Women's Health

TOPLINE:

Among adolescent pregnancies in the United States, the prevalence of e-cigarette use during the third trimester increased from 0.8% in 2016 to 4.1% in 2021, according to research published online on December 13 in JAMA Network Open. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the 2016-2021 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.
• They focused on 10,428 adolescents aged 10-19 years who had had a singleton birth and provided information about their use of e-cigarettes or cigarettes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Whereas the researchers found a roughly fivefold increase in the exclusive use of e-cigarettes, the percentage of patients using only cigarettes decreased from 9.2% in 2017 to 3.2% in 2021.
• The percentage of patients who both vaped and smoked fluctuated between 0.6% and 1.6%.
• The rate of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) births for adolescents who did not smoke or vape (12.9%) did not differ significantly from that among adolescents who exclusively used e-cigarettes (16.8%) or those who used both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (17.6%).
• The researchers found use of cigarettes only was associated with a significantly higher rate of SGA births: 24.6%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Exclusive e-cigarette use and dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes did not seem to be statistically significantly associated with SGA birth in our analysis, but this finding should be interpreted with caution given the low prevalence of use and the limited sample size,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Xiaozhong Wen, MD, PhD, with the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the State University of New York at Buffalo, was the corresponding author of the study. 

LIMITATIONS:

Participants may have underreported their use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes because of fears of social stigma. The researchers lacked information about vaping in the first and second trimesters, exposure to secondhand smoke, cannabis use, and diet. 

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the American Heart Association. A study coauthor has received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, the World Health Organization, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among adolescent pregnancies in the United States, the prevalence of e-cigarette use during the third trimester increased from 0.8% in 2016 to 4.1% in 2021, according to research published online on December 13 in JAMA Network Open. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the 2016-2021 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.
• They focused on 10,428 adolescents aged 10-19 years who had had a singleton birth and provided information about their use of e-cigarettes or cigarettes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Whereas the researchers found a roughly fivefold increase in the exclusive use of e-cigarettes, the percentage of patients using only cigarettes decreased from 9.2% in 2017 to 3.2% in 2021.
• The percentage of patients who both vaped and smoked fluctuated between 0.6% and 1.6%.
• The rate of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) births for adolescents who did not smoke or vape (12.9%) did not differ significantly from that among adolescents who exclusively used e-cigarettes (16.8%) or those who used both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (17.6%).
• The researchers found use of cigarettes only was associated with a significantly higher rate of SGA births: 24.6%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Exclusive e-cigarette use and dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes did not seem to be statistically significantly associated with SGA birth in our analysis, but this finding should be interpreted with caution given the low prevalence of use and the limited sample size,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Xiaozhong Wen, MD, PhD, with the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the State University of New York at Buffalo, was the corresponding author of the study. 

LIMITATIONS:

Participants may have underreported their use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes because of fears of social stigma. The researchers lacked information about vaping in the first and second trimesters, exposure to secondhand smoke, cannabis use, and diet. 

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the American Heart Association. A study coauthor has received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, the World Health Organization, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among adolescent pregnancies in the United States, the prevalence of e-cigarette use during the third trimester increased from 0.8% in 2016 to 4.1% in 2021, according to research published online on December 13 in JAMA Network Open. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the 2016-2021 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.
• They focused on 10,428 adolescents aged 10-19 years who had had a singleton birth and provided information about their use of e-cigarettes or cigarettes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Whereas the researchers found a roughly fivefold increase in the exclusive use of e-cigarettes, the percentage of patients using only cigarettes decreased from 9.2% in 2017 to 3.2% in 2021.
• The percentage of patients who both vaped and smoked fluctuated between 0.6% and 1.6%.
• The rate of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) births for adolescents who did not smoke or vape (12.9%) did not differ significantly from that among adolescents who exclusively used e-cigarettes (16.8%) or those who used both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (17.6%).
• The researchers found use of cigarettes only was associated with a significantly higher rate of SGA births: 24.6%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Exclusive e-cigarette use and dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes did not seem to be statistically significantly associated with SGA birth in our analysis, but this finding should be interpreted with caution given the low prevalence of use and the limited sample size,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Xiaozhong Wen, MD, PhD, with the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the State University of New York at Buffalo, was the corresponding author of the study. 

LIMITATIONS:

Participants may have underreported their use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes because of fears of social stigma. The researchers lacked information about vaping in the first and second trimesters, exposure to secondhand smoke, cannabis use, and diet. 

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the American Heart Association. A study coauthor has received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, the World Health Organization, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

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

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

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

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

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

More than one in three women worldwide (at least 40 million women) annually experience lasting health problems in the months or years following childbirth, according to a new study published in The Lancet Global Health.

Those problems include pain during sexual intercourse (35%), low back pain (32%), urinary incontinence (8% to 31%), anxiety (9% to 24%), anal incontinence (19%), depression (11% to 17%), fear of childbirth (6% to 15%), perineal pain (11%), and secondary infertility (11%).

Other problems included pelvic organ prolapse, posttraumatic stress disorder, thyroid dysfunction, mastitis, HIV seroconversion (when the body begins to produce detectable levels of HIV antibodies), nerve injury, and psychosis. 

The study says most women see a doctor 6  to 12 weeks after birth and then rarely talk to doctors about these nagging health problems. Many of the problems don’t show up until 6 or more weeks after birth.

“To comprehensively address these conditions, broader and more comprehensive health service opportunities are needed, which should extend beyond 6 weeks postpartum and embrace multidisciplinary models of care,” the study says. “This approach can ensure that these conditions are promptly identified and given the attention that they deserve.”

The study is part of a series organized by the United Nation’s Special Program on Human Reproduction, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The authors said most of the data came from high-income nations. There was little data from low-income and middle-income countries except for postpartum depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

“Many postpartum conditions cause considerable suffering in women’s daily life long after birth, both emotionally and physically, and yet they are largely underappreciated, underrecognized, and underreported,” Pascale Allotey, MD, director of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research at WHO, said in a statement.

“Throughout their lives, and beyond motherhood, women need access to a range of services from health-care providers who listen to their concerns and meet their needs — so they not only survive childbirth but can enjoy good health and quality of life.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

More than one in three women worldwide (at least 40 million women) annually experience lasting health problems in the months or years following childbirth, according to a new study published in The Lancet Global Health.

Those problems include pain during sexual intercourse (35%), low back pain (32%), urinary incontinence (8% to 31%), anxiety (9% to 24%), anal incontinence (19%), depression (11% to 17%), fear of childbirth (6% to 15%), perineal pain (11%), and secondary infertility (11%).

Other problems included pelvic organ prolapse, posttraumatic stress disorder, thyroid dysfunction, mastitis, HIV seroconversion (when the body begins to produce detectable levels of HIV antibodies), nerve injury, and psychosis. 

The study says most women see a doctor 6  to 12 weeks after birth and then rarely talk to doctors about these nagging health problems. Many of the problems don’t show up until 6 or more weeks after birth.

“To comprehensively address these conditions, broader and more comprehensive health service opportunities are needed, which should extend beyond 6 weeks postpartum and embrace multidisciplinary models of care,” the study says. “This approach can ensure that these conditions are promptly identified and given the attention that they deserve.”

The study is part of a series organized by the United Nation’s Special Program on Human Reproduction, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The authors said most of the data came from high-income nations. There was little data from low-income and middle-income countries except for postpartum depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

“Many postpartum conditions cause considerable suffering in women’s daily life long after birth, both emotionally and physically, and yet they are largely underappreciated, underrecognized, and underreported,” Pascale Allotey, MD, director of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research at WHO, said in a statement.

“Throughout their lives, and beyond motherhood, women need access to a range of services from health-care providers who listen to their concerns and meet their needs — so they not only survive childbirth but can enjoy good health and quality of life.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

More than one in three women worldwide (at least 40 million women) annually experience lasting health problems in the months or years following childbirth, according to a new study published in The Lancet Global Health.

Those problems include pain during sexual intercourse (35%), low back pain (32%), urinary incontinence (8% to 31%), anxiety (9% to 24%), anal incontinence (19%), depression (11% to 17%), fear of childbirth (6% to 15%), perineal pain (11%), and secondary infertility (11%).

Other problems included pelvic organ prolapse, posttraumatic stress disorder, thyroid dysfunction, mastitis, HIV seroconversion (when the body begins to produce detectable levels of HIV antibodies), nerve injury, and psychosis. 

The study says most women see a doctor 6  to 12 weeks after birth and then rarely talk to doctors about these nagging health problems. Many of the problems don’t show up until 6 or more weeks after birth.

“To comprehensively address these conditions, broader and more comprehensive health service opportunities are needed, which should extend beyond 6 weeks postpartum and embrace multidisciplinary models of care,” the study says. “This approach can ensure that these conditions are promptly identified and given the attention that they deserve.”

The study is part of a series organized by the United Nation’s Special Program on Human Reproduction, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The authors said most of the data came from high-income nations. There was little data from low-income and middle-income countries except for postpartum depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

“Many postpartum conditions cause considerable suffering in women’s daily life long after birth, both emotionally and physically, and yet they are largely underappreciated, underrecognized, and underreported,” Pascale Allotey, MD, director of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research at WHO, said in a statement.

