Women's Health

TOPLINE:

Women with menstrual or perimenopausal symptoms can relieve common physical and psychological issues through cold water swimming, a new study finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Symptoms of menstrual cycles and perimenopause vary widely but frequently include mood swings, anxiety, depression, fatigue, hot flashes, and sleep disturbances.
• This is the first investigation of whether cold water swimming has an impact on these symptoms.
• Researchers conducted a 42-question online survey of 1114 women who were regularly swam in cold water. More than two-thirds of respondents (68.1%) were between 45 and 59 years of age.
• Some of the data included responses by women who were perimenopausal but still had menstrual symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that cold water swimming had multiple beneficial effects on both menstrual and perimenopausal symptoms.
• Women who swam more frequently and for longer reported more beneficial effects than women who swam less often or for less time per swim.
• Reduction of psychological and vasomotor symptoms were most often cited by cold-water swimmers.
• Perimenopausal women who swam regularly in winter and summer saw greater reduction in anxiety and hot flashes than did those who swam in the other seasons.

IN PRACTICE:

“Teaching women to swim safely and encouraging them to swim regularly may have a benefit on the debilitating symptoms associated with the perimenopause,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by researchers from University College, London, and published online in Post Reproductive Health. The corresponding author is Joyce Harper, PhD, professor of reproductive science at EGA Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, England.

LIMITATIONS:

This was an observational study, with no control group. The underlying cause of improved psychological symptoms of perimenopause were not fully evaluated owing to unaccounted multiple variables. Use of an online survey may introduce sampling bias and not align with the population of all menstruating or perimenopausal women. Participants were primarily White and highly educated.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Harper disclosed giving paid talks on menopause to businesses and at conferences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with menstrual or perimenopausal symptoms can relieve common physical and psychological issues through cold water swimming, a new study finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Symptoms of menstrual cycles and perimenopause vary widely but frequently include mood swings, anxiety, depression, fatigue, hot flashes, and sleep disturbances.
• This is the first investigation of whether cold water swimming has an impact on these symptoms.
• Researchers conducted a 42-question online survey of 1114 women who were regularly swam in cold water. More than two-thirds of respondents (68.1%) were between 45 and 59 years of age.
• Some of the data included responses by women who were perimenopausal but still had menstrual symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that cold water swimming had multiple beneficial effects on both menstrual and perimenopausal symptoms.
• Women who swam more frequently and for longer reported more beneficial effects than women who swam less often or for less time per swim.
• Reduction of psychological and vasomotor symptoms were most often cited by cold-water swimmers.
• Perimenopausal women who swam regularly in winter and summer saw greater reduction in anxiety and hot flashes than did those who swam in the other seasons.

IN PRACTICE:

“Teaching women to swim safely and encouraging them to swim regularly may have a benefit on the debilitating symptoms associated with the perimenopause,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by researchers from University College, London, and published online in Post Reproductive Health. The corresponding author is Joyce Harper, PhD, professor of reproductive science at EGA Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, England.

LIMITATIONS:

This was an observational study, with no control group. The underlying cause of improved psychological symptoms of perimenopause were not fully evaluated owing to unaccounted multiple variables. Use of an online survey may introduce sampling bias and not align with the population of all menstruating or perimenopausal women. Participants were primarily White and highly educated.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Harper disclosed giving paid talks on menopause to businesses and at conferences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with menstrual or perimenopausal symptoms can relieve common physical and psychological issues through cold water swimming, a new study finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Symptoms of menstrual cycles and perimenopause vary widely but frequently include mood swings, anxiety, depression, fatigue, hot flashes, and sleep disturbances.
• This is the first investigation of whether cold water swimming has an impact on these symptoms.
• Researchers conducted a 42-question online survey of 1114 women who were regularly swam in cold water. More than two-thirds of respondents (68.1%) were between 45 and 59 years of age.
• Some of the data included responses by women who were perimenopausal but still had menstrual symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that cold water swimming had multiple beneficial effects on both menstrual and perimenopausal symptoms.
• Women who swam more frequently and for longer reported more beneficial effects than women who swam less often or for less time per swim.
• Reduction of psychological and vasomotor symptoms were most often cited by cold-water swimmers.
• Perimenopausal women who swam regularly in winter and summer saw greater reduction in anxiety and hot flashes than did those who swam in the other seasons.

IN PRACTICE:

“Teaching women to swim safely and encouraging them to swim regularly may have a benefit on the debilitating symptoms associated with the perimenopause,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by researchers from University College, London, and published online in Post Reproductive Health. The corresponding author is Joyce Harper, PhD, professor of reproductive science at EGA Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, England.

LIMITATIONS:

This was an observational study, with no control group. The underlying cause of improved psychological symptoms of perimenopause were not fully evaluated owing to unaccounted multiple variables. Use of an online survey may introduce sampling bias and not align with the population of all menstruating or perimenopausal women. Participants were primarily White and highly educated.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Harper disclosed giving paid talks on menopause to businesses and at conferences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New evidence suggests that nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is tied to elevated levels of the fetal placenta–derived hormone GDF15, and targeting the hormone prophylactically may reduce this common gestational condition.

This protein acts on the brainstem to cause emesis, and, significantly, a mother’s prior exposure to it determines the degree of NVP severity she will experience, according to international researchers including Marlena Fejzo, PhD, a clinical assistant professor of population and public Health at Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“GDF15 is at the mechanistic heart of NVP and HG [hyperemesis gravidarum],” Dr. Fejzo and colleagues wrote in Nature, pointing to the need for preventive and therapeutic strategies.

Courtesy HER Foundation

“My previous research showed an association between variation in the GDF15 gene and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and HG, and this study takes it one step further by elucidating the mechanism. It confirms that the nausea and vomiting (N/V) hormone GDF15 is a major cause of NVP and HG,” Dr. Fejzo said.

The etiology of NVP remains poorly understood although it affects up to 80% of pregnancies. In the US, its severe form, HG, is the leading cause of hospitalization in early pregnancy and the second-leading reason for pregnancy hospitalization overall.

The immunoassay-based study showed that the majority of GDF15 in maternal blood during pregnancy comes from the fetal part of the placenta, and confirms previous studies reporting higher levels in pregnancies with more severe NVP, said Dr. Fejzo, who is who is a board member of the Hyperemesis Education and Research Foundation.

“However, what was really fascinating and surprising is that prior to pregnancy the women who have more severe NVP symptoms actually have lower levels of the hormone.”

Although the gene variant linked to HG was previously associated with higher circulating levels in maternal blood, counterintuitively, this new research showed that women with abnormally high levels prior to pregnancy have either no or very little NVP, said Dr. Fejzo. “That suggests that in humans higher levels may lead to a desensitization to the high levels of the hormone in pregnancy. Then we also proved that desensitization can occur in a mouse model.” 

According to Erin Higgins, MD, a clinical assistant professor of obgyn and reproductive biology at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, who was not involved in the study, “This is an exciting finding that may help us to better target treatment of N/V in pregnancy. Factors for NVP have been identified, but to my knowledge there has not been a clear etiology.”

Courtesy Cleveland Clinic

Dr. Higgins cautioned, however, that the GDF15 gene seems important in normal placentation, “so it’s not as simple as blocking the gene or its receptor.” But since preconception exposure to GDF15 might decrease nausea and vomiting once a woman is pregnant, prophylactic treatment may be possible, and metformin has been suggested as a possibility, she said.

The study findings emerged from immunoassays on maternal blood samples collected at about 15 weeks (first trimester and early second trimester), from women with NVP (n = 168) or seen at a hospital for HG (n = 57). Results were compared with those from controls having similar characteristics but no significant symptoms.

Interestingly, GDF15 is also associated with cachexia, a condition similar to HG and characterized by loss of appetite and weight loss, Dr. Fejzo noted. “The hormone can be produced by malignant tumors at levels similar to those seen in pregnancy, and symptoms can be reduced by blocking GDF15 or its receptor, GFRAL. Clinical trials are already underway in cancer patients to test this.”

She is seeking funding to test the impact of increasing GDF15 levels prior to pregnancy in patients who previously experienced HG. “I am confident that desensitizing patients by increasing GDF15 prior to pregnancy and by lowering GDF15 levels during pregnancy will work. But we need to make sure we do safety studies and get the dosing and duration right, and that will take some time.”

Desensitization will need testing first in HG, where the risk for adverse maternal and fetal outcomes is high, so the benefit will outweigh any possible risk of testing medication in pregnancy, she continued. “It will take some time before we get to patients with normal NVP, but I do believe eventually the new findings will result in game-changing therapeutics for the condition.”

Dr. Higgins added, “Even if this isn’t the golden ticket, researchers and clinicians are working toward improvements in the treatment of NVP. We’ve already come a long way in recent years with the development of treatment algorithms and the advent of doxylamine/pyridoxine.”

This study was supported primarily by the Medical Research Council UK and National Institute for Health and Care Research UK, with additional support from various research funding organizations, including Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Dr. Fejzo is a paid consultant for Materna Biosciences and NGM Biopharmaceuticals, and a board member and science adviser for the Hyperemesis Education and Research Foundation.

Numerous study co-authors disclosed financial relationships with private-sector companies, including employment and patent ownership.

Dr. Higgins disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments but is an instructor for Organon.

New evidence suggests that nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is tied to elevated levels of the fetal placenta–derived hormone GDF15, and targeting the hormone prophylactically may reduce this common gestational condition.

This protein acts on the brainstem to cause emesis, and, significantly, a mother’s prior exposure to it determines the degree of NVP severity she will experience, according to international researchers including Marlena Fejzo, PhD, a clinical assistant professor of population and public Health at Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“GDF15 is at the mechanistic heart of NVP and HG [hyperemesis gravidarum],” Dr. Fejzo and colleagues wrote in Nature, pointing to the need for preventive and therapeutic strategies.

Courtesy HER Foundation

“My previous research showed an association between variation in the GDF15 gene and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and HG, and this study takes it one step further by elucidating the mechanism. It confirms that the nausea and vomiting (N/V) hormone GDF15 is a major cause of NVP and HG,” Dr. Fejzo said.

The etiology of NVP remains poorly understood although it affects up to 80% of pregnancies. In the US, its severe form, HG, is the leading cause of hospitalization in early pregnancy and the second-leading reason for pregnancy hospitalization overall.

The immunoassay-based study showed that the majority of GDF15 in maternal blood during pregnancy comes from the fetal part of the placenta, and confirms previous studies reporting higher levels in pregnancies with more severe NVP, said Dr. Fejzo, who is who is a board member of the Hyperemesis Education and Research Foundation.

“However, what was really fascinating and surprising is that prior to pregnancy the women who have more severe NVP symptoms actually have lower levels of the hormone.”

Although the gene variant linked to HG was previously associated with higher circulating levels in maternal blood, counterintuitively, this new research showed that women with abnormally high levels prior to pregnancy have either no or very little NVP, said Dr. Fejzo. “That suggests that in humans higher levels may lead to a desensitization to the high levels of the hormone in pregnancy. Then we also proved that desensitization can occur in a mouse model.” 

According to Erin Higgins, MD, a clinical assistant professor of obgyn and reproductive biology at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, who was not involved in the study, “This is an exciting finding that may help us to better target treatment of N/V in pregnancy. Factors for NVP have been identified, but to my knowledge there has not been a clear etiology.”

Courtesy Cleveland Clinic

Dr. Higgins cautioned, however, that the GDF15 gene seems important in normal placentation, “so it’s not as simple as blocking the gene or its receptor.” But since preconception exposure to GDF15 might decrease nausea and vomiting once a woman is pregnant, prophylactic treatment may be possible, and metformin has been suggested as a possibility, she said.

The study findings emerged from immunoassays on maternal blood samples collected at about 15 weeks (first trimester and early second trimester), from women with NVP (n = 168) or seen at a hospital for HG (n = 57). Results were compared with those from controls having similar characteristics but no significant symptoms.

Interestingly, GDF15 is also associated with cachexia, a condition similar to HG and characterized by loss of appetite and weight loss, Dr. Fejzo noted. “The hormone can be produced by malignant tumors at levels similar to those seen in pregnancy, and symptoms can be reduced by blocking GDF15 or its receptor, GFRAL. Clinical trials are already underway in cancer patients to test this.”

