 3/4), according to Novartis.

Ribociclib dosing for the adjuvant indication is lower than for metastatic disease, but patients are on the same schedule — two 200 mg tablets once daily for 21 days followed by 7 days off in 28-day cycles. Treatment continues for 3 years.

Forty-two 200 mg tablets cost about $15,000, according to drugs.com. A patient assistance program is available through Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ribociclib (Kisqali, Novartis) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor for adult patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative stages II and III breast cancer at high risk for recurrence following surgery.

FDA also approved ribociclib and the aromatase inhibitor letrozole packaged together (Kisqali Femara Co-Pack, Novartis) for the same indication.

A rival cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio, Eli Lilly) carries a similar adjuvant indication, but use of this agent requires patients to be lymph node–positive.

There’s no such restriction for the new ribociclib indication, which “allows us to offer treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor to a significantly broader group of people,” lead investigator Dennis J. Slamon, MD, breast oncologist at the University of California Los Angeless, said in a Novartis press release.

The new indication joins ribociclib’s previous approval for advanced or metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in combination with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant.

The current approval was based on data from the NATALEE trial. NATALEE randomized 5101 patients with early-stage HR-positive, HER2-negative disease to either 400 mg ribociclib with an aromatase inhibitor or to an aromatase inhibitor alone following surgery. 

Invasive disease-free survival at 36 months was 90.7% in the ribociclib arm vs 87.6% with aromatase inhibitor monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.749; P = .0006). The trial included patients with and without lymph node involvement.

At 4 years (well beyond NATALEE’s 3-year treatment window), the ribociclib group continued to do better, with an invasive disease-free survival rate of 88.5% vs 83.6% in the control arm.

Overall survival data remain immature but with a trend towards improved survival in the ribociclib arm (HR, 0.715; P < .0001), according to a recent report from the 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

There were no new safety signals in the trial. Adverse events in the ribociclib group included neutropenia (62.5% overall; 44.3% grade 3/4), liver-related events (26.4% overall; 8.6% grade 3/4), QT prolongation (5.3% overall; 1.0% grade 3/4), and interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis (1.5% overall; 0.0% grade 3/4), according to Novartis.

Ribociclib dosing for the adjuvant indication is lower than for metastatic disease, but patients are on the same schedule — two 200 mg tablets once daily for 21 days followed by 7 days off in 28-day cycles. Treatment continues for 3 years.

Forty-two 200 mg tablets cost about $15,000, according to drugs.com. A patient assistance program is available through Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Intravenous iron reduced iron deficiency more effectively than oral iron, which is often distasteful, among pregnant women in Nigeria. However, no significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia or preterm birth between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 1056 pregnant women aged 15-49 years with hemoglobin concentrations 10 g/dL at 20-32 weeks’ gestation were included in the trial.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single dose of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (20 mg/kg to a maximum of 1000 mg) or oral ferrous sulphate (200 mg; 65 mg elemental iron) three times daily until 6 weeks postpartum.
• Primary outcomes were maternal anemia (hemoglobin, < 11 g/dL) at 36 weeks’ gestation and preterm birth before 37 weeks’ gestation.
• Secondary outcomes were iron deficiency, iron deficiency anemia, maternal depression, infections, immunization, and breastfeeding practices.
• The trial was conducted in 11 health facilities in Lagos and Kano, Nigeria, with follow-up visits at 2 weeks and 6 weeks postpartum.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia at 36 weeks’ gestation between the intravenous and oral iron groups (58% vs 61%; P = .36).
• Intravenous iron was more effective at reducing iron deficiency (5% vs 16%; P = .0001) and iron deficiency anemia (2% vs 10%; P = .0001) at 36 weeks’ gestation.
• The incidence of preterm birth did not significantly differ between the intravenous and oral iron groups (14% vs 15%; P = .66).
• Intravenous iron led to a higher mean hemoglobin concentration from baseline to 4 weeks in both iron-deficient and non–iron-deficient subgroups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the effect on overall anaemia did not differ, intravenous iron reduced the prevalence of iron deficiency to a greater extent than oral iron and was considered to be safe. We recommend that intravenous iron be considered for anaemic pregnant women in Nigeria and similar settings,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Bosede B. Afolabi, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Nigeria. It was published online in The Lancet Global Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s sample size estimation assumed a 25% rate of preterm births, but the actual rate was only 14.5%, which potentially underpowered the study to measure this outcome. Most participants were enrolled after 20 weeks’ gestation, which limited the ability to explore the effect of treatment duration. The interpretation of postpartum hemorrhage was limited by the use of visual assessment to determine blood loss, which is subjective.

DISCLOSURES:

A coathor, Kristi S. Annerstedt, PhD, reported participation on the ALERT project Data Safety Monitoring Board. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. The study was supported by grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

TOPLINE: 

Intravenous iron reduced iron deficiency more effectively than oral iron, which is often distasteful, among pregnant women in Nigeria. However, no significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia or preterm birth between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 1056 pregnant women aged 15-49 years with hemoglobin concentrations 10 g/dL at 20-32 weeks’ gestation were included in the trial.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single dose of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (20 mg/kg to a maximum of 1000 mg) or oral ferrous sulphate (200 mg; 65 mg elemental iron) three times daily until 6 weeks postpartum.
• Primary outcomes were maternal anemia (hemoglobin, < 11 g/dL) at 36 weeks’ gestation and preterm birth before 37 weeks’ gestation.
• Secondary outcomes were iron deficiency, iron deficiency anemia, maternal depression, infections, immunization, and breastfeeding practices.
• The trial was conducted in 11 health facilities in Lagos and Kano, Nigeria, with follow-up visits at 2 weeks and 6 weeks postpartum.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia at 36 weeks’ gestation between the intravenous and oral iron groups (58% vs 61%; P = .36).
• Intravenous iron was more effective at reducing iron deficiency (5% vs 16%; P = .0001) and iron deficiency anemia (2% vs 10%; P = .0001) at 36 weeks’ gestation.
• The incidence of preterm birth did not significantly differ between the intravenous and oral iron groups (14% vs 15%; P = .66).
• Intravenous iron led to a higher mean hemoglobin concentration from baseline to 4 weeks in both iron-deficient and non–iron-deficient subgroups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the effect on overall anaemia did not differ, intravenous iron reduced the prevalence of iron deficiency to a greater extent than oral iron and was considered to be safe. We recommend that intravenous iron be considered for anaemic pregnant women in Nigeria and similar settings,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Bosede B. Afolabi, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Nigeria. It was published online in The Lancet Global Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s sample size estimation assumed a 25% rate of preterm births, but the actual rate was only 14.5%, which potentially underpowered the study to measure this outcome. Most participants were enrolled after 20 weeks’ gestation, which limited the ability to explore the effect of treatment duration. The interpretation of postpartum hemorrhage was limited by the use of visual assessment to determine blood loss, which is subjective.

DISCLOSURES:

A coathor, Kristi S. Annerstedt, PhD, reported participation on the ALERT project Data Safety Monitoring Board. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. The study was supported by grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

TOPLINE: 

Intravenous iron reduced iron deficiency more effectively than oral iron, which is often distasteful, among pregnant women in Nigeria. However, no significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia or preterm birth between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 1056 pregnant women aged 15-49 years with hemoglobin concentrations 10 g/dL at 20-32 weeks’ gestation were included in the trial.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single dose of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (20 mg/kg to a maximum of 1000 mg) or oral ferrous sulphate (200 mg; 65 mg elemental iron) three times daily until 6 weeks postpartum.
• Primary outcomes were maternal anemia (hemoglobin, < 11 g/dL) at 36 weeks’ gestation and preterm birth before 37 weeks’ gestation.
• Secondary outcomes were iron deficiency, iron deficiency anemia, maternal depression, infections, immunization, and breastfeeding practices.
• The trial was conducted in 11 health facilities in Lagos and Kano, Nigeria, with follow-up visits at 2 weeks and 6 weeks postpartum.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference was found in the prevalence of anemia at 36 weeks’ gestation between the intravenous and oral iron groups (58% vs 61%; P = .36).
• Intravenous iron was more effective at reducing iron deficiency (5% vs 16%; P = .0001) and iron deficiency anemia (2% vs 10%; P = .0001) at 36 weeks’ gestation.
• The incidence of preterm birth did not significantly differ between the intravenous and oral iron groups (14% vs 15%; P = .66).
• Intravenous iron led to a higher mean hemoglobin concentration from baseline to 4 weeks in both iron-deficient and non–iron-deficient subgroups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the effect on overall anaemia did not differ, intravenous iron reduced the prevalence of iron deficiency to a greater extent than oral iron and was considered to be safe. We recommend that intravenous iron be considered for anaemic pregnant women in Nigeria and similar settings,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Bosede B. Afolabi, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Nigeria. It was published online in The Lancet Global Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s sample size estimation assumed a 25% rate of preterm births, but the actual rate was only 14.5%, which potentially underpowered the study to measure this outcome. Most participants were enrolled after 20 weeks’ gestation, which limited the ability to explore the effect of treatment duration. The interpretation of postpartum hemorrhage was limited by the use of visual assessment to determine blood loss, which is subjective.

DISCLOSURES:

A coathor, Kristi S. Annerstedt, PhD, reported participation on the ALERT project Data Safety Monitoring Board. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. The study was supported by grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

CHICAGO — The vast majority of women experiencing genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) symptoms did not receive a prescription for hormonal vaginal therapies prior to seeking care at a specialized menopause clinic, according to research presented at the annual meeting of The Menopause Society.

“GSM symptoms are very common and affect women’s health and quality of life, often worsening without effective therapy,” Leticia Hernández Galán, PhD, of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and colleagues reported. “We have demonstrated that most women seeking specialty care in an urban center with GSM symptoms have not been given a trial of local vaginal therapies by referring providers despite guidelines about safety and lack of contraindications. Given very long wait times for menopause providers in Canada, improved education for both women and their providers is needed to reduce needless suffering and improve care.”

Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, director of the Mayo Clinic Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Florida, and medical director of The Menopause Society, was not involved with the study but agreed with the authors’ assessment of the findings.

“This study highlights the treatment gap for women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause,” Dr. Faubion told this news organization. “Clearly, there is underutilization of low-dose vaginal hormonal therapies, which are known to be safe and effective. We still have work to do in terms of educating both women and providers on established treatment options for this common concern in menopausal women.” 

The findings match previous ones that found a majority of women with GSM do not receive treatment. A 2017 study, which was cited in the 2020 Menopause Society position statement on the condition, found that half of women with GSM had never used any treatment.

GSM is the current term that replaces previously used “vulvovaginal atrophy” and “atrophic vaginitis” because it encompasses all the menopause symptoms and signs associated with menopause that affect the vagina, vulva, and urinary tract. Anywhere from 50% to 84% of postmenopausal women experience GSM, the authors noted, with symptoms that include “burning, itching, or irritation of the vulva” and “lack of lubrication and discomfort or pain with sexual activity as well as dysuria, increased frequency or urgency of urination, and increased risk for urinary tract infections.”

First-line treatment of mild GSM often includes nonhormonal vaginal lubricants and moisturizers, but vaginal estrogen is considered the most effective treatment for more severe or bothersome cases. Other treatments include systematic hormone therapy and ospemifene or other selective estrogen receptor modulators.
 

Increased Risk for Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs)

Untreated GSM is not simply a quality of life issue; it increases the risk of developing serious UTIs, explained JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, who was not involved in the study.

“Estrogen depletion alters the vaginal epithelium, with distinct impairments in lubrication, elasticity, pH, and blood flow,” Dr. Pinkerton said. “The vaginal microbiome changes, with increasing pH following menopause and loss of lactobacillus predominance. These alterations allow a more hospitable environment for bacterial growth and increase the risk of UTI.”

Vaginal estrogen, meanwhile, reduces UTI risk because it “increases the presence of lactobacillus in the vagina due to improvements in vaginal pH, rebuilding superficial cells, elasticity, and connectivity,” she said.

The study assessed the incidence of GSM among patients at a single specialized Canadian institution, St. Joseph’s Healthcare Menopause Clinic in Hamilton, Ontario, between January 2021 and August 2024. Patients completed a Menopause Rating Scale that quantified two sets of GSM symptoms relating to “dryness of the vagina” and “bladder problems.” Patients also answered questions about the provider they had seen before coming to the specialized clinic and whether they had been prescribed local vaginal products before their visit.

Among 529 patients, the average age was 51, and the vast majority (88%) had some amount of tertiary education beyond high school. Only 21.5% were still menstruating, whereas the other respondents had stopped menstruating. The patient population was mostly White (85.6%), with Black, Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, and Indigenous patients making up most of the other patient groups.

Among the 521 patients who answered the question on vaginal dryness, answers were similarly split between none (26%), mild (23%), moderate (21%), severe (15%), and very severe (15%). One third of the 526 women (34%) who answered the question on bladder problems said they had none, whereas the remainder reported their problems as mild (24%), moderate (24%), severe (11%), or very severe (7%).

Despite about half the participants reporting moderate to very severe vaginal dryness, 85% of them had not been prescribed local vaginal hormone therapies before their visit to the menopause clinic. Women were more likely to have been prescribed a localized therapy if they were older, were postmenopausal instead of perimenopausal, or had a female healthcare provider prior to this visit.

The survey also asked about the specialty and years in practice for the providers women had seen before visiting the clinic, but neither of these were predictors for receiving a hormone prescription. The patient’s education, partner status, and ethnicity were also not associated with the likelihood of a prescription.

Among 62 women who had been prescribed a vaginal hormone treatment, most were prescribed Vagifem (29%) or Premarin Vaginal cream (26%), followed by Intrarosa (19%), Estragyn cream (16%), Estring (3%), or something else (18%).
 

Serious Complications of GSM

Dr. Pinkerton described how GSM, particularly in older women, can run the risk of becoming life-threatening if untreated and unrecognized.

“For some women, UTIs can lead to urosepsis, as both the vaginal tissues and bladder tissues are thin with blood vessels close to the surface,” Dr. Pinkerton said. “What may have started as a UTI, can ascend to the kidneys or get into the bloodstream, which, in some, can develop into urosepsis, which can be life-threatening. The bacterial pathogen initiates the disease process, but host immune responses drive whether sepsis develops and its severity.”

The research by Dr. Hernández Galán was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Menopause Society, and Pfizer. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures, and Dr. Pinkerton has run a trial funded by Bayer and is a consultant for Bayer and Pfizer.

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

CHICAGO — The vast majority of women experiencing genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) symptoms did not receive a prescription for hormonal vaginal therapies prior to seeking care at a specialized menopause clinic, according to research presented at the annual meeting of The Menopause Society.

“GSM symptoms are very common and affect women’s health and quality of life, often worsening without effective therapy,” Leticia Hernández Galán, PhD, of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and colleagues reported. “We have demonstrated that most women seeking specialty care in an urban center with GSM symptoms have not been given a trial of local vaginal therapies by referring providers despite guidelines about safety and lack of contraindications. Given very long wait times for menopause providers in Canada, improved education for both women and their providers is needed to reduce needless suffering and improve care.”

Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, director of the Mayo Clinic Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Florida, and medical director of The Menopause Society, was not involved with the study but agreed with the authors’ assessment of the findings.

“This study highlights the treatment gap for women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause,” Dr. Faubion told this news organization. “Clearly, there is underutilization of low-dose vaginal hormonal therapies, which are known to be safe and effective. We still have work to do in terms of educating both women and providers on established treatment options for this common concern in menopausal women.” 

The findings match previous ones that found a majority of women with GSM do not receive treatment. A 2017 study, which was cited in the 2020 Menopause Society position statement on the condition, found that half of women with GSM had never used any treatment.

GSM is the current term that replaces previously used “vulvovaginal atrophy” and “atrophic vaginitis” because it encompasses all the menopause symptoms and signs associated with menopause that affect the vagina, vulva, and urinary tract. Anywhere from 50% to 84% of postmenopausal women experience GSM, the authors noted, with symptoms that include “burning, itching, or irritation of the vulva” and “lack of lubrication and discomfort or pain with sexual activity as well as dysuria, increased frequency or urgency of urination, and increased risk for urinary tract infections.”

First-line treatment of mild GSM often includes nonhormonal vaginal lubricants and moisturizers, but vaginal estrogen is considered the most effective treatment for more severe or bothersome cases. Other treatments include systematic hormone therapy and ospemifene or other selective estrogen receptor modulators.
 

Increased Risk for Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs)

Untreated GSM is not simply a quality of life issue; it increases the risk of developing serious UTIs, explained JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, who was not involved in the study.

“Estrogen depletion alters the vaginal epithelium, with distinct impairments in lubrication, elasticity, pH, and blood flow,” Dr. Pinkerton said. “The vaginal microbiome changes, with increasing pH following menopause and loss of lactobacillus predominance. These alterations allow a more hospitable environment for bacterial growth and increase the risk of UTI.”

Vaginal estrogen, meanwhile, reduces UTI risk because it “increases the presence of lactobacillus in the vagina due to improvements in vaginal pH, rebuilding superficial cells, elasticity, and connectivity,” she said.

The study assessed the incidence of GSM among patients at a single specialized Canadian institution, St. Joseph’s Healthcare Menopause Clinic in Hamilton, Ontario, between January 2021 and August 2024. Patients completed a Menopause Rating Scale that quantified two sets of GSM symptoms relating to “dryness of the vagina” and “bladder problems.” Patients also answered questions about the provider they had seen before coming to the specialized clinic and whether they had been prescribed local vaginal products before their visit.

Among 529 patients, the average age was 51, and the vast majority (88%) had some amount of tertiary education beyond high school. Only 21.5% were still menstruating, whereas the other respondents had stopped menstruating. The patient population was mostly White (85.6%), with Black, Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, and Indigenous patients making up most of the other patient groups.

Among the 521 patients who answered the question on vaginal dryness, answers were similarly split between none (26%), mild (23%), moderate (21%), severe (15%), and very severe (15%). One third of the 526 women (34%) who answered the question on bladder problems said they had none, whereas the remainder reported their problems as mild (24%), moderate (24%), severe (11%), or very severe (7%).

Despite about half the participants reporting moderate to very severe vaginal dryness, 85% of them had not been prescribed local vaginal hormone therapies before their visit to the menopause clinic. Women were more likely to have been prescribed a localized therapy if they were older, were postmenopausal instead of perimenopausal, or had a female healthcare provider prior to this visit.

The survey also asked about the specialty and years in practice for the providers women had seen before visiting the clinic, but neither of these were predictors for receiving a hormone prescription. The patient’s education, partner status, and ethnicity were also not associated with the likelihood of a prescription.

Among 62 women who had been prescribed a vaginal hormone treatment, most were prescribed Vagifem (29%) or Premarin Vaginal cream (26%), followed by Intrarosa (19%), Estragyn cream (16%), Estring (3%), or something else (18%).
 

Serious Complications of GSM

Dr. Pinkerton described how GSM, particularly in older women, can run the risk of becoming life-threatening if untreated and unrecognized.

“For some women, UTIs can lead to urosepsis, as both the vaginal tissues and bladder tissues are thin with blood vessels close to the surface,” Dr. Pinkerton said. “What may have started as a UTI, can ascend to the kidneys or get into the bloodstream, which, in some, can develop into urosepsis, which can be life-threatening. The bacterial pathogen initiates the disease process, but host immune responses drive whether sepsis develops and its severity.”

The research by Dr. Hernández Galán was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Menopause Society, and Pfizer. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures, and Dr. Pinkerton has run a trial funded by Bayer and is a consultant for Bayer and Pfizer.

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

CHICAGO — The vast majority of women experiencing genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) symptoms did not receive a prescription for hormonal vaginal therapies prior to seeking care at a specialized menopause clinic, according to research presented at the annual meeting of The Menopause Society.

“GSM symptoms are very common and affect women’s health and quality of life, often worsening without effective therapy,” Leticia Hernández Galán, PhD, of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and colleagues reported. “We have demonstrated that most women seeking specialty care in an urban center with GSM symptoms have not been given a trial of local vaginal therapies by referring providers despite guidelines about safety and lack of contraindications. Given very long wait times for menopause providers in Canada, improved education for both women and their providers is needed to reduce needless suffering and improve care.”

Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, director of the Mayo Clinic Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Florida, and medical director of The Menopause Society, was not involved with the study but agreed with the authors’ assessment of the findings.

“This study highlights the treatment gap for women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause,” Dr. Faubion told this news organization. “Clearly, there is underutilization of low-dose vaginal hormonal therapies, which are known to be safe and effective. We still have work to do in terms of educating both women and providers on established treatment options for this common concern in menopausal women.” 

The findings match previous ones that found a majority of women with GSM do not receive treatment. A 2017 study, which was cited in the 2020 Menopause Society position statement on the condition, found that half of women with GSM had never used any treatment.

GSM is the current term that replaces previously used “vulvovaginal atrophy” and “atrophic vaginitis” because it encompasses all the menopause symptoms and signs associated with menopause that affect the vagina, vulva, and urinary tract. Anywhere from 50% to 84% of postmenopausal women experience GSM, the authors noted, with symptoms that include “burning, itching, or irritation of the vulva” and “lack of lubrication and discomfort or pain with sexual activity as well as dysuria, increased frequency or urgency of urination, and increased risk for urinary tract infections.”

First-line treatment of mild GSM often includes nonhormonal vaginal lubricants and moisturizers, but vaginal estrogen is considered the most effective treatment for more severe or bothersome cases. Other treatments include systematic hormone therapy and ospemifene or other selective estrogen receptor modulators.
 

Increased Risk for Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs)

Untreated GSM is not simply a quality of life issue; it increases the risk of developing serious UTIs, explained JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, who was not involved in the study.