“Throughout their lives, and beyond motherhood, women need access to a range of services from health-care providers who listen to their concerns and meet their needs — so they not only survive childbirth but can enjoy good health and quality of life.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

BARCELONA, SPAIN — Migraine is widely considered a predominantly female disorder. Its frequency, duration, and severity tend to be higher in women, and women are also more likely than men to receive a migraine diagnosis. However, gender expectations, differences in the likelihood of self-reporting, and problems with how migraine is classified make it difficult to estimate its true prevalence in men and women. 

Epidemiologists and migraine specialists discussed these apparent sex differences and the difficulties in obtaining accurate estimates of migraine prevalence in a debate session at the 17th European Headache Congress in Barcelona. 

Different Symptoms

Headache disorders are estimated to affect 50% of the general population ; tension-type headache and migraine are the two most common. According to epidemiologic studies, migraine is more prevalent in women, with a female-to-male ratio of 3:1. There are numerous studies of why this might be, most of which focus largely on female-related factors, such as hormones and the menstrual cycle. 

“Despite many years of research, there isn’t one clear factor explaining this substantial difference between women and men,” said Tobias Kurth of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. “So the question is: Are we missing something else?”

One factor in these perceived sex differences in migraine is that women seem to report their migraines differently from men, and they also have different symptoms. For example, women are more likely than men to report severe pain, and their migraine attacks are more often accompanied by photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea, whereas men’s migraines are more often accompanied by aura. 

“By favoring female symptoms, the classification system may not be picking up male symptoms because they’re not being classified in the right way,” Dr. Kurth said, with one consequence being that migraine is underdiagnosed in men. “Before trying to understand the biological and behavioral reasons for these sex differences, we first need to consider these methodological challenges that we all apply knowingly or unknowingly.” 

Christian Lampl, professor of neurology at Konventhospital der Barmherzigen Brüder Linz, Austria, and president of the European Headache Federation, said in an interview, “I’m convinced that this 3:1 ratio which has been stated for decades is wrong, but we still don’t have the data. The criteria we have [for classifying migraine] are useful for clinical trials, but they are useless for determining the male-to-female ratio. 

“We need a new definition of migraine,” he added. “Migraine is an episode, not an attack. Attacks have a sudden onset, and migraine onset is not sudden — it is an episode with a headache attack.” 

Inadequate Menopause Services

Professor Anne MacGregor of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, United Kingdom, specializes in migraine and women’s health. She presented data showing that migraine is underdiagnosed in women; one reason being that the disorder receives inadequate attention from healthcare professionals at specialist menopause services. 

Menopause is associated with an increased prevalence of migraine, but women do not discuss headache symptoms at specialist menopause services, Dr. MacGregor said. 

She then described unpublished results from a survey of 117 women attending the specialist menopause service at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. Among the respondents, 34% reported experiencing episodic migraine and an additional 8% reported having chronic migraine. 

“Within this population of women who were not reporting headache as a symptom [to the menopause service until asked in the survey], 42% of them were positive for a diagnosis of migraine,” said Dr. MacGregor. “They were mostly relying on prescribed paracetamol and codeine, or buying it over the counter, and only 22% of them were receiving triptans. 

“They are clearly being undertreated,” she added. “Part of this issue is that they didn’t spontaneously report headache as a menopause symptom, so they weren’t consulting for headache to their primary care physicians.” 

Correct diagnosis by a consultant is a prerequisite for receiving appropriate migraine treatment. Yet, according to a US study published in 2012, only 45.5% of women with episodic migraine consulted a prescribing healthcare professional. Of those who consulted, 89% were diagnosed correctly, and only 68% of those received the appropriate treatment.

A larger, more recent study confirmed that there is a massive unmet need for improving care in this patient population. The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study, which analyzed data from nearly 90,000 participants, showed that just 4.8% of people with chronic migraine received consultation, correct diagnosis, and treatment, with 89% of women with chronic migraine left undiagnosed. 

The OVERCOME Study further revealed that although many people with migraine were repeat consulters, they were consulting their physicians for other health problems. 

“This makes it very clear that people in other specialties need to be more aware about picking up and diagnosing headache,” said MacGregor. “That’s where the real need is in managing headache. We have the treatments, but if the patients can’t access them, they’re not much good to them.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA, SPAIN — Migraine is widely considered a predominantly female disorder. Its frequency, duration, and severity tend to be higher in women, and women are also more likely than men to receive a migraine diagnosis. However, gender expectations, differences in the likelihood of self-reporting, and problems with how migraine is classified make it difficult to estimate its true prevalence in men and women. 

Epidemiologists and migraine specialists discussed these apparent sex differences and the difficulties in obtaining accurate estimates of migraine prevalence in a debate session at the 17th European Headache Congress in Barcelona. 

Different Symptoms

Headache disorders are estimated to affect 50% of the general population ; tension-type headache and migraine are the two most common. According to epidemiologic studies, migraine is more prevalent in women, with a female-to-male ratio of 3:1. There are numerous studies of why this might be, most of which focus largely on female-related factors, such as hormones and the menstrual cycle. 

“Despite many years of research, there isn’t one clear factor explaining this substantial difference between women and men,” said Tobias Kurth of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. “So the question is: Are we missing something else?”

One factor in these perceived sex differences in migraine is that women seem to report their migraines differently from men, and they also have different symptoms. For example, women are more likely than men to report severe pain, and their migraine attacks are more often accompanied by photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea, whereas men’s migraines are more often accompanied by aura. 

“By favoring female symptoms, the classification system may not be picking up male symptoms because they’re not being classified in the right way,” Dr. Kurth said, with one consequence being that migraine is underdiagnosed in men. “Before trying to understand the biological and behavioral reasons for these sex differences, we first need to consider these methodological challenges that we all apply knowingly or unknowingly.” 

Christian Lampl, professor of neurology at Konventhospital der Barmherzigen Brüder Linz, Austria, and president of the European Headache Federation, said in an interview, “I’m convinced that this 3:1 ratio which has been stated for decades is wrong, but we still don’t have the data. The criteria we have [for classifying migraine] are useful for clinical trials, but they are useless for determining the male-to-female ratio. 

“We need a new definition of migraine,” he added. “Migraine is an episode, not an attack. Attacks have a sudden onset, and migraine onset is not sudden — it is an episode with a headache attack.” 

Inadequate Menopause Services

Professor Anne MacGregor of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, United Kingdom, specializes in migraine and women’s health. She presented data showing that migraine is underdiagnosed in women; one reason being that the disorder receives inadequate attention from healthcare professionals at specialist menopause services. 

Menopause is associated with an increased prevalence of migraine, but women do not discuss headache symptoms at specialist menopause services, Dr. MacGregor said. 

She then described unpublished results from a survey of 117 women attending the specialist menopause service at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. Among the respondents, 34% reported experiencing episodic migraine and an additional 8% reported having chronic migraine. 

“Within this population of women who were not reporting headache as a symptom [to the menopause service until asked in the survey], 42% of them were positive for a diagnosis of migraine,” said Dr. MacGregor. “They were mostly relying on prescribed paracetamol and codeine, or buying it over the counter, and only 22% of them were receiving triptans. 

“They are clearly being undertreated,” she added. “Part of this issue is that they didn’t spontaneously report headache as a menopause symptom, so they weren’t consulting for headache to their primary care physicians.” 

Correct diagnosis by a consultant is a prerequisite for receiving appropriate migraine treatment. Yet, according to a US study published in 2012, only 45.5% of women with episodic migraine consulted a prescribing healthcare professional. Of those who consulted, 89% were diagnosed correctly, and only 68% of those received the appropriate treatment.

A larger, more recent study confirmed that there is a massive unmet need for improving care in this patient population. The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study, which analyzed data from nearly 90,000 participants, showed that just 4.8% of people with chronic migraine received consultation, correct diagnosis, and treatment, with 89% of women with chronic migraine left undiagnosed. 

The OVERCOME Study further revealed that although many people with migraine were repeat consulters, they were consulting their physicians for other health problems. 

“This makes it very clear that people in other specialties need to be more aware about picking up and diagnosing headache,” said MacGregor. “That’s where the real need is in managing headache. We have the treatments, but if the patients can’t access them, they’re not much good to them.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA, SPAIN — Migraine is widely considered a predominantly female disorder. Its frequency, duration, and severity tend to be higher in women, and women are also more likely than men to receive a migraine diagnosis. However, gender expectations, differences in the likelihood of self-reporting, and problems with how migraine is classified make it difficult to estimate its true prevalence in men and women. 

Epidemiologists and migraine specialists discussed these apparent sex differences and the difficulties in obtaining accurate estimates of migraine prevalence in a debate session at the 17th European Headache Congress in Barcelona. 

Different Symptoms

Headache disorders are estimated to affect 50% of the general population ; tension-type headache and migraine are the two most common. According to epidemiologic studies, migraine is more prevalent in women, with a female-to-male ratio of 3:1. There are numerous studies of why this might be, most of which focus largely on female-related factors, such as hormones and the menstrual cycle. 

“Despite many years of research, there isn’t one clear factor explaining this substantial difference between women and men,” said Tobias Kurth of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. “So the question is: Are we missing something else?”

One factor in these perceived sex differences in migraine is that women seem to report their migraines differently from men, and they also have different symptoms. For example, women are more likely than men to report severe pain, and their migraine attacks are more often accompanied by photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea, whereas men’s migraines are more often accompanied by aura. 

“By favoring female symptoms, the classification system may not be picking up male symptoms because they’re not being classified in the right way,” Dr. Kurth said, with one consequence being that migraine is underdiagnosed in men. “Before trying to understand the biological and behavioral reasons for these sex differences, we first need to consider these methodological challenges that we all apply knowingly or unknowingly.” 

Christian Lampl, professor of neurology at Konventhospital der Barmherzigen Brüder Linz, Austria, and president of the European Headache Federation, said in an interview, “I’m convinced that this 3:1 ratio which has been stated for decades is wrong, but we still don’t have the data. The criteria we have [for classifying migraine] are useful for clinical trials, but they are useless for determining the male-to-female ratio. 

“We need a new definition of migraine,” he added. “Migraine is an episode, not an attack. Attacks have a sudden onset, and migraine onset is not sudden — it is an episode with a headache attack.” 

Inadequate Menopause Services

Professor Anne MacGregor of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, United Kingdom, specializes in migraine and women’s health. She presented data showing that migraine is underdiagnosed in women; one reason being that the disorder receives inadequate attention from healthcare professionals at specialist menopause services. 

Menopause is associated with an increased prevalence of migraine, but women do not discuss headache symptoms at specialist menopause services, Dr. MacGregor said. 

She then described unpublished results from a survey of 117 women attending the specialist menopause service at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. Among the respondents, 34% reported experiencing episodic migraine and an additional 8% reported having chronic migraine. 

“Within this population of women who were not reporting headache as a symptom [to the menopause service until asked in the survey], 42% of them were positive for a diagnosis of migraine,” said Dr. MacGregor. “They were mostly relying on prescribed paracetamol and codeine, or buying it over the counter, and only 22% of them were receiving triptans. 

“They are clearly being undertreated,” she added. “Part of this issue is that they didn’t spontaneously report headache as a menopause symptom, so they weren’t consulting for headache to their primary care physicians.” 

Correct diagnosis by a consultant is a prerequisite for receiving appropriate migraine treatment. Yet, according to a US study published in 2012, only 45.5% of women with episodic migraine consulted a prescribing healthcare professional. Of those who consulted, 89% were diagnosed correctly, and only 68% of those received the appropriate treatment.

A larger, more recent study confirmed that there is a massive unmet need for improving care in this patient population. The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study, which analyzed data from nearly 90,000 participants, showed that just 4.8% of people with chronic migraine received consultation, correct diagnosis, and treatment, with 89% of women with chronic migraine left undiagnosed. 

The OVERCOME Study further revealed that although many people with migraine were repeat consulters, they were consulting their physicians for other health problems. 

“This makes it very clear that people in other specialties need to be more aware about picking up and diagnosing headache,” said MacGregor. “That’s where the real need is in managing headache. We have the treatments, but if the patients can’t access them, they’re not much good to them.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

San Antonio – Taxane exposure during pregnancy appears to be safe for mothers and offspring, according to a new retrospective cohort analysis. The findings shed light on a relatively unstudied topic. “Our cohort with 103 patients represents the most extensive study to date, and our main goal was to have homogeneous reporting of adverse events,” Ana Ferrigno Guajardo, MD, said in an interview. She presented the results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Breast cancer during pregnancy is a very challenging clinical situation as the expected antineoplastic effects of treatment must be carefully balanced against potential detrimental consequences on the developing fetus,” said Dr. Guajardo. She is a resident physician at Yale University School of Medicine.

Anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents are generally used during pregnancy because there is more safety data available for them, but some studies have shown that taxanes may have better efficacy in some clinical situations. “Cohort studies that have been done in the past [show] that taxane use is mostly deferred to the postpartum period, and we are not really sure of the impact that can have on survival in patients postponing treatment,” said Dr. Guajardo.

There are potential safety concerns with taxanes because neonates lack the cytochrome enzymes to metabolize the drugs, which creates a theoretical risk of adverse effects due to prolonged activity. On the other hand, pregnant women metabolize taxanes faster, and there are placental barriers that can inhibit high molecular weight molecules like taxanes from reaching the fetus, according to Dr. Guajardo.

In addition to pregnancy outcomes, the researchers followed 28 infants, and found that 87% were found to be completely healthy, “so we were relatively reassured. But of course we think that there’s a need for prospective studies that validate our findings regarding the safety taxanes,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Although there is no direct comparison group, the findings correlate well with studies of the general population and other chemotherapy agents. “We have large cohorts with mostly anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents during pregnancy that we can compare our results to, and overall, we were reassured that the prevalence of complications that we found in our cohort was very similar or even lower to those reported in the literature with patients treated with anthracycline-based therapy,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Compared with the general population, the team found higher rates of preterm births, neonatal ICU admissions, and premature membrane rupture, and infants that are small for gestational age. However, with the exception of the latter, all of these risks have been seen in pregnant women treated with other types of chemotherapy. “Perhaps it would be interesting to see if the incidence of small for gestational age neonates might be a bit higher in this population when compared to anthracycline-based therapy agents, but that does require a study that has a comparator group,” said Dr. Guajardo.

The researchers recruited 103 women with an average age of 34 years from 10 centers in 6 countries: United States, France, Spain, Mexico, Italy, and Costa Rica. The great majority were also treated with anthracyclines during gestation, and nearly all (97%) were treated with paclitaxel. The live birth rate was 98%, and 43.4% were preterm, 24% were small for gestational age, 16% were admitted to the neonate ICU, and 12.5% had hyperbilirubinemia.

Obstetric complications included intrauterine growth restriction (9%), preterm premature rupture of membranes (5%), gestational diabetes mellitus (5%), hypertensive disorders (4%), and pregnancy loss (2%).

After the presentation, Virginia Borges, MD, professor of medical oncology at University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, served as a discussant.

“Highlights of this study [include] that it is an international cohort from over six countries with over 100 cases of women included specifically focusing on the use of paclitaxel. They demonstrated safe outcomes for the pregnancies and the mothers,” Dr. Borges said during her presentation.

She went on to highlight several key points that physicians should consider when treating pregnancy-related breast cancer. “We want to achieve prepartum treatment wherever feasible to tackle that cancer before delivery of the child to prevent a pregnancy-related breast cancer from potentially turning into a postpartum breast cancer,” she said.

“If the tumor is ER+/HER2-, we now see we can safely give anthracyclines and taxanes from 12 to about 35 weeks of gestation. We don’t want to get too close to the delivery with chemotherapy. If a patient is HER2+, I prefer to give the anthracycline portion while the person is pregnant and then after delivery incorporate the taxane with the HER2 targeted therapies as there’s some older data showing concurrent therapy looks a bit better than sequential. In triple negative breast cancer, again I prefer to give the anthracycline and delay the taxane and carboplatin to overlap with immunotherapy so we are getting the necessary synergy there as well,” Dr. Borges added.

Dr. Guajardo has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Borges has consulted for SeaGen, Gilead, and AstraZeneca, and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Olema, and SeaGen.

San Antonio – Taxane exposure during pregnancy appears to be safe for mothers and offspring, according to a new retrospective cohort analysis. The findings shed light on a relatively unstudied topic. “Our cohort with 103 patients represents the most extensive study to date, and our main goal was to have homogeneous reporting of adverse events,” Ana Ferrigno Guajardo, MD, said in an interview. She presented the results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Breast cancer during pregnancy is a very challenging clinical situation as the expected antineoplastic effects of treatment must be carefully balanced against potential detrimental consequences on the developing fetus,” said Dr. Guajardo. She is a resident physician at Yale University School of Medicine.

Anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents are generally used during pregnancy because there is more safety data available for them, but some studies have shown that taxanes may have better efficacy in some clinical situations. “Cohort studies that have been done in the past [show] that taxane use is mostly deferred to the postpartum period, and we are not really sure of the impact that can have on survival in patients postponing treatment,” said Dr. Guajardo.

There are potential safety concerns with taxanes because neonates lack the cytochrome enzymes to metabolize the drugs, which creates a theoretical risk of adverse effects due to prolonged activity. On the other hand, pregnant women metabolize taxanes faster, and there are placental barriers that can inhibit high molecular weight molecules like taxanes from reaching the fetus, according to Dr. Guajardo.