She is seeking funding to test the impact of increasing GDF15 levels prior to pregnancy in patients who previously experienced HG. “I am confident that desensitizing patients by increasing GDF15 prior to pregnancy and by lowering GDF15 levels during pregnancy will work. But we need to make sure we do safety studies and get the dosing and duration right, and that will take some time.”

Desensitization will need testing first in HG, where the risk for adverse maternal and fetal outcomes is high, so the benefit will outweigh any possible risk of testing medication in pregnancy, she continued. “It will take some time before we get to patients with normal NVP, but I do believe eventually the new findings will result in game-changing therapeutics for the condition.”

Dr. Higgins added, “Even if this isn’t the golden ticket, researchers and clinicians are working toward improvements in the treatment of NVP. We’ve already come a long way in recent years with the development of treatment algorithms and the advent of doxylamine/pyridoxine.”

This study was supported primarily by the Medical Research Council UK and National Institute for Health and Care Research UK, with additional support from various research funding organizations, including Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Dr. Fejzo is a paid consultant for Materna Biosciences and NGM Biopharmaceuticals, and a board member and science adviser for the Hyperemesis Education and Research Foundation.

Numerous study co-authors disclosed financial relationships with private-sector companies, including employment and patent ownership.

Dr. Higgins disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments but is an instructor for Organon.

New evidence suggests that nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is tied to elevated levels of the fetal placenta–derived hormone GDF15, and targeting the hormone prophylactically may reduce this common gestational condition.

This protein acts on the brainstem to cause emesis, and, significantly, a mother’s prior exposure to it determines the degree of NVP severity she will experience, according to international researchers including Marlena Fejzo, PhD, a clinical assistant professor of population and public Health at Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“GDF15 is at the mechanistic heart of NVP and HG [hyperemesis gravidarum],” Dr. Fejzo and colleagues wrote in Nature, pointing to the need for preventive and therapeutic strategies.

Courtesy HER Foundation

“My previous research showed an association between variation in the GDF15 gene and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and HG, and this study takes it one step further by elucidating the mechanism. It confirms that the nausea and vomiting (N/V) hormone GDF15 is a major cause of NVP and HG,” Dr. Fejzo said.

The etiology of NVP remains poorly understood although it affects up to 80% of pregnancies. In the US, its severe form, HG, is the leading cause of hospitalization in early pregnancy and the second-leading reason for pregnancy hospitalization overall.

The immunoassay-based study showed that the majority of GDF15 in maternal blood during pregnancy comes from the fetal part of the placenta, and confirms previous studies reporting higher levels in pregnancies with more severe NVP, said Dr. Fejzo, who is who is a board member of the Hyperemesis Education and Research Foundation.

“However, what was really fascinating and surprising is that prior to pregnancy the women who have more severe NVP symptoms actually have lower levels of the hormone.”

Although the gene variant linked to HG was previously associated with higher circulating levels in maternal blood, counterintuitively, this new research showed that women with abnormally high levels prior to pregnancy have either no or very little NVP, said Dr. Fejzo. “That suggests that in humans higher levels may lead to a desensitization to the high levels of the hormone in pregnancy. Then we also proved that desensitization can occur in a mouse model.” 

According to Erin Higgins, MD, a clinical assistant professor of obgyn and reproductive biology at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, who was not involved in the study, “This is an exciting finding that may help us to better target treatment of N/V in pregnancy. Factors for NVP have been identified, but to my knowledge there has not been a clear etiology.”

Courtesy Cleveland Clinic

Dr. Higgins cautioned, however, that the GDF15 gene seems important in normal placentation, “so it’s not as simple as blocking the gene or its receptor.” But since preconception exposure to GDF15 might decrease nausea and vomiting once a woman is pregnant, prophylactic treatment may be possible, and metformin has been suggested as a possibility, she said.

The study findings emerged from immunoassays on maternal blood samples collected at about 15 weeks (first trimester and early second trimester), from women with NVP (n = 168) or seen at a hospital for HG (n = 57). Results were compared with those from controls having similar characteristics but no significant symptoms.

Interestingly, GDF15 is also associated with cachexia, a condition similar to HG and characterized by loss of appetite and weight loss, Dr. Fejzo noted. “The hormone can be produced by malignant tumors at levels similar to those seen in pregnancy, and symptoms can be reduced by blocking GDF15 or its receptor, GFRAL. Clinical trials are already underway in cancer patients to test this.”

She is seeking funding to test the impact of increasing GDF15 levels prior to pregnancy in patients who previously experienced HG. “I am confident that desensitizing patients by increasing GDF15 prior to pregnancy and by lowering GDF15 levels during pregnancy will work. But we need to make sure we do safety studies and get the dosing and duration right, and that will take some time.”

Desensitization will need testing first in HG, where the risk for adverse maternal and fetal outcomes is high, so the benefit will outweigh any possible risk of testing medication in pregnancy, she continued. “It will take some time before we get to patients with normal NVP, but I do believe eventually the new findings will result in game-changing therapeutics for the condition.”

Dr. Higgins added, “Even if this isn’t the golden ticket, researchers and clinicians are working toward improvements in the treatment of NVP. We’ve already come a long way in recent years with the development of treatment algorithms and the advent of doxylamine/pyridoxine.”

This study was supported primarily by the Medical Research Council UK and National Institute for Health and Care Research UK, with additional support from various research funding organizations, including Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Dr. Fejzo is a paid consultant for Materna Biosciences and NGM Biopharmaceuticals, and a board member and science adviser for the Hyperemesis Education and Research Foundation.

Numerous study co-authors disclosed financial relationships with private-sector companies, including employment and patent ownership.

Dr. Higgins disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments but is an instructor for Organon.

TOPLINE:

The vaccine Cervarix was effective in protecting women from cervical cancer when administered between ages 12 and 13 years, according to a new study published in Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide.
• Programs to provide Cervarix, a bivalent vaccine, began in the United Kingdom in 2007.
• After the initiation of the programs, administering the vaccine became part of routine care for girls starting at age 12 years.
• Researchers collected data in 2020 from 447,845 women born between 1988 and 1996 from the Scottish cervical cancer screening system to assess the efficacy of Cervarix in lowering rates of cervical cancer.
• They correlated the rate of cervical cancer per 100,000 person-years with data on women regarding vaccination status, age when vaccinated, and deprivation in areas like income, housing, and health.

TAKEAWAY:

• No cases of cervical cancer were found among women who were immunized at ages 12 or 13 years, no matter how many doses they received. 
• Women who were immunized between ages 14 and 18 years and received three doses had fewer instances of cervical cancer compared with unvaccinated women regardless of deprivation status (3.2 cases per 100,00 women vs 8.4 cases per 100,000). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Continued participation in screening and monitoring of outcomes is required, however, to assess the effects of changes in vaccines used and dosage schedules since the start of vaccination in Scotland in 2008 and the longevity of protection the vaccines offer.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Timothy J. Palmer, PhD, Scottish Clinical Lead for Cervical Screening at Public Health Scotland.

LIMITATIONS:

Only 14,645 women had received just one or two doses, which may have affected the statistical analysis. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Public Health Scotland. A coauthor reports attending an advisory board meeting for HOLOGIC and Vaccitech. Her institution received research funding or gratis support funding from Cepheid, Euroimmun, GeneFirst, SelfScreen, Hiantis, Seegene, Roche, Hologic, and Vaccitech in the past 3 years.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The vaccine Cervarix was effective in protecting women from cervical cancer when administered between ages 12 and 13 years, according to a new study published in Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide.
• Programs to provide Cervarix, a bivalent vaccine, began in the United Kingdom in 2007.
• After the initiation of the programs, administering the vaccine became part of routine care for girls starting at age 12 years.
• Researchers collected data in 2020 from 447,845 women born between 1988 and 1996 from the Scottish cervical cancer screening system to assess the efficacy of Cervarix in lowering rates of cervical cancer.
• They correlated the rate of cervical cancer per 100,000 person-years with data on women regarding vaccination status, age when vaccinated, and deprivation in areas like income, housing, and health.

TAKEAWAY:

• No cases of cervical cancer were found among women who were immunized at ages 12 or 13 years, no matter how many doses they received. 
• Women who were immunized between ages 14 and 18 years and received three doses had fewer instances of cervical cancer compared with unvaccinated women regardless of deprivation status (3.2 cases per 100,00 women vs 8.4 cases per 100,000). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Continued participation in screening and monitoring of outcomes is required, however, to assess the effects of changes in vaccines used and dosage schedules since the start of vaccination in Scotland in 2008 and the longevity of protection the vaccines offer.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Timothy J. Palmer, PhD, Scottish Clinical Lead for Cervical Screening at Public Health Scotland.

LIMITATIONS:

Only 14,645 women had received just one or two doses, which may have affected the statistical analysis. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Public Health Scotland. A coauthor reports attending an advisory board meeting for HOLOGIC and Vaccitech. Her institution received research funding or gratis support funding from Cepheid, Euroimmun, GeneFirst, SelfScreen, Hiantis, Seegene, Roche, Hologic, and Vaccitech in the past 3 years.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The vaccine Cervarix was effective in protecting women from cervical cancer when administered between ages 12 and 13 years, according to a new study published in Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide.
• Programs to provide Cervarix, a bivalent vaccine, began in the United Kingdom in 2007.
• After the initiation of the programs, administering the vaccine became part of routine care for girls starting at age 12 years.
• Researchers collected data in 2020 from 447,845 women born between 1988 and 1996 from the Scottish cervical cancer screening system to assess the efficacy of Cervarix in lowering rates of cervical cancer.
• They correlated the rate of cervical cancer per 100,000 person-years with data on women regarding vaccination status, age when vaccinated, and deprivation in areas like income, housing, and health.

TAKEAWAY:

• No cases of cervical cancer were found among women who were immunized at ages 12 or 13 years, no matter how many doses they received. 
• Women who were immunized between ages 14 and 18 years and received three doses had fewer instances of cervical cancer compared with unvaccinated women regardless of deprivation status (3.2 cases per 100,00 women vs 8.4 cases per 100,000). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Continued participation in screening and monitoring of outcomes is required, however, to assess the effects of changes in vaccines used and dosage schedules since the start of vaccination in Scotland in 2008 and the longevity of protection the vaccines offer.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Timothy J. Palmer, PhD, Scottish Clinical Lead for Cervical Screening at Public Health Scotland.

LIMITATIONS:

Only 14,645 women had received just one or two doses, which may have affected the statistical analysis. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Public Health Scotland. A coauthor reports attending an advisory board meeting for HOLOGIC and Vaccitech. Her institution received research funding or gratis support funding from Cepheid, Euroimmun, GeneFirst, SelfScreen, Hiantis, Seegene, Roche, Hologic, and Vaccitech in the past 3 years.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of anxiety and depression increased in adults living in trigger states that immediately banned abortions after the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which revoked a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, new research shows.

This could be due to a variety of factors, investigators led by Benjamin Thornburg, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted. These include fear about the imminent risk of being denied an abortion, uncertainty around future limitations on abortion and other related rights such as contraception, worry over the ability to receive lifesaving medical care during pregnancy, and a general sense of violation and powerlessness related to loss of the right to reproductive autonomy.

The study was published online on January 23, 2024, in JAMA. 
 

Mental Health Harm

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, removing federal protections for abortion rights. Thirteen states had “trigger laws” that immediately banned or severely restricted abortion — raising concerns this could negatively affect mental health.

The researchers used data from the Household Pulse Survey to estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms after vs before the Dobbs decision in nearly 160,000 adults living in 13 states with trigger laws compared with roughly 559,000 adults living in 37 states without trigger laws.

The mean age of respondents was 48 years, and 51% were women. Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). 

In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline (before Dobbs) was 3.51 (out of 12) and increased to 3.81 after the Dobbs decision. In nontrigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline was 3.31 and increased to 3.49 after Dobbs.

Living in a trigger state was associated with a small but statistically significant worsening (0.11-point; P < .001) in anxiety/depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision vs living in a nontrigger state, the investigators report.

Women aged 18-45 years faced greater worsening of anxiety and depression symptoms following Dobbs in trigger vs nontrigger states, whereas men of a similar age experienced minimal or negligible changes. 
 

Implications for Care 

In an accompanying editorial, Julie Steinberg, PhD, with University of Maryland in College Park, notes the study results provide “emerging evidence that at an individual level taking away reproductive autonomy (by not having legal access to an abortion) may increase symptoms of anxiety and depression in all people and particularly females of reproductive age.”

These results add to findings from two other studies that examined abortion restrictions and mental health outcomes. Both found that limiting access to abortion was associated with more mental health symptoms among females of reproductive age than among others,” Dr. Steinberg pointed out.

“Together these findings highlight the need for clinicians who practice in states where abortion is banned to be aware that female patients of reproductive age may be experiencing significantly more distress than before the Dobbs decision,” Dr. Steinberg added. 

The study received no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Steinberg reported serving as a paid expert scientist on abortion and mental health in seven cases challenging abortion policies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of anxiety and depression increased in adults living in trigger states that immediately banned abortions after the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which revoked a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, new research shows.

This could be due to a variety of factors, investigators led by Benjamin Thornburg, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted. These include fear about the imminent risk of being denied an abortion, uncertainty around future limitations on abortion and other related rights such as contraception, worry over the ability to receive lifesaving medical care during pregnancy, and a general sense of violation and powerlessness related to loss of the right to reproductive autonomy.

The study was published online on January 23, 2024, in JAMA. 
 

Mental Health Harm

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, removing federal protections for abortion rights. Thirteen states had “trigger laws” that immediately banned or severely restricted abortion — raising concerns this could negatively affect mental health.

The researchers used data from the Household Pulse Survey to estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms after vs before the Dobbs decision in nearly 160,000 adults living in 13 states with trigger laws compared with roughly 559,000 adults living in 37 states without trigger laws.

The mean age of respondents was 48 years, and 51% were women. Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). 

In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline (before Dobbs) was 3.51 (out of 12) and increased to 3.81 after the Dobbs decision. In nontrigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline was 3.31 and increased to 3.49 after Dobbs.

Living in a trigger state was associated with a small but statistically significant worsening (0.11-point; P < .001) in anxiety/depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision vs living in a nontrigger state, the investigators report.

Women aged 18-45 years faced greater worsening of anxiety and depression symptoms following Dobbs in trigger vs nontrigger states, whereas men of a similar age experienced minimal or negligible changes. 
 

Implications for Care 

In an accompanying editorial, Julie Steinberg, PhD, with University of Maryland in College Park, notes the study results provide “emerging evidence that at an individual level taking away reproductive autonomy (by not having legal access to an abortion) may increase symptoms of anxiety and depression in all people and particularly females of reproductive age.”

These results add to findings from two other studies that examined abortion restrictions and mental health outcomes. Both found that limiting access to abortion was associated with more mental health symptoms among females of reproductive age than among others,” Dr. Steinberg pointed out.

“Together these findings highlight the need for clinicians who practice in states where abortion is banned to be aware that female patients of reproductive age may be experiencing significantly more distress than before the Dobbs decision,” Dr. Steinberg added. 

The study received no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Steinberg reported serving as a paid expert scientist on abortion and mental health in seven cases challenging abortion policies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of anxiety and depression increased in adults living in trigger states that immediately banned abortions after the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which revoked a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, new research shows.

This could be due to a variety of factors, investigators led by Benjamin Thornburg, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted. These include fear about the imminent risk of being denied an abortion, uncertainty around future limitations on abortion and other related rights such as contraception, worry over the ability to receive lifesaving medical care during pregnancy, and a general sense of violation and powerlessness related to loss of the right to reproductive autonomy.

The study was published online on January 23, 2024, in JAMA. 
 

Mental Health Harm

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, removing federal protections for abortion rights. Thirteen states had “trigger laws” that immediately banned or severely restricted abortion — raising concerns this could negatively affect mental health.

The researchers used data from the Household Pulse Survey to estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms after vs before the Dobbs decision in nearly 160,000 adults living in 13 states with trigger laws compared with roughly 559,000 adults living in 37 states without trigger laws.

The mean age of respondents was 48 years, and 51% were women. Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). 

In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline (before Dobbs) was 3.51 (out of 12) and increased to 3.81 after the Dobbs decision. In nontrigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline was 3.31 and increased to 3.49 after Dobbs.

Living in a trigger state was associated with a small but statistically significant worsening (0.11-point; P < .001) in anxiety/depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision vs living in a nontrigger state, the investigators report.

Women aged 18-45 years faced greater worsening of anxiety and depression symptoms following Dobbs in trigger vs nontrigger states, whereas men of a similar age experienced minimal or negligible changes. 
 

Implications for Care 

In an accompanying editorial, Julie Steinberg, PhD, with University of Maryland in College Park, notes the study results provide “emerging evidence that at an individual level taking away reproductive autonomy (by not having legal access to an abortion) may increase symptoms of anxiety and depression in all people and particularly females of reproductive age.”

These results add to findings from two other studies that examined abortion restrictions and mental health outcomes. Both found that limiting access to abortion was associated with more mental health symptoms among females of reproductive age than among others,” Dr. Steinberg pointed out.

“Together these findings highlight the need for clinicians who practice in states where abortion is banned to be aware that female patients of reproductive age may be experiencing significantly more distress than before the Dobbs decision,” Dr. Steinberg added. 

The study received no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Steinberg reported serving as a paid expert scientist on abortion and mental health in seven cases challenging abortion policies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening strategy in postmenopausal women demonstrated a high specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer, with most identified as stage I or II disease, a new analysis with a 21-year follow-up found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Detecting ovarian cancer at stage I or II could significantly reduce ovarian cancer-related deaths, but only 25%-30% of patients are diagnosed at an early stage.
• In this single-arm prospective analysis, 7,856 healthy postmenopausal women received annual screening for ovarian cancer between 2011 and 2022. Screening involved an annual blood test to detect levels of cancer antigen 125 and track these levels over time.
• Investigators used the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) to determine whether ovarian cancer risk was normal, intermediate, or high. Those with elevated ROCA scores were referred for transvaginal sonography; those with intermediate scores received follow-up blood tests every 3 months.
• Overall, 92.3% of women were normal risk, 5.7% were intermediate, and 2% were high risk and recommended for transvaginal sonography.

TAKEAWAY:

• Most women (95.5%) referred for transvaginal ultrasound had one. Of these ultrasounds, most (90%) were negative or revealed benign findings, 5.2% required a repeat ultrasound, and 4.8% (34 patients) showed suspicious findings.
• Of 34 patients with suspicious findings and recommended for surgery, 15 had ovarian cancer and two had borderline tumors, indicating a positive predictive value of 50% (17 of 34 patients) for ovarian cancer. Of these 17 patients, 12 (70.6%) had stage I or II disease.
• Following abnormal ROCA results, seven other women were diagnosed with endometrial tumors (six of which were stage I), indicating a positive predictive value of 74% (25 of 34) for any cancer.
• The specificity for elevated risk ROCA prompting ultrasound was 98%, and the specificity of the ROCA and ultrasound prompting surgery was 99.8%. The sensitivity for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer was 74% (17 of 23).

IN PRACTICE:

“Remarkably, 70% of ovarian cancers detected by the ROCA” were early stage,” the authors concluded. Although the trial was not powered to detect reduced mortality, the high specificity, positive predictive value, and shift to identifying earlier-stage cancers “support further development of this strategy,” the investigators said.

LIMITATIONS:

This trial was not powered to detect mortality benefit. Six ovarian cancers and borderline tumors were missed. Only 80% of ovarian cancers express cancer antigen 125, potentially limiting the sensitivity of the algorithm.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Chae Young Han from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, was published online on January 12 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by funds from the NCI Early Detection Research Network, the MD Anderson Ovarian SPOREs, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Health and Human Services, and others. The authors reported receiving research funding, grants, consulting, and personal fees from various companies, including Curio Science, Fujirebio Diagnostics, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening strategy in postmenopausal women demonstrated a high specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer, with most identified as stage I or II disease, a new analysis with a 21-year follow-up found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Detecting ovarian cancer at stage I or II could significantly reduce ovarian cancer-related deaths, but only 25%-30% of patients are diagnosed at an early stage.
• In this single-arm prospective analysis, 7,856 healthy postmenopausal women received annual screening for ovarian cancer between 2011 and 2022. Screening involved an annual blood test to detect levels of cancer antigen 125 and track these levels over time.
• Investigators used the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) to determine whether ovarian cancer risk was normal, intermediate, or high. Those with elevated ROCA scores were referred for transvaginal sonography; those with intermediate scores received follow-up blood tests every 3 months.
• Overall, 92.3% of women were normal risk, 5.7% were intermediate, and 2% were high risk and recommended for transvaginal sonography.

TAKEAWAY:

• Most women (95.5%) referred for transvaginal ultrasound had one. Of these ultrasounds, most (90%) were negative or revealed benign findings, 5.2% required a repeat ultrasound, and 4.8% (34 patients) showed suspicious findings.
• Of 34 patients with suspicious findings and recommended for surgery, 15 had ovarian cancer and two had borderline tumors, indicating a positive predictive value of 50% (17 of 34 patients) for ovarian cancer. Of these 17 patients, 12 (70.6%) had stage I or II disease.
• Following abnormal ROCA results, seven other women were diagnosed with endometrial tumors (six of which were stage I), indicating a positive predictive value of 74% (25 of 34) for any cancer.
• The specificity for elevated risk ROCA prompting ultrasound was 98%, and the specificity of the ROCA and ultrasound prompting surgery was 99.8%. The sensitivity for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer was 74% (17 of 23).

IN PRACTICE:

“Remarkably, 70% of ovarian cancers detected by the ROCA” were early stage,” the authors concluded. Although the trial was not powered to detect reduced mortality, the high specificity, positive predictive value, and shift to identifying earlier-stage cancers “support further development of this strategy,” the investigators said.

LIMITATIONS:

This trial was not powered to detect mortality benefit. Six ovarian cancers and borderline tumors were missed. Only 80% of ovarian cancers express cancer antigen 125, potentially limiting the sensitivity of the algorithm.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Chae Young Han from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, was published online on January 12 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by funds from the NCI Early Detection Research Network, the MD Anderson Ovarian SPOREs, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Health and Human Services, and others. The authors reported receiving research funding, grants, consulting, and personal fees from various companies, including Curio Science, Fujirebio Diagnostics, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening strategy in postmenopausal women demonstrated a high specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer, with most identified as stage I or II disease, a new analysis with a 21-year follow-up found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Detecting ovarian cancer at stage I or II could significantly reduce ovarian cancer-related deaths, but only 25%-30% of patients are diagnosed at an early stage.
• In this single-arm prospective analysis, 7,856 healthy postmenopausal women received annual screening for ovarian cancer between 2011 and 2022. Screening involved an annual blood test to detect levels of cancer antigen 125 and track these levels over time.
• Investigators used the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) to determine whether ovarian cancer risk was normal, intermediate, or high. Those with elevated ROCA scores were referred for transvaginal sonography; those with intermediate scores received follow-up blood tests every 3 months.
• Overall, 92.3% of women were normal risk, 5.7% were intermediate, and 2% were high risk and recommended for transvaginal sonography.

TAKEAWAY:

• Most women (95.5%) referred for transvaginal ultrasound had one. Of these ultrasounds, most (90%) were negative or revealed benign findings, 5.2% required a repeat ultrasound, and 4.8% (34 patients) showed suspicious findings.
• Of 34 patients with suspicious findings and recommended for surgery, 15 had ovarian cancer and two had borderline tumors, indicating a positive predictive value of 50% (17 of 34 patients) for ovarian cancer. Of these 17 patients, 12 (70.6%) had stage I or II disease.
• Following abnormal ROCA results, seven other women were diagnosed with endometrial tumors (six of which were stage I), indicating a positive predictive value of 74% (25 of 34) for any cancer.
• The specificity for elevated risk ROCA prompting ultrasound was 98%, and the specificity of the ROCA and ultrasound prompting surgery was 99.8%. The sensitivity for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer was 74% (17 of 23).

IN PRACTICE:

“Remarkably, 70% of ovarian cancers detected by the ROCA” were early stage,” the authors concluded. Although the trial was not powered to detect reduced mortality, the high specificity, positive predictive value, and shift to identifying earlier-stage cancers “support further development of this strategy,” the investigators said.

LIMITATIONS:

This trial was not powered to detect mortality benefit. Six ovarian cancers and borderline tumors were missed. Only 80% of ovarian cancers express cancer antigen 125, potentially limiting the sensitivity of the algorithm.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Chae Young Han from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, was published online on January 12 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by funds from the NCI Early Detection Research Network, the MD Anderson Ovarian SPOREs, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Health and Human Services, and others. The authors reported receiving research funding, grants, consulting, and personal fees from various companies, including Curio Science, Fujirebio Diagnostics, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If a pregnant woman contracts rubella in the first 17 weeks of pregnancy, then the risk for congenital rubella in the newborn — which may entail spontaneous abortion, intrauterine death, or severe fetal malformations — is as high as 80%. This risk once frightened patients and clinicians in Italy. Thanks to widespread population vaccination, however, the World Health Organization declared the elimination of endemic transmission of rubella in Italy in 2021. The Italian National Institute of Health took note, and the recent update of the Guidelines for the Management of Physiological Pregnancy no longer recommends offering rubella screening to all pregnant women.

The Rubeo Test

The rubeo test, an analysis for detecting antibodies in the blood produced by vaccination or a past rubella infection, traditionally forms part of the examination package that every doctor prescribes to expectant patients at the beginning of pregnancy. If the test shows that the woman is not vaccinated and has never encountered the virus, making her susceptible to the risk for infection, according to the previous edition of the Guidelines, then the test should be repeated at 17 weeks of gestation. The purpose is to detect any rubella contracted during pregnancy and offer the woman multidisciplinary counseling in the case of a high risk for severe fetal damage. Infection contracted after the 17th week, however, poses only a minimal risk for congenital deafness. There is no treatment to prevent vertical transmission in case of infection during pregnancy.

For women at risk for infection, the old Guidelines also recommended planning vaccination postnatally, with the prospect of protecting future pregnancies. Rubella vaccination is contraindicated during pregnancy because the vaccine could be teratogenic.

Recommendation Update

In the early ‘90s, universal vaccination against rubella for newborns was introduced in Italy. It became one of the 10 mandatory pediatric vaccinations in 2017. In June 2022, the Ministry of Health reported a vaccination coverage of 93.8% among children aged 24 months, a coverage of 93.3% for the first dose, and a coverage of 89.0% for the second dose in the 2003 birth cohort.

“Rubella is a notifiable disease, and in 2013, the newly activated national surveillance system detected one case of congenital rubella per 100,000 newborns. From 2018 onward, no cases have been reported,” said Vittorio Basevi, a gynecologist of the Perinatal Technical-Scientific Advisory Commission in the Emilia Romagna Region and coordinator of the Technical-Scientific Committee that developed the updated Guidelines. “Thanks to extensive vaccination coverage, the infection no longer circulates in Italy. Based on these data, we decided not to offer screening to pregnant women anymore.”

The recommendation to offer rubella vaccination post partum to women without documentation of two doses or previous infection remains confirmed.

Patients Born Abroad 

How should one handle the care of a pregnant woman born in a country where universal rubella vaccination is not provided? The likelihood that she is susceptible to infection is higher than the that of the general Italian population. “On the other hand, since the virus no longer circulates in our country, the probability of contracting the virus during pregnancy is negligible, unless she has recently traveled to her country of origin or come into contact with family members who recently arrived in Italy,” said Dr. Basevi. “The Guidelines refer to offering screening to all pregnant women. In specific cases, it is up to the treating physician to adopt the conduct they deem appropriate in science and conscience.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If a pregnant woman contracts rubella in the first 17 weeks of pregnancy, then the risk for congenital rubella in the newborn — which may entail spontaneous abortion, intrauterine death, or severe fetal malformations — is as high as 80%. This risk once frightened patients and clinicians in Italy. Thanks to widespread population vaccination, however, the World Health Organization declared the elimination of endemic transmission of rubella in Italy in 2021. The Italian National Institute of Health took note, and the recent update of the Guidelines for the Management of Physiological Pregnancy no longer recommends offering rubella screening to all pregnant women.

The Rubeo Test

The rubeo test, an analysis for detecting antibodies in the blood produced by vaccination or a past rubella infection, traditionally forms part of the examination package that every doctor prescribes to expectant patients at the beginning of pregnancy. If the test shows that the woman is not vaccinated and has never encountered the virus, making her susceptible to the risk for infection, according to the previous edition of the Guidelines, then the test should be repeated at 17 weeks of gestation. The purpose is to detect any rubella contracted during pregnancy and offer the woman multidisciplinary counseling in the case of a high risk for severe fetal damage. Infection contracted after the 17th week, however, poses only a minimal risk for congenital deafness. There is no treatment to prevent vertical transmission in case of infection during pregnancy.

For women at risk for infection, the old Guidelines also recommended planning vaccination postnatally, with the prospect of protecting future pregnancies. Rubella vaccination is contraindicated during pregnancy because the vaccine could be teratogenic.

Recommendation Update

In the early ‘90s, universal vaccination against rubella for newborns was introduced in Italy. It became one of the 10 mandatory pediatric vaccinations in 2017. In June 2022, the Ministry of Health reported a vaccination coverage of 93.8% among children aged 24 months, a coverage of 93.3% for the first dose, and a coverage of 89.0% for the second dose in the 2003 birth cohort.

“Rubella is a notifiable disease, and in 2013, the newly activated national surveillance system detected one case of congenital rubella per 100,000 newborns. From 2018 onward, no cases have been reported,” said Vittorio Basevi, a gynecologist of the Perinatal Technical-Scientific Advisory Commission in the Emilia Romagna Region and coordinator of the Technical-Scientific Committee that developed the updated Guidelines. “Thanks to extensive vaccination coverage, the infection no longer circulates in Italy. Based on these data, we decided not to offer screening to pregnant women anymore.”

The recommendation to offer rubella vaccination post partum to women without documentation of two doses or previous infection remains confirmed.

Patients Born Abroad 

How should one handle the care of a pregnant woman born in a country where universal rubella vaccination is not provided? The likelihood that she is susceptible to infection is higher than the that of the general Italian population. “On the other hand, since the virus no longer circulates in our country, the probability of contracting the virus during pregnancy is negligible, unless she has recently traveled to her country of origin or come into contact with family members who recently arrived in Italy,” said Dr. Basevi. “The Guidelines refer to offering screening to all pregnant women. In specific cases, it is up to the treating physician to adopt the conduct they deem appropriate in science and conscience.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If a pregnant woman contracts rubella in the first 17 weeks of pregnancy, then the risk for congenital rubella in the newborn — which may entail spontaneous abortion, intrauterine death, or severe fetal malformations — is as high as 80%. This risk once frightened patients and clinicians in Italy. Thanks to widespread population vaccination, however, the World Health Organization declared the elimination of endemic transmission of rubella in Italy in 2021. The Italian National Institute of Health took note, and the recent update of the Guidelines for the Management of Physiological Pregnancy no longer recommends offering rubella screening to all pregnant women.

The Rubeo Test

The rubeo test, an analysis for detecting antibodies in the blood produced by vaccination or a past rubella infection, traditionally forms part of the examination package that every doctor prescribes to expectant patients at the beginning of pregnancy. If the test shows that the woman is not vaccinated and has never encountered the virus, making her susceptible to the risk for infection, according to the previous edition of the Guidelines, then the test should be repeated at 17 weeks of gestation. The purpose is to detect any rubella contracted during pregnancy and offer the woman multidisciplinary counseling in the case of a high risk for severe fetal damage. Infection contracted after the 17th week, however, poses only a minimal risk for congenital deafness. There is no treatment to prevent vertical transmission in case of infection during pregnancy.

For women at risk for infection, the old Guidelines also recommended planning vaccination postnatally, with the prospect of protecting future pregnancies. Rubella vaccination is contraindicated during pregnancy because the vaccine could be teratogenic.

Recommendation Update

In the early ‘90s, universal vaccination against rubella for newborns was introduced in Italy. It became one of the 10 mandatory pediatric vaccinations in 2017. In June 2022, the Ministry of Health reported a vaccination coverage of 93.8% among children aged 24 months, a coverage of 93.3% for the first dose, and a coverage of 89.0% for the second dose in the 2003 birth cohort.

“Rubella is a notifiable disease, and in 2013, the newly activated national surveillance system detected one case of congenital rubella per 100,000 newborns. From 2018 onward, no cases have been reported,” said Vittorio Basevi, a gynecologist of the Perinatal Technical-Scientific Advisory Commission in the Emilia Romagna Region and coordinator of the Technical-Scientific Committee that developed the updated Guidelines. “Thanks to extensive vaccination coverage, the infection no longer circulates in Italy. Based on these data, we decided not to offer screening to pregnant women anymore.”

The recommendation to offer rubella vaccination post partum to women without documentation of two doses or previous infection remains confirmed.

Patients Born Abroad 

How should one handle the care of a pregnant woman born in a country where universal rubella vaccination is not provided? The likelihood that she is susceptible to infection is higher than the that of the general Italian population. “On the other hand, since the virus no longer circulates in our country, the probability of contracting the virus during pregnancy is negligible, unless she has recently traveled to her country of origin or come into contact with family members who recently arrived in Italy,” said Dr. Basevi. “The Guidelines refer to offering screening to all pregnant women. In specific cases, it is up to the treating physician to adopt the conduct they deem appropriate in science and conscience.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a wearable belt device for postmenopausal women with osteopenia, the precursor to osteoporosis, according to the company’s manufacturer, Bone Health Technologies.

According to the company, the device (Osteoboost) is the first nonpharmacologic device-based, prescription-only treatment for postmenopausal women with low bone density. It has not been tested for ability to reduce fracture risk.

Bone Health Technologies

The device is worn around the hips and delivers calibrated mild vibrations to the hips and lumbar spine to help preserve bone strength and density. A vibration pack is mounted to the back of the belt.

FDA approval, announced on January 18, was based on the findings of a National Institutes of Health–funded double-blinded, sham-controlled study of 126 women with low bone density conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The data were shared at the 2023 Endocrine Society and American Society for Bone and Mineral Research annual meetings and published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

Lead investigator Laura D. Bilek, PT, PhD, associate dean for research and associate professor at the University of Nebraska, and colleagues wrote that the primary outcome measurement was the change in vertebral strength measured by CT scans for women who used the device a minimum of three times per week compared with a sham group who wore a belt that emitted sound but had no vibrations.

Compressive strength and volumetric density of the first lumbar vertebra were analyzed.

In the active-belt group, women lost, on average, 0.48% bone strength, while those in the sham group lost nearly 2.84% (P = .014), about five times as much. Results also showed that participants in the active treatment group who used the device three times per week lost 0.29% bone mineral density (BMD) compared with the 1.97% BMD lost in the control group. No adverse events were reported in the study.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist at Rush University in Chicago, told this news organization there’s considerable fear among some patients about long-term use of available medications for bone health, “so any modality that is nontherapeutic — not a pill — is always exciting.”

The endpoints of the study are one good measure, she said, but she emphasized that it will be important to show that the improved bone density from the belt that is described in this study “is a true marker of decreased fracture risk.”

Because there are no apparent side effects, she said it may be effective in combination with weight-bearing exercise, vitamin D and calcium, and/or medication, depending on severity of bone loss.

Current medications on the market for osteoporosis have been shown to improve bone strength and reduce fracture risk, she noted.

“It could help; I just don’t think we have enough evidence that it will completely treat the bone loss,” Dr. Khandelwal said.

She said she sees the potential population most interested in the belt as premenopausal women with a family history of bone loss who may not meet the level of bone loss for medical management but are interested in prevention.

“I also think of individuals who might already meet medication needs but are completely averse to being on medication,” she said. The bulk of her practice is treating bone loss, she said, estimating that 20% of her patients do not want to be on medication.

Bone Health Technologies CEO Laura Yecies, MBA, told this news organization the company has not yet set the price for the device and noted that because it will be available by prescription only, out-of-pocket costs and copays will differ. She said the company expects to begin shipping later this year. Requests for update notifications can be made at the company’s website.

Dr. Bilek told this news organization the device was tested for a year, so it’s unclear how long people with osteopenia would need to wear the belt for maximum benefit.

The theory behind the mechanism of action, she said, “is that the vibration actually inhibits the cells [osteoclasts] that take away bone mass.”