“Estrogen depletion alters the vaginal epithelium, with distinct impairments in lubrication, elasticity, pH, and blood flow,” Dr. Pinkerton said. “The vaginal microbiome changes, with increasing pH following menopause and loss of lactobacillus predominance. These alterations allow a more hospitable environment for bacterial growth and increase the risk of UTI.”

Vaginal estrogen, meanwhile, reduces UTI risk because it “increases the presence of lactobacillus in the vagina due to improvements in vaginal pH, rebuilding superficial cells, elasticity, and connectivity,” she said.

The study assessed the incidence of GSM among patients at a single specialized Canadian institution, St. Joseph’s Healthcare Menopause Clinic in Hamilton, Ontario, between January 2021 and August 2024. Patients completed a Menopause Rating Scale that quantified two sets of GSM symptoms relating to “dryness of the vagina” and “bladder problems.” Patients also answered questions about the provider they had seen before coming to the specialized clinic and whether they had been prescribed local vaginal products before their visit.

Among 529 patients, the average age was 51, and the vast majority (88%) had some amount of tertiary education beyond high school. Only 21.5% were still menstruating, whereas the other respondents had stopped menstruating. The patient population was mostly White (85.6%), with Black, Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, and Indigenous patients making up most of the other patient groups.

Among the 521 patients who answered the question on vaginal dryness, answers were similarly split between none (26%), mild (23%), moderate (21%), severe (15%), and very severe (15%). One third of the 526 women (34%) who answered the question on bladder problems said they had none, whereas the remainder reported their problems as mild (24%), moderate (24%), severe (11%), or very severe (7%).

Despite about half the participants reporting moderate to very severe vaginal dryness, 85% of them had not been prescribed local vaginal hormone therapies before their visit to the menopause clinic. Women were more likely to have been prescribed a localized therapy if they were older, were postmenopausal instead of perimenopausal, or had a female healthcare provider prior to this visit.

The survey also asked about the specialty and years in practice for the providers women had seen before visiting the clinic, but neither of these were predictors for receiving a hormone prescription. The patient’s education, partner status, and ethnicity were also not associated with the likelihood of a prescription.

Among 62 women who had been prescribed a vaginal hormone treatment, most were prescribed Vagifem (29%) or Premarin Vaginal cream (26%), followed by Intrarosa (19%), Estragyn cream (16%), Estring (3%), or something else (18%).
 

Serious Complications of GSM

Dr. Pinkerton described how GSM, particularly in older women, can run the risk of becoming life-threatening if untreated and unrecognized.

“For some women, UTIs can lead to urosepsis, as both the vaginal tissues and bladder tissues are thin with blood vessels close to the surface,” Dr. Pinkerton said. “What may have started as a UTI, can ascend to the kidneys or get into the bloodstream, which, in some, can develop into urosepsis, which can be life-threatening. The bacterial pathogen initiates the disease process, but host immune responses drive whether sepsis develops and its severity.”

The research by Dr. Hernández Galán was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Menopause Society, and Pfizer. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures, and Dr. Pinkerton has run a trial funded by Bayer and is a consultant for Bayer and Pfizer.

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

CHICAGO — Less than 4% of American women aged 50-59 years use hormone therapy (HT) to treat menopausal symptoms today, approximately 10 times lower than the peak use of HT before the publication of the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study that misguidedly cast doubt on the safety of HT. Though subsequent research has addressed the flaws of the WHI study and supports the use of HT in most menopausal women younger than 60 years, use of this therapy has never recovered, according to research presented at the annual meeting of The Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

“Despite evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of HT, usage rates of US Food and Drug Administration–approved HT remain low,” Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, director of the Mayo Clinic Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Florida, and medical director of The Menopause Society, told attendees. “Improved education of clinicians and patients is critically needed.”

Today, “there is more clarity on the risk/benefit ratio of HT use with the benefits typically outweighing the risks in women who initiate therapy under the age of 60 years and within 10 years of menopause onset.”

Using medical and pharmacy claims data from OptumLabs, Dr. Faubion and her colleagues examined utilization rates from 2007 to 2023 of transdermal vs oral estrogen and of conjugated estrogen vs estradiol in women aged 40 years or older. The data included more than 200 million people throughout the United States covered by commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage. The researchers defined annual rate of HT use as the proportion of women who had at least 180 days of a filled prescription for a systemic HT preparation with estrogen.

The study population increased from an estimated 2 million women in 2007 to 4.5 million women in 2023, and the average age of enrollees increased from 53 in 2007 to 66 in 2023. Starting at 4.6% in 2007, HT use steadily declined to a low of 1.8% in 2023 for the whole cohort of women aged 40 years or older.

Though rates remained highest in women aged 50-64 years, it still declined within each age group: From 6% in 2007 to 3.6% in 2023 among women aged 50-54 years, from 7.3% to 3.8% among women aged 55-59 years, and from 7.5% to 2.9% among women aged 60-64 years. It also declined in younger women, from 3.2% in 2007 to 1.5% in 2023 in those aged 45-50 years. Estradiol was the most common formulation used, and oral administration was the most common route.

The researchers also saw a gradual decline during the study period in the use of high-dose oral HT and an increase in the use of low-dose oral HT, whereas standard dosages remained fairly consistent as the most common dose prescribed. Similarly, the use of high transdermal doses declined, whereas low transdermal doses increased and surpassed the use of standard doses. Conjugated estrogen use plummeted during the study period across all age groups, from 2%-5% in most age groups to < 1% in all age groups by 2023.

One limitation of the study was that it could not examine rates of compounded HT use because those would not be reflected in insurance claims, pointed out JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia, who was not involved in the study. Dr. Pinkerton found it surprising that the numbers were so low, despite the fact that research estimates suggest less than 15% of menopausal women are receiving adequate treatment, she told this news organization. “You can see there’s a large unmet need to get treatment,” she said. “All major medical societies say the same thing: For healthy, symptomatic menopausal women, you can use hormone therapy safely and effectively.” 

The lack of education among providers is likely the biggest reason for the decline, Dr. Pinkerton says. “I think it’s because there’s a whole group of providers that did not receive any training, and that’s OB/GYNs, internal medicine, family practice, endocrinologists,” she said. “Now that people are starting to feel more confident that we can use it safely, we’re trying to get that training out to people about vasomotor symptoms, about hormone therapy, and now about new nonhormone therapies.”

Dr. Pinkerton noted that The Menopause Society has begun a new teaching program, Menopause Step-by-Step, aimed at providing short articles on the basics of menopause, HT, non-HT, and vaginal issues.

A separate poster presented at the conference provides insight into another potential factor contributing to low HT rates. A survey of 1050 American and Canadian women found that 90% discussed their symptoms with their healthcare providers, yet only 25% said their doctor identified the symptoms as likely due to perimenopause or menopause on their first visit — and only 10% of respondents said their doctor was the one to bring up perimenopause/menopause.

The respondents comprised a convenience sample of those who saw the survey on social media, in an email, or on the website of Morphus, a Toronto-based company aimed at providing support, information, and products related to menopause. Though the survey is ongoing, the analyzed responses are from March to May 2024.

Though 40% of the women said their provider attributed their symptoms to perimenopause or menopause on the second or third visit, 18% saw a provider four to five times, and 17% saw a provider more than five times before the provider considered menopause as a cause. About a third of the women (35%) brought it up to their doctor themselves and found their provider receptive, but 40% said the response was dismissive when they brought it up, and 15% said the topic was never broached at all.

Andrea Donsky, RHN, founder of Morphus who conducted the study, found these numbers surprising because she would have hoped that more doctors would have brought up perimenopause/menopause sooner. “We still have a lot of work to do to help educate women and healthcare providers,” Ms. Donsky told this news organization. “A lot of women spend years not knowing they’re in this phase of life, so they visit their doctors/HCPs [healthcare providers] many times because the connection isn’t made on the first visit.”

Danielle Meitiv, MS, a study co-author and health coach based in Silver Spring, Maryland, added, “Everyone wonders why we end up with Dr. Google; that’s the only doctor who’s talking to us about menopause.”

Dr. Pinkerton was less surprised by these survey findings. “As a menopause specialist, my most common new patient is a perimenopausal woman who feels like she hasn’t been listened to,” whether it’s her primary care doctor, her ob.gyn., or another clinician. “If the provider doesn’t ask or if the women doesn’t tell, then you don’t have the conversation,” Dr. Pinkerton said. “So many women in perimenopause are busy with work, families, partnerships, aging parents — all of the issues that they’re dealing with — that when they start to have sleep issues or mood issues or easy crying, they relate it to their life stressors, instead of recognizing that it’s fluctuating hormones.”

When Ms. Donsky examined the 1223 responses they had received through August 2024, the most common treatments advised for symptoms were antidepressants and HT, both recommended by 38% of providers. Other common recommendations were to “lose weight,” “eat less and exercise more,” supplements, or birth control pills.

Dr. Faubion had no disclosures, and her study used no external funding. Dr. Pinkerton has run a trial funded by Bayer and is a consultant for Bayer and Pfizer. Ms. Donsky is the owner of Morphus. Ms. Meitiv had no disclosures. The poster on women’s experiences with providers was funded by Morphus Inc.

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

CHICAGO — Less than 4% of American women aged 50-59 years use hormone therapy (HT) to treat menopausal symptoms today, approximately 10 times lower than the peak use of HT before the publication of the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study that misguidedly cast doubt on the safety of HT. Though subsequent research has addressed the flaws of the WHI study and supports the use of HT in most menopausal women younger than 60 years, use of this therapy has never recovered, according to research presented at the annual meeting of The Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

“Despite evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of HT, usage rates of US Food and Drug Administration–approved HT remain low,” Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, director of the Mayo Clinic Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Florida, and medical director of The Menopause Society, told attendees. “Improved education of clinicians and patients is critically needed.”

Today, “there is more clarity on the risk/benefit ratio of HT use with the benefits typically outweighing the risks in women who initiate therapy under the age of 60 years and within 10 years of menopause onset.”

Using medical and pharmacy claims data from OptumLabs, Dr. Faubion and her colleagues examined utilization rates from 2007 to 2023 of transdermal vs oral estrogen and of conjugated estrogen vs estradiol in women aged 40 years or older. The data included more than 200 million people throughout the United States covered by commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage. The researchers defined annual rate of HT use as the proportion of women who had at least 180 days of a filled prescription for a systemic HT preparation with estrogen.

The study population increased from an estimated 2 million women in 2007 to 4.5 million women in 2023, and the average age of enrollees increased from 53 in 2007 to 66 in 2023. Starting at 4.6% in 2007, HT use steadily declined to a low of 1.8% in 2023 for the whole cohort of women aged 40 years or older.

Though rates remained highest in women aged 50-64 years, it still declined within each age group: From 6% in 2007 to 3.6% in 2023 among women aged 50-54 years, from 7.3% to 3.8% among women aged 55-59 years, and from 7.5% to 2.9% among women aged 60-64 years. It also declined in younger women, from 3.2% in 2007 to 1.5% in 2023 in those aged 45-50 years. Estradiol was the most common formulation used, and oral administration was the most common route.

The researchers also saw a gradual decline during the study period in the use of high-dose oral HT and an increase in the use of low-dose oral HT, whereas standard dosages remained fairly consistent as the most common dose prescribed. Similarly, the use of high transdermal doses declined, whereas low transdermal doses increased and surpassed the use of standard doses. Conjugated estrogen use plummeted during the study period across all age groups, from 2%-5% in most age groups to < 1% in all age groups by 2023.

One limitation of the study was that it could not examine rates of compounded HT use because those would not be reflected in insurance claims, pointed out JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia, who was not involved in the study. Dr. Pinkerton found it surprising that the numbers were so low, despite the fact that research estimates suggest less than 15% of menopausal women are receiving adequate treatment, she told this news organization. “You can see there’s a large unmet need to get treatment,” she said. “All major medical societies say the same thing: For healthy, symptomatic menopausal women, you can use hormone therapy safely and effectively.” 

The lack of education among providers is likely the biggest reason for the decline, Dr. Pinkerton says. “I think it’s because there’s a whole group of providers that did not receive any training, and that’s OB/GYNs, internal medicine, family practice, endocrinologists,” she said. “Now that people are starting to feel more confident that we can use it safely, we’re trying to get that training out to people about vasomotor symptoms, about hormone therapy, and now about new nonhormone therapies.”

Dr. Pinkerton noted that The Menopause Society has begun a new teaching program, Menopause Step-by-Step, aimed at providing short articles on the basics of menopause, HT, non-HT, and vaginal issues.

A separate poster presented at the conference provides insight into another potential factor contributing to low HT rates. A survey of 1050 American and Canadian women found that 90% discussed their symptoms with their healthcare providers, yet only 25% said their doctor identified the symptoms as likely due to perimenopause or menopause on their first visit — and only 10% of respondents said their doctor was the one to bring up perimenopause/menopause.

The respondents comprised a convenience sample of those who saw the survey on social media, in an email, or on the website of Morphus, a Toronto-based company aimed at providing support, information, and products related to menopause. Though the survey is ongoing, the analyzed responses are from March to May 2024.

Though 40% of the women said their provider attributed their symptoms to perimenopause or menopause on the second or third visit, 18% saw a provider four to five times, and 17% saw a provider more than five times before the provider considered menopause as a cause. About a third of the women (35%) brought it up to their doctor themselves and found their provider receptive, but 40% said the response was dismissive when they brought it up, and 15% said the topic was never broached at all.

Andrea Donsky, RHN, founder of Morphus who conducted the study, found these numbers surprising because she would have hoped that more doctors would have brought up perimenopause/menopause sooner. “We still have a lot of work to do to help educate women and healthcare providers,” Ms. Donsky told this news organization. “A lot of women spend years not knowing they’re in this phase of life, so they visit their doctors/HCPs [healthcare providers] many times because the connection isn’t made on the first visit.”

Danielle Meitiv, MS, a study co-author and health coach based in Silver Spring, Maryland, added, “Everyone wonders why we end up with Dr. Google; that’s the only doctor who’s talking to us about menopause.”

Dr. Pinkerton was less surprised by these survey findings. “As a menopause specialist, my most common new patient is a perimenopausal woman who feels like she hasn’t been listened to,” whether it’s her primary care doctor, her ob.gyn., or another clinician. “If the provider doesn’t ask or if the women doesn’t tell, then you don’t have the conversation,” Dr. Pinkerton said. “So many women in perimenopause are busy with work, families, partnerships, aging parents — all of the issues that they’re dealing with — that when they start to have sleep issues or mood issues or easy crying, they relate it to their life stressors, instead of recognizing that it’s fluctuating hormones.”

When Ms. Donsky examined the 1223 responses they had received through August 2024, the most common treatments advised for symptoms were antidepressants and HT, both recommended by 38% of providers. Other common recommendations were to “lose weight,” “eat less and exercise more,” supplements, or birth control pills.

Dr. Faubion had no disclosures, and her study used no external funding. Dr. Pinkerton has run a trial funded by Bayer and is a consultant for Bayer and Pfizer. Ms. Donsky is the owner of Morphus. Ms. Meitiv had no disclosures. The poster on women’s experiences with providers was funded by Morphus Inc.

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

CHICAGO — Less than 4% of American women aged 50-59 years use hormone therapy (HT) to treat menopausal symptoms today, approximately 10 times lower than the peak use of HT before the publication of the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study that misguidedly cast doubt on the safety of HT. Though subsequent research has addressed the flaws of the WHI study and supports the use of HT in most menopausal women younger than 60 years, use of this therapy has never recovered, according to research presented at the annual meeting of The Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

“Despite evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of HT, usage rates of US Food and Drug Administration–approved HT remain low,” Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, director of the Mayo Clinic Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Florida, and medical director of The Menopause Society, told attendees. “Improved education of clinicians and patients is critically needed.”

Today, “there is more clarity on the risk/benefit ratio of HT use with the benefits typically outweighing the risks in women who initiate therapy under the age of 60 years and within 10 years of menopause onset.”

Using medical and pharmacy claims data from OptumLabs, Dr. Faubion and her colleagues examined utilization rates from 2007 to 2023 of transdermal vs oral estrogen and of conjugated estrogen vs estradiol in women aged 40 years or older. The data included more than 200 million people throughout the United States covered by commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage. The researchers defined annual rate of HT use as the proportion of women who had at least 180 days of a filled prescription for a systemic HT preparation with estrogen.

The study population increased from an estimated 2 million women in 2007 to 4.5 million women in 2023, and the average age of enrollees increased from 53 in 2007 to 66 in 2023. Starting at 4.6% in 2007, HT use steadily declined to a low of 1.8% in 2023 for the whole cohort of women aged 40 years or older.

Though rates remained highest in women aged 50-64 years, it still declined within each age group: From 6% in 2007 to 3.6% in 2023 among women aged 50-54 years, from 7.3% to 3.8% among women aged 55-59 years, and from 7.5% to 2.9% among women aged 60-64 years. It also declined in younger women, from 3.2% in 2007 to 1.5% in 2023 in those aged 45-50 years. Estradiol was the most common formulation used, and oral administration was the most common route.

The researchers also saw a gradual decline during the study period in the use of high-dose oral HT and an increase in the use of low-dose oral HT, whereas standard dosages remained fairly consistent as the most common dose prescribed. Similarly, the use of high transdermal doses declined, whereas low transdermal doses increased and surpassed the use of standard doses. Conjugated estrogen use plummeted during the study period across all age groups, from 2%-5% in most age groups to < 1% in all age groups by 2023.

One limitation of the study was that it could not examine rates of compounded HT use because those would not be reflected in insurance claims, pointed out JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia, who was not involved in the study. Dr. Pinkerton found it surprising that the numbers were so low, despite the fact that research estimates suggest less than 15% of menopausal women are receiving adequate treatment, she told this news organization. “You can see there’s a large unmet need to get treatment,” she said. “All major medical societies say the same thing: For healthy, symptomatic menopausal women, you can use hormone therapy safely and effectively.” 

The lack of education among providers is likely the biggest reason for the decline, Dr. Pinkerton says. “I think it’s because there’s a whole group of providers that did not receive any training, and that’s OB/GYNs, internal medicine, family practice, endocrinologists,” she said. “Now that people are starting to feel more confident that we can use it safely, we’re trying to get that training out to people about vasomotor symptoms, about hormone therapy, and now about new nonhormone therapies.”

Dr. Pinkerton noted that The Menopause Society has begun a new teaching program, Menopause Step-by-Step, aimed at providing short articles on the basics of menopause, HT, non-HT, and vaginal issues.

A separate poster presented at the conference provides insight into another potential factor contributing to low HT rates. A survey of 1050 American and Canadian women found that 90% discussed their symptoms with their healthcare providers, yet only 25% said their doctor identified the symptoms as likely due to perimenopause or menopause on their first visit — and only 10% of respondents said their doctor was the one to bring up perimenopause/menopause.

The respondents comprised a convenience sample of those who saw the survey on social media, in an email, or on the website of Morphus, a Toronto-based company aimed at providing support, information, and products related to menopause. Though the survey is ongoing, the analyzed responses are from March to May 2024.

Though 40% of the women said their provider attributed their symptoms to perimenopause or menopause on the second or third visit, 18% saw a provider four to five times, and 17% saw a provider more than five times before the provider considered menopause as a cause. About a third of the women (35%) brought it up to their doctor themselves and found their provider receptive, but 40% said the response was dismissive when they brought it up, and 15% said the topic was never broached at all.

Andrea Donsky, RHN, founder of Morphus who conducted the study, found these numbers surprising because she would have hoped that more doctors would have brought up perimenopause/menopause sooner. “We still have a lot of work to do to help educate women and healthcare providers,” Ms. Donsky told this news organization. “A lot of women spend years not knowing they’re in this phase of life, so they visit their doctors/HCPs [healthcare providers] many times because the connection isn’t made on the first visit.”

Danielle Meitiv, MS, a study co-author and health coach based in Silver Spring, Maryland, added, “Everyone wonders why we end up with Dr. Google; that’s the only doctor who’s talking to us about menopause.”

Dr. Pinkerton was less surprised by these survey findings. “As a menopause specialist, my most common new patient is a perimenopausal woman who feels like she hasn’t been listened to,” whether it’s her primary care doctor, her ob.gyn., or another clinician. “If the provider doesn’t ask or if the women doesn’t tell, then you don’t have the conversation,” Dr. Pinkerton said. “So many women in perimenopause are busy with work, families, partnerships, aging parents — all of the issues that they’re dealing with — that when they start to have sleep issues or mood issues or easy crying, they relate it to their life stressors, instead of recognizing that it’s fluctuating hormones.”

When Ms. Donsky examined the 1223 responses they had received through August 2024, the most common treatments advised for symptoms were antidepressants and HT, both recommended by 38% of providers. Other common recommendations were to “lose weight,” “eat less and exercise more,” supplements, or birth control pills.

Dr. Faubion had no disclosures, and her study used no external funding. Dr. Pinkerton has run a trial funded by Bayer and is a consultant for Bayer and Pfizer. Ms. Donsky is the owner of Morphus. Ms. Meitiv had no disclosures. The poster on women’s experiences with providers was funded by Morphus Inc.

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

Earlier this year, I wrote a Medscape commentary to explain my disagreement with the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)’s updated recommendation that all women at average risk for breast cancer start screening mammography at age 40. The bottom line is that when the evidence doesn’t change, the guidelines shouldn’t change. Since then, other screening experts have criticized the USPSTF guideline on similar grounds, and a national survey reported that nearly 4 out of 10 women in their 40s preferred to delay breast cancer screening after viewing a decision aid and a personalized breast cancer risk estimate.

The decision analysis performed for the USPSTF guideline estimated that compared with having mammography beginning at age 50, 1000 women who begin at age 40 experience 519 more false-positive results and 62 more benign breast biopsies. Another study suggested that anxiety and other psychosocial harms resulting from a false-positive test are similar between patients who require a biopsy vs additional imaging only. Of greater concern, women who have false-positive results are less likely to return for their next scheduled screening exam.

A recent analysis of 2005-2017 data from the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium found that about 1 in 10 mammograms had a false-positive result. Sixty percent of these patients underwent immediate additional imaging, 27% were recalled for diagnostic imaging within the next few days to weeks, and 13% were advised to have a biopsy. While patients who had additional imaging at the same visit were only 1.9% less likely to return for screening mammography within 30 months compared with those with normal mammograms, women who were recalled for short-interval follow-up or recommended for biopsy were 15.9% and 10% less likely to return, respectively. For unclear reasons, women who identified as Asian or Hispanic had even lower rates of return screening after false-positive results.

These differences matter because women in their 40s, with the lowest incidence of breast cancer among those undergoing screening, have a lot of false positives. A patient who follows the USPSTF recommendation and starts screening at age 40 has a 42% chance of having at least one false positive with every-other-year screening, or a 61% chance with annual screening, by the time she turns 50. If some of these patients are so turned off by false positives that they don’t return for regular mammography in their 50s and 60s, when screening is the most likely to catch clinically significant cancers at treatable stages, then moving up the starting age may backfire and cause net harm.

The recently implemented FDA rule requiring mammography reports to include breast density could compound this problem. Because younger women are more likely to have dense breasts, more of them will probably decide to have supplemental imaging for cancer. I previously pointed out that we don’t know whether supplemental imaging with breast ultrasonography or MRI reduces cancer deaths, but we do know that it increases false-positive results.

I have personally cared for several patients who abandoned screening mammography for long stretches, or permanently, after having endured one or more benign biopsies prompted by a false-positive result. I vividly recall one woman in her 60s who was very reluctant to have screening tests in general, and mammography in particular, for that reason. After she had been my patient for a few years, I finally persuaded her to resume screening. We were both surprised when her first mammogram in more than a decade revealed an early-stage breast cancer. Fortunately, the tumor was successfully treated, but for her, an earlier false-positive result nearly ended up having critical health consequences.

Dr. Lin is associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor. He has no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Earlier this year, I wrote a Medscape commentary to explain my disagreement with the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)’s updated recommendation that all women at average risk for breast cancer start screening mammography at age 40. The bottom line is that when the evidence doesn’t change, the guidelines shouldn’t change. Since then, other screening experts have criticized the USPSTF guideline on similar grounds, and a national survey reported that nearly 4 out of 10 women in their 40s preferred to delay breast cancer screening after viewing a decision aid and a personalized breast cancer risk estimate.

The decision analysis performed for the USPSTF guideline estimated that compared with having mammography beginning at age 50, 1000 women who begin at age 40 experience 519 more false-positive results and 62 more benign breast biopsies. Another study suggested that anxiety and other psychosocial harms resulting from a false-positive test are similar between patients who require a biopsy vs additional imaging only. Of greater concern, women who have false-positive results are less likely to return for their next scheduled screening exam.

A recent analysis of 2005-2017 data from the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium found that about 1 in 10 mammograms had a false-positive result. Sixty percent of these patients underwent immediate additional imaging, 27% were recalled for diagnostic imaging within the next few days to weeks, and 13% were advised to have a biopsy. While patients who had additional imaging at the same visit were only 1.9% less likely to return for screening mammography within 30 months compared with those with normal mammograms, women who were recalled for short-interval follow-up or recommended for biopsy were 15.9% and 10% less likely to return, respectively. For unclear reasons, women who identified as Asian or Hispanic had even lower rates of return screening after false-positive results.

These differences matter because women in their 40s, with the lowest incidence of breast cancer among those undergoing screening, have a lot of false positives. A patient who follows the USPSTF recommendation and starts screening at age 40 has a 42% chance of having at least one false positive with every-other-year screening, or a 61% chance with annual screening, by the time she turns 50. If some of these patients are so turned off by false positives that they don’t return for regular mammography in their 50s and 60s, when screening is the most likely to catch clinically significant cancers at treatable stages, then moving up the starting age may backfire and cause net harm.

The recently implemented FDA rule requiring mammography reports to include breast density could compound this problem. Because younger women are more likely to have dense breasts, more of them will probably decide to have supplemental imaging for cancer. I previously pointed out that we don’t know whether supplemental imaging with breast ultrasonography or MRI reduces cancer deaths, but we do know that it increases false-positive results.

I have personally cared for several patients who abandoned screening mammography for long stretches, or permanently, after having endured one or more benign biopsies prompted by a false-positive result. I vividly recall one woman in her 60s who was very reluctant to have screening tests in general, and mammography in particular, for that reason. After she had been my patient for a few years, I finally persuaded her to resume screening. We were both surprised when her first mammogram in more than a decade revealed an early-stage breast cancer. Fortunately, the tumor was successfully treated, but for her, an earlier false-positive result nearly ended up having critical health consequences.

Dr. Lin is associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor. He has no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Earlier this year, I wrote a Medscape commentary to explain my disagreement with the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)’s updated recommendation that all women at average risk for breast cancer start screening mammography at age 40. The bottom line is that when the evidence doesn’t change, the guidelines shouldn’t change. Since then, other screening experts have criticized the USPSTF guideline on similar grounds, and a national survey reported that nearly 4 out of 10 women in their 40s preferred to delay breast cancer screening after viewing a decision aid and a personalized breast cancer risk estimate.

The decision analysis performed for the USPSTF guideline estimated that compared with having mammography beginning at age 50, 1000 women who begin at age 40 experience 519 more false-positive results and 62 more benign breast biopsies. Another study suggested that anxiety and other psychosocial harms resulting from a false-positive test are similar between patients who require a biopsy vs additional imaging only. Of greater concern, women who have false-positive results are less likely to return for their next scheduled screening exam.

A recent analysis of 2005-2017 data from the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium found that about 1 in 10 mammograms had a false-positive result. Sixty percent of these patients underwent immediate additional imaging, 27% were recalled for diagnostic imaging within the next few days to weeks, and 13% were advised to have a biopsy. While patients who had additional imaging at the same visit were only 1.9% less likely to return for screening mammography within 30 months compared with those with normal mammograms, women who were recalled for short-interval follow-up or recommended for biopsy were 15.9% and 10% less likely to return, respectively. For unclear reasons, women who identified as Asian or Hispanic had even lower rates of return screening after false-positive results.

These differences matter because women in their 40s, with the lowest incidence of breast cancer among those undergoing screening, have a lot of false positives. A patient who follows the USPSTF recommendation and starts screening at age 40 has a 42% chance of having at least one false positive with every-other-year screening, or a 61% chance with annual screening, by the time she turns 50. If some of these patients are so turned off by false positives that they don’t return for regular mammography in their 50s and 60s, when screening is the most likely to catch clinically significant cancers at treatable stages, then moving up the starting age may backfire and cause net harm.

The recently implemented FDA rule requiring mammography reports to include breast density could compound this problem. Because younger women are more likely to have dense breasts, more of them will probably decide to have supplemental imaging for cancer. I previously pointed out that we don’t know whether supplemental imaging with breast ultrasonography or MRI reduces cancer deaths, but we do know that it increases false-positive results.

I have personally cared for several patients who abandoned screening mammography for long stretches, or permanently, after having endured one or more benign biopsies prompted by a false-positive result. I vividly recall one woman in her 60s who was very reluctant to have screening tests in general, and mammography in particular, for that reason. After she had been my patient for a few years, I finally persuaded her to resume screening. We were both surprised when her first mammogram in more than a decade revealed an early-stage breast cancer. Fortunately, the tumor was successfully treated, but for her, an earlier false-positive result nearly ended up having critical health consequences.

Dr. Lin is associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor. He has no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metformin significantly improved symptoms and resulted in hair regrowth in Black women with treatment-refractory central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), in a retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series involving 12 Black women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, with biopsy-confirmed, treatment-refractory CCCA, a chronic inflammatory hair disorder characterized by permanent hair loss, from the Johns Hopkins University alopecia clinic.
• Participants received CCCA treatment for at least 6 months and had stagnant or worsening symptoms before oral extended-release metformin (500 mg daily) was added to treatment. (Treatments included topical clobetasol, compounded minoxidil, and platelet-rich plasma injections.)
• Scalp biopsies were collected from four patients before and after metformin treatment to evaluate gene expression changes.
• Changes in clinical symptoms were assessed, including pruritus, inflammation, pain, scalp resistance, and hair regrowth, following initiation of metformin treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Metformin led to significant clinical improvement in eight patients, which included reductions in scalp pain, scalp resistance, pruritus, and inflammation. However, two patients experienced worsening symptoms.
• Six patients showed clinical evidence of hair regrowth after at least 6 months of metformin treatment with one experiencing hair loss again 3 months after discontinuing treatment.
• Transcriptomic analysis revealed 34 up-regulated genes, which included up-regulated of 23 hair keratin–associated proteins, and pathways related to keratinization, epidermis development, and the hair cycle. In addition, eight genes were down-regulated, with pathways that included those associated with extracellular matrix organization, collagen fibril organization, and collagen metabolism.
• Gene set variation analysis showed reduced expression of T helper 17 cell and epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathways and elevated adenosine monophosphate kinase signaling and keratin-associated proteins after treatment with metformin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Metformin’s ability to concomitantly target fibrosis and inflammation provides a plausible mechanism for its therapeutic effects in CCCA and other fibrosing alopecia disorders,” the authors concluded. But, they added, “larger prospective, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to rigorously evaluate metformin’s efficacy and optimal dosing for treatment of cicatricial alopecias.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron Bao, Department of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and was published online on September 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small sample size, retrospective design, lack of a placebo control group, and the single-center setting limited the generalizability of the study findings. Additionally, the absence of a validated activity or severity scale for CCCA and the single posttreatment sampling limit the assessment and comparison of clinical symptoms and transcriptomic changes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the American Academy of Dermatology. One author reported several ties with pharmaceutical companies, a pending patent, and authorship for the UpToDate section on CCCA.

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

TOPLINE:

Metformin significantly improved symptoms and resulted in hair regrowth in Black women with treatment-refractory central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), in a retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series involving 12 Black women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, with biopsy-confirmed, treatment-refractory CCCA, a chronic inflammatory hair disorder characterized by permanent hair loss, from the Johns Hopkins University alopecia clinic.
• Participants received CCCA treatment for at least 6 months and had stagnant or worsening symptoms before oral extended-release metformin (500 mg daily) was added to treatment. (Treatments included topical clobetasol, compounded minoxidil, and platelet-rich plasma injections.)
• Scalp biopsies were collected from four patients before and after metformin treatment to evaluate gene expression changes.
• Changes in clinical symptoms were assessed, including pruritus, inflammation, pain, scalp resistance, and hair regrowth, following initiation of metformin treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Metformin led to significant clinical improvement in eight patients, which included reductions in scalp pain, scalp resistance, pruritus, and inflammation. However, two patients experienced worsening symptoms.
• Six patients showed clinical evidence of hair regrowth after at least 6 months of metformin treatment with one experiencing hair loss again 3 months after discontinuing treatment.
• Transcriptomic analysis revealed 34 up-regulated genes, which included up-regulated of 23 hair keratin–associated proteins, and pathways related to keratinization, epidermis development, and the hair cycle. In addition, eight genes were down-regulated, with pathways that included those associated with extracellular matrix organization, collagen fibril organization, and collagen metabolism.
• Gene set variation analysis showed reduced expression of T helper 17 cell and epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathways and elevated adenosine monophosphate kinase signaling and keratin-associated proteins after treatment with metformin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Metformin’s ability to concomitantly target fibrosis and inflammation provides a plausible mechanism for its therapeutic effects in CCCA and other fibrosing alopecia disorders,” the authors concluded. But, they added, “larger prospective, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to rigorously evaluate metformin’s efficacy and optimal dosing for treatment of cicatricial alopecias.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron Bao, Department of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and was published online on September 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small sample size, retrospective design, lack of a placebo control group, and the single-center setting limited the generalizability of the study findings. Additionally, the absence of a validated activity or severity scale for CCCA and the single posttreatment sampling limit the assessment and comparison of clinical symptoms and transcriptomic changes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the American Academy of Dermatology. One author reported several ties with pharmaceutical companies, a pending patent, and authorship for the UpToDate section on CCCA.

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

TOPLINE:

Metformin significantly improved symptoms and resulted in hair regrowth in Black women with treatment-refractory central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), in a retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series involving 12 Black women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, with biopsy-confirmed, treatment-refractory CCCA, a chronic inflammatory hair disorder characterized by permanent hair loss, from the Johns Hopkins University alopecia clinic.
• Participants received CCCA treatment for at least 6 months and had stagnant or worsening symptoms before oral extended-release metformin (500 mg daily) was added to treatment. (Treatments included topical clobetasol, compounded minoxidil, and platelet-rich plasma injections.)
• Scalp biopsies were collected from four patients before and after metformin treatment to evaluate gene expression changes.
• Changes in clinical symptoms were assessed, including pruritus, inflammation, pain, scalp resistance, and hair regrowth, following initiation of metformin treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Metformin led to significant clinical improvement in eight patients, which included reductions in scalp pain, scalp resistance, pruritus, and inflammation. However, two patients experienced worsening symptoms.
• Six patients showed clinical evidence of hair regrowth after at least 6 months of metformin treatment with one experiencing hair loss again 3 months after discontinuing treatment.
• Transcriptomic analysis revealed 34 up-regulated genes, which included up-regulated of 23 hair keratin–associated proteins, and pathways related to keratinization, epidermis development, and the hair cycle. In addition, eight genes were down-regulated, with pathways that included those associated with extracellular matrix organization, collagen fibril organization, and collagen metabolism.
• Gene set variation analysis showed reduced expression of T helper 17 cell and epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathways and elevated adenosine monophosphate kinase signaling and keratin-associated proteins after treatment with metformin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Metformin’s ability to concomitantly target fibrosis and inflammation provides a plausible mechanism for its therapeutic effects in CCCA and other fibrosing alopecia disorders,” the authors concluded. But, they added, “larger prospective, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to rigorously evaluate metformin’s efficacy and optimal dosing for treatment of cicatricial alopecias.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron Bao, Department of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and was published online on September 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small sample size, retrospective design, lack of a placebo control group, and the single-center setting limited the generalizability of the study findings. Additionally, the absence of a validated activity or severity scale for CCCA and the single posttreatment sampling limit the assessment and comparison of clinical symptoms and transcriptomic changes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the American Academy of Dermatology. One author reported several ties with pharmaceutical companies, a pending patent, and authorship for the UpToDate section on CCCA.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Menopause linking menopausal symptoms to increased risk for cognitive impairment. I’d also like to discuss some of the recent studies that have addressed whether hot flashes are linked to increased risk for heart disease and other forms of cardiovascular disease (CVD). 

Given that 75%-80% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women have hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms, it’s undoubtedly a more complex relationship between hot flashes and these outcomes than a simple one-size-fits-all, yes-or-no question.

Increasing evidence shows that several additional factors are important, including the age at which the symptoms are occurring, the time since menopause, the severity of the symptoms, whether they co-occur with night sweats and sleep disruption, and the cardiovascular status of the woman.

Several studies suggest that women who have more severe hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms are more likely to have prevalent cardiovascular risk factors — hypertension, dyslipidemia, high body mass index, endothelial dysfunction — as measured by flow-mediated vasodilation and other measures.

It is quite plausible that hot flashes could be a marker for increased risk for cognitive impairment. But the question remains, are hot flashes associated with cognitive impairment independent of these other risk factors? It appears that the associations between hot flashes, vasomotor symptoms, and CVD, and other adverse outcomes, may be more likely when hot flashes persist after age 60 or are newly occurring in later menopause. In the Women’s Health Initiative observational study, the presence of hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms in early menopause was not linked to any increased risk for heart attack, stroke, total CVD, or all-cause mortality.

However, the onset of these symptoms, especially new onset of these symptoms after age 60 or in later menopause, was in fact linked to increased risk for CVD and all-cause mortality. With respect to cognitive impairment, if a woman is having hot flashes and night sweats with regular sleep disruption, performance on cognitive testing would not be as favorable as it would be in the absence of these symptoms.

This brings us to the new study in Menopause that included approximately 1300 Latino women in nine Latin American countries, with an average age of 55 years. Looking at the association between severe menopausal symptoms and cognitive impairment, researchers found that women with severe symptoms were more likely to have cognitive impairment.

Conversely, they found that the women who had a favorable CVD risk factor status (physically active, lower BMI, healthier) and were ever users of estrogen were less likely to have cognitive impairment.

Clearly, for estrogen therapy, we need randomized clinical trials of the presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms and cognitive and CVD outcomes. Such analyses are ongoing, and new randomized trials focused specifically on women in early menopause would be very beneficial.

At the present time, it’s important that we not alarm women about the associations seen in some of these studies because often they are not independent associations; they aren’t independent of other risk factors that are commonly linked to hot flashes and night sweats. There are many other complexities in the relationship between hot flashes and cognitive impairment.

We need to appreciate that women who have moderate to severe hot flashes (especially when associated with disrupted sleep) do have impaired quality of life. It’s important to treat these symptoms, especially in early menopause, and very effective hormonal and nonhormonal treatments are available.

For women with symptoms that persist into later menopause or who have new onset of symptoms in later menopause, it’s important to prioritize cardiovascular health. For example, be more vigilant about behavioral lifestyle counseling to lower risk, and be even more aggressive in treating dyslipidemia and diabetes.

JoAnn E. Manson, Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School; Chief, Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and Past President, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Menopause linking menopausal symptoms to increased risk for cognitive impairment. I’d also like to discuss some of the recent studies that have addressed whether hot flashes are linked to increased risk for heart disease and other forms of cardiovascular disease (CVD). 

Given that 75%-80% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women have hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms, it’s undoubtedly a more complex relationship between hot flashes and these outcomes than a simple one-size-fits-all, yes-or-no question.

Increasing evidence shows that several additional factors are important, including the age at which the symptoms are occurring, the time since menopause, the severity of the symptoms, whether they co-occur with night sweats and sleep disruption, and the cardiovascular status of the woman.

Several studies suggest that women who have more severe hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms are more likely to have prevalent cardiovascular risk factors — hypertension, dyslipidemia, high body mass index, endothelial dysfunction — as measured by flow-mediated vasodilation and other measures.

It is quite plausible that hot flashes could be a marker for increased risk for cognitive impairment. But the question remains, are hot flashes associated with cognitive impairment independent of these other risk factors? It appears that the associations between hot flashes, vasomotor symptoms, and CVD, and other adverse outcomes, may be more likely when hot flashes persist after age 60 or are newly occurring in later menopause. In the Women’s Health Initiative observational study, the presence of hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms in early menopause was not linked to any increased risk for heart attack, stroke, total CVD, or all-cause mortality.

However, the onset of these symptoms, especially new onset of these symptoms after age 60 or in later menopause, was in fact linked to increased risk for CVD and all-cause mortality. With respect to cognitive impairment, if a woman is having hot flashes and night sweats with regular sleep disruption, performance on cognitive testing would not be as favorable as it would be in the absence of these symptoms.

This brings us to the new study in Menopause that included approximately 1300 Latino women in nine Latin American countries, with an average age of 55 years. Looking at the association between severe menopausal symptoms and cognitive impairment, researchers found that women with severe symptoms were more likely to have cognitive impairment.

Conversely, they found that the women who had a favorable CVD risk factor status (physically active, lower BMI, healthier) and were ever users of estrogen were less likely to have cognitive impairment.

Clearly, for estrogen therapy, we need randomized clinical trials of the presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms and cognitive and CVD outcomes. Such analyses are ongoing, and new randomized trials focused specifically on women in early menopause would be very beneficial.

At the present time, it’s important that we not alarm women about the associations seen in some of these studies because often they are not independent associations; they aren’t independent of other risk factors that are commonly linked to hot flashes and night sweats. There are many other complexities in the relationship between hot flashes and cognitive impairment.

We need to appreciate that women who have moderate to severe hot flashes (especially when associated with disrupted sleep) do have impaired quality of life. It’s important to treat these symptoms, especially in early menopause, and very effective hormonal and nonhormonal treatments are available.

For women with symptoms that persist into later menopause or who have new onset of symptoms in later menopause, it’s important to prioritize cardiovascular health. For example, be more vigilant about behavioral lifestyle counseling to lower risk, and be even more aggressive in treating dyslipidemia and diabetes.

JoAnn E. Manson, Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School; Chief, Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and Past President, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Menopause linking menopausal symptoms to increased risk for cognitive impairment. I’d also like to discuss some of the recent studies that have addressed whether hot flashes are linked to increased risk for heart disease and other forms of cardiovascular disease (CVD). 

Given that 75%-80% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women have hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms, it’s undoubtedly a more complex relationship between hot flashes and these outcomes than a simple one-size-fits-all, yes-or-no question.

Increasing evidence shows that several additional factors are important, including the age at which the symptoms are occurring, the time since menopause, the severity of the symptoms, whether they co-occur with night sweats and sleep disruption, and the cardiovascular status of the woman.

Several studies suggest that women who have more severe hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms are more likely to have prevalent cardiovascular risk factors — hypertension, dyslipidemia, high body mass index, endothelial dysfunction — as measured by flow-mediated vasodilation and other measures.

It is quite plausible that hot flashes could be a marker for increased risk for cognitive impairment. But the question remains, are hot flashes associated with cognitive impairment independent of these other risk factors? It appears that the associations between hot flashes, vasomotor symptoms, and CVD, and other adverse outcomes, may be more likely when hot flashes persist after age 60 or are newly occurring in later menopause. In the Women’s Health Initiative observational study, the presence of hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms in early menopause was not linked to any increased risk for heart attack, stroke, total CVD, or all-cause mortality.

However, the onset of these symptoms, especially new onset of these symptoms after age 60 or in later menopause, was in fact linked to increased risk for CVD and all-cause mortality. With respect to cognitive impairment, if a woman is having hot flashes and night sweats with regular sleep disruption, performance on cognitive testing would not be as favorable as it would be in the absence of these symptoms.

This brings us to the new study in Menopause that included approximately 1300 Latino women in nine Latin American countries, with an average age of 55 years. Looking at the association between severe menopausal symptoms and cognitive impairment, researchers found that women with severe symptoms were more likely to have cognitive impairment.

Conversely, they found that the women who had a favorable CVD risk factor status (physically active, lower BMI, healthier) and were ever users of estrogen were less likely to have cognitive impairment.

Clearly, for estrogen therapy, we need randomized clinical trials of the presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms and cognitive and CVD outcomes. Such analyses are ongoing, and new randomized trials focused specifically on women in early menopause would be very beneficial.

At the present time, it’s important that we not alarm women about the associations seen in some of these studies because often they are not independent associations; they aren’t independent of other risk factors that are commonly linked to hot flashes and night sweats. There are many other complexities in the relationship between hot flashes and cognitive impairment.

We need to appreciate that women who have moderate to severe hot flashes (especially when associated with disrupted sleep) do have impaired quality of life. It’s important to treat these symptoms, especially in early menopause, and very effective hormonal and nonhormonal treatments are available.

For women with symptoms that persist into later menopause or who have new onset of symptoms in later menopause, it’s important to prioritize cardiovascular health. For example, be more vigilant about behavioral lifestyle counseling to lower risk, and be even more aggressive in treating dyslipidemia and diabetes.

JoAnn E. Manson, Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School; Chief, Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and Past President, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

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

TOPLINE:

Universal testing identified germline pathogenic variants in 7.3% of women with breast cancer, suggesting that traditional risk-based criteria may miss more than a third of BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2 carriers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Traditional risk-based criteria, including family history and ancestry, are used to guide genetic testing decisions in women with breast cancer. However, these criteria may overlook patients with actionable genetic variants, particularly those outside the typical risk profile.
• To assess the efficacy of universal genetic testing, researchers conducted a cross-sectional study that included 729 women (median age at diagnosis, 53 years; 65.4% White women) newly diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between September 2019 and April 2022 at three Canadian institutions.
• All patients received genetic counseling followed by testing for the presence of germline pathogenic variants in 17 breast cancer susceptibility genes. The primary gene panel included screening for BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2, and the optional secondary panel included 14 additional breast cancer susceptibility genes.
• Of the participants, 659 (90.4%) were tested for both primary and secondary gene panels, whereas 70 (9.6%) underwent testing for only the primary panel. The majority of the cohort (66.8) were diagnosed with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, while 15.4% had triple-negative breast cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of germline pathogenic variants was 7.3% (53 patients) — 5.3% for the primary gene panel and 2.1% for the secondary panel.
• Younger age (< 40 years; odds ratio [OR], 6.83), family history of ovarian cancer (OR, 9.75), high-grade disease (OR, 1.68), and triple-negative breast cancer (OR, 3.19) were independently associated with the presence of pathogenic genetic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2.
• Overall, 34.3% of patients with germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2, and 85.7% of carriers of secondary panel variants would not have qualified for traditional genetic testing according to the current risk factors.
• A total of 13 patients with BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2 variants had confirmed pathogenic mutations and were eligible for poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

These findings have “informed our clinical practice, and we now offer mainstream, oncology-led genetic testing to all women diagnosed with incident invasive breast cancer younger than 50 years of age, those with triple-negative breast cancer and/or bilateral breast cancer, those potentially eligible for PARP inhibitors,” as well as to men with breast cancer, the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Zoulikha Rezoug, MSc, Lady Davis Institute of the Jewish General Hospital, McGill University in Montreal, Québec, Canada. It was published online on September 3, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a 6-month recruitment pause. Adjustments in recruitment criteria, focus on younger patients and those with triple-negative breast cancer could have overestimated prevalence of genetic pathogenic variants among women aged ≥ 70 years.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Jewish General Hospital Foundation and the Québec Breast Cancer Foundation, as well as an award from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé. Two authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various sources.

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

TOPLINE:

Universal testing identified germline pathogenic variants in 7.3% of women with breast cancer, suggesting that traditional risk-based criteria may miss more than a third of BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2 carriers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Traditional risk-based criteria, including family history and ancestry, are used to guide genetic testing decisions in women with breast cancer. However, these criteria may overlook patients with actionable genetic variants, particularly those outside the typical risk profile.
• To assess the efficacy of universal genetic testing, researchers conducted a cross-sectional study that included 729 women (median age at diagnosis, 53 years; 65.4% White women) newly diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between September 2019 and April 2022 at three Canadian institutions.
• All patients received genetic counseling followed by testing for the presence of germline pathogenic variants in 17 breast cancer susceptibility genes. The primary gene panel included screening for BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2, and the optional secondary panel included 14 additional breast cancer susceptibility genes.
• Of the participants, 659 (90.4%) were tested for both primary and secondary gene panels, whereas 70 (9.6%) underwent testing for only the primary panel. The majority of the cohort (66.8) were diagnosed with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, while 15.4% had triple-negative breast cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of germline pathogenic variants was 7.3% (53 patients) — 5.3% for the primary gene panel and 2.1% for the secondary panel.
• Younger age (< 40 years; odds ratio [OR], 6.83), family history of ovarian cancer (OR, 9.75), high-grade disease (OR, 1.68), and triple-negative breast cancer (OR, 3.19) were independently associated with the presence of pathogenic genetic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2.
• Overall, 34.3% of patients with germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2, and 85.7% of carriers of secondary panel variants would not have qualified for traditional genetic testing according to the current risk factors.
• A total of 13 patients with BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2 variants had confirmed pathogenic mutations and were eligible for poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

These findings have “informed our clinical practice, and we now offer mainstream, oncology-led genetic testing to all women diagnosed with incident invasive breast cancer younger than 50 years of age, those with triple-negative breast cancer and/or bilateral breast cancer, those potentially eligible for PARP inhibitors,” as well as to men with breast cancer, the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Zoulikha Rezoug, MSc, Lady Davis Institute of the Jewish General Hospital, McGill University in Montreal, Québec, Canada. It was published online on September 3, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a 6-month recruitment pause. Adjustments in recruitment criteria, focus on younger patients and those with triple-negative breast cancer could have overestimated prevalence of genetic pathogenic variants among women aged ≥ 70 years.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Jewish General Hospital Foundation and the Québec Breast Cancer Foundation, as well as an award from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé. Two authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various sources.

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

TOPLINE:

Universal testing identified germline pathogenic variants in 7.3% of women with breast cancer, suggesting that traditional risk-based criteria may miss more than a third of BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2 carriers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Traditional risk-based criteria, including family history and ancestry, are used to guide genetic testing decisions in women with breast cancer. However, these criteria may overlook patients with actionable genetic variants, particularly those outside the typical risk profile.
• To assess the efficacy of universal genetic testing, researchers conducted a cross-sectional study that included 729 women (median age at diagnosis, 53 years; 65.4% White women) newly diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between September 2019 and April 2022 at three Canadian institutions.
• All patients received genetic counseling followed by testing for the presence of germline pathogenic variants in 17 breast cancer susceptibility genes. The primary gene panel included screening for BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2, and the optional secondary panel included 14 additional breast cancer susceptibility genes.
• Of the participants, 659 (90.4%) were tested for both primary and secondary gene panels, whereas 70 (9.6%) underwent testing for only the primary panel. The majority of the cohort (66.8) were diagnosed with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, while 15.4% had triple-negative breast cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of germline pathogenic variants was 7.3% (53 patients) — 5.3% for the primary gene panel and 2.1% for the secondary panel.
• Younger age (< 40 years; odds ratio [OR], 6.83), family history of ovarian cancer (OR, 9.75), high-grade disease (OR, 1.68), and triple-negative breast cancer (OR, 3.19) were independently associated with the presence of pathogenic genetic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2.
• Overall, 34.3% of patients with germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2, and 85.7% of carriers of secondary panel variants would not have qualified for traditional genetic testing according to the current risk factors.
• A total of 13 patients with BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2 variants had confirmed pathogenic mutations and were eligible for poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

These findings have “informed our clinical practice, and we now offer mainstream, oncology-led genetic testing to all women diagnosed with incident invasive breast cancer younger than 50 years of age, those with triple-negative breast cancer and/or bilateral breast cancer, those potentially eligible for PARP inhibitors,” as well as to men with breast cancer, the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Zoulikha Rezoug, MSc, Lady Davis Institute of the Jewish General Hospital, McGill University in Montreal, Québec, Canada. It was published online on September 3, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a 6-month recruitment pause. Adjustments in recruitment criteria, focus on younger patients and those with triple-negative breast cancer could have overestimated prevalence of genetic pathogenic variants among women aged ≥ 70 years.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Jewish General Hospital Foundation and the Québec Breast Cancer Foundation, as well as an award from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé. Two authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various sources.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. 

Paul, we’re going to talk about our primary hyperparathyroidism podcast with Dr. Lindsay Kuo. It’s a topic that I feel much more clear on now.

Now, Paul, in primary care, you see a lot of calcium that is just slightly high. Can we just blame that on thiazide diuretics?

Paul N. Williams, MD: It’s a place to start. As you’re starting to think about the possible etiologies, primary hyperparathyroidism and malignancy are the two that roll right off the tongue, but it is worth going back to the patient’s medication list and making sure you’re not missing something.

Thiazides famously cause hypercalcemia, but in some of the reading I did for this episode, they may just uncover it a little bit early. Patients who are on thiazides who become hypercalcemic seem to go on to develop primary hyperthyroidism anyway. So I don’t think you can solely blame the thiazide.

Another medication that can be causative is lithium. So a good place to look first after you’ve repeated the labs and confirmed hypercalcemia is the patient’s medication list. 

Dr. Watto: We’ve talked before about the basic workup for hypercalcemia, and determining whether it’s PTH dependent or PTH independent. On the podcast, we talk more about the full workup, but I wanted to talk about the classic symptoms. Our expert made the point that we don’t see them as much anymore, although we do see kidney stones. People used to present very late in the disease because they weren’t having labs done routinely.

The classic symptoms include osteoporosis and bone tumors. People can get nephrocalcinosis and kidney stones. I hadn’t really thought of it this way because we’re used to diagnosing it early now. Do you feel the same? 

Dr. Williams: As labs have started routinely reporting calcium levels, this is more and more often how it’s picked up. The other aspect is that as we are screening for and finding osteoporosis, part of the workup almost always involves getting a parathyroid hormone and a calcium level. We’re seeing these lab abnormalities before we’re seeing symptoms, which is good.

But it also makes things more diagnostically thorny.

Dr. Watto: Dr. Lindsay Kuo made the point that when she sees patients before and after surgery, she’s aware of these nonclassic symptoms — the stones, bones, groans, and the psychiatric overtones that can be anything from fatigue or irritability to dysphoria.

Some people have a generalized weakness that’s very nonspecific. Dr. Kuo said that sometimes these symptoms will disappear after surgery. The patients may just have gotten used to them, or they thought these symptoms were caused by something else, but after surgery they went away.

There are these nonclassic symptoms that are harder to pin down. I was surprised by that.

Dr. Williams: She mentioned polydipsia and polyuria, which have been reported in other studies. It seems like it can be anything. You have to take a good history, but none of those things in and of themselves is an indication for operating unless the patient has the classic renal or bone manifestations. 

Dr. Watto: The other thing we talked about is a normal calcium level in a patient with primary hyperparathyroidism, or the finding of a PTH level in the normal range but with a high calcium level that is inappropriate. Can you talk a little bit about those two situations? 

Dr. Williams: They’re hard to say but kind of easy to manage because you treat them the same way as someone who has elevated calcium and PTH levels. 

The normocalcemic patient is something we might stumble across with osteoporosis screening. Initially the calcium level is elevated, so you repeat it and it’s normal but with an elevated PTH level. You’re like, shoot. Now what?

It turns out that most endocrine surgeons say that the indications for surgery for the classic form of primary hyperparathyroidism apply to these patients as well, and it probably helps with the bone outcomes, which is one of the things they follow most closely. If you have hypercalcemia, you should have a suppressed PTH level, the so-called normohormonal hyperparathyroidism, which is not normal at all. So even if the PTH is in the normal range, it’s still relatively elevated compared with what it should be. That situation is treated in the same way as the classic elevated PTH and elevated calcium levels.

Dr. Watto: If the calcium is abnormal and the PTH is not quite what you’d expect it to be, you can always ask your friendly neighborhood endocrinologist to help you figure out whether the patient really has one of these conditions. You have to make sure that they don’t have a simple secondary cause like a low vitamin D level. In that case, you fix the vitamin D and then recheck the numbers to see if they’ve normalized. But I have found a bunch of these edge cases in which it has been helpful to confer with an endocrinologist, especially before you send someone to a surgeon to take out their parathyroid gland. 

This was a really fantastic conversation. If you want to hear the full podcast episode, click here.
 

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for The Curbsiders, and has received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from The Curbsiders.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. 

Paul, we’re going to talk about our primary hyperparathyroidism podcast with Dr. Lindsay Kuo. It’s a topic that I feel much more clear on now.

Now, Paul, in primary care, you see a lot of calcium that is just slightly high. Can we just blame that on thiazide diuretics?

Paul N. Williams, MD: It’s a place to start. As you’re starting to think about the possible etiologies, primary hyperparathyroidism and malignancy are the two that roll right off the tongue, but it is worth going back to the patient’s medication list and making sure you’re not missing something.

Thiazides famously cause hypercalcemia, but in some of the reading I did for this episode, they may just uncover it a little bit early. Patients who are on thiazides who become hypercalcemic seem to go on to develop primary hyperthyroidism anyway. So I don’t think you can solely blame the thiazide.

Another medication that can be causative is lithium. So a good place to look first after you’ve repeated the labs and confirmed hypercalcemia is the patient’s medication list. 

Dr. Watto: We’ve talked before about the basic workup for hypercalcemia, and determining whether it’s PTH dependent or PTH independent. On the podcast, we talk more about the full workup, but I wanted to talk about the classic symptoms. Our expert made the point that we don’t see them as much anymore, although we do see kidney stones. People used to present very late in the disease because they weren’t having labs done routinely.

The classic symptoms include osteoporosis and bone tumors. People can get nephrocalcinosis and kidney stones. I hadn’t really thought of it this way because we’re used to diagnosing it early now. Do you feel the same? 

Dr. Williams: As labs have started routinely reporting calcium levels, this is more and more often how it’s picked up. The other aspect is that as we are screening for and finding osteoporosis, part of the workup almost always involves getting a parathyroid hormone and a calcium level. We’re seeing these lab abnormalities before we’re seeing symptoms, which is good.

But it also makes things more diagnostically thorny.

Dr. Watto: Dr. Lindsay Kuo made the point that when she sees patients before and after surgery, she’s aware of these nonclassic symptoms — the stones, bones, groans, and the psychiatric overtones that can be anything from fatigue or irritability to dysphoria.

Some people have a generalized weakness that’s very nonspecific. Dr. Kuo said that sometimes these symptoms will disappear after surgery. The patients may just have gotten used to them, or they thought these symptoms were caused by something else, but after surgery they went away.

There are these nonclassic symptoms that are harder to pin down. I was surprised by that.

Dr. Williams: She mentioned polydipsia and polyuria, which have been reported in other studies. It seems like it can be anything. You have to take a good history, but none of those things in and of themselves is an indication for operating unless the patient has the classic renal or bone manifestations. 

Dr. Watto: The other thing we talked about is a normal calcium level in a patient with primary hyperparathyroidism, or the finding of a PTH level in the normal range but with a high calcium level that is inappropriate. Can you talk a little bit about those two situations? 

Dr. Williams: They’re hard to say but kind of easy to manage because you treat them the same way as someone who has elevated calcium and PTH levels. 

The normocalcemic patient is something we might stumble across with osteoporosis screening. Initially the calcium level is elevated, so you repeat it and it’s normal but with an elevated PTH level. You’re like, shoot. Now what?

It turns out that most endocrine surgeons say that the indications for surgery for the classic form of primary hyperparathyroidism apply to these patients as well, and it probably helps with the bone outcomes, which is one of the things they follow most closely. If you have hypercalcemia, you should have a suppressed PTH level, the so-called normohormonal hyperparathyroidism, which is not normal at all. So even if the PTH is in the normal range, it’s still relatively elevated compared with what it should be. That situation is treated in the same way as the classic elevated PTH and elevated calcium levels.

Dr. Watto: If the calcium is abnormal and the PTH is not quite what you’d expect it to be, you can always ask your friendly neighborhood endocrinologist to help you figure out whether the patient really has one of these conditions. You have to make sure that they don’t have a simple secondary cause like a low vitamin D level. In that case, you fix the vitamin D and then recheck the numbers to see if they’ve normalized. But I have found a bunch of these edge cases in which it has been helpful to confer with an endocrinologist, especially before you send someone to a surgeon to take out their parathyroid gland. 

This was a really fantastic conversation. If you want to hear the full podcast episode, click here.
 

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for The Curbsiders, and has received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from The Curbsiders.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. 

Paul, we’re going to talk about our primary hyperparathyroidism podcast with Dr. Lindsay Kuo. It’s a topic that I feel much more clear on now.

Now, Paul, in primary care, you see a lot of calcium that is just slightly high. Can we just blame that on thiazide diuretics?

Paul N. Williams, MD: It’s a place to start. As you’re starting to think about the possible etiologies, primary hyperparathyroidism and malignancy are the two that roll right off the tongue, but it is worth going back to the patient’s medication list and making sure you’re not missing something.

Thiazides famously cause hypercalcemia, but in some of the reading I did for this episode, they may just uncover it a little bit early. Patients who are on thiazides who become hypercalcemic seem to go on to develop primary hyperthyroidism anyway. So I don’t think you can solely blame the thiazide.

Another medication that can be causative is lithium. So a good place to look first after you’ve repeated the labs and confirmed hypercalcemia is the patient’s medication list. 

Dr. Watto: We’ve talked before about the basic workup for hypercalcemia, and determining whether it’s PTH dependent or PTH independent. On the podcast, we talk more about the full workup, but I wanted to talk about the classic symptoms. Our expert made the point that we don’t see them as much anymore, although we do see kidney stones. People used to present very late in the disease because they weren’t having labs done routinely.

The classic symptoms include osteoporosis and bone tumors. People can get nephrocalcinosis and kidney stones. I hadn’t really thought of it this way because we’re used to diagnosing it early now. Do you feel the same? 

Dr. Williams: As labs have started routinely reporting calcium levels, this is more and more often how it’s picked up. The other aspect is that as we are screening for and finding osteoporosis, part of the workup almost always involves getting a parathyroid hormone and a calcium level. We’re seeing these lab abnormalities before we’re seeing symptoms, which is good.

But it also makes things more diagnostically thorny.

Dr. Watto: Dr. Lindsay Kuo made the point that when she sees patients before and after surgery, she’s aware of these nonclassic symptoms — the stones, bones, groans, and the psychiatric overtones that can be anything from fatigue or irritability to dysphoria.

Some people have a generalized weakness that’s very nonspecific. Dr. Kuo said that sometimes these symptoms will disappear after surgery. The patients may just have gotten used to them, or they thought these symptoms were caused by something else, but after surgery they went away.

There are these nonclassic symptoms that are harder to pin down. I was surprised by that.

Dr. Williams: She mentioned polydipsia and polyuria, which have been reported in other studies. It seems like it can be anything. You have to take a good history, but none of those things in and of themselves is an indication for operating unless the patient has the classic renal or bone manifestations. 

Dr. Watto: The other thing we talked about is a normal calcium level in a patient with primary hyperparathyroidism, or the finding of a PTH level in the normal range but with a high calcium level that is inappropriate. Can you talk a little bit about those two situations? 

Dr. Williams: They’re hard to say but kind of easy to manage because you treat them the same way as someone who has elevated calcium and PTH levels. 

The normocalcemic patient is something we might stumble across with osteoporosis screening. Initially the calcium level is elevated, so you repeat it and it’s normal but with an elevated PTH level. You’re like, shoot. Now what?

It turns out that most endocrine surgeons say that the indications for surgery for the classic form of primary hyperparathyroidism apply to these patients as well, and it probably helps with the bone outcomes, which is one of the things they follow most closely. If you have hypercalcemia, you should have a suppressed PTH level, the so-called normohormonal hyperparathyroidism, which is not normal at all. So even if the PTH is in the normal range, it’s still relatively elevated compared with what it should be. That situation is treated in the same way as the classic elevated PTH and elevated calcium levels.

Dr. Watto: If the calcium is abnormal and the PTH is not quite what you’d expect it to be, you can always ask your friendly neighborhood endocrinologist to help you figure out whether the patient really has one of these conditions. You have to make sure that they don’t have a simple secondary cause like a low vitamin D level. In that case, you fix the vitamin D and then recheck the numbers to see if they’ve normalized. But I have found a bunch of these edge cases in which it has been helpful to confer with an endocrinologist, especially before you send someone to a surgeon to take out their parathyroid gland. 

This was a really fantastic conversation. If you want to hear the full podcast episode, click here.
 

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for The Curbsiders, and has received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from The Curbsiders.

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