In addition to pregnancy outcomes, the researchers followed 28 infants, and found that 87% were found to be completely healthy, “so we were relatively reassured. But of course we think that there’s a need for prospective studies that validate our findings regarding the safety taxanes,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Although there is no direct comparison group, the findings correlate well with studies of the general population and other chemotherapy agents. “We have large cohorts with mostly anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents during pregnancy that we can compare our results to, and overall, we were reassured that the prevalence of complications that we found in our cohort was very similar or even lower to those reported in the literature with patients treated with anthracycline-based therapy,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Compared with the general population, the team found higher rates of preterm births, neonatal ICU admissions, and premature membrane rupture, and infants that are small for gestational age. However, with the exception of the latter, all of these risks have been seen in pregnant women treated with other types of chemotherapy. “Perhaps it would be interesting to see if the incidence of small for gestational age neonates might be a bit higher in this population when compared to anthracycline-based therapy agents, but that does require a study that has a comparator group,” said Dr. Guajardo.

The researchers recruited 103 women with an average age of 34 years from 10 centers in 6 countries: United States, France, Spain, Mexico, Italy, and Costa Rica. The great majority were also treated with anthracyclines during gestation, and nearly all (97%) were treated with paclitaxel. The live birth rate was 98%, and 43.4% were preterm, 24% were small for gestational age, 16% were admitted to the neonate ICU, and 12.5% had hyperbilirubinemia.

Obstetric complications included intrauterine growth restriction (9%), preterm premature rupture of membranes (5%), gestational diabetes mellitus (5%), hypertensive disorders (4%), and pregnancy loss (2%).

After the presentation, Virginia Borges, MD, professor of medical oncology at University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, served as a discussant.

“Highlights of this study [include] that it is an international cohort from over six countries with over 100 cases of women included specifically focusing on the use of paclitaxel. They demonstrated safe outcomes for the pregnancies and the mothers,” Dr. Borges said during her presentation.

She went on to highlight several key points that physicians should consider when treating pregnancy-related breast cancer. “We want to achieve prepartum treatment wherever feasible to tackle that cancer before delivery of the child to prevent a pregnancy-related breast cancer from potentially turning into a postpartum breast cancer,” she said.

“If the tumor is ER+/HER2-, we now see we can safely give anthracyclines and taxanes from 12 to about 35 weeks of gestation. We don’t want to get too close to the delivery with chemotherapy. If a patient is HER2+, I prefer to give the anthracycline portion while the person is pregnant and then after delivery incorporate the taxane with the HER2 targeted therapies as there’s some older data showing concurrent therapy looks a bit better than sequential. In triple negative breast cancer, again I prefer to give the anthracycline and delay the taxane and carboplatin to overlap with immunotherapy so we are getting the necessary synergy there as well,” Dr. Borges added.

Dr. Guajardo has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Borges has consulted for SeaGen, Gilead, and AstraZeneca, and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Olema, and SeaGen.

San Antonio – Taxane exposure during pregnancy appears to be safe for mothers and offspring, according to a new retrospective cohort analysis. The findings shed light on a relatively unstudied topic. “Our cohort with 103 patients represents the most extensive study to date, and our main goal was to have homogeneous reporting of adverse events,” Ana Ferrigno Guajardo, MD, said in an interview. She presented the results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Breast cancer during pregnancy is a very challenging clinical situation as the expected antineoplastic effects of treatment must be carefully balanced against potential detrimental consequences on the developing fetus,” said Dr. Guajardo. She is a resident physician at Yale University School of Medicine.

Anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents are generally used during pregnancy because there is more safety data available for them, but some studies have shown that taxanes may have better efficacy in some clinical situations. “Cohort studies that have been done in the past [show] that taxane use is mostly deferred to the postpartum period, and we are not really sure of the impact that can have on survival in patients postponing treatment,” said Dr. Guajardo.

There are potential safety concerns with taxanes because neonates lack the cytochrome enzymes to metabolize the drugs, which creates a theoretical risk of adverse effects due to prolonged activity. On the other hand, pregnant women metabolize taxanes faster, and there are placental barriers that can inhibit high molecular weight molecules like taxanes from reaching the fetus, according to Dr. Guajardo.

In addition to pregnancy outcomes, the researchers followed 28 infants, and found that 87% were found to be completely healthy, “so we were relatively reassured. But of course we think that there’s a need for prospective studies that validate our findings regarding the safety taxanes,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Although there is no direct comparison group, the findings correlate well with studies of the general population and other chemotherapy agents. “We have large cohorts with mostly anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents during pregnancy that we can compare our results to, and overall, we were reassured that the prevalence of complications that we found in our cohort was very similar or even lower to those reported in the literature with patients treated with anthracycline-based therapy,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Compared with the general population, the team found higher rates of preterm births, neonatal ICU admissions, and premature membrane rupture, and infants that are small for gestational age. However, with the exception of the latter, all of these risks have been seen in pregnant women treated with other types of chemotherapy. “Perhaps it would be interesting to see if the incidence of small for gestational age neonates might be a bit higher in this population when compared to anthracycline-based therapy agents, but that does require a study that has a comparator group,” said Dr. Guajardo.

The researchers recruited 103 women with an average age of 34 years from 10 centers in 6 countries: United States, France, Spain, Mexico, Italy, and Costa Rica. The great majority were also treated with anthracyclines during gestation, and nearly all (97%) were treated with paclitaxel. The live birth rate was 98%, and 43.4% were preterm, 24% were small for gestational age, 16% were admitted to the neonate ICU, and 12.5% had hyperbilirubinemia.

Obstetric complications included intrauterine growth restriction (9%), preterm premature rupture of membranes (5%), gestational diabetes mellitus (5%), hypertensive disorders (4%), and pregnancy loss (2%).

After the presentation, Virginia Borges, MD, professor of medical oncology at University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, served as a discussant.

“Highlights of this study [include] that it is an international cohort from over six countries with over 100 cases of women included specifically focusing on the use of paclitaxel. They demonstrated safe outcomes for the pregnancies and the mothers,” Dr. Borges said during her presentation.

She went on to highlight several key points that physicians should consider when treating pregnancy-related breast cancer. “We want to achieve prepartum treatment wherever feasible to tackle that cancer before delivery of the child to prevent a pregnancy-related breast cancer from potentially turning into a postpartum breast cancer,” she said.

“If the tumor is ER+/HER2-, we now see we can safely give anthracyclines and taxanes from 12 to about 35 weeks of gestation. We don’t want to get too close to the delivery with chemotherapy. If a patient is HER2+, I prefer to give the anthracycline portion while the person is pregnant and then after delivery incorporate the taxane with the HER2 targeted therapies as there’s some older data showing concurrent therapy looks a bit better than sequential. In triple negative breast cancer, again I prefer to give the anthracycline and delay the taxane and carboplatin to overlap with immunotherapy so we are getting the necessary synergy there as well,” Dr. Borges added.

Dr. Guajardo has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Borges has consulted for SeaGen, Gilead, and AstraZeneca, and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Olema, and SeaGen.

Once-daily monotherapy with elagolix significantly reduced heavy menstrual bleeding in women with uterine leiomyomas compared to a placebo, based on data from 82 individuals.

Uterine leiomyomas are common in premenopausal women, and 60% experience heavy menstrual bleeding, but nonsurgical options as an alternative to hysterectomy are limited, wrote Eric Brown, MD, of Gyn-Care, Atlanta, Georgia, and colleagues.

Elagolix sodium, an oral, short-acting nonpeptide, gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration at a dose of 300 mg twice daily with add-back therapy for up to 24 months of use. However, this treatment protocol is contraindicated or not preferable for some patients, the researchers said.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology , the researchers randomized 54 women to 150 mg of oral elagolix once daily, and 28 to a placebo for 6 months to investigate the safety and efficacy of the lower dose. The study population included women aged 18-51 years with a history of heavy menstrual bleeding association with uterine leiomyomas. Approximately two-thirds (65.9%) were Black.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who met the criteria of menstrual blood loss volume less than 80 mL during the final month of treatment and menstrual blood loss volume reduction of 50% or more from baseline to the final month of treatment.

After 6 months, nearly half (49.4%) of the elagolix group met the study endpoint compared with 23.3% of the placebo group (P = .035).

Elagolix patients showed significantly greater reductions in both mean and median menstrual blood loss volumes compared with the placebo patients over the study period, and significant differences between the groups in the mean reduction of menstrual blood loss were evident after 1 month of treatment (P < .05 for months 1, 2, 3, and 5).

Results were similar in a further sensitivity analysis in which patients with incomplete final month data were considered nonresponders; 44.4% of elagolix patients and 21.4% of patients met the primary endpoint.

Overall, 51.9% of elagolix patients and 39.3% of placebo patients reported adverse events; the most common were headache and hot flush. Three patients (5.6%) in the elagolix group discontinued the drug because of adverse events. No serious or severe adverse events were reported in the elagolix group; both cases of reported serious adverse events (COVID-19 and an enlarged uvula) occurred in placebo patients.

Patient-reported outcomes were significantly greater in the elagolix patients, based on symptom severity score, 5 of 6 Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Quality of Life (UFS-QOL) health-related quality of life subscales, and the HRQOL total score at the end of the study.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small study population and lenient eligibility criteria that may have led to a higher placebo response rate, and the study did not monitor bone mineral density, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that elagolix at a 150-mg dose was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that seen in women who took the drug for endometriosis pain, and may be an option for women with contraindications to other therapy or for those who prefer once-daily dosing, they concluded.

The study was funded by AbbVie. Lead author Dr. Brown had no additional financial conflicts to disclose, but several coauthors disclosed relationships with AbbVie and other companies.

Once-daily monotherapy with elagolix significantly reduced heavy menstrual bleeding in women with uterine leiomyomas compared to a placebo, based on data from 82 individuals.

Uterine leiomyomas are common in premenopausal women, and 60% experience heavy menstrual bleeding, but nonsurgical options as an alternative to hysterectomy are limited, wrote Eric Brown, MD, of Gyn-Care, Atlanta, Georgia, and colleagues.

Elagolix sodium, an oral, short-acting nonpeptide, gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration at a dose of 300 mg twice daily with add-back therapy for up to 24 months of use. However, this treatment protocol is contraindicated or not preferable for some patients, the researchers said.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology , the researchers randomized 54 women to 150 mg of oral elagolix once daily, and 28 to a placebo for 6 months to investigate the safety and efficacy of the lower dose. The study population included women aged 18-51 years with a history of heavy menstrual bleeding association with uterine leiomyomas. Approximately two-thirds (65.9%) were Black.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who met the criteria of menstrual blood loss volume less than 80 mL during the final month of treatment and menstrual blood loss volume reduction of 50% or more from baseline to the final month of treatment.

After 6 months, nearly half (49.4%) of the elagolix group met the study endpoint compared with 23.3% of the placebo group (P = .035).

Elagolix patients showed significantly greater reductions in both mean and median menstrual blood loss volumes compared with the placebo patients over the study period, and significant differences between the groups in the mean reduction of menstrual blood loss were evident after 1 month of treatment (P < .05 for months 1, 2, 3, and 5).

Results were similar in a further sensitivity analysis in which patients with incomplete final month data were considered nonresponders; 44.4% of elagolix patients and 21.4% of patients met the primary endpoint.

Overall, 51.9% of elagolix patients and 39.3% of placebo patients reported adverse events; the most common were headache and hot flush. Three patients (5.6%) in the elagolix group discontinued the drug because of adverse events. No serious or severe adverse events were reported in the elagolix group; both cases of reported serious adverse events (COVID-19 and an enlarged uvula) occurred in placebo patients.

Patient-reported outcomes were significantly greater in the elagolix patients, based on symptom severity score, 5 of 6 Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Quality of Life (UFS-QOL) health-related quality of life subscales, and the HRQOL total score at the end of the study.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small study population and lenient eligibility criteria that may have led to a higher placebo response rate, and the study did not monitor bone mineral density, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that elagolix at a 150-mg dose was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that seen in women who took the drug for endometriosis pain, and may be an option for women with contraindications to other therapy or for those who prefer once-daily dosing, they concluded.

The study was funded by AbbVie. Lead author Dr. Brown had no additional financial conflicts to disclose, but several coauthors disclosed relationships with AbbVie and other companies.

Once-daily monotherapy with elagolix significantly reduced heavy menstrual bleeding in women with uterine leiomyomas compared to a placebo, based on data from 82 individuals.

Uterine leiomyomas are common in premenopausal women, and 60% experience heavy menstrual bleeding, but nonsurgical options as an alternative to hysterectomy are limited, wrote Eric Brown, MD, of Gyn-Care, Atlanta, Georgia, and colleagues.

Elagolix sodium, an oral, short-acting nonpeptide, gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration at a dose of 300 mg twice daily with add-back therapy for up to 24 months of use. However, this treatment protocol is contraindicated or not preferable for some patients, the researchers said.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology , the researchers randomized 54 women to 150 mg of oral elagolix once daily, and 28 to a placebo for 6 months to investigate the safety and efficacy of the lower dose. The study population included women aged 18-51 years with a history of heavy menstrual bleeding association with uterine leiomyomas. Approximately two-thirds (65.9%) were Black.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who met the criteria of menstrual blood loss volume less than 80 mL during the final month of treatment and menstrual blood loss volume reduction of 50% or more from baseline to the final month of treatment.

After 6 months, nearly half (49.4%) of the elagolix group met the study endpoint compared with 23.3% of the placebo group (P = .035).

Elagolix patients showed significantly greater reductions in both mean and median menstrual blood loss volumes compared with the placebo patients over the study period, and significant differences between the groups in the mean reduction of menstrual blood loss were evident after 1 month of treatment (P < .05 for months 1, 2, 3, and 5).

Results were similar in a further sensitivity analysis in which patients with incomplete final month data were considered nonresponders; 44.4% of elagolix patients and 21.4% of patients met the primary endpoint.

Overall, 51.9% of elagolix patients and 39.3% of placebo patients reported adverse events; the most common were headache and hot flush. Three patients (5.6%) in the elagolix group discontinued the drug because of adverse events. No serious or severe adverse events were reported in the elagolix group; both cases of reported serious adverse events (COVID-19 and an enlarged uvula) occurred in placebo patients.

Patient-reported outcomes were significantly greater in the elagolix patients, based on symptom severity score, 5 of 6 Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Quality of Life (UFS-QOL) health-related quality of life subscales, and the HRQOL total score at the end of the study.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small study population and lenient eligibility criteria that may have led to a higher placebo response rate, and the study did not monitor bone mineral density, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that elagolix at a 150-mg dose was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that seen in women who took the drug for endometriosis pain, and may be an option for women with contraindications to other therapy or for those who prefer once-daily dosing, they concluded.

The study was funded by AbbVie. Lead author Dr. Brown had no additional financial conflicts to disclose, but several coauthors disclosed relationships with AbbVie and other companies.

TOPLINE:

A 12-week low-fat vegan diet with soybeans led to significant changes in the gut microbiome that correlated with significant reductions in vasomotor symptoms in postmenopausal women.

METHODOLOGY:

• For this exploratory analysis, postmenopausal women with two or more moderate to severe hot flashes daily were randomly assigned in two successive cohorts to consume a low-fat vegan diet with cooked soybeans or their usual diet.
• Over a 12-week period, frequency and severity of hot flashes were recorded on a mobile application.
• Researchers used deep shotgun metagenomic sequencing to analyze the gut microbiome at baseline and 12 weeks in a subset of 11 women in the dietary intervention group.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the subset receiving microbiome analysis, total hot flashes decreased by 95%, moderate to severe hot flashes decreased by 96%, and severe hot flashes disappeared during the dietary intervention.
• The relative abundance of Porphyromonas and Prevotella corporis decreased in participants on the diet intervention, and this correlated with a reduction in severe daytime hot flashes.
• The relative abundance of Clostridium asparagiforme also decreased in participants on the low-fat vegan diet, and this change correlated with a reduction in total severe and severe nighttime hot flashes.
• However, after correction for multiple comparisons, these associations were no longer significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“The targeted and untargeted gut microbiome analysis was robust and revealed important changes in the gut microbiome composition in response to a low-fat vegan diet and large correlations with symptomatic changes,” the authors write. “Larger randomized clinical trials are needed to further investigate these findings.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Hana Kahleova, MD, PhD, with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, in Washington, DC, was published online  November 8 in Complementary Therapies in Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The gut microbiome analysis was only performed in a small subset of women on the diet intervention, with no control group. Although strong associations were noted between several gut bacteria and changes in hot flash frequency, and nominally statistically significant relative abundance changes were observed, robust statistical significance cannot be concluded for any of the reported gut microbiome assessments when the modestly large number of total comparisons is taken into account.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A 12-week low-fat vegan diet with soybeans led to significant changes in the gut microbiome that correlated with significant reductions in vasomotor symptoms in postmenopausal women.

METHODOLOGY:

• For this exploratory analysis, postmenopausal women with two or more moderate to severe hot flashes daily were randomly assigned in two successive cohorts to consume a low-fat vegan diet with cooked soybeans or their usual diet.
• Over a 12-week period, frequency and severity of hot flashes were recorded on a mobile application.
• Researchers used deep shotgun metagenomic sequencing to analyze the gut microbiome at baseline and 12 weeks in a subset of 11 women in the dietary intervention group.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the subset receiving microbiome analysis, total hot flashes decreased by 95%, moderate to severe hot flashes decreased by 96%, and severe hot flashes disappeared during the dietary intervention.
• The relative abundance of Porphyromonas and Prevotella corporis decreased in participants on the diet intervention, and this correlated with a reduction in severe daytime hot flashes.
• The relative abundance of Clostridium asparagiforme also decreased in participants on the low-fat vegan diet, and this change correlated with a reduction in total severe and severe nighttime hot flashes.
• However, after correction for multiple comparisons, these associations were no longer significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“The targeted and untargeted gut microbiome analysis was robust and revealed important changes in the gut microbiome composition in response to a low-fat vegan diet and large correlations with symptomatic changes,” the authors write. “Larger randomized clinical trials are needed to further investigate these findings.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Hana Kahleova, MD, PhD, with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, in Washington, DC, was published online  November 8 in Complementary Therapies in Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The gut microbiome analysis was only performed in a small subset of women on the diet intervention, with no control group. Although strong associations were noted between several gut bacteria and changes in hot flash frequency, and nominally statistically significant relative abundance changes were observed, robust statistical significance cannot be concluded for any of the reported gut microbiome assessments when the modestly large number of total comparisons is taken into account.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A 12-week low-fat vegan diet with soybeans led to significant changes in the gut microbiome that correlated with significant reductions in vasomotor symptoms in postmenopausal women.

METHODOLOGY:

• For this exploratory analysis, postmenopausal women with two or more moderate to severe hot flashes daily were randomly assigned in two successive cohorts to consume a low-fat vegan diet with cooked soybeans or their usual diet.
• Over a 12-week period, frequency and severity of hot flashes were recorded on a mobile application.
• Researchers used deep shotgun metagenomic sequencing to analyze the gut microbiome at baseline and 12 weeks in a subset of 11 women in the dietary intervention group.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the subset receiving microbiome analysis, total hot flashes decreased by 95%, moderate to severe hot flashes decreased by 96%, and severe hot flashes disappeared during the dietary intervention.
• The relative abundance of Porphyromonas and Prevotella corporis decreased in participants on the diet intervention, and this correlated with a reduction in severe daytime hot flashes.
• The relative abundance of Clostridium asparagiforme also decreased in participants on the low-fat vegan diet, and this change correlated with a reduction in total severe and severe nighttime hot flashes.
• However, after correction for multiple comparisons, these associations were no longer significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“The targeted and untargeted gut microbiome analysis was robust and revealed important changes in the gut microbiome composition in response to a low-fat vegan diet and large correlations with symptomatic changes,” the authors write. “Larger randomized clinical trials are needed to further investigate these findings.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Hana Kahleova, MD, PhD, with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, in Washington, DC, was published online  November 8 in Complementary Therapies in Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The gut microbiome analysis was only performed in a small subset of women on the diet intervention, with no control group. Although strong associations were noted between several gut bacteria and changes in hot flash frequency, and nominally statistically significant relative abundance changes were observed, robust statistical significance cannot be concluded for any of the reported gut microbiome assessments when the modestly large number of total comparisons is taken into account.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Having a first menstrual period (menarche) at age 10 or younger was linked with a greater risk for type 2 diabetes and a greater risk of stroke in women with diabetes, a retrospective study of US women under age 65 found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 17,377 women who were aged 20-65 years when they participated in a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 1999 to 2018 and reported their age at first menstruation, which was classified as ≤ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, or ≥ 15 years of age.
• In total, 0.2% of the women (1773) had type 2 diabetes; of these, 11.5% (205) had cardiovascular disease (CVD), defined as coronary heart disease (CHD), myocardial infarction, or stroke.
• Compared with women who had their first menstrual period at age 13 (the mean age in this population), those who had their period at age ≤ 10 had a significantly greater risk of having type 2 diabetes, after adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, education, parity, menopause status, family history of diabetes, smoking status, physical activity, alcohol consumption, and body mass index (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.03-1.69; P trend = .03).
• Among the women with diabetes, compared with those who had their first menstrual period at age 13, those who had it at age ≤ 10 had a significantly greater risk of having stroke (OR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.07-6.64; P trend = .02), but not CVD or CHD, after adjustment for these multiple variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• In a racially and ethnically diverse national sample of US women younger than 65, “extremely early” age at first menstrual period was associated with significantly increased risk for type 2 diabetes; among the women with type 2 diabetes, it was associated with significantly increased risk for stroke but not CVD or CHD, after adjustment for multiple variables.
• Early age at menarche may be an early indicator of the cardiometabolic disease trajectory in women.

IN PRACTICE:

“Women with early-life exposures such as early age at menarche need to be further examined for diabetes and prevention research and strategies for progression of diabetes complications,” the study authors write. 

SOURCE:

The authors, mainly from Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, and also from Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, published their findings in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health.

LIMITATIONS:

• The women who participated in NHANES may not be representative of all women in the United States (selection bias).
• The study only included women who reported the age when they had their first menstrual period (selection bias).
• This was a cross-sectional, observational study, so it cannot show causality.
• The women may have reported the wrong age at which they had their first period (recall bias and social desirability bias).
• The women may have inaccurately reported CVD and type 2 diabetes (recall bias and social desirability bias).

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers were supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health.

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

TOPLINE: 

Having a first menstrual period (menarche) at age 10 or younger was linked with a greater risk for type 2 diabetes and a greater risk of stroke in women with diabetes, a retrospective study of US women under age 65 found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 17,377 women who were aged 20-65 years when they participated in a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 1999 to 2018 and reported their age at first menstruation, which was classified as ≤ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, or ≥ 15 years of age.
• In total, 0.2% of the women (1773) had type 2 diabetes; of these, 11.5% (205) had cardiovascular disease (CVD), defined as coronary heart disease (CHD), myocardial infarction, or stroke.
• Compared with women who had their first menstrual period at age 13 (the mean age in this population), those who had their period at age ≤ 10 had a significantly greater risk of having type 2 diabetes, after adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, education, parity, menopause status, family history of diabetes, smoking status, physical activity, alcohol consumption, and body mass index (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.03-1.69; P trend = .03).
• Among the women with diabetes, compared with those who had their first menstrual period at age 13, those who had it at age ≤ 10 had a significantly greater risk of having stroke (OR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.07-6.64; P trend = .02), but not CVD or CHD, after adjustment for these multiple variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• In a racially and ethnically diverse national sample of US women younger than 65, “extremely early” age at first menstrual period was associated with significantly increased risk for type 2 diabetes; among the women with type 2 diabetes, it was associated with significantly increased risk for stroke but not CVD or CHD, after adjustment for multiple variables.
• Early age at menarche may be an early indicator of the cardiometabolic disease trajectory in women.

IN PRACTICE:

“Women with early-life exposures such as early age at menarche need to be further examined for diabetes and prevention research and strategies for progression of diabetes complications,” the study authors write. 

SOURCE:

The authors, mainly from Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, and also from Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, published their findings in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health.

LIMITATIONS:

• The women who participated in NHANES may not be representative of all women in the United States (selection bias).
• The study only included women who reported the age when they had their first menstrual period (selection bias).
• This was a cross-sectional, observational study, so it cannot show causality.
• The women may have reported the wrong age at which they had their first period (recall bias and social desirability bias).
• The women may have inaccurately reported CVD and type 2 diabetes (recall bias and social desirability bias).

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers were supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health.

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

TOPLINE: 

Having a first menstrual period (menarche) at age 10 or younger was linked with a greater risk for type 2 diabetes and a greater risk of stroke in women with diabetes, a retrospective study of US women under age 65 found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 17,377 women who were aged 20-65 years when they participated in a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 1999 to 2018 and reported their age at first menstruation, which was classified as ≤ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, or ≥ 15 years of age.
• In total, 0.2% of the women (1773) had type 2 diabetes; of these, 11.5% (205) had cardiovascular disease (CVD), defined as coronary heart disease (CHD), myocardial infarction, or stroke.
• Compared with women who had their first menstrual period at age 13 (the mean age in this population), those who had their period at age ≤ 10 had a significantly greater risk of having type 2 diabetes, after adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, education, parity, menopause status, family history of diabetes, smoking status, physical activity, alcohol consumption, and body mass index (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.03-1.69; P trend = .03).
• Among the women with diabetes, compared with those who had their first menstrual period at age 13, those who had it at age ≤ 10 had a significantly greater risk of having stroke (OR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.07-6.64; P trend = .02), but not CVD or CHD, after adjustment for these multiple variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• In a racially and ethnically diverse national sample of US women younger than 65, “extremely early” age at first menstrual period was associated with significantly increased risk for type 2 diabetes; among the women with type 2 diabetes, it was associated with significantly increased risk for stroke but not CVD or CHD, after adjustment for multiple variables.
• Early age at menarche may be an early indicator of the cardiometabolic disease trajectory in women.

IN PRACTICE:

“Women with early-life exposures such as early age at menarche need to be further examined for diabetes and prevention research and strategies for progression of diabetes complications,” the study authors write. 

SOURCE:

The authors, mainly from Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, and also from Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, published their findings in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health.

LIMITATIONS:

• The women who participated in NHANES may not be representative of all women in the United States (selection bias).
• The study only included women who reported the age when they had their first menstrual period (selection bias).
• This was a cross-sectional, observational study, so it cannot show causality.
• The women may have reported the wrong age at which they had their first period (recall bias and social desirability bias).
• The women may have inaccurately reported CVD and type 2 diabetes (recall bias and social desirability bias).

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers were supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health.

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

Compared with premenopausal women, postmenopausal women experienced greater improvement in pain following interventions such as physical therapy despite being prescribed fewer medications, a new study shows.

“This study provides us a better understanding of pain management strategies for pre versus postmenopausal women,” said Tian Yu, MD, who presented the research at the annual pain medicine meeting of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. “With our postmenopausal patients, we may no longer jump the gun and give them a lot of medications; we may first turn to physical therapy or procedural intervention, which they seem to benefit much more from than pharmacological therapy.”Pain perception is a multifaceted phenomenon influenced by age, gender, individual variations, and hormonal changes. Pain management in women, particularly in the context of menopausal status, still lacks consensus.

Menopause primarily results from diminished production of estrogen by the ovaries, leading to spinal and joint pain, hot flashes, night sweats, chronic fatigue, increased osteoclastic activity with a heightened risk for osteoporosis, psychological symptoms, and elevated risk for cardiovascular disease.   

For their retrospective cohort study, Dr. Yu, department of anesthesiology, Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, and his colleagues looked at 1215 women who had been treated for different chronic pain conditions for at least 3 months. The researchers used a predefined age cutoff of 51 years (considered the national average) to categorize participants as either premenopausal (n = 248) or postmenopausal (n = 967). Pain scores and subjective improvement were assessed after pharmacological and procedural interventions.

According to Dr. Yu, the results revealed distinct patterns in pain scores and response to interventions between the two groups.

Although postmenopausal women initially reported higher mean pain scores upon presentation (8.037 vs 7.613 in premenopausal women), they reported more improvement following intervention (63% vs 59%; P = .029). They responded more favorably to both procedural and pharmacological interventions, but were prescribed muscle relaxants, tricyclic antidepressants, and benzodiazepines less frequently than premenopausal women, Dr. Yu’s group found.

“So even though postmenopausal women had a higher initial pain score, they had better pain improvement after procedural intervention, although they were prescribed fewer pharmacological interventions,” Dr. Yu said.  

The fact that postmenopausal women typically are older than women who have not reached menopause could act as a confounding factor in this study in terms of disease prevalence and intervention, Dr. Yu said. Additionally, the study’s reliance on a broad menopausal age cutoff of 51 years may limit the true characterization of menopausal status.

While acknowledging study limitations, the findings suggest a potential shift toward prioritizing nonpharmacological interventions in postmenopausal women. Further investigation into physical therapy and other approaches could provide a more comprehensive understanding of pain management strategies in this population.

“We hope to take these findings into consideration during our practice to better individualize care,” Yu said.  

Robert Wenham, MD, MS, chair of gynecologic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, who was not involved in the study, said: “Despite the many methodological challenges it has, including using age as a surrogate for menopause, I applaud the authors for investigating how pain and pain management may be individualized for women.”

Dr. Wenham added that he hoped the findings would prompt additional studies “that specifically address populations based on hormonal status and other confounding factors, so that interventional avenues may be identified for clinical trials.”

Dr. Yu and Dr. Wenham report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Compared with premenopausal women, postmenopausal women experienced greater improvement in pain following interventions such as physical therapy despite being prescribed fewer medications, a new study shows.

“This study provides us a better understanding of pain management strategies for pre versus postmenopausal women,” said Tian Yu, MD, who presented the research at the annual pain medicine meeting of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. “With our postmenopausal patients, we may no longer jump the gun and give them a lot of medications; we may first turn to physical therapy or procedural intervention, which they seem to benefit much more from than pharmacological therapy.”Pain perception is a multifaceted phenomenon influenced by age, gender, individual variations, and hormonal changes. Pain management in women, particularly in the context of menopausal status, still lacks consensus.

Menopause primarily results from diminished production of estrogen by the ovaries, leading to spinal and joint pain, hot flashes, night sweats, chronic fatigue, increased osteoclastic activity with a heightened risk for osteoporosis, psychological symptoms, and elevated risk for cardiovascular disease.   

For their retrospective cohort study, Dr. Yu, department of anesthesiology, Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, and his colleagues looked at 1215 women who had been treated for different chronic pain conditions for at least 3 months. The researchers used a predefined age cutoff of 51 years (considered the national average) to categorize participants as either premenopausal (n = 248) or postmenopausal (n = 967). Pain scores and subjective improvement were assessed after pharmacological and procedural interventions.

According to Dr. Yu, the results revealed distinct patterns in pain scores and response to interventions between the two groups.

Although postmenopausal women initially reported higher mean pain scores upon presentation (8.037 vs 7.613 in premenopausal women), they reported more improvement following intervention (63% vs 59%; P = .029). They responded more favorably to both procedural and pharmacological interventions, but were prescribed muscle relaxants, tricyclic antidepressants, and benzodiazepines less frequently than premenopausal women, Dr. Yu’s group found.

“So even though postmenopausal women had a higher initial pain score, they had better pain improvement after procedural intervention, although they were prescribed fewer pharmacological interventions,” Dr. Yu said.  

The fact that postmenopausal women typically are older than women who have not reached menopause could act as a confounding factor in this study in terms of disease prevalence and intervention, Dr. Yu said. Additionally, the study’s reliance on a broad menopausal age cutoff of 51 years may limit the true characterization of menopausal status.

While acknowledging study limitations, the findings suggest a potential shift toward prioritizing nonpharmacological interventions in postmenopausal women. Further investigation into physical therapy and other approaches could provide a more comprehensive understanding of pain management strategies in this population.

“We hope to take these findings into consideration during our practice to better individualize care,” Yu said.  

Robert Wenham, MD, MS, chair of gynecologic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, who was not involved in the study, said: “Despite the many methodological challenges it has, including using age as a surrogate for menopause, I applaud the authors for investigating how pain and pain management may be individualized for women.”

Dr. Wenham added that he hoped the findings would prompt additional studies “that specifically address populations based on hormonal status and other confounding factors, so that interventional avenues may be identified for clinical trials.”

Dr. Yu and Dr. Wenham report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Compared with premenopausal women, postmenopausal women experienced greater improvement in pain following interventions such as physical therapy despite being prescribed fewer medications, a new study shows.

“This study provides us a better understanding of pain management strategies for pre versus postmenopausal women,” said Tian Yu, MD, who presented the research at the annual pain medicine meeting of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. “With our postmenopausal patients, we may no longer jump the gun and give them a lot of medications; we may first turn to physical therapy or procedural intervention, which they seem to benefit much more from than pharmacological therapy.”Pain perception is a multifaceted phenomenon influenced by age, gender, individual variations, and hormonal changes. Pain management in women, particularly in the context of menopausal status, still lacks consensus.

Menopause primarily results from diminished production of estrogen by the ovaries, leading to spinal and joint pain, hot flashes, night sweats, chronic fatigue, increased osteoclastic activity with a heightened risk for osteoporosis, psychological symptoms, and elevated risk for cardiovascular disease.   

For their retrospective cohort study, Dr. Yu, department of anesthesiology, Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, and his colleagues looked at 1215 women who had been treated for different chronic pain conditions for at least 3 months. The researchers used a predefined age cutoff of 51 years (considered the national average) to categorize participants as either premenopausal (n = 248) or postmenopausal (n = 967). Pain scores and subjective improvement were assessed after pharmacological and procedural interventions.

According to Dr. Yu, the results revealed distinct patterns in pain scores and response to interventions between the two groups.

Although postmenopausal women initially reported higher mean pain scores upon presentation (8.037 vs 7.613 in premenopausal women), they reported more improvement following intervention (63% vs 59%; P = .029). They responded more favorably to both procedural and pharmacological interventions, but were prescribed muscle relaxants, tricyclic antidepressants, and benzodiazepines less frequently than premenopausal women, Dr. Yu’s group found.

“So even though postmenopausal women had a higher initial pain score, they had better pain improvement after procedural intervention, although they were prescribed fewer pharmacological interventions,” Dr. Yu said.  

The fact that postmenopausal women typically are older than women who have not reached menopause could act as a confounding factor in this study in terms of disease prevalence and intervention, Dr. Yu said. Additionally, the study’s reliance on a broad menopausal age cutoff of 51 years may limit the true characterization of menopausal status.

While acknowledging study limitations, the findings suggest a potential shift toward prioritizing nonpharmacological interventions in postmenopausal women. Further investigation into physical therapy and other approaches could provide a more comprehensive understanding of pain management strategies in this population.

“We hope to take these findings into consideration during our practice to better individualize care,” Yu said.  

Robert Wenham, MD, MS, chair of gynecologic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, who was not involved in the study, said: “Despite the many methodological challenges it has, including using age as a surrogate for menopause, I applaud the authors for investigating how pain and pain management may be individualized for women.”

Dr. Wenham added that he hoped the findings would prompt additional studies “that specifically address populations based on hormonal status and other confounding factors, so that interventional avenues may be identified for clinical trials.”

Dr. Yu and Dr. Wenham report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Jerome J. Federspiel, MD, often cares for patients who are about to deliver a baby but who have untreated iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Often, these patients require a blood transfusion after giving birth.

“I am sad to hear commonly from patients we treat that they have had iron-deficient anemia symptoms for many years. Correcting these conditions makes birth safer and, oftentimes, makes people feel much better – sometimes better than they have in years,” Dr. Federspiel, maternal-fetal medicine physician and assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology and population health sciences at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said.

Even patients he is able to diagnose earlier “will have difficulties catching up during pregnancy.”

The condition is the most common type of anemia among people who are pregnant. IDA increases a patient’s risk of delivering preterm and developing postpartum depression and puts their infants at a risk for perinatal mortality. Without proper treatment of IDA throughout pregnancy, the condition can also lead to low birth weights in infants or failing to meet weight goals later on.

But of all women with a new diagnosis of IDA from 2021 to 2022, 10% were pregnant, according to an analysis by Komodo Health, a health care analytics company.

While estimates of the prevalence of IDA vary, research from 2021 found 6.5% of nearly 1,500 patients who were pregnant during the first trimester had the condition, a figure the researchers said might underrepresent the problem.

“In severe cases [fetal outcomes can include] abnormal fetal oxygenation, nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns, reduced amniotic fluid volume, fetal cerebral vasodilation, and fetal death,” Alianne S. Tilley, NP, family nurse practitioner at Women’s Care of Lake Cumberland, Somerset, Ky., said.

Research has shown that adequate levels of iron are an integral component in the development of the fetal brain. Some studies have reported that IDA during pregnancy increases an infant’s risk for poor neurodevelopmental outcomes.
 

Lack of screening protocol

Discrepancies in guidance for testing patients who are pregnant for IDA may add to late diagnosis and low treatment, according to Katelin Zahn, MD, assistant professor of general obstetrics, gynecology, and midwifery at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“There’s no consistency, which leads to a lot of variation in individual practice, which creates variation in outcomes, too,” Dr. Zahn said. “You can only do so much as one independent physician, and you need to be able to create change in a system that functions and provides standard of care even when you aren’t there.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends screening all patients who are pregnant with a complete blood count in the first trimester and again between 24 and 27 weeks of gestation.

Patients who meet criteria for IDA based on hematocrit levels less than 33% in the first and third trimesters, and less than 32% in the second trimester, should be evaluated to determine the cause. Those with IDA should be treated with supplemental iron, in addition to prenatal vitamins, ACOG says.

But the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2015 found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening patients without symptoms or signs of the condition. The organization is in the process of updating the recommendation.
 

Prevention as best practice

The most effective way to address IDA in patients who are pregnant is prevention, according to Dr. Federspiel.

“Having a systematic approach to screening and treatment is really important, and this starts before pregnancy,” Dr. Federspiel said. “On average, a typical pregnancy requires an additional 1 g of iron.”

Dr. Federspiel recommends clinicians discuss the causes and the effects of IDA with patients who are planning to or could become pregnant. Clinicians might recommend iron- and folate-rich foods and vitamins B12 and C and ask patients if they face any barriers to access.

“Prenatal vitamins with iron are the gold standard in preventing IDA in the pregnant population,” Ms. Tilley said. “Education on the significant risk factors associated with IDA in early pregnancy is key.”

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

Jerome J. Federspiel, MD, often cares for patients who are about to deliver a baby but who have untreated iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Often, these patients require a blood transfusion after giving birth.

“I am sad to hear commonly from patients we treat that they have had iron-deficient anemia symptoms for many years. Correcting these conditions makes birth safer and, oftentimes, makes people feel much better – sometimes better than they have in years,” Dr. Federspiel, maternal-fetal medicine physician and assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology and population health sciences at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said.

Even patients he is able to diagnose earlier “will have difficulties catching up during pregnancy.”

The condition is the most common type of anemia among people who are pregnant. IDA increases a patient’s risk of delivering preterm and developing postpartum depression and puts their infants at a risk for perinatal mortality. Without proper treatment of IDA throughout pregnancy, the condition can also lead to low birth weights in infants or failing to meet weight goals later on.

But of all women with a new diagnosis of IDA from 2021 to 2022, 10% were pregnant, according to an analysis by Komodo Health, a health care analytics company.

While estimates of the prevalence of IDA vary, research from 2021 found 6.5% of nearly 1,500 patients who were pregnant during the first trimester had the condition, a figure the researchers said might underrepresent the problem.

“In severe cases [fetal outcomes can include] abnormal fetal oxygenation, nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns, reduced amniotic fluid volume, fetal cerebral vasodilation, and fetal death,” Alianne S. Tilley, NP, family nurse practitioner at Women’s Care of Lake Cumberland, Somerset, Ky., said.

Research has shown that adequate levels of iron are an integral component in the development of the fetal brain. Some studies have reported that IDA during pregnancy increases an infant’s risk for poor neurodevelopmental outcomes.
 

Lack of screening protocol

Discrepancies in guidance for testing patients who are pregnant for IDA may add to late diagnosis and low treatment, according to Katelin Zahn, MD, assistant professor of general obstetrics, gynecology, and midwifery at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“There’s no consistency, which leads to a lot of variation in individual practice, which creates variation in outcomes, too,” Dr. Zahn said. “You can only do so much as one independent physician, and you need to be able to create change in a system that functions and provides standard of care even when you aren’t there.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends screening all patients who are pregnant with a complete blood count in the first trimester and again between 24 and 27 weeks of gestation.

Patients who meet criteria for IDA based on hematocrit levels less than 33% in the first and third trimesters, and less than 32% in the second trimester, should be evaluated to determine the cause. Those with IDA should be treated with supplemental iron, in addition to prenatal vitamins, ACOG says.

But the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2015 found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening patients without symptoms or signs of the condition. The organization is in the process of updating the recommendation.
 

Prevention as best practice

The most effective way to address IDA in patients who are pregnant is prevention, according to Dr. Federspiel.

“Having a systematic approach to screening and treatment is really important, and this starts before pregnancy,” Dr. Federspiel said. “On average, a typical pregnancy requires an additional 1 g of iron.”

Dr. Federspiel recommends clinicians discuss the causes and the effects of IDA with patients who are planning to or could become pregnant. Clinicians might recommend iron- and folate-rich foods and vitamins B12 and C and ask patients if they face any barriers to access.

“Prenatal vitamins with iron are the gold standard in preventing IDA in the pregnant population,” Ms. Tilley said. “Education on the significant risk factors associated with IDA in early pregnancy is key.”

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

Jerome J. Federspiel, MD, often cares for patients who are about to deliver a baby but who have untreated iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Often, these patients require a blood transfusion after giving birth.

“I am sad to hear commonly from patients we treat that they have had iron-deficient anemia symptoms for many years. Correcting these conditions makes birth safer and, oftentimes, makes people feel much better – sometimes better than they have in years,” Dr. Federspiel, maternal-fetal medicine physician and assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology and population health sciences at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said.

Even patients he is able to diagnose earlier “will have difficulties catching up during pregnancy.”

The condition is the most common type of anemia among people who are pregnant. IDA increases a patient’s risk of delivering preterm and developing postpartum depression and puts their infants at a risk for perinatal mortality. Without proper treatment of IDA throughout pregnancy, the condition can also lead to low birth weights in infants or failing to meet weight goals later on.

But of all women with a new diagnosis of IDA from 2021 to 2022, 10% were pregnant, according to an analysis by Komodo Health, a health care analytics company.

While estimates of the prevalence of IDA vary, research from 2021 found 6.5% of nearly 1,500 patients who were pregnant during the first trimester had the condition, a figure the researchers said might underrepresent the problem.

“In severe cases [fetal outcomes can include] abnormal fetal oxygenation, nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns, reduced amniotic fluid volume, fetal cerebral vasodilation, and fetal death,” Alianne S. Tilley, NP, family nurse practitioner at Women’s Care of Lake Cumberland, Somerset, Ky., said.

Research has shown that adequate levels of iron are an integral component in the development of the fetal brain. Some studies have reported that IDA during pregnancy increases an infant’s risk for poor neurodevelopmental outcomes.
 

Lack of screening protocol

Discrepancies in guidance for testing patients who are pregnant for IDA may add to late diagnosis and low treatment, according to Katelin Zahn, MD, assistant professor of general obstetrics, gynecology, and midwifery at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“There’s no consistency, which leads to a lot of variation in individual practice, which creates variation in outcomes, too,” Dr. Zahn said. “You can only do so much as one independent physician, and you need to be able to create change in a system that functions and provides standard of care even when you aren’t there.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends screening all patients who are pregnant with a complete blood count in the first trimester and again between 24 and 27 weeks of gestation.

Patients who meet criteria for IDA based on hematocrit levels less than 33% in the first and third trimesters, and less than 32% in the second trimester, should be evaluated to determine the cause. Those with IDA should be treated with supplemental iron, in addition to prenatal vitamins, ACOG says.

But the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2015 found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening patients without symptoms or signs of the condition. The organization is in the process of updating the recommendation.
 

Prevention as best practice

The most effective way to address IDA in patients who are pregnant is prevention, according to Dr. Federspiel.

“Having a systematic approach to screening and treatment is really important, and this starts before pregnancy,” Dr. Federspiel said. “On average, a typical pregnancy requires an additional 1 g of iron.”

Dr. Federspiel recommends clinicians discuss the causes and the effects of IDA with patients who are planning to or could become pregnant. Clinicians might recommend iron- and folate-rich foods and vitamins B12 and C and ask patients if they face any barriers to access.

“Prenatal vitamins with iron are the gold standard in preventing IDA in the pregnant population,” Ms. Tilley said. “Education on the significant risk factors associated with IDA in early pregnancy is key.”

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