The researchers included only postmenopausal women with osteopenia in the study, but Dr. Bilek said she would like to test the device on other groups, such as men with prostate cancer getting testosterone-blocking therapy, which can result in loss of bone density. An estimated 34 million people in the United States have osteopenia.

Dr. Bilek said a next step for the study is to enroll a more diverse cohort at an additional center to test the device because most of the women in this one were White.

She noted that women’s bone mass peaks at age 30 and then starts to decline.

“When women hit menopause, there’s a really rapid decline [in bone strength] for the next 5-7 years and then the decline levels off. If we can slow that decline, hopefully that woman’s bone density is maintained at a higher level throughout their life,” Dr. Bilek said.

Dr. Bilek is a scientific adviser to Bone Health Technologies. She and many coauthors of the study received grants or fees from the company and own stock in or are employees of the company. Ms. Yecies is the founder and CEO of Bone Health Technologies. Dr. Khandelwal had no relevant financial relationships.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a wearable belt device for postmenopausal women with osteopenia, the precursor to osteoporosis, according to the company’s manufacturer, Bone Health Technologies.

According to the company, the device (Osteoboost) is the first nonpharmacologic device-based, prescription-only treatment for postmenopausal women with low bone density. It has not been tested for ability to reduce fracture risk.

Bone Health Technologies

The device is worn around the hips and delivers calibrated mild vibrations to the hips and lumbar spine to help preserve bone strength and density. A vibration pack is mounted to the back of the belt.

FDA approval, announced on January 18, was based on the findings of a National Institutes of Health–funded double-blinded, sham-controlled study of 126 women with low bone density conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The data were shared at the 2023 Endocrine Society and American Society for Bone and Mineral Research annual meetings and published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

Lead investigator Laura D. Bilek, PT, PhD, associate dean for research and associate professor at the University of Nebraska, and colleagues wrote that the primary outcome measurement was the change in vertebral strength measured by CT scans for women who used the device a minimum of three times per week compared with a sham group who wore a belt that emitted sound but had no vibrations.

Compressive strength and volumetric density of the first lumbar vertebra were analyzed.

In the active-belt group, women lost, on average, 0.48% bone strength, while those in the sham group lost nearly 2.84% (P = .014), about five times as much. Results also showed that participants in the active treatment group who used the device three times per week lost 0.29% bone mineral density (BMD) compared with the 1.97% BMD lost in the control group. No adverse events were reported in the study.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist at Rush University in Chicago, told this news organization there’s considerable fear among some patients about long-term use of available medications for bone health, “so any modality that is nontherapeutic — not a pill — is always exciting.”

The endpoints of the study are one good measure, she said, but she emphasized that it will be important to show that the improved bone density from the belt that is described in this study “is a true marker of decreased fracture risk.”

Because there are no apparent side effects, she said it may be effective in combination with weight-bearing exercise, vitamin D and calcium, and/or medication, depending on severity of bone loss.

Current medications on the market for osteoporosis have been shown to improve bone strength and reduce fracture risk, she noted.

“It could help; I just don’t think we have enough evidence that it will completely treat the bone loss,” Dr. Khandelwal said.

She said she sees the potential population most interested in the belt as premenopausal women with a family history of bone loss who may not meet the level of bone loss for medical management but are interested in prevention.

“I also think of individuals who might already meet medication needs but are completely averse to being on medication,” she said. The bulk of her practice is treating bone loss, she said, estimating that 20% of her patients do not want to be on medication.

Bone Health Technologies CEO Laura Yecies, MBA, told this news organization the company has not yet set the price for the device and noted that because it will be available by prescription only, out-of-pocket costs and copays will differ. She said the company expects to begin shipping later this year. Requests for update notifications can be made at the company’s website.

Dr. Bilek told this news organization the device was tested for a year, so it’s unclear how long people with osteopenia would need to wear the belt for maximum benefit.

The theory behind the mechanism of action, she said, “is that the vibration actually inhibits the cells [osteoclasts] that take away bone mass.”

The researchers included only postmenopausal women with osteopenia in the study, but Dr. Bilek said she would like to test the device on other groups, such as men with prostate cancer getting testosterone-blocking therapy, which can result in loss of bone density. An estimated 34 million people in the United States have osteopenia.

Dr. Bilek said a next step for the study is to enroll a more diverse cohort at an additional center to test the device because most of the women in this one were White.

She noted that women’s bone mass peaks at age 30 and then starts to decline.

“When women hit menopause, there’s a really rapid decline [in bone strength] for the next 5-7 years and then the decline levels off. If we can slow that decline, hopefully that woman’s bone density is maintained at a higher level throughout their life,” Dr. Bilek said.

Dr. Bilek is a scientific adviser to Bone Health Technologies. She and many coauthors of the study received grants or fees from the company and own stock in or are employees of the company. Ms. Yecies is the founder and CEO of Bone Health Technologies. Dr. Khandelwal had no relevant financial relationships.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a wearable belt device for postmenopausal women with osteopenia, the precursor to osteoporosis, according to the company’s manufacturer, Bone Health Technologies.

According to the company, the device (Osteoboost) is the first nonpharmacologic device-based, prescription-only treatment for postmenopausal women with low bone density. It has not been tested for ability to reduce fracture risk.

Bone Health Technologies

The device is worn around the hips and delivers calibrated mild vibrations to the hips and lumbar spine to help preserve bone strength and density. A vibration pack is mounted to the back of the belt.

FDA approval, announced on January 18, was based on the findings of a National Institutes of Health–funded double-blinded, sham-controlled study of 126 women with low bone density conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The data were shared at the 2023 Endocrine Society and American Society for Bone and Mineral Research annual meetings and published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

Lead investigator Laura D. Bilek, PT, PhD, associate dean for research and associate professor at the University of Nebraska, and colleagues wrote that the primary outcome measurement was the change in vertebral strength measured by CT scans for women who used the device a minimum of three times per week compared with a sham group who wore a belt that emitted sound but had no vibrations.

Compressive strength and volumetric density of the first lumbar vertebra were analyzed.

In the active-belt group, women lost, on average, 0.48% bone strength, while those in the sham group lost nearly 2.84% (P = .014), about five times as much. Results also showed that participants in the active treatment group who used the device three times per week lost 0.29% bone mineral density (BMD) compared with the 1.97% BMD lost in the control group. No adverse events were reported in the study.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist at Rush University in Chicago, told this news organization there’s considerable fear among some patients about long-term use of available medications for bone health, “so any modality that is nontherapeutic — not a pill — is always exciting.”

The endpoints of the study are one good measure, she said, but she emphasized that it will be important to show that the improved bone density from the belt that is described in this study “is a true marker of decreased fracture risk.”

Because there are no apparent side effects, she said it may be effective in combination with weight-bearing exercise, vitamin D and calcium, and/or medication, depending on severity of bone loss.

Current medications on the market for osteoporosis have been shown to improve bone strength and reduce fracture risk, she noted.

“It could help; I just don’t think we have enough evidence that it will completely treat the bone loss,” Dr. Khandelwal said.

She said she sees the potential population most interested in the belt as premenopausal women with a family history of bone loss who may not meet the level of bone loss for medical management but are interested in prevention.

“I also think of individuals who might already meet medication needs but are completely averse to being on medication,” she said. The bulk of her practice is treating bone loss, she said, estimating that 20% of her patients do not want to be on medication.

Bone Health Technologies CEO Laura Yecies, MBA, told this news organization the company has not yet set the price for the device and noted that because it will be available by prescription only, out-of-pocket costs and copays will differ. She said the company expects to begin shipping later this year. Requests for update notifications can be made at the company’s website.

Dr. Bilek told this news organization the device was tested for a year, so it’s unclear how long people with osteopenia would need to wear the belt for maximum benefit.

The theory behind the mechanism of action, she said, “is that the vibration actually inhibits the cells [osteoclasts] that take away bone mass.”

The researchers included only postmenopausal women with osteopenia in the study, but Dr. Bilek said she would like to test the device on other groups, such as men with prostate cancer getting testosterone-blocking therapy, which can result in loss of bone density. An estimated 34 million people in the United States have osteopenia.

Dr. Bilek said a next step for the study is to enroll a more diverse cohort at an additional center to test the device because most of the women in this one were White.

She noted that women’s bone mass peaks at age 30 and then starts to decline.

“When women hit menopause, there’s a really rapid decline [in bone strength] for the next 5-7 years and then the decline levels off. If we can slow that decline, hopefully that woman’s bone density is maintained at a higher level throughout their life,” Dr. Bilek said.

Dr. Bilek is a scientific adviser to Bone Health Technologies. She and many coauthors of the study received grants or fees from the company and own stock in or are employees of the company. Ms. Yecies is the founder and CEO of Bone Health Technologies. Dr. Khandelwal had no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mothers on vegan diets during pregnancy may give birth to infants with lower mean birth weights than those of omnivorous mothers and may also have a greater risk of preeclampsia, a prospective study of Danish pregnant women suggests.

According to researchers led by Signe Hedegaard, MD, of the department of obstetrics and Gynecology at Rigshospitalet, Juliane Marie Center, University of Copenhagen, low protein intake may lie behind the observed association with birth weight. The report was published in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

While vegan-identifying mothers were very few in number, the authors conceded, their babies were more likely to weigh less on average than those of omnivorous mothers — 3441 g vs 3601 g — despite a mean gestation 5 days longer.

Prevalence rates of low birth weight (< 2500 g) in the two groups were 11.1% and 2.5%, respectively, and the prevalence of preeclampsia was 11.1% vs 2.6%. The mean birth weight of infants in the maternal vegan group was about 240 g lower than infants born to omnivorous mothers.

“The lower birth weight of around 240 g among vegans compared with omnivorous mothers in our study strengthens our observation that vegans may be at higher risk of giving birth to low-birth-weight infants. The observed effect size on birth weight is comparable to what is observed among daily smokers relative to nonsmokers in this cohort,“ Dr. Hedegaard and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, the on-average 5-day longer gestation observed among vegans in our study would be indicative of reduced fetal growth rate rather than lower birth weight due to shorter gestation.”

These findings emerged from data on 66,738 pregnancies in the Danish National Birth Cohort, 1996-2002. A food frequency questionnaire characterized pregnant subjects as fish/poultry-vegetarians, lacto/ovo-vegetarians, vegans, or omnivores, based on their self-reporting in gestational week 30.

A total of 98.7% (n = 65,872) of participants were defined as omnivorous, while 1.0% (n = 666), 0.3% (n = 183), and 0.03% (n = 18) identified as fish/poultry vegetarians, lacto/ovo-vegetarians, or vegans, respectively.

Those following plant-based diets of all types were slightly older, more often parous, and less likely to smoke. This plant dietary group also had a somewhat lower prevalence of overweight and obesity (prepregnancy body mass index > 25 [kg/m^2]) and a higher prevalence of underweight (prepregnancy BMI < 18.5).

Total energy intake was modestly lower from plant-based diets, for a mean difference of 0.3-0.7 MJ (72-167 kcal) per day.

As for total protein intake, this was substantially lower for lacto/ovo-vegetarians and vegans: 13.3% and 10.4% of energy, respectively, compared with 15.4% in omnivores.

Dietary intake of micronutrients was also considerably lower among vegans, but after factoring in intake from dietary supplements, no major differences emerged.

Mean birth weight, birth length, length of gestation, and rate of low birth weight (< 2500 g) were similar among omnivorous, fish/poultry-, and lacto/ovo-vegetarians. The prevalence of gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and cesarean section was similar across groups, but the prevalence of anemia was higher among fish/poultry- and lacto/ovo-vegetarians than omnivorous participants.

As for preeclampsia, previous research in larger numbers of vegans found no indication of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy. Some studies, however, have suggested a link between preeclampsia and low intake of protein, calcium, or vitamin D, but the evidence is inconclusive, and the mechanism is unclear.

The observed associations, however, do not translate to causality, the authors cautioned. “Future studies should put more emphasis on characterizing the diet among those adhering to vegan diets and other forms of plant-based diets during pregnancy,” they wrote. “That would allow for stronger assumptions on possible causality between any association observed with birth or pregnancy outcomes in such studies and strengthen the basis for dietary recommendations.”

This study was funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research. The Danish National Birth Cohort Study is supported by the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation, the Danish Heart Association, Danish Medical Research Council, Sygekassernes Helsefond, the Innovation Fund Denmark, and the Danish National Research Foundation. The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

Mothers on vegan diets during pregnancy may give birth to infants with lower mean birth weights than those of omnivorous mothers and may also have a greater risk of preeclampsia, a prospective study of Danish pregnant women suggests.

According to researchers led by Signe Hedegaard, MD, of the department of obstetrics and Gynecology at Rigshospitalet, Juliane Marie Center, University of Copenhagen, low protein intake may lie behind the observed association with birth weight. The report was published in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

While vegan-identifying mothers were very few in number, the authors conceded, their babies were more likely to weigh less on average than those of omnivorous mothers — 3441 g vs 3601 g — despite a mean gestation 5 days longer.

Prevalence rates of low birth weight (< 2500 g) in the two groups were 11.1% and 2.5%, respectively, and the prevalence of preeclampsia was 11.1% vs 2.6%. The mean birth weight of infants in the maternal vegan group was about 240 g lower than infants born to omnivorous mothers.

“The lower birth weight of around 240 g among vegans compared with omnivorous mothers in our study strengthens our observation that vegans may be at higher risk of giving birth to low-birth-weight infants. The observed effect size on birth weight is comparable to what is observed among daily smokers relative to nonsmokers in this cohort,“ Dr. Hedegaard and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, the on-average 5-day longer gestation observed among vegans in our study would be indicative of reduced fetal growth rate rather than lower birth weight due to shorter gestation.”

These findings emerged from data on 66,738 pregnancies in the Danish National Birth Cohort, 1996-2002. A food frequency questionnaire characterized pregnant subjects as fish/poultry-vegetarians, lacto/ovo-vegetarians, vegans, or omnivores, based on their self-reporting in gestational week 30.

A total of 98.7% (n = 65,872) of participants were defined as omnivorous, while 1.0% (n = 666), 0.3% (n = 183), and 0.03% (n = 18) identified as fish/poultry vegetarians, lacto/ovo-vegetarians, or vegans, respectively.

Those following plant-based diets of all types were slightly older, more often parous, and less likely to smoke. This plant dietary group also had a somewhat lower prevalence of overweight and obesity (prepregnancy body mass index > 25 [kg/m^2]) and a higher prevalence of underweight (prepregnancy BMI < 18.5).

Total energy intake was modestly lower from plant-based diets, for a mean difference of 0.3-0.7 MJ (72-167 kcal) per day.

As for total protein intake, this was substantially lower for lacto/ovo-vegetarians and vegans: 13.3% and 10.4% of energy, respectively, compared with 15.4% in omnivores.

Dietary intake of micronutrients was also considerably lower among vegans, but after factoring in intake from dietary supplements, no major differences emerged.

Mean birth weight, birth length, length of gestation, and rate of low birth weight (< 2500 g) were similar among omnivorous, fish/poultry-, and lacto/ovo-vegetarians. The prevalence of gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and cesarean section was similar across groups, but the prevalence of anemia was higher among fish/poultry- and lacto/ovo-vegetarians than omnivorous participants.

As for preeclampsia, previous research in larger numbers of vegans found no indication of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy. Some studies, however, have suggested a link between preeclampsia and low intake of protein, calcium, or vitamin D, but the evidence is inconclusive, and the mechanism is unclear.

The observed associations, however, do not translate to causality, the authors cautioned. “Future studies should put more emphasis on characterizing the diet among those adhering to vegan diets and other forms of plant-based diets during pregnancy,” they wrote. “That would allow for stronger assumptions on possible causality between any association observed with birth or pregnancy outcomes in such studies and strengthen the basis for dietary recommendations.”

This study was funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research. The Danish National Birth Cohort Study is supported by the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation, the Danish Heart Association, Danish Medical Research Council, Sygekassernes Helsefond, the Innovation Fund Denmark, and the Danish National Research Foundation. The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

Mothers on vegan diets during pregnancy may give birth to infants with lower mean birth weights than those of omnivorous mothers and may also have a greater risk of preeclampsia, a prospective study of Danish pregnant women suggests.

According to researchers led by Signe Hedegaard, MD, of the department of obstetrics and Gynecology at Rigshospitalet, Juliane Marie Center, University of Copenhagen, low protein intake may lie behind the observed association with birth weight. The report was published in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

While vegan-identifying mothers were very few in number, the authors conceded, their babies were more likely to weigh less on average than those of omnivorous mothers — 3441 g vs 3601 g — despite a mean gestation 5 days longer.

Prevalence rates of low birth weight (< 2500 g) in the two groups were 11.1% and 2.5%, respectively, and the prevalence of preeclampsia was 11.1% vs 2.6%. The mean birth weight of infants in the maternal vegan group was about 240 g lower than infants born to omnivorous mothers.

“The lower birth weight of around 240 g among vegans compared with omnivorous mothers in our study strengthens our observation that vegans may be at higher risk of giving birth to low-birth-weight infants. The observed effect size on birth weight is comparable to what is observed among daily smokers relative to nonsmokers in this cohort,“ Dr. Hedegaard and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, the on-average 5-day longer gestation observed among vegans in our study would be indicative of reduced fetal growth rate rather than lower birth weight due to shorter gestation.”

These findings emerged from data on 66,738 pregnancies in the Danish National Birth Cohort, 1996-2002. A food frequency questionnaire characterized pregnant subjects as fish/poultry-vegetarians, lacto/ovo-vegetarians, vegans, or omnivores, based on their self-reporting in gestational week 30.

A total of 98.7% (n = 65,872) of participants were defined as omnivorous, while 1.0% (n = 666), 0.3% (n = 183), and 0.03% (n = 18) identified as fish/poultry vegetarians, lacto/ovo-vegetarians, or vegans, respectively.

Those following plant-based diets of all types were slightly older, more often parous, and less likely to smoke. This plant dietary group also had a somewhat lower prevalence of overweight and obesity (prepregnancy body mass index > 25 [kg/m^2]) and a higher prevalence of underweight (prepregnancy BMI < 18.5).

Total energy intake was modestly lower from plant-based diets, for a mean difference of 0.3-0.7 MJ (72-167 kcal) per day.

As for total protein intake, this was substantially lower for lacto/ovo-vegetarians and vegans: 13.3% and 10.4% of energy, respectively, compared with 15.4% in omnivores.

Dietary intake of micronutrients was also considerably lower among vegans, but after factoring in intake from dietary supplements, no major differences emerged.

Mean birth weight, birth length, length of gestation, and rate of low birth weight (< 2500 g) were similar among omnivorous, fish/poultry-, and lacto/ovo-vegetarians. The prevalence of gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and cesarean section was similar across groups, but the prevalence of anemia was higher among fish/poultry- and lacto/ovo-vegetarians than omnivorous participants.

As for preeclampsia, previous research in larger numbers of vegans found no indication of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy. Some studies, however, have suggested a link between preeclampsia and low intake of protein, calcium, or vitamin D, but the evidence is inconclusive, and the mechanism is unclear.

The observed associations, however, do not translate to causality, the authors cautioned. “Future studies should put more emphasis on characterizing the diet among those adhering to vegan diets and other forms of plant-based diets during pregnancy,” they wrote. “That would allow for stronger assumptions on possible causality between any association observed with birth or pregnancy outcomes in such studies and strengthen the basis for dietary recommendations.”

This study was funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research. The Danish National Birth Cohort Study is supported by the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation, the Danish Heart Association, Danish Medical Research Council, Sygekassernes Helsefond, the Innovation Fund Denmark, and the Danish National Research Foundation. The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

Buprenorphine use, compared with methadone use, in pregnancy has been linked with a slightly lower risk of major congenital malformations in a new study of medications for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues published the findings in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The lower risk for buprenorphine was small (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.97), and methadone use should not be ruled out on that basis, the authors wrote. For some women, particularly those on stable treatment before pregnancy or women who do not respond well to buprenorphine, methadone may be the better choice, they explained.
 

Either Medication Better Than Not Treating

The authors noted that either medication “is strongly recommended over untreated OUD during pregnancy.”

JAMA Internal Medicine Deputy Editor Deborah Grady, MD, MPH, with the Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that recommendation in an editor’s note, highlighting that treatment for OUD is critical to prevent infections, overdose, and death in pregnant women as well as neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome and fetal death.

She stressed that internists and other primary care physicians have a key role in ensuring pregnant women with OUD receive appropriate treatment.

Given the importance of the issue, she wrote, “we have taken the unusual step of publishing two accompanying invited commentaries.”

Two developments may help increase use of buprenorphine, the study authors wrote. One is a recent study showing lower risk of adverse neonatal outcomes when buprenorphine is used during pregnancy compared with methadone. Another is the removal last year of the prescribing waiver for buprenorphine.
 

Study Included Medicaid Data Over 18 Years

The population-based cohort study used data from publicly insured Medicaid beneficiaries from 2000 to 2018. Pregnancies with enrollment from 90 days before pregnancy through 1 month after delivery and first-trimester use of buprenorphine or methadone were included (n = 13,360). The data were linked with infants’ health data.

The study group included 9,514 pregnancies with first-trimester buprenorphine exposure and 3,846 with methadone exposure. The risk of malformations overall was 50.9 (95% CI, 46.5-55.3) per 1000 pregnancies for buprenorphine and 60.6 (95% CI, 53.0-68.1) per 1000 pregnancies for methadone.

Major malformations were any cardiac malformations, ventricular septal defect, secundum atrial septal defect/nonprematurity-related patent foramen ovale, neural tube defects, oral clefts, and clubfoot.
 

Two Invited Commentaries Urge Caution in Interpretation

The two invited commentaries Dr. Grady mentioned in her editor’s note point both to the importance of the team’s findings and the need for better understanding of factors that may affect the choice of which OUD medication to use.

A commentary by Max Jordan Nguemeni Tiako, MD, MS, with the Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues, said that while the Suarez et al. data are important to share with patients, “the ultimate treatment decision must be the result of shared decision-making between a knowledgeable clinician and the patient, rather than promoting one medication over another.”

They urge putting the findings in context given the study population, which comprises a relatively stable group of women with OUD, most of whom were taking OUD medications before they got pregnant. The study sample excludes a substantial number of women who are chronically underinsured or uninsured, Dr. Tiako’s team wrote, because those included were enrolled in Medicaid for 3 consecutive months before pregnancy.

“We urge caution when extrapolating these findings to newly pregnant individuals with untreated OUD,” they wrote.
 

Both Medications are Safe

Cara Poland, MD, MEd, with the Henry Ford Health + Michigan State University Health Sciences in Grand Rapids, and coauthors, added in another commentary that Suarez et al. didn’t include a comparison between the population-level congenital defect rate and the defect rate for people using medications for OUD in pregnancy.

That comparison, they wrote, would have better illustrated the safety of medications for OUD “instead of simply comparing two medications with long-standing safety data.”

When a clinician starts a woman on medication for OUD in pregnancy, it’s important to understand several factors, including individual access to and comfort with different treatment approaches, they noted. It’s also important to weigh whether changing medications is worth the potential drawbacks of disrupting their well-managed care.

They wrote that the paper by Suarez et al. does not make the case for switching medications based on their findings.

Internists, they added, are ideal experts to explain risk of fetal abnormalities in the wider context of supporting engagement with continuous medication for OUD.

“In the absence of other concerns, switching medications (methadone to buprenorphine) or — worse — discontinuing [medication for] OUD because of this study runs counter to the substantial evidence regarding the safety of these medications during pregnancy,” Dr. Poland’s team wrote. “No treatment is without risk in pregnancy.”

This study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. In the Suarez et al. study, coauthors Dr. Hernández-Díaz, Dr. Gray, Dr. Connery, Dr. Zhu, and Dr. Huybrechts reported grants, personal fees and consulting payments from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Grady reports no relevant financial relationships in her editor’s note. No relevant financial relationships were reported by authors of the Tiako et al. commentary.

Regarding the commentary by Poland et al., grants were reported from the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Buprenorphine use, compared with methadone use, in pregnancy has been linked with a slightly lower risk of major congenital malformations in a new study of medications for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues published the findings in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The lower risk for buprenorphine was small (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.97), and methadone use should not be ruled out on that basis, the authors wrote. For some women, particularly those on stable treatment before pregnancy or women who do not respond well to buprenorphine, methadone may be the better choice, they explained.
 

Either Medication Better Than Not Treating

The authors noted that either medication “is strongly recommended over untreated OUD during pregnancy.”

JAMA Internal Medicine Deputy Editor Deborah Grady, MD, MPH, with the Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that recommendation in an editor’s note, highlighting that treatment for OUD is critical to prevent infections, overdose, and death in pregnant women as well as neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome and fetal death.

She stressed that internists and other primary care physicians have a key role in ensuring pregnant women with OUD receive appropriate treatment.

Given the importance of the issue, she wrote, “we have taken the unusual step of publishing two accompanying invited commentaries.”

Two developments may help increase use of buprenorphine, the study authors wrote. One is a recent study showing lower risk of adverse neonatal outcomes when buprenorphine is used during pregnancy compared with methadone. Another is the removal last year of the prescribing waiver for buprenorphine.
 

Study Included Medicaid Data Over 18 Years

The population-based cohort study used data from publicly insured Medicaid beneficiaries from 2000 to 2018. Pregnancies with enrollment from 90 days before pregnancy through 1 month after delivery and first-trimester use of buprenorphine or methadone were included (n = 13,360). The data were linked with infants’ health data.

The study group included 9,514 pregnancies with first-trimester buprenorphine exposure and 3,846 with methadone exposure. The risk of malformations overall was 50.9 (95% CI, 46.5-55.3) per 1000 pregnancies for buprenorphine and 60.6 (95% CI, 53.0-68.1) per 1000 pregnancies for methadone.

Major malformations were any cardiac malformations, ventricular septal defect, secundum atrial septal defect/nonprematurity-related patent foramen ovale, neural tube defects, oral clefts, and clubfoot.
 

Two Invited Commentaries Urge Caution in Interpretation

The two invited commentaries Dr. Grady mentioned in her editor’s note point both to the importance of the team’s findings and the need for better understanding of factors that may affect the choice of which OUD medication to use.

A commentary by Max Jordan Nguemeni Tiako, MD, MS, with the Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues, said that while the Suarez et al. data are important to share with patients, “the ultimate treatment decision must be the result of shared decision-making between a knowledgeable clinician and the patient, rather than promoting one medication over another.”

They urge putting the findings in context given the study population, which comprises a relatively stable group of women with OUD, most of whom were taking OUD medications before they got pregnant. The study sample excludes a substantial number of women who are chronically underinsured or uninsured, Dr. Tiako’s team wrote, because those included were enrolled in Medicaid for 3 consecutive months before pregnancy.

“We urge caution when extrapolating these findings to newly pregnant individuals with untreated OUD,” they wrote.
 

Both Medications are Safe

Cara Poland, MD, MEd, with the Henry Ford Health + Michigan State University Health Sciences in Grand Rapids, and coauthors, added in another commentary that Suarez et al. didn’t include a comparison between the population-level congenital defect rate and the defect rate for people using medications for OUD in pregnancy.

That comparison, they wrote, would have better illustrated the safety of medications for OUD “instead of simply comparing two medications with long-standing safety data.”

When a clinician starts a woman on medication for OUD in pregnancy, it’s important to understand several factors, including individual access to and comfort with different treatment approaches, they noted. It’s also important to weigh whether changing medications is worth the potential drawbacks of disrupting their well-managed care.

They wrote that the paper by Suarez et al. does not make the case for switching medications based on their findings.

Internists, they added, are ideal experts to explain risk of fetal abnormalities in the wider context of supporting engagement with continuous medication for OUD.

“In the absence of other concerns, switching medications (methadone to buprenorphine) or — worse — discontinuing [medication for] OUD because of this study runs counter to the substantial evidence regarding the safety of these medications during pregnancy,” Dr. Poland’s team wrote. “No treatment is without risk in pregnancy.”

This study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. In the Suarez et al. study, coauthors Dr. Hernández-Díaz, Dr. Gray, Dr. Connery, Dr. Zhu, and Dr. Huybrechts reported grants, personal fees and consulting payments from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Grady reports no relevant financial relationships in her editor’s note. No relevant financial relationships were reported by authors of the Tiako et al. commentary.

Regarding the commentary by Poland et al., grants were reported from the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Buprenorphine use, compared with methadone use, in pregnancy has been linked with a slightly lower risk of major congenital malformations in a new study of medications for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues published the findings in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The lower risk for buprenorphine was small (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.97), and methadone use should not be ruled out on that basis, the authors wrote. For some women, particularly those on stable treatment before pregnancy or women who do not respond well to buprenorphine, methadone may be the better choice, they explained.
 

Either Medication Better Than Not Treating

The authors noted that either medication “is strongly recommended over untreated OUD during pregnancy.”

JAMA Internal Medicine Deputy Editor Deborah Grady, MD, MPH, with the Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that recommendation in an editor’s note, highlighting that treatment for OUD is critical to prevent infections, overdose, and death in pregnant women as well as neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome and fetal death.

She stressed that internists and other primary care physicians have a key role in ensuring pregnant women with OUD receive appropriate treatment.

Given the importance of the issue, she wrote, “we have taken the unusual step of publishing two accompanying invited commentaries.”

Two developments may help increase use of buprenorphine, the study authors wrote. One is a recent study showing lower risk of adverse neonatal outcomes when buprenorphine is used during pregnancy compared with methadone. Another is the removal last year of the prescribing waiver for buprenorphine.
 

Study Included Medicaid Data Over 18 Years

The population-based cohort study used data from publicly insured Medicaid beneficiaries from 2000 to 2018. Pregnancies with enrollment from 90 days before pregnancy through 1 month after delivery and first-trimester use of buprenorphine or methadone were included (n = 13,360). The data were linked with infants’ health data.

The study group included 9,514 pregnancies with first-trimester buprenorphine exposure and 3,846 with methadone exposure. The risk of malformations overall was 50.9 (95% CI, 46.5-55.3) per 1000 pregnancies for buprenorphine and 60.6 (95% CI, 53.0-68.1) per 1000 pregnancies for methadone.

Major malformations were any cardiac malformations, ventricular septal defect, secundum atrial septal defect/nonprematurity-related patent foramen ovale, neural tube defects, oral clefts, and clubfoot.
 

Two Invited Commentaries Urge Caution in Interpretation

The two invited commentaries Dr. Grady mentioned in her editor’s note point both to the importance of the team’s findings and the need for better understanding of factors that may affect the choice of which OUD medication to use.

A commentary by Max Jordan Nguemeni Tiako, MD, MS, with the Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues, said that while the Suarez et al. data are important to share with patients, “the ultimate treatment decision must be the result of shared decision-making between a knowledgeable clinician and the patient, rather than promoting one medication over another.”

They urge putting the findings in context given the study population, which comprises a relatively stable group of women with OUD, most of whom were taking OUD medications before they got pregnant. The study sample excludes a substantial number of women who are chronically underinsured or uninsured, Dr. Tiako’s team wrote, because those included were enrolled in Medicaid for 3 consecutive months before pregnancy.

“We urge caution when extrapolating these findings to newly pregnant individuals with untreated OUD,” they wrote.
 

Both Medications are Safe

Cara Poland, MD, MEd, with the Henry Ford Health + Michigan State University Health Sciences in Grand Rapids, and coauthors, added in another commentary that Suarez et al. didn’t include a comparison between the population-level congenital defect rate and the defect rate for people using medications for OUD in pregnancy.

That comparison, they wrote, would have better illustrated the safety of medications for OUD “instead of simply comparing two medications with long-standing safety data.”

When a clinician starts a woman on medication for OUD in pregnancy, it’s important to understand several factors, including individual access to and comfort with different treatment approaches, they noted. It’s also important to weigh whether changing medications is worth the potential drawbacks of disrupting their well-managed care.

They wrote that the paper by Suarez et al. does not make the case for switching medications based on their findings.

Internists, they added, are ideal experts to explain risk of fetal abnormalities in the wider context of supporting engagement with continuous medication for OUD.

“In the absence of other concerns, switching medications (methadone to buprenorphine) or — worse — discontinuing [medication for] OUD because of this study runs counter to the substantial evidence regarding the safety of these medications during pregnancy,” Dr. Poland’s team wrote. “No treatment is without risk in pregnancy.”

This study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. In the Suarez et al. study, coauthors Dr. Hernández-Díaz, Dr. Gray, Dr. Connery, Dr. Zhu, and Dr. Huybrechts reported grants, personal fees and consulting payments from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Grady reports no relevant financial relationships in her editor’s note. No relevant financial relationships were reported by authors of the Tiako et al. commentary.

Regarding the commentary by Poland et al., grants were reported from the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Annette Gillaspie, a nurse in a small Oregon hospital, hoped she would be back working with patients by now. She contracted COVID-19 on the job early in the pandemic and ended up with long COVID.

After recovering a bit, her fatigue and dizziness returned, and today she is still working a desk job. She has also experienced more severe menstrual periods than before she had COVID.

“Being a female with long COVID definitely does add to the roller-coaster effect of symptoms,” Ms. Gillaspie said.

Long COVID affects nearly twice as many women as men, with 6.6% of women reporting long COVID compared with 4% of men, according to a recent Census Bureau survey reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Researchers are trying to determine why, what causes the gender disparity, and how best to treat it.

Scientists are also starting to look at the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health, including menstruation, pregnancy, and menopause.

Sex differences are common in infection-associated illnesses, said Beth Pollack, MS, a research scientist specializing in long COVID in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Department of Biological Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “It informs research priorities and the lens with which we understand long COVID.”

For example, reproductive health issues for women, such as puberty, pregnancy, and menopause, can alter the course of illness in a subset of women in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a condition that can cause dizziness and worse.

“This suggests that sex hormones may play key roles in immune responses to infections,” Ms. Pollack said.

ME/CFS and a Possible Link to Long COVID in Women

Some of the research into long COVID is being led by teams studying infection-associated chronic illnesses like ME/CFS.

The problem: Advocates say ME/CFS has been under-researched. Poorly understood for years, the condition is one of a handful of chronic illnesses linked to infections, including Lyme disease and now long COVID. Perhaps not coincidently, they are more likely to affect women.

Many of the research findings about long COVID mirror data that emerged in past ME/CFS research, said Jaime Seltzer, the scientific director at #MEAction, Santa Monica, California, an advocacy group. One point in particular: ME/CFS strikes women about twice as much as men, according to the CDC.

Ms. Seltzer said the response to long COVID could be much further ahead if the research community acknowledged the work done over the years on ME/CFS. Many of the potential biomarkers and risk factors emerging for long COVID were also suspected in ME/CFS, but not thoroughly studied, she said.

She also said not enough work has been done to unravel the links between gender and these chronic conditions.

“We’re stuck in this Groundhog Day situation,” she said. “There isn’t any research, so we can’t say anything definitively.”

Some New Research, Some New Clues

Scientists like Ms. Pollack are slowly making inroads. She was lead author on a 2023 review investigating the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health. The paper highlights long COVID links to ME/CFS, POTS, and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), as well as a resulting laundry list of female reproductive health issues. The hope is physicians will examine how the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, and menopause affect symptoms and illness progression of long COVID.

The Tal Research group at MIT (where Ms. Pollack works) has also added long COVID to the list of infection-associated illnesses it studies. The lab is conducting a large study looking into both Lyme disease and long COVID. The goals are to identify biomarkers that can predict who will not recover and to advance available treatments.

Another MIT program, “SEXX + Immunity” holds seminars and networking sessions for scientists looking into the role of female and male biology in immune responses to infection.

Barriers to Progress Remain

On the clinical side, female patients with long COVID also have to deal with a historical bias that still lurks in medicine when it comes to women’s health, said Alba Azola, MD, an assistant professor of physical medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr. Azola said she has discovered clinical descriptions of ME/CFE in the literature archives that describe it as “neurasthenia” and dismiss it as psychological.

Patients say that it is still happening, and while it may not be so blunt, “you can read between the lines,” Dr. Azola said.

Dr. Azola, who has worked with long COVID patients and is now seeing people with ME/CFS, said the symptoms of infection-associated chronic illness can mimic menopause, and many of her patients received that misdiagnosis. She recommends that doctors rule out long COVID for women with multiple symptoms before attributing symptoms to menopause.

Seeing that some long COVID patients were developing ME/CFS, staff at the Bateman Horne Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, set up a program for the condition in 2021. They were already treating patients with ME/CFS and what they call “multi-symptom chronic complex diseases.”

Jennifer Bell, a certified nurse practitioner at the center, said she has not seen any patients with ovarian failure but plenty with reproductive health issues.

“There definitely is a hormonal connection, but I don’t think there’s a good understanding about what is happening,” she said.

Most of her patients are female, and the more serious patients tend to go through a worsening of their symptoms in the week prior to getting a period, she said.

One thing Ms. Bell said she’s noticed in the past year is an increase in patients with EDS, which is also more common in women.

Like long COVID, many of the conditions traditionally treated at the center have no cure. But Ms. Bell said the center has developed an expertise in treating post-exertional malaise, a common symptom of long COVID, and keeps up with the literature for treatments to try, like the combination of guanfacine and the antioxidant N-acetyl cysteine to treat brain fog, an approach developed at Yale.

“It’s a very challenging illness to treat,” Ms. Bell said.

Since the emergence of long COVID, researchers have warned that symptoms vary so much from person to person that treatment will need to be targeted.

Ms. Pollack of MIT agrees and sees a big role for personalized medicine.

We need to “identify phenotypes within and across these overlapping and co-occurring illnesses so that we can identify the right therapeutics for each person,” she said.

As for Annette Gillaspie, she still hopes her long COVID will subside so she can get out from behind the desk and return to her normal nursing duties.

“I just got to a point where I realized I’m likely never going to be able to do my job,” she said. “It was incredibly heart breaking, but it’s the reality of long COVID, and I know I’m not the only one to have to step away from a job I loved.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Annette Gillaspie, a nurse in a small Oregon hospital, hoped she would be back working with patients by now. She contracted COVID-19 on the job early in the pandemic and ended up with long COVID.

After recovering a bit, her fatigue and dizziness returned, and today she is still working a desk job. She has also experienced more severe menstrual periods than before she had COVID.

“Being a female with long COVID definitely does add to the roller-coaster effect of symptoms,” Ms. Gillaspie said.

Long COVID affects nearly twice as many women as men, with 6.6% of women reporting long COVID compared with 4% of men, according to a recent Census Bureau survey reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Researchers are trying to determine why, what causes the gender disparity, and how best to treat it.

Scientists are also starting to look at the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health, including menstruation, pregnancy, and menopause.

Sex differences are common in infection-associated illnesses, said Beth Pollack, MS, a research scientist specializing in long COVID in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Department of Biological Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “It informs research priorities and the lens with which we understand long COVID.”

For example, reproductive health issues for women, such as puberty, pregnancy, and menopause, can alter the course of illness in a subset of women in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a condition that can cause dizziness and worse.

“This suggests that sex hormones may play key roles in immune responses to infections,” Ms. Pollack said.

ME/CFS and a Possible Link to Long COVID in Women

Some of the research into long COVID is being led by teams studying infection-associated chronic illnesses like ME/CFS.

The problem: Advocates say ME/CFS has been under-researched. Poorly understood for years, the condition is one of a handful of chronic illnesses linked to infections, including Lyme disease and now long COVID. Perhaps not coincidently, they are more likely to affect women.

Many of the research findings about long COVID mirror data that emerged in past ME/CFS research, said Jaime Seltzer, the scientific director at #MEAction, Santa Monica, California, an advocacy group. One point in particular: ME/CFS strikes women about twice as much as men, according to the CDC.

Ms. Seltzer said the response to long COVID could be much further ahead if the research community acknowledged the work done over the years on ME/CFS. Many of the potential biomarkers and risk factors emerging for long COVID were also suspected in ME/CFS, but not thoroughly studied, she said.

She also said not enough work has been done to unravel the links between gender and these chronic conditions.

“We’re stuck in this Groundhog Day situation,” she said. “There isn’t any research, so we can’t say anything definitively.”

Some New Research, Some New Clues

Scientists like Ms. Pollack are slowly making inroads. She was lead author on a 2023 review investigating the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health. The paper highlights long COVID links to ME/CFS, POTS, and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), as well as a resulting laundry list of female reproductive health issues. The hope is physicians will examine how the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, and menopause affect symptoms and illness progression of long COVID.

The Tal Research group at MIT (where Ms. Pollack works) has also added long COVID to the list of infection-associated illnesses it studies. The lab is conducting a large study looking into both Lyme disease and long COVID. The goals are to identify biomarkers that can predict who will not recover and to advance available treatments.

Another MIT program, “SEXX + Immunity” holds seminars and networking sessions for scientists looking into the role of female and male biology in immune responses to infection.

Barriers to Progress Remain

On the clinical side, female patients with long COVID also have to deal with a historical bias that still lurks in medicine when it comes to women’s health, said Alba Azola, MD, an assistant professor of physical medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr. Azola said she has discovered clinical descriptions of ME/CFE in the literature archives that describe it as “neurasthenia” and dismiss it as psychological.

Patients say that it is still happening, and while it may not be so blunt, “you can read between the lines,” Dr. Azola said.

Dr. Azola, who has worked with long COVID patients and is now seeing people with ME/CFS, said the symptoms of infection-associated chronic illness can mimic menopause, and many of her patients received that misdiagnosis. She recommends that doctors rule out long COVID for women with multiple symptoms before attributing symptoms to menopause.

Seeing that some long COVID patients were developing ME/CFS, staff at the Bateman Horne Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, set up a program for the condition in 2021. They were already treating patients with ME/CFS and what they call “multi-symptom chronic complex diseases.”

Jennifer Bell, a certified nurse practitioner at the center, said she has not seen any patients with ovarian failure but plenty with reproductive health issues.

“There definitely is a hormonal connection, but I don’t think there’s a good understanding about what is happening,” she said.

Most of her patients are female, and the more serious patients tend to go through a worsening of their symptoms in the week prior to getting a period, she said.

One thing Ms. Bell said she’s noticed in the past year is an increase in patients with EDS, which is also more common in women.

Like long COVID, many of the conditions traditionally treated at the center have no cure. But Ms. Bell said the center has developed an expertise in treating post-exertional malaise, a common symptom of long COVID, and keeps up with the literature for treatments to try, like the combination of guanfacine and the antioxidant N-acetyl cysteine to treat brain fog, an approach developed at Yale.

“It’s a very challenging illness to treat,” Ms. Bell said.

Since the emergence of long COVID, researchers have warned that symptoms vary so much from person to person that treatment will need to be targeted.

Ms. Pollack of MIT agrees and sees a big role for personalized medicine.

We need to “identify phenotypes within and across these overlapping and co-occurring illnesses so that we can identify the right therapeutics for each person,” she said.

As for Annette Gillaspie, she still hopes her long COVID will subside so she can get out from behind the desk and return to her normal nursing duties.

“I just got to a point where I realized I’m likely never going to be able to do my job,” she said. “It was incredibly heart breaking, but it’s the reality of long COVID, and I know I’m not the only one to have to step away from a job I loved.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Annette Gillaspie, a nurse in a small Oregon hospital, hoped she would be back working with patients by now. She contracted COVID-19 on the job early in the pandemic and ended up with long COVID.

After recovering a bit, her fatigue and dizziness returned, and today she is still working a desk job. She has also experienced more severe menstrual periods than before she had COVID.

“Being a female with long COVID definitely does add to the roller-coaster effect of symptoms,” Ms. Gillaspie said.

Long COVID affects nearly twice as many women as men, with 6.6% of women reporting long COVID compared with 4% of men, according to a recent Census Bureau survey reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Researchers are trying to determine why, what causes the gender disparity, and how best to treat it.

Scientists are also starting to look at the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health, including menstruation, pregnancy, and menopause.

Sex differences are common in infection-associated illnesses, said Beth Pollack, MS, a research scientist specializing in long COVID in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Department of Biological Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “It informs research priorities and the lens with which we understand long COVID.”

For example, reproductive health issues for women, such as puberty, pregnancy, and menopause, can alter the course of illness in a subset of women in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a condition that can cause dizziness and worse.

“This suggests that sex hormones may play key roles in immune responses to infections,” Ms. Pollack said.

ME/CFS and a Possible Link to Long COVID in Women

Some of the research into long COVID is being led by teams studying infection-associated chronic illnesses like ME/CFS.

The problem: Advocates say ME/CFS has been under-researched. Poorly understood for years, the condition is one of a handful of chronic illnesses linked to infections, including Lyme disease and now long COVID. Perhaps not coincidently, they are more likely to affect women.

Many of the research findings about long COVID mirror data that emerged in past ME/CFS research, said Jaime Seltzer, the scientific director at #MEAction, Santa Monica, California, an advocacy group. One point in particular: ME/CFS strikes women about twice as much as men, according to the CDC.

Ms. Seltzer said the response to long COVID could be much further ahead if the research community acknowledged the work done over the years on ME/CFS. Many of the potential biomarkers and risk factors emerging for long COVID were also suspected in ME/CFS, but not thoroughly studied, she said.

She also said not enough work has been done to unravel the links between gender and these chronic conditions.

“We’re stuck in this Groundhog Day situation,” she said. “There isn’t any research, so we can’t say anything definitively.”

Some New Research, Some New Clues

Scientists like Ms. Pollack are slowly making inroads. She was lead author on a 2023 review investigating the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health. The paper highlights long COVID links to ME/CFS, POTS, and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), as well as a resulting laundry list of female reproductive health issues. The hope is physicians will examine how the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, and menopause affect symptoms and illness progression of long COVID.

The Tal Research group at MIT (where Ms. Pollack works) has also added long COVID to the list of infection-associated illnesses it studies. The lab is conducting a large study looking into both Lyme disease and long COVID. The goals are to identify biomarkers that can predict who will not recover and to advance available treatments.

Another MIT program, “SEXX + Immunity” holds seminars and networking sessions for scientists looking into the role of female and male biology in immune responses to infection.

Barriers to Progress Remain

On the clinical side, female patients with long COVID also have to deal with a historical bias that still lurks in medicine when it comes to women’s health, said Alba Azola, MD, an assistant professor of physical medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr. Azola said she has discovered clinical descriptions of ME/CFE in the literature archives that describe it as “neurasthenia” and dismiss it as psychological.

Patients say that it is still happening, and while it may not be so blunt, “you can read between the lines,” Dr. Azola said.

Dr. Azola, who has worked with long COVID patients and is now seeing people with ME/CFS, said the symptoms of infection-associated chronic illness can mimic menopause, and many of her patients received that misdiagnosis. She recommends that doctors rule out long COVID for women with multiple symptoms before attributing symptoms to menopause.

Seeing that some long COVID patients were developing ME/CFS, staff at the Bateman Horne Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, set up a program for the condition in 2021. They were already treating patients with ME/CFS and what they call “multi-symptom chronic complex diseases.”

Jennifer Bell, a certified nurse practitioner at the center, said she has not seen any patients with ovarian failure but plenty with reproductive health issues.

“There definitely is a hormonal connection, but I don’t think there’s a good understanding about what is happening,” she said.

Most of her patients are female, and the more serious patients tend to go through a worsening of their symptoms in the week prior to getting a period, she said.

One thing Ms. Bell said she’s noticed in the past year is an increase in patients with EDS, which is also more common in women.

Like long COVID, many of the conditions traditionally treated at the center have no cure. But Ms. Bell said the center has developed an expertise in treating post-exertional malaise, a common symptom of long COVID, and keeps up with the literature for treatments to try, like the combination of guanfacine and the antioxidant N-acetyl cysteine to treat brain fog, an approach developed at Yale.

“It’s a very challenging illness to treat,” Ms. Bell said.

Since the emergence of long COVID, researchers have warned that symptoms vary so much from person to person that treatment will need to be targeted.

Ms. Pollack of MIT agrees and sees a big role for personalized medicine.

We need to “identify phenotypes within and across these overlapping and co-occurring illnesses so that we can identify the right therapeutics for each person,” she said.

As for Annette Gillaspie, she still hopes her long COVID will subside so she can get out from behind the desk and return to her normal nursing duties.

“I just got to a point where I realized I’m likely never going to be able to do my job,” she said. “It was incredibly heart breaking, but it’s the reality of long COVID, and I know I’m not the only one to have to step away from a job I loved.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.