User login
‘Artificial pancreas’ for all type 1 diabetes pregnancies?
In the largest randomized controlled trial of an automated insulin delivery (AID) system (hybrid closed-loop) versus standard insulin delivery in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, the automated CamAPS FX system prevailed.
Helen R. Murphy, MD, presented these topline findings from the Automated Insulin Delivery Amongst Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (AiDAPT) trial during an e-poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
The “hybrid closed-loop significantly improved maternal glucose and should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Murphy, professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia and a clinician at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in the United Kingdom.
CamAPS FX is the only AID system approved in Europe and the United Kingdom for type 1 diabetes from age 1 and during pregnancy. The hybrid closed-loop system is not available in the United States but other systems are available and sometimes used off label in pregnancy. Such systems are sometimes known colloquially as an “artificial pancreas.”
The researchers said their findings provide evidence for the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) to recommend that all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered the CamAPS FX system.
Asked by an audience member about type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, Dr. Murphy said: “I don’t think we can necessarily extend these data to women with type 2 diabetes. We just don’t have enough data on glucose profiles in type 2 to train an algorithm yet.”
However, the data provide support for earlier use of closed-loop therapy in type 1 diabetes, she said. “The ideal time to start closed-loop is not necessarily between 8 and 12 weeks. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned,” she noted, “so start [AID] as early as possible [in patients with type 1 diabetes].”
Two experts weigh in
Whether pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered hybrid closed-loop therapy “depends,” said Anne L. Peters, MD, who was not involved with the research.
“It is all about being able to set [blood glucose] targets,” according to Dr. Peters, director of the University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes in Los Angeles.
“If a woman is on an AID system – except for DIY loop – I have them stop the automation and adjust manually,” she said in an email. “My [patients] do amazingly well in pregnancy – most can get their A1cs below 6%,” she noted. “But if someone can’t do that and their A1cs are higher, automation can help.
“It is always about individualizing care,” said Dr. Peters. “The one thing that helps the most is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). And I do have patients who remain on [insulin] injections throughout pregnancy.”
And Sarit Polsky, MD, MPH, who was also not involved with the current study, agrees that “AID with CamAPS, which has an option to customize the glucose target in the pregnancy-specific range, appears to be safe and effective in pregnancy and should be offered” to patients in Europe and the United Kingdom.
“Whether other AID systems should be recommended in pregnancy is still unclear, said Dr. Polsky, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.
“Around 48% of [global] pregnancies are unplanned,” Dr. Polsky said in an interview. “Many women do indeed become pregnant while using AID systems and many opt to continue use of these systems.
“Off-label use of these products can be beneficial in pregnancy in select cases, but the systems generally need the use of assistive techniques, which we previously published, to help get glucose levels to pregnancy-specific targets,” she noted in an email.
Study rationale, method, and findings
Pregnant women with diabetes are advised to aim for very tight glucose targets throughout pregnancy and avoid hyperglycemia, to reduce risk of preterm delivery, neonatal weight > 90th percentile, and neonatal morbidity, according to Dr. Murphy and colleagues.
“However, despite increased use of [CGM], continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and improved insulin analogs, achieving and maintaining the recommended glucose targets remains challenging for most pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” they wrote in their abstract.
Researchers randomized 124 women who had type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, were at < 13 weeks’ to 6 days’ gestation, and had an A1c of 6.5% to < 10% who were taking intensive standard insulin therapy at nine antenatal clinics in the United Kingdom. Half of the women were using CSII and half were receiving multiple daily injections of insulin.
As explained in the published study protocol, the women were randomized to continue their standard insulin delivery or switch to a closed-loop system consisting of the study insulin pump (Dana Diabecare RS), a CGM transmitter, and an app (CamAPS FX) on an Android smartphone that communicates wirelessly with the insulin pump and CGM transmitter.
Participants in both groups used the same CGM system and received support for insulin dose adjustment from their antenatal clinical care team.
They were a mean age of 31 years, had a mean A1c of 7.7%, and had had type 1 diabetes for 17 years on average. Their body mass index varied; 37% had normal weight, 27% had overweight, and 26% had obesity.
A significantly higher percentage of women in the AID group than in the control group had blood glucose in target range more than 70% of the time (46% vs. 10%; P < .001).
Compared with women in the control group, those in the AID group had larger reductions in hyperglycemia (–11%; P < .001), higher overnight time-in-range (13%; P < .001), and lower A1c (–0.34%; P < .001), without additional insulin, weight gain, or hypoglycemia.
The effect was consistent across clinical sites and maternal age and A1c categories.
Ongoing studies, off-label use
Hybrid closed-loop systems “including Tandem Control IQ, the Omnipod 5, and the Medtronic 780G give insulin continuously on the basis of values obtained from a sensor,” Dr. Peters explained in a recent commentary. “These aren’t fully closed-loop systems because the individual still has to interact with the system and give doses for meals, and then adjust doses for exercise.”
There are currently three studies using commercially available AID systems without pregnancy-specific glucose targets, in type 1 diabetes pregnancies, Dr. Polsky noted.
The Pregnancy Intervention With a Closed-Loop System (PICLS) trial used the Medtronic 670G system in pregnancy and was conducted in the United States. The Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (CRISTAL) study is using the Medtronic 780G system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Belgium and the Netherlands. And the Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Type 1 Diabetes Pregnancies (CIRCUIT) study is using the Tandem Control IQ system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Canada, she explained.
“The decision to continue to use or to initiate (off-label) use of any of these systems in pregnancy should be individualized, and pregnant individuals should make these decisions by working with an experienced endocrine/diabetes team,” Dr. Polsky stressed.
“The hope is that the results of these exciting trials will show safe and effective use of these systems throughout gestation with improvements in glucose control and quality of life,” she concluded.
The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research, JDRF, and Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation. Dr. Murphy has reported being on the advisory panel for Medtronic and receiving research support from Dexcom. Dr. Peters disclosed that she served as a consultant for Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, received a research grant from Abbott Diabetes Care, and received stock options from Teladoc and Omada Health. Dr. Polsky has disclosed that she is a contributing writer for diaTribe, was on a medical advisory board for Medtronic MiniMed, has received research funding from DexCom, Eli Lilly, JDRF, Leona & Harry Helmsley Charitable Trust, NIDDK, and Sanofi, and has received research support from Diasome Pharmaceuticals, LabStyle Innovation, Lexicon, Medtronic MiniMed, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the largest randomized controlled trial of an automated insulin delivery (AID) system (hybrid closed-loop) versus standard insulin delivery in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, the automated CamAPS FX system prevailed.
Helen R. Murphy, MD, presented these topline findings from the Automated Insulin Delivery Amongst Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (AiDAPT) trial during an e-poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
The “hybrid closed-loop significantly improved maternal glucose and should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Murphy, professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia and a clinician at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in the United Kingdom.
CamAPS FX is the only AID system approved in Europe and the United Kingdom for type 1 diabetes from age 1 and during pregnancy. The hybrid closed-loop system is not available in the United States but other systems are available and sometimes used off label in pregnancy. Such systems are sometimes known colloquially as an “artificial pancreas.”
The researchers said their findings provide evidence for the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) to recommend that all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered the CamAPS FX system.
Asked by an audience member about type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, Dr. Murphy said: “I don’t think we can necessarily extend these data to women with type 2 diabetes. We just don’t have enough data on glucose profiles in type 2 to train an algorithm yet.”
However, the data provide support for earlier use of closed-loop therapy in type 1 diabetes, she said. “The ideal time to start closed-loop is not necessarily between 8 and 12 weeks. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned,” she noted, “so start [AID] as early as possible [in patients with type 1 diabetes].”
Two experts weigh in
Whether pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered hybrid closed-loop therapy “depends,” said Anne L. Peters, MD, who was not involved with the research.
“It is all about being able to set [blood glucose] targets,” according to Dr. Peters, director of the University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes in Los Angeles.
“If a woman is on an AID system – except for DIY loop – I have them stop the automation and adjust manually,” she said in an email. “My [patients] do amazingly well in pregnancy – most can get their A1cs below 6%,” she noted. “But if someone can’t do that and their A1cs are higher, automation can help.
“It is always about individualizing care,” said Dr. Peters. “The one thing that helps the most is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). And I do have patients who remain on [insulin] injections throughout pregnancy.”
And Sarit Polsky, MD, MPH, who was also not involved with the current study, agrees that “AID with CamAPS, which has an option to customize the glucose target in the pregnancy-specific range, appears to be safe and effective in pregnancy and should be offered” to patients in Europe and the United Kingdom.
“Whether other AID systems should be recommended in pregnancy is still unclear, said Dr. Polsky, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.
“Around 48% of [global] pregnancies are unplanned,” Dr. Polsky said in an interview. “Many women do indeed become pregnant while using AID systems and many opt to continue use of these systems.
“Off-label use of these products can be beneficial in pregnancy in select cases, but the systems generally need the use of assistive techniques, which we previously published, to help get glucose levels to pregnancy-specific targets,” she noted in an email.
Study rationale, method, and findings
Pregnant women with diabetes are advised to aim for very tight glucose targets throughout pregnancy and avoid hyperglycemia, to reduce risk of preterm delivery, neonatal weight > 90th percentile, and neonatal morbidity, according to Dr. Murphy and colleagues.
“However, despite increased use of [CGM], continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and improved insulin analogs, achieving and maintaining the recommended glucose targets remains challenging for most pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” they wrote in their abstract.
Researchers randomized 124 women who had type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, were at < 13 weeks’ to 6 days’ gestation, and had an A1c of 6.5% to < 10% who were taking intensive standard insulin therapy at nine antenatal clinics in the United Kingdom. Half of the women were using CSII and half were receiving multiple daily injections of insulin.
As explained in the published study protocol, the women were randomized to continue their standard insulin delivery or switch to a closed-loop system consisting of the study insulin pump (Dana Diabecare RS), a CGM transmitter, and an app (CamAPS FX) on an Android smartphone that communicates wirelessly with the insulin pump and CGM transmitter.
Participants in both groups used the same CGM system and received support for insulin dose adjustment from their antenatal clinical care team.
They were a mean age of 31 years, had a mean A1c of 7.7%, and had had type 1 diabetes for 17 years on average. Their body mass index varied; 37% had normal weight, 27% had overweight, and 26% had obesity.
A significantly higher percentage of women in the AID group than in the control group had blood glucose in target range more than 70% of the time (46% vs. 10%; P < .001).
Compared with women in the control group, those in the AID group had larger reductions in hyperglycemia (–11%; P < .001), higher overnight time-in-range (13%; P < .001), and lower A1c (–0.34%; P < .001), without additional insulin, weight gain, or hypoglycemia.
The effect was consistent across clinical sites and maternal age and A1c categories.
Ongoing studies, off-label use
Hybrid closed-loop systems “including Tandem Control IQ, the Omnipod 5, and the Medtronic 780G give insulin continuously on the basis of values obtained from a sensor,” Dr. Peters explained in a recent commentary. “These aren’t fully closed-loop systems because the individual still has to interact with the system and give doses for meals, and then adjust doses for exercise.”
There are currently three studies using commercially available AID systems without pregnancy-specific glucose targets, in type 1 diabetes pregnancies, Dr. Polsky noted.
The Pregnancy Intervention With a Closed-Loop System (PICLS) trial used the Medtronic 670G system in pregnancy and was conducted in the United States. The Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (CRISTAL) study is using the Medtronic 780G system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Belgium and the Netherlands. And the Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Type 1 Diabetes Pregnancies (CIRCUIT) study is using the Tandem Control IQ system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Canada, she explained.
“The decision to continue to use or to initiate (off-label) use of any of these systems in pregnancy should be individualized, and pregnant individuals should make these decisions by working with an experienced endocrine/diabetes team,” Dr. Polsky stressed.
“The hope is that the results of these exciting trials will show safe and effective use of these systems throughout gestation with improvements in glucose control and quality of life,” she concluded.
The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research, JDRF, and Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation. Dr. Murphy has reported being on the advisory panel for Medtronic and receiving research support from Dexcom. Dr. Peters disclosed that she served as a consultant for Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, received a research grant from Abbott Diabetes Care, and received stock options from Teladoc and Omada Health. Dr. Polsky has disclosed that she is a contributing writer for diaTribe, was on a medical advisory board for Medtronic MiniMed, has received research funding from DexCom, Eli Lilly, JDRF, Leona & Harry Helmsley Charitable Trust, NIDDK, and Sanofi, and has received research support from Diasome Pharmaceuticals, LabStyle Innovation, Lexicon, Medtronic MiniMed, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the largest randomized controlled trial of an automated insulin delivery (AID) system (hybrid closed-loop) versus standard insulin delivery in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, the automated CamAPS FX system prevailed.
Helen R. Murphy, MD, presented these topline findings from the Automated Insulin Delivery Amongst Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (AiDAPT) trial during an e-poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
The “hybrid closed-loop significantly improved maternal glucose and should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Murphy, professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia and a clinician at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in the United Kingdom.
CamAPS FX is the only AID system approved in Europe and the United Kingdom for type 1 diabetes from age 1 and during pregnancy. The hybrid closed-loop system is not available in the United States but other systems are available and sometimes used off label in pregnancy. Such systems are sometimes known colloquially as an “artificial pancreas.”
The researchers said their findings provide evidence for the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) to recommend that all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered the CamAPS FX system.
Asked by an audience member about type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, Dr. Murphy said: “I don’t think we can necessarily extend these data to women with type 2 diabetes. We just don’t have enough data on glucose profiles in type 2 to train an algorithm yet.”
However, the data provide support for earlier use of closed-loop therapy in type 1 diabetes, she said. “The ideal time to start closed-loop is not necessarily between 8 and 12 weeks. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned,” she noted, “so start [AID] as early as possible [in patients with type 1 diabetes].”
Two experts weigh in
Whether pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered hybrid closed-loop therapy “depends,” said Anne L. Peters, MD, who was not involved with the research.
“It is all about being able to set [blood glucose] targets,” according to Dr. Peters, director of the University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes in Los Angeles.
“If a woman is on an AID system – except for DIY loop – I have them stop the automation and adjust manually,” she said in an email. “My [patients] do amazingly well in pregnancy – most can get their A1cs below 6%,” she noted. “But if someone can’t do that and their A1cs are higher, automation can help.
“It is always about individualizing care,” said Dr. Peters. “The one thing that helps the most is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). And I do have patients who remain on [insulin] injections throughout pregnancy.”
And Sarit Polsky, MD, MPH, who was also not involved with the current study, agrees that “AID with CamAPS, which has an option to customize the glucose target in the pregnancy-specific range, appears to be safe and effective in pregnancy and should be offered” to patients in Europe and the United Kingdom.
“Whether other AID systems should be recommended in pregnancy is still unclear, said Dr. Polsky, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.
“Around 48% of [global] pregnancies are unplanned,” Dr. Polsky said in an interview. “Many women do indeed become pregnant while using AID systems and many opt to continue use of these systems.
“Off-label use of these products can be beneficial in pregnancy in select cases, but the systems generally need the use of assistive techniques, which we previously published, to help get glucose levels to pregnancy-specific targets,” she noted in an email.
Study rationale, method, and findings
Pregnant women with diabetes are advised to aim for very tight glucose targets throughout pregnancy and avoid hyperglycemia, to reduce risk of preterm delivery, neonatal weight > 90th percentile, and neonatal morbidity, according to Dr. Murphy and colleagues.
“However, despite increased use of [CGM], continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and improved insulin analogs, achieving and maintaining the recommended glucose targets remains challenging for most pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” they wrote in their abstract.
Researchers randomized 124 women who had type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, were at < 13 weeks’ to 6 days’ gestation, and had an A1c of 6.5% to < 10% who were taking intensive standard insulin therapy at nine antenatal clinics in the United Kingdom. Half of the women were using CSII and half were receiving multiple daily injections of insulin.
As explained in the published study protocol, the women were randomized to continue their standard insulin delivery or switch to a closed-loop system consisting of the study insulin pump (Dana Diabecare RS), a CGM transmitter, and an app (CamAPS FX) on an Android smartphone that communicates wirelessly with the insulin pump and CGM transmitter.
Participants in both groups used the same CGM system and received support for insulin dose adjustment from their antenatal clinical care team.
They were a mean age of 31 years, had a mean A1c of 7.7%, and had had type 1 diabetes for 17 years on average. Their body mass index varied; 37% had normal weight, 27% had overweight, and 26% had obesity.
A significantly higher percentage of women in the AID group than in the control group had blood glucose in target range more than 70% of the time (46% vs. 10%; P < .001).
Compared with women in the control group, those in the AID group had larger reductions in hyperglycemia (–11%; P < .001), higher overnight time-in-range (13%; P < .001), and lower A1c (–0.34%; P < .001), without additional insulin, weight gain, or hypoglycemia.
The effect was consistent across clinical sites and maternal age and A1c categories.
Ongoing studies, off-label use
Hybrid closed-loop systems “including Tandem Control IQ, the Omnipod 5, and the Medtronic 780G give insulin continuously on the basis of values obtained from a sensor,” Dr. Peters explained in a recent commentary. “These aren’t fully closed-loop systems because the individual still has to interact with the system and give doses for meals, and then adjust doses for exercise.”
There are currently three studies using commercially available AID systems without pregnancy-specific glucose targets, in type 1 diabetes pregnancies, Dr. Polsky noted.
The Pregnancy Intervention With a Closed-Loop System (PICLS) trial used the Medtronic 670G system in pregnancy and was conducted in the United States. The Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (CRISTAL) study is using the Medtronic 780G system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Belgium and the Netherlands. And the Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Type 1 Diabetes Pregnancies (CIRCUIT) study is using the Tandem Control IQ system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Canada, she explained.
“The decision to continue to use or to initiate (off-label) use of any of these systems in pregnancy should be individualized, and pregnant individuals should make these decisions by working with an experienced endocrine/diabetes team,” Dr. Polsky stressed.
“The hope is that the results of these exciting trials will show safe and effective use of these systems throughout gestation with improvements in glucose control and quality of life,” she concluded.
The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research, JDRF, and Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation. Dr. Murphy has reported being on the advisory panel for Medtronic and receiving research support from Dexcom. Dr. Peters disclosed that she served as a consultant for Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, received a research grant from Abbott Diabetes Care, and received stock options from Teladoc and Omada Health. Dr. Polsky has disclosed that she is a contributing writer for diaTribe, was on a medical advisory board for Medtronic MiniMed, has received research funding from DexCom, Eli Lilly, JDRF, Leona & Harry Helmsley Charitable Trust, NIDDK, and Sanofi, and has received research support from Diasome Pharmaceuticals, LabStyle Innovation, Lexicon, Medtronic MiniMed, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ADA 2023
Do oral contraceptives increase depression risk?
In addition, OC use in adolescence has been tied to an increased risk for depression later in life. However, some experts believe the study’s methodology may be flawed.
The investigators tracked more than 250,000 women from birth to menopause, gathering information about their use of combined contraceptive pills (progesterone and estrogen), the timing of the initial depression diagnosis, and the onset of depressive symptoms that were not formally diagnosed.
Women who began using these OCs before or at the age of 20 experienced a 130% higher incidence of depressive symptoms, whereas adult users saw a 92% increase. But the higher occurrence of depression tended to decline after the first 2 years of use, except in teenagers, who maintained an increased incidence of depression even after discontinuation.
This effect remained, even after analysis of potential familial confounding.
“Our findings suggest that the use of OCs, particularly during the first 2 years, increases the risk of depression. Additionally, OC use during adolescence might increase the risk of depression later in life,” Therese Johansson, of the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues wrote.
The study was published online in Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences.
Inconsistent findings
Previous studies suggest an association between adolescent use of hormonal contraceptives (HCs) and increased depression risk, but it’s “less clear” whether these effects are similar in adults, the authors wrote. Randomized clinical trials have “shown little or no effect” of HCs on mood. However, most of these studies didn’t consider previous use of HC.
The researchers wanted to estimate the incidence rate of depression associated with first initiation of OC use as well as the lifetime risk associated with use.
They studied 264,557 female participants in the UK Biobank (aged 37-71 years), collecting data from questionnaires, interviews, physical health measures, biological samples, imaging, and linked health records.
Most participants taking OCs had initiated use during the 1970s/early 1980s when second-generation OCs were predominantly used, consisting of levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol.
The researchers conducted a secondary outcome analysis on women who completed the UK Biobank Mental Health Questionnaire (MHQ) to evaluate depressive symptoms.
They estimated the associated risk for depression within 2 years after starting OCs in all women, as well as in groups stratified by age at initiation: before age 20 (adolescents) and age 20 and older (adults). In addition, the investigators estimated the lifetime risk for depression.
Time-dependent analysis compared the effect of OC use at initiation to the effect during the remaining years of use in recent and previous users.
They analyzed a subcohort of female siblings, utilizing “inference about causation from examination of familial confounding,” defined by the authors as a “regression-based approach for determining causality through the use of paired observational data collected from related individuals.”
Adolescents at highest risk
Of the participants, 80.6% had used OCs at some point.
The first 2 years of use were associated with a higher rate of depression among users, compared with never-users (hazard ration, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-1.96). Although the risk became less pronounced after that, ever-use was still associated with increased lifetime risk for depression (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).
Adolescents and adult OC users both experienced higher rates of depression during the first 2 years, with a more marked effect in adolescents than in adults (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.64-2.32; and HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54-1.95, respectively).
Previous users of OCs had a higher lifetime risk for depression, compared with never-users (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).
Of the subcohort of women who completed the MHQ (n = 82,232), about half reported experiencing at least one of the core depressive symptoms.
OC initiation was associated with an increased risk for depressive symptoms during the first 2 years in ever- versus never-users (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.91-2.10).
Those who began using OCs during adolescence had a dramatically higher rate of depressive symptoms, compared with never-users (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51), as did adult initiators (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51).
In the analysis of 7,354 first-degree sister pairs, 81% had initiated OCs. A sibling’s OC use was positively associated with a depression diagnosis, and the cosibling’s OC use was also associated with the sibling’s depression diagnosis. “These results support the hypothesis of a causal relationship between OC use and depression, such that OC use increases the risk of depression,” the authors wrote.
The main limitation is the potential for recall bias in the self-reported data, and that the UK Biobank sample consists of a healthier population than the overall U.K. population, which “hampers the generalizability” of the findings, the authors stated.
Flawed study
In a comment, Natalie Rasgon, MD, founder and director of the Stanford (Calif.) Center for Neuroscience in Women’s Health, said the study was “well researched” and “well written” but had “methodological issues.”
She questioned the sibling component, “which the researchers regard as confirming causality.” The effect may be “important but not causative.” Causality in people who are recalling retrospectively “is highly questionable by any adept researcher because it’s subject to memory. Different siblings may have different recall.”
The authors also didn’t study the indication for OC use. Several medical conditions are treated with OCs, including premenstrual dysphoric disorder, the “number one mood disorder among women of reproductive age.” Including this “could have made a huge difference in outcome data,” said Dr. Rasgon, who was not involved with the study.
Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, noted participants were asked to recall depressive symptoms and OC use as far back as 20-30 years ago, which lends itself to inaccurate recall.
And the researchers didn’t ascertain whether the contraceptives had been used continuously or had been started, stopped, and restarted. Nor did they look at different formulations and doses. And the observational nature of the study “limits the ability to infer causation,” continued Dr. Oelschlager, chair of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinical Consensus Gynecology Committee. She was not involved with the study.
“This study is too flawed to use meaningfully in clinical practice,” Dr. Oelschlager concluded.
The study was primarily funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and the Uppsala University Center for Women ‘s Mental Health during the Reproductive Lifespan. The authors, Dr. Rasgon, and Dr. Oelschlager declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In addition, OC use in adolescence has been tied to an increased risk for depression later in life. However, some experts believe the study’s methodology may be flawed.
The investigators tracked more than 250,000 women from birth to menopause, gathering information about their use of combined contraceptive pills (progesterone and estrogen), the timing of the initial depression diagnosis, and the onset of depressive symptoms that were not formally diagnosed.
Women who began using these OCs before or at the age of 20 experienced a 130% higher incidence of depressive symptoms, whereas adult users saw a 92% increase. But the higher occurrence of depression tended to decline after the first 2 years of use, except in teenagers, who maintained an increased incidence of depression even after discontinuation.
This effect remained, even after analysis of potential familial confounding.
“Our findings suggest that the use of OCs, particularly during the first 2 years, increases the risk of depression. Additionally, OC use during adolescence might increase the risk of depression later in life,” Therese Johansson, of the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues wrote.
The study was published online in Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences.
Inconsistent findings
Previous studies suggest an association between adolescent use of hormonal contraceptives (HCs) and increased depression risk, but it’s “less clear” whether these effects are similar in adults, the authors wrote. Randomized clinical trials have “shown little or no effect” of HCs on mood. However, most of these studies didn’t consider previous use of HC.
The researchers wanted to estimate the incidence rate of depression associated with first initiation of OC use as well as the lifetime risk associated with use.
They studied 264,557 female participants in the UK Biobank (aged 37-71 years), collecting data from questionnaires, interviews, physical health measures, biological samples, imaging, and linked health records.
Most participants taking OCs had initiated use during the 1970s/early 1980s when second-generation OCs were predominantly used, consisting of levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol.
The researchers conducted a secondary outcome analysis on women who completed the UK Biobank Mental Health Questionnaire (MHQ) to evaluate depressive symptoms.
They estimated the associated risk for depression within 2 years after starting OCs in all women, as well as in groups stratified by age at initiation: before age 20 (adolescents) and age 20 and older (adults). In addition, the investigators estimated the lifetime risk for depression.
Time-dependent analysis compared the effect of OC use at initiation to the effect during the remaining years of use in recent and previous users.
They analyzed a subcohort of female siblings, utilizing “inference about causation from examination of familial confounding,” defined by the authors as a “regression-based approach for determining causality through the use of paired observational data collected from related individuals.”
Adolescents at highest risk
Of the participants, 80.6% had used OCs at some point.
The first 2 years of use were associated with a higher rate of depression among users, compared with never-users (hazard ration, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-1.96). Although the risk became less pronounced after that, ever-use was still associated with increased lifetime risk for depression (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).
Adolescents and adult OC users both experienced higher rates of depression during the first 2 years, with a more marked effect in adolescents than in adults (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.64-2.32; and HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54-1.95, respectively).
Previous users of OCs had a higher lifetime risk for depression, compared with never-users (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).
Of the subcohort of women who completed the MHQ (n = 82,232), about half reported experiencing at least one of the core depressive symptoms.
OC initiation was associated with an increased risk for depressive symptoms during the first 2 years in ever- versus never-users (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.91-2.10).
Those who began using OCs during adolescence had a dramatically higher rate of depressive symptoms, compared with never-users (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51), as did adult initiators (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51).
In the analysis of 7,354 first-degree sister pairs, 81% had initiated OCs. A sibling’s OC use was positively associated with a depression diagnosis, and the cosibling’s OC use was also associated with the sibling’s depression diagnosis. “These results support the hypothesis of a causal relationship between OC use and depression, such that OC use increases the risk of depression,” the authors wrote.
The main limitation is the potential for recall bias in the self-reported data, and that the UK Biobank sample consists of a healthier population than the overall U.K. population, which “hampers the generalizability” of the findings, the authors stated.
Flawed study
In a comment, Natalie Rasgon, MD, founder and director of the Stanford (Calif.) Center for Neuroscience in Women’s Health, said the study was “well researched” and “well written” but had “methodological issues.”
She questioned the sibling component, “which the researchers regard as confirming causality.” The effect may be “important but not causative.” Causality in people who are recalling retrospectively “is highly questionable by any adept researcher because it’s subject to memory. Different siblings may have different recall.”
The authors also didn’t study the indication for OC use. Several medical conditions are treated with OCs, including premenstrual dysphoric disorder, the “number one mood disorder among women of reproductive age.” Including this “could have made a huge difference in outcome data,” said Dr. Rasgon, who was not involved with the study.
Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, noted participants were asked to recall depressive symptoms and OC use as far back as 20-30 years ago, which lends itself to inaccurate recall.
And the researchers didn’t ascertain whether the contraceptives had been used continuously or had been started, stopped, and restarted. Nor did they look at different formulations and doses. And the observational nature of the study “limits the ability to infer causation,” continued Dr. Oelschlager, chair of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinical Consensus Gynecology Committee. She was not involved with the study.
“This study is too flawed to use meaningfully in clinical practice,” Dr. Oelschlager concluded.
The study was primarily funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and the Uppsala University Center for Women ‘s Mental Health during the Reproductive Lifespan. The authors, Dr. Rasgon, and Dr. Oelschlager declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In addition, OC use in adolescence has been tied to an increased risk for depression later in life. However, some experts believe the study’s methodology may be flawed.
The investigators tracked more than 250,000 women from birth to menopause, gathering information about their use of combined contraceptive pills (progesterone and estrogen), the timing of the initial depression diagnosis, and the onset of depressive symptoms that were not formally diagnosed.
Women who began using these OCs before or at the age of 20 experienced a 130% higher incidence of depressive symptoms, whereas adult users saw a 92% increase. But the higher occurrence of depression tended to decline after the first 2 years of use, except in teenagers, who maintained an increased incidence of depression even after discontinuation.
This effect remained, even after analysis of potential familial confounding.
“Our findings suggest that the use of OCs, particularly during the first 2 years, increases the risk of depression. Additionally, OC use during adolescence might increase the risk of depression later in life,” Therese Johansson, of the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues wrote.
The study was published online in Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences.
Inconsistent findings
Previous studies suggest an association between adolescent use of hormonal contraceptives (HCs) and increased depression risk, but it’s “less clear” whether these effects are similar in adults, the authors wrote. Randomized clinical trials have “shown little or no effect” of HCs on mood. However, most of these studies didn’t consider previous use of HC.
The researchers wanted to estimate the incidence rate of depression associated with first initiation of OC use as well as the lifetime risk associated with use.
They studied 264,557 female participants in the UK Biobank (aged 37-71 years), collecting data from questionnaires, interviews, physical health measures, biological samples, imaging, and linked health records.
Most participants taking OCs had initiated use during the 1970s/early 1980s when second-generation OCs were predominantly used, consisting of levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol.
The researchers conducted a secondary outcome analysis on women who completed the UK Biobank Mental Health Questionnaire (MHQ) to evaluate depressive symptoms.
They estimated the associated risk for depression within 2 years after starting OCs in all women, as well as in groups stratified by age at initiation: before age 20 (adolescents) and age 20 and older (adults). In addition, the investigators estimated the lifetime risk for depression.
Time-dependent analysis compared the effect of OC use at initiation to the effect during the remaining years of use in recent and previous users.
They analyzed a subcohort of female siblings, utilizing “inference about causation from examination of familial confounding,” defined by the authors as a “regression-based approach for determining causality through the use of paired observational data collected from related individuals.”
Adolescents at highest risk
Of the participants, 80.6% had used OCs at some point.
The first 2 years of use were associated with a higher rate of depression among users, compared with never-users (hazard ration, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-1.96). Although the risk became less pronounced after that, ever-use was still associated with increased lifetime risk for depression (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).
Adolescents and adult OC users both experienced higher rates of depression during the first 2 years, with a more marked effect in adolescents than in adults (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.64-2.32; and HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54-1.95, respectively).
Previous users of OCs had a higher lifetime risk for depression, compared with never-users (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).
Of the subcohort of women who completed the MHQ (n = 82,232), about half reported experiencing at least one of the core depressive symptoms.
OC initiation was associated with an increased risk for depressive symptoms during the first 2 years in ever- versus never-users (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.91-2.10).
Those who began using OCs during adolescence had a dramatically higher rate of depressive symptoms, compared with never-users (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51), as did adult initiators (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51).
In the analysis of 7,354 first-degree sister pairs, 81% had initiated OCs. A sibling’s OC use was positively associated with a depression diagnosis, and the cosibling’s OC use was also associated with the sibling’s depression diagnosis. “These results support the hypothesis of a causal relationship between OC use and depression, such that OC use increases the risk of depression,” the authors wrote.
The main limitation is the potential for recall bias in the self-reported data, and that the UK Biobank sample consists of a healthier population than the overall U.K. population, which “hampers the generalizability” of the findings, the authors stated.
Flawed study
In a comment, Natalie Rasgon, MD, founder and director of the Stanford (Calif.) Center for Neuroscience in Women’s Health, said the study was “well researched” and “well written” but had “methodological issues.”
She questioned the sibling component, “which the researchers regard as confirming causality.” The effect may be “important but not causative.” Causality in people who are recalling retrospectively “is highly questionable by any adept researcher because it’s subject to memory. Different siblings may have different recall.”
The authors also didn’t study the indication for OC use. Several medical conditions are treated with OCs, including premenstrual dysphoric disorder, the “number one mood disorder among women of reproductive age.” Including this “could have made a huge difference in outcome data,” said Dr. Rasgon, who was not involved with the study.
Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, noted participants were asked to recall depressive symptoms and OC use as far back as 20-30 years ago, which lends itself to inaccurate recall.
And the researchers didn’t ascertain whether the contraceptives had been used continuously or had been started, stopped, and restarted. Nor did they look at different formulations and doses. And the observational nature of the study “limits the ability to infer causation,” continued Dr. Oelschlager, chair of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinical Consensus Gynecology Committee. She was not involved with the study.
“This study is too flawed to use meaningfully in clinical practice,” Dr. Oelschlager concluded.
The study was primarily funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and the Uppsala University Center for Women ‘s Mental Health during the Reproductive Lifespan. The authors, Dr. Rasgon, and Dr. Oelschlager declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRIC SCIENCES
New clues to an old mystery: Recent gains in endometriosis
In 1927, American gynecologist John Sampson published his theory of the etiology of endometriosis, postulating that retrograde flow of endometrial debris flows backward through the fallopian tubes during menses into the peritoneal cavity. Dr. Sampson’s notion remains the main paradigm today, mentioned still in recent articles on the topic, but it has a flaw: Although the theory may account for how endometrial tissue escapes the uterus, a 1984 study revealed that this phenomenon occurs in 90% of women. Why, then, do only 10% of women suffer from endometriosis?
Endometriosis describes a condition in which endometrial tissue lining the uterus is found outside the uterus. The disease can be painful, even crippling. As many as 30% of women in their reproductive years who have endometriosis are infertile as a consequence. The hallmarks of the condition are superficial peritoneal lesions of varying color, cysts in the ovaries, deeper nodules accompanied by scarring and adhesion, primarily in the pelvis but sometimes appearing outside the pelvis. The syndrome can be challenging to identify, requiring laparoscopy for definitive diagnosis.
John Sampson aside, scientists have struggled for the past century to identify the cause, or causes, of endometriosis. Hormones clearly play a role in its development, and women with endometriosis have an elevated risk of clear-cell and endometrioid ovarian cancer and autoimmune diseases. Immunodeficiency also could be to blame, if a faulty immune system fails to find and remove endometrial tissue outside of the uterus. A class of chemicals known as endocrine disruptors have been linked to endometriosis, but not definitively. Twin studies have demonstrated that as many as 50% of cases have a genetic basis, while mice with surgically induced endometriosis have been found to have a higher ratio of harmful to beneficial bacteria in their gut.
Several studies published this year point to new insights into the old mystery – with possible implications for ways to treat the disorder.
Perhaps the most surprising came out earlier this year in Science Translational Medicine, as a team of researchers in Japan reported that invasive infection by bacteria of the genus Fusobacterium may cause at least some cases of endometriosis.
Is Fusobacterium the new Helicobacter pylori?
The researchers, from Nagoya University, are the first to suggest that not only might a single bacterial genus cause endometriosis, but that antibiotic treatment could prevent progression of the disease. Using endometrial tissue obtained from 79 women undergoing hysterectomy for endometriosis and 76 women undergoing hysterectomy for other reasons (such as cervical cancer), the team started with gene expression profiling to explore differences between the two sets of samples.
They uncovered an interesting chain of cellular events: macrophages found in endometriotic lesions were secreting transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta). TGF-beta in turn stimulated high levels of expression of a gene called TAGLN in fibroblast cells from women with endometriosis but not in fibroblasts from women without endometriosis.
Turning on TAGLN transformed these previously inactive cells into active myofibroblasts, leading to increased proliferation, mobility, and attachment to mesothelial cells, the layer of cells that line body cavities and internal organs. In short, they identified some key players in an environment that seemed very favorable to the development of endometriosis.
“So, the question is: Why are macrophages activated?” said Yutaka Kondo, MD, PhD, the senior author of the study and a professor in the division of cancer biology at the Nagoya (Japan) University Graduate School of Medicine. “We think that there are always bacteria in the endometrium.”
After reviewing data from a previously published study, they used quantitative polymerase chain reaction to rule out one candidate, Erysipelothrix, but scored on their next attempt, identifying Fusobacterium species in endometrial tissue from 64% of the women with endometriosis, compared with fewer than 10% of the controls.
To confirm that the bacteria could cause disease and were not simply bystanders, Dr. Kondo’s team turned to a mouse model for endometriosis, in which endometrial cells are surgically removed from the uteri of mice and injected into the peritoneum of recipient mice, leading to the formation of endometriotic lesions. When mice received further injections of uterine tissue from mice that were infected with F. nucleatum, their lesions were more numerous when compared with mice that received injections of uninfected uterine tissue. Furthermore, antibiotic treatment with metronidazole or chloramphenicol immediately after surgery largely prevented progression to endometriosis, Dr. Kondo and his colleagues reported.
Dr. Kondo likened this relationship between Fusobacterium and endometriosis to that of the link between Helicobacter pylori and peptic ulcers but acknowledged that he doesn’t have all the answers.
“We need more clinical trials, and also we have to know what kind of treatment might be the most effective for the treatment of endometriosis,” Dr. Kondo said, pointing out that other therapies should still be pursued in addition to antibiotics, as not all the samples from women with endometriosis harbored Fusobacterium. “It might be possible that other mechanisms are also involved.”
Don’t write off gut microbiota
Ramakrishna Kommagani, PhD, associate professor of pathology and immunology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, agreed. “Endometriosis is a complex disease, which appears to be impacted by many factors, including genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors,” Dr. Kommagani said.
A key difference between his work and Dr. Kondo’s is his focus on gut microbiota, whereas the Japanese team looked at bacteria in the vagina and endometrium. But Dr. Kommagani said he thinks both could play a role. “Maybe the vaginal microbiome might have a direct impact on disease similar to what we showed on the gut,” he said.
But he said at least part of the answer to why some women develop endometriosis may have to do more with the balance of beneficial and harmful bacteria in the gut rather than because of a single family of microbes like Fusobacterium.
Most recently, by dovetailing a mouse model for inducing endometriosis in mice treated with antibiotics to deplete their gut microbiome, Dr. Kommagani’s lab expanded on its previous work: They showed that the animals developed fewer of the typical lesions seen in endometriosis than those that did not receive antibiotics before all of the mice underwent the surgical procedure used by researchers to induce endometriosis – possibly because they had no bacteria in their gut triggering the inflammatory response required for the development of endometriosis.
But after oral feedings with fecal matter from mice without endometriosis, the microbiota-depleted rodents began developing lesions typical of endometriosis, suggesting that altered gut flora from mice with endometriosis appeared to promote the disorder. Meanwhile, their microbiota-depleted counterparts who were fed fecal matter from mice without endometriosis did not develop the typical lesions.
Dr. Kommagani’s team then compared metabolites from bacteria in stool from mice with and without endometriosis and investigated the in vitro effect of these metabolites on cells from human endometriotic lesions. One of them, quinic acid, increased the proliferation of human endometriotic epithelial cells.
“Some metabolites such as fiber-derived short-chain fatty acids have beneficial effects; they inhibit the disease,” Dr. Kommagani said. “But maybe an amino acid derivative such as quinic acid, [may] promote disease, and these are generated because there is a gut dysbiosis.”
This statement hints at some of the possible therapeutic approaches for endometriosis, such as a high-fiber diet to promote healthy gut flora, or perhaps antibiotics to eradicate unhealthy bacteria. But as with other conditions that have been linked to dysbiosis, like inflammatory bowel disease, use of antibiotics is a bit like balancing on a tightrope; although antibiotics may remove harmful bacteria, their use may negatively affect the beneficial bacteria.
Clues in genetic variants
Krina Zondervan, DPhil, professor and head of the department of reproductive and genomic epidemiology at the University of Oxford (England), focuses on genomic, molecular, and epidemiologic approaches to understanding endometriosis.
“It’s one thing identifying risk variants and the next question is, okay, well, what do those variants actually do in terms of biology?” Dr. Zondervan said. The Oxford team next explored how the identified genetic variants affect gene expression and the proteins generated, drawing on previously collected data on gene expression from samples of human blood and endometrial and uterine tissue.
They found many of the genes implicated in the risk for endometriosis code for proteins that affect sex hormones, uterine development, transformation of healthy cells into cancerous tissue, inflammatory adhesion molecules, and factors promoting development of new blood vessels. All of that, she said, explains how a few endometrial cells making their way into the pelvis can attach to ovaries, ligaments, and peritoneal surfaces; proliferate; and acquire a blood supply to ensure their survival.
“We were able to identify a whole host of things that were likely causal to the disease,” Dr. Zondervan said. And that finding led to her next question: “Are there particular genes or areas around them that can be targeted with certain medications?”
The surprising answer was that several of the genes linked to endometriosis share pathways with clinical syndromes that often occur in women with endometriosis. Many of these are chronic pain conditions – such as migraines, headaches, and back pain – but also include inflammatory illnesses such as asthma and osteoarthritis.
As Dr. Zondervan explained, “A lot of the variance that we see for endometriosis is also experienced for low back pain and migraine, and that clearly has something to do with pain perception and pain mechanisms.”
A connection between the development of neural pathways and endometriosis has been proposed before, as researchers have found that endometriotic lesions can develop their own nerve supply, creating a direct interaction between the lesions and the central nervous system. And some clinicians have been employing treatment strategies that employ multimodal therapies – employing physical therapists, mental health practitioners, nutritionists, and pain specialists prior to and following surgical removal of lesions – to improve overall success rates of treatment.
But Dr. Zondervan’s team is the first to uncover an important clue about how this happens.
The study findings also provide solid clues to researchers about which genes and proteins to focus on for drug target discovery. In particular, the gene pathways shared by endometriosis and various pain conditions could allow for repurposing of drugs developed for other conditions for treating endometriosis, reported Dr. Zondervan.
Dr. Zondervan’s other important conclusion, echoed by Dr. Kondo and Dr. Kommagani, is that endometriosis is not one disease. Rather, it appears to be akin to cancer in terms of the heterogeneity of how it presents and the different subtypes of diseases. The Oxford study corroborated this belief, identifying certain genes that were closely associated with cystic lesions in ovaries, but failing to turn up a genetic link to other types of lesions in the pelvis long considered to be part of the spectrum of endometriosis disease.
Dr. Zondervan agreed that the potential link with Fusobacterium is a fascinating area given the critical role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of endometriosis, although she’d like to see the work replicated with larger sample sizes. “From a personal point of view, I’d be really fascinated to see how genetics interplays with this,” she added.
What’s next?
The chief limitation of human studies looking at mechanisms of endometriosis is that they are correlational: Tissue samples are collected from women with and without endometriosis, often through an invasive procedure such as laparoscopy or biopsy, at one point in time. Currently, the best tools for proving causation are animal models of endometriosis, such as the those used by Dr. Kondo’s and Dr. Kommagani’s teams.
Better diagnostic tools would solve that problem. The ultimate goal is a noninvasive test for endometriosis that would allow clinicians to follow women over time and permit the monitoring of disease progression, or regression, without the need for painful procedures. Such a diagnostic tool would facilitate rigorous longitudinal studies evaluating mechanisms of disease, as well as monitoring outcomes of clinical trials of new treatments.
Could stool samples be the answer?
The Japanese team found that women harboring Fusobacterium in endometrial tissue also had Fusobacterium in vaginal samples taken at the time of their hysterectomy – and stool samples can pick up changes in the gut microbiome.
“Vaginal swab or stool tests are probably the best and easiest for noninvasive early detection,” Dr. Kommagani said.
Spit tests for DNA would be even easier to obtain. Polygenic risk scores could be developed to estimate an individual’s risk of disease based on the number of variants, but Dr. Zondervan cautioned that not all the genes that account for endometriosis are known.
“The things that we found altogether explain about 5% of disease variability, basically – which is still not an awful lot,” she said.
Dr. Kondo’s work was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Research Grant of the Princess Takamatsu Cancer Research Fund. A patent method for detecting bacteria of genus Fusobacterium in order to diagnose endometriosis (WO2023/ 042714), was submitted (international publication date, March 23, 2023).
Dr. Kommagani’s work was funded, in part, by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grants R01HD102680, R01HD065435, and R00HD080742. He has no other conflicts of interest. Dr. Zondervan received funding from the Wellcome Trust (216767; 104036; 084766; 212904; 076113 and 085475) and also reported grants from Bayer AG, AbbVie, Volition Rx, MDNA Life Sciences, and Roche Diagnostics outside the submitted work.
Dr. Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist living in Portland, Ore.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In 1927, American gynecologist John Sampson published his theory of the etiology of endometriosis, postulating that retrograde flow of endometrial debris flows backward through the fallopian tubes during menses into the peritoneal cavity. Dr. Sampson’s notion remains the main paradigm today, mentioned still in recent articles on the topic, but it has a flaw: Although the theory may account for how endometrial tissue escapes the uterus, a 1984 study revealed that this phenomenon occurs in 90% of women. Why, then, do only 10% of women suffer from endometriosis?
Endometriosis describes a condition in which endometrial tissue lining the uterus is found outside the uterus. The disease can be painful, even crippling. As many as 30% of women in their reproductive years who have endometriosis are infertile as a consequence. The hallmarks of the condition are superficial peritoneal lesions of varying color, cysts in the ovaries, deeper nodules accompanied by scarring and adhesion, primarily in the pelvis but sometimes appearing outside the pelvis. The syndrome can be challenging to identify, requiring laparoscopy for definitive diagnosis.
John Sampson aside, scientists have struggled for the past century to identify the cause, or causes, of endometriosis. Hormones clearly play a role in its development, and women with endometriosis have an elevated risk of clear-cell and endometrioid ovarian cancer and autoimmune diseases. Immunodeficiency also could be to blame, if a faulty immune system fails to find and remove endometrial tissue outside of the uterus. A class of chemicals known as endocrine disruptors have been linked to endometriosis, but not definitively. Twin studies have demonstrated that as many as 50% of cases have a genetic basis, while mice with surgically induced endometriosis have been found to have a higher ratio of harmful to beneficial bacteria in their gut.
Several studies published this year point to new insights into the old mystery – with possible implications for ways to treat the disorder.
Perhaps the most surprising came out earlier this year in Science Translational Medicine, as a team of researchers in Japan reported that invasive infection by bacteria of the genus Fusobacterium may cause at least some cases of endometriosis.
Is Fusobacterium the new Helicobacter pylori?
The researchers, from Nagoya University, are the first to suggest that not only might a single bacterial genus cause endometriosis, but that antibiotic treatment could prevent progression of the disease. Using endometrial tissue obtained from 79 women undergoing hysterectomy for endometriosis and 76 women undergoing hysterectomy for other reasons (such as cervical cancer), the team started with gene expression profiling to explore differences between the two sets of samples.
They uncovered an interesting chain of cellular events: macrophages found in endometriotic lesions were secreting transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta). TGF-beta in turn stimulated high levels of expression of a gene called TAGLN in fibroblast cells from women with endometriosis but not in fibroblasts from women without endometriosis.
Turning on TAGLN transformed these previously inactive cells into active myofibroblasts, leading to increased proliferation, mobility, and attachment to mesothelial cells, the layer of cells that line body cavities and internal organs. In short, they identified some key players in an environment that seemed very favorable to the development of endometriosis.
“So, the question is: Why are macrophages activated?” said Yutaka Kondo, MD, PhD, the senior author of the study and a professor in the division of cancer biology at the Nagoya (Japan) University Graduate School of Medicine. “We think that there are always bacteria in the endometrium.”
After reviewing data from a previously published study, they used quantitative polymerase chain reaction to rule out one candidate, Erysipelothrix, but scored on their next attempt, identifying Fusobacterium species in endometrial tissue from 64% of the women with endometriosis, compared with fewer than 10% of the controls.
To confirm that the bacteria could cause disease and were not simply bystanders, Dr. Kondo’s team turned to a mouse model for endometriosis, in which endometrial cells are surgically removed from the uteri of mice and injected into the peritoneum of recipient mice, leading to the formation of endometriotic lesions. When mice received further injections of uterine tissue from mice that were infected with F. nucleatum, their lesions were more numerous when compared with mice that received injections of uninfected uterine tissue. Furthermore, antibiotic treatment with metronidazole or chloramphenicol immediately after surgery largely prevented progression to endometriosis, Dr. Kondo and his colleagues reported.
Dr. Kondo likened this relationship between Fusobacterium and endometriosis to that of the link between Helicobacter pylori and peptic ulcers but acknowledged that he doesn’t have all the answers.
“We need more clinical trials, and also we have to know what kind of treatment might be the most effective for the treatment of endometriosis,” Dr. Kondo said, pointing out that other therapies should still be pursued in addition to antibiotics, as not all the samples from women with endometriosis harbored Fusobacterium. “It might be possible that other mechanisms are also involved.”
Don’t write off gut microbiota
Ramakrishna Kommagani, PhD, associate professor of pathology and immunology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, agreed. “Endometriosis is a complex disease, which appears to be impacted by many factors, including genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors,” Dr. Kommagani said.
A key difference between his work and Dr. Kondo’s is his focus on gut microbiota, whereas the Japanese team looked at bacteria in the vagina and endometrium. But Dr. Kommagani said he thinks both could play a role. “Maybe the vaginal microbiome might have a direct impact on disease similar to what we showed on the gut,” he said.
But he said at least part of the answer to why some women develop endometriosis may have to do more with the balance of beneficial and harmful bacteria in the gut rather than because of a single family of microbes like Fusobacterium.
Most recently, by dovetailing a mouse model for inducing endometriosis in mice treated with antibiotics to deplete their gut microbiome, Dr. Kommagani’s lab expanded on its previous work: They showed that the animals developed fewer of the typical lesions seen in endometriosis than those that did not receive antibiotics before all of the mice underwent the surgical procedure used by researchers to induce endometriosis – possibly because they had no bacteria in their gut triggering the inflammatory response required for the development of endometriosis.
But after oral feedings with fecal matter from mice without endometriosis, the microbiota-depleted rodents began developing lesions typical of endometriosis, suggesting that altered gut flora from mice with endometriosis appeared to promote the disorder. Meanwhile, their microbiota-depleted counterparts who were fed fecal matter from mice without endometriosis did not develop the typical lesions.
Dr. Kommagani’s team then compared metabolites from bacteria in stool from mice with and without endometriosis and investigated the in vitro effect of these metabolites on cells from human endometriotic lesions. One of them, quinic acid, increased the proliferation of human endometriotic epithelial cells.
“Some metabolites such as fiber-derived short-chain fatty acids have beneficial effects; they inhibit the disease,” Dr. Kommagani said. “But maybe an amino acid derivative such as quinic acid, [may] promote disease, and these are generated because there is a gut dysbiosis.”
This statement hints at some of the possible therapeutic approaches for endometriosis, such as a high-fiber diet to promote healthy gut flora, or perhaps antibiotics to eradicate unhealthy bacteria. But as with other conditions that have been linked to dysbiosis, like inflammatory bowel disease, use of antibiotics is a bit like balancing on a tightrope; although antibiotics may remove harmful bacteria, their use may negatively affect the beneficial bacteria.
Clues in genetic variants
Krina Zondervan, DPhil, professor and head of the department of reproductive and genomic epidemiology at the University of Oxford (England), focuses on genomic, molecular, and epidemiologic approaches to understanding endometriosis.
“It’s one thing identifying risk variants and the next question is, okay, well, what do those variants actually do in terms of biology?” Dr. Zondervan said. The Oxford team next explored how the identified genetic variants affect gene expression and the proteins generated, drawing on previously collected data on gene expression from samples of human blood and endometrial and uterine tissue.
They found many of the genes implicated in the risk for endometriosis code for proteins that affect sex hormones, uterine development, transformation of healthy cells into cancerous tissue, inflammatory adhesion molecules, and factors promoting development of new blood vessels. All of that, she said, explains how a few endometrial cells making their way into the pelvis can attach to ovaries, ligaments, and peritoneal surfaces; proliferate; and acquire a blood supply to ensure their survival.
“We were able to identify a whole host of things that were likely causal to the disease,” Dr. Zondervan said. And that finding led to her next question: “Are there particular genes or areas around them that can be targeted with certain medications?”
The surprising answer was that several of the genes linked to endometriosis share pathways with clinical syndromes that often occur in women with endometriosis. Many of these are chronic pain conditions – such as migraines, headaches, and back pain – but also include inflammatory illnesses such as asthma and osteoarthritis.
As Dr. Zondervan explained, “A lot of the variance that we see for endometriosis is also experienced for low back pain and migraine, and that clearly has something to do with pain perception and pain mechanisms.”
A connection between the development of neural pathways and endometriosis has been proposed before, as researchers have found that endometriotic lesions can develop their own nerve supply, creating a direct interaction between the lesions and the central nervous system. And some clinicians have been employing treatment strategies that employ multimodal therapies – employing physical therapists, mental health practitioners, nutritionists, and pain specialists prior to and following surgical removal of lesions – to improve overall success rates of treatment.
But Dr. Zondervan’s team is the first to uncover an important clue about how this happens.
The study findings also provide solid clues to researchers about which genes and proteins to focus on for drug target discovery. In particular, the gene pathways shared by endometriosis and various pain conditions could allow for repurposing of drugs developed for other conditions for treating endometriosis, reported Dr. Zondervan.
Dr. Zondervan’s other important conclusion, echoed by Dr. Kondo and Dr. Kommagani, is that endometriosis is not one disease. Rather, it appears to be akin to cancer in terms of the heterogeneity of how it presents and the different subtypes of diseases. The Oxford study corroborated this belief, identifying certain genes that were closely associated with cystic lesions in ovaries, but failing to turn up a genetic link to other types of lesions in the pelvis long considered to be part of the spectrum of endometriosis disease.
Dr. Zondervan agreed that the potential link with Fusobacterium is a fascinating area given the critical role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of endometriosis, although she’d like to see the work replicated with larger sample sizes. “From a personal point of view, I’d be really fascinated to see how genetics interplays with this,” she added.
What’s next?
The chief limitation of human studies looking at mechanisms of endometriosis is that they are correlational: Tissue samples are collected from women with and without endometriosis, often through an invasive procedure such as laparoscopy or biopsy, at one point in time. Currently, the best tools for proving causation are animal models of endometriosis, such as the those used by Dr. Kondo’s and Dr. Kommagani’s teams.
Better diagnostic tools would solve that problem. The ultimate goal is a noninvasive test for endometriosis that would allow clinicians to follow women over time and permit the monitoring of disease progression, or regression, without the need for painful procedures. Such a diagnostic tool would facilitate rigorous longitudinal studies evaluating mechanisms of disease, as well as monitoring outcomes of clinical trials of new treatments.
Could stool samples be the answer?
The Japanese team found that women harboring Fusobacterium in endometrial tissue also had Fusobacterium in vaginal samples taken at the time of their hysterectomy – and stool samples can pick up changes in the gut microbiome.
“Vaginal swab or stool tests are probably the best and easiest for noninvasive early detection,” Dr. Kommagani said.
Spit tests for DNA would be even easier to obtain. Polygenic risk scores could be developed to estimate an individual’s risk of disease based on the number of variants, but Dr. Zondervan cautioned that not all the genes that account for endometriosis are known.
“The things that we found altogether explain about 5% of disease variability, basically – which is still not an awful lot,” she said.
Dr. Kondo’s work was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Research Grant of the Princess Takamatsu Cancer Research Fund. A patent method for detecting bacteria of genus Fusobacterium in order to diagnose endometriosis (WO2023/ 042714), was submitted (international publication date, March 23, 2023).
Dr. Kommagani’s work was funded, in part, by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grants R01HD102680, R01HD065435, and R00HD080742. He has no other conflicts of interest. Dr. Zondervan received funding from the Wellcome Trust (216767; 104036; 084766; 212904; 076113 and 085475) and also reported grants from Bayer AG, AbbVie, Volition Rx, MDNA Life Sciences, and Roche Diagnostics outside the submitted work.
Dr. Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist living in Portland, Ore.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In 1927, American gynecologist John Sampson published his theory of the etiology of endometriosis, postulating that retrograde flow of endometrial debris flows backward through the fallopian tubes during menses into the peritoneal cavity. Dr. Sampson’s notion remains the main paradigm today, mentioned still in recent articles on the topic, but it has a flaw: Although the theory may account for how endometrial tissue escapes the uterus, a 1984 study revealed that this phenomenon occurs in 90% of women. Why, then, do only 10% of women suffer from endometriosis?
Endometriosis describes a condition in which endometrial tissue lining the uterus is found outside the uterus. The disease can be painful, even crippling. As many as 30% of women in their reproductive years who have endometriosis are infertile as a consequence. The hallmarks of the condition are superficial peritoneal lesions of varying color, cysts in the ovaries, deeper nodules accompanied by scarring and adhesion, primarily in the pelvis but sometimes appearing outside the pelvis. The syndrome can be challenging to identify, requiring laparoscopy for definitive diagnosis.
John Sampson aside, scientists have struggled for the past century to identify the cause, or causes, of endometriosis. Hormones clearly play a role in its development, and women with endometriosis have an elevated risk of clear-cell and endometrioid ovarian cancer and autoimmune diseases. Immunodeficiency also could be to blame, if a faulty immune system fails to find and remove endometrial tissue outside of the uterus. A class of chemicals known as endocrine disruptors have been linked to endometriosis, but not definitively. Twin studies have demonstrated that as many as 50% of cases have a genetic basis, while mice with surgically induced endometriosis have been found to have a higher ratio of harmful to beneficial bacteria in their gut.
Several studies published this year point to new insights into the old mystery – with possible implications for ways to treat the disorder.
Perhaps the most surprising came out earlier this year in Science Translational Medicine, as a team of researchers in Japan reported that invasive infection by bacteria of the genus Fusobacterium may cause at least some cases of endometriosis.
Is Fusobacterium the new Helicobacter pylori?
The researchers, from Nagoya University, are the first to suggest that not only might a single bacterial genus cause endometriosis, but that antibiotic treatment could prevent progression of the disease. Using endometrial tissue obtained from 79 women undergoing hysterectomy for endometriosis and 76 women undergoing hysterectomy for other reasons (such as cervical cancer), the team started with gene expression profiling to explore differences between the two sets of samples.
They uncovered an interesting chain of cellular events: macrophages found in endometriotic lesions were secreting transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta). TGF-beta in turn stimulated high levels of expression of a gene called TAGLN in fibroblast cells from women with endometriosis but not in fibroblasts from women without endometriosis.
Turning on TAGLN transformed these previously inactive cells into active myofibroblasts, leading to increased proliferation, mobility, and attachment to mesothelial cells, the layer of cells that line body cavities and internal organs. In short, they identified some key players in an environment that seemed very favorable to the development of endometriosis.
“So, the question is: Why are macrophages activated?” said Yutaka Kondo, MD, PhD, the senior author of the study and a professor in the division of cancer biology at the Nagoya (Japan) University Graduate School of Medicine. “We think that there are always bacteria in the endometrium.”
After reviewing data from a previously published study, they used quantitative polymerase chain reaction to rule out one candidate, Erysipelothrix, but scored on their next attempt, identifying Fusobacterium species in endometrial tissue from 64% of the women with endometriosis, compared with fewer than 10% of the controls.
To confirm that the bacteria could cause disease and were not simply bystanders, Dr. Kondo’s team turned to a mouse model for endometriosis, in which endometrial cells are surgically removed from the uteri of mice and injected into the peritoneum of recipient mice, leading to the formation of endometriotic lesions. When mice received further injections of uterine tissue from mice that were infected with F. nucleatum, their lesions were more numerous when compared with mice that received injections of uninfected uterine tissue. Furthermore, antibiotic treatment with metronidazole or chloramphenicol immediately after surgery largely prevented progression to endometriosis, Dr. Kondo and his colleagues reported.
Dr. Kondo likened this relationship between Fusobacterium and endometriosis to that of the link between Helicobacter pylori and peptic ulcers but acknowledged that he doesn’t have all the answers.
“We need more clinical trials, and also we have to know what kind of treatment might be the most effective for the treatment of endometriosis,” Dr. Kondo said, pointing out that other therapies should still be pursued in addition to antibiotics, as not all the samples from women with endometriosis harbored Fusobacterium. “It might be possible that other mechanisms are also involved.”
Don’t write off gut microbiota
Ramakrishna Kommagani, PhD, associate professor of pathology and immunology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, agreed. “Endometriosis is a complex disease, which appears to be impacted by many factors, including genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors,” Dr. Kommagani said.
A key difference between his work and Dr. Kondo’s is his focus on gut microbiota, whereas the Japanese team looked at bacteria in the vagina and endometrium. But Dr. Kommagani said he thinks both could play a role. “Maybe the vaginal microbiome might have a direct impact on disease similar to what we showed on the gut,” he said.
But he said at least part of the answer to why some women develop endometriosis may have to do more with the balance of beneficial and harmful bacteria in the gut rather than because of a single family of microbes like Fusobacterium.
Most recently, by dovetailing a mouse model for inducing endometriosis in mice treated with antibiotics to deplete their gut microbiome, Dr. Kommagani’s lab expanded on its previous work: They showed that the animals developed fewer of the typical lesions seen in endometriosis than those that did not receive antibiotics before all of the mice underwent the surgical procedure used by researchers to induce endometriosis – possibly because they had no bacteria in their gut triggering the inflammatory response required for the development of endometriosis.
But after oral feedings with fecal matter from mice without endometriosis, the microbiota-depleted rodents began developing lesions typical of endometriosis, suggesting that altered gut flora from mice with endometriosis appeared to promote the disorder. Meanwhile, their microbiota-depleted counterparts who were fed fecal matter from mice without endometriosis did not develop the typical lesions.
Dr. Kommagani’s team then compared metabolites from bacteria in stool from mice with and without endometriosis and investigated the in vitro effect of these metabolites on cells from human endometriotic lesions. One of them, quinic acid, increased the proliferation of human endometriotic epithelial cells.
“Some metabolites such as fiber-derived short-chain fatty acids have beneficial effects; they inhibit the disease,” Dr. Kommagani said. “But maybe an amino acid derivative such as quinic acid, [may] promote disease, and these are generated because there is a gut dysbiosis.”
This statement hints at some of the possible therapeutic approaches for endometriosis, such as a high-fiber diet to promote healthy gut flora, or perhaps antibiotics to eradicate unhealthy bacteria. But as with other conditions that have been linked to dysbiosis, like inflammatory bowel disease, use of antibiotics is a bit like balancing on a tightrope; although antibiotics may remove harmful bacteria, their use may negatively affect the beneficial bacteria.
Clues in genetic variants
Krina Zondervan, DPhil, professor and head of the department of reproductive and genomic epidemiology at the University of Oxford (England), focuses on genomic, molecular, and epidemiologic approaches to understanding endometriosis.
“It’s one thing identifying risk variants and the next question is, okay, well, what do those variants actually do in terms of biology?” Dr. Zondervan said. The Oxford team next explored how the identified genetic variants affect gene expression and the proteins generated, drawing on previously collected data on gene expression from samples of human blood and endometrial and uterine tissue.
They found many of the genes implicated in the risk for endometriosis code for proteins that affect sex hormones, uterine development, transformation of healthy cells into cancerous tissue, inflammatory adhesion molecules, and factors promoting development of new blood vessels. All of that, she said, explains how a few endometrial cells making their way into the pelvis can attach to ovaries, ligaments, and peritoneal surfaces; proliferate; and acquire a blood supply to ensure their survival.
“We were able to identify a whole host of things that were likely causal to the disease,” Dr. Zondervan said. And that finding led to her next question: “Are there particular genes or areas around them that can be targeted with certain medications?”
The surprising answer was that several of the genes linked to endometriosis share pathways with clinical syndromes that often occur in women with endometriosis. Many of these are chronic pain conditions – such as migraines, headaches, and back pain – but also include inflammatory illnesses such as asthma and osteoarthritis.
As Dr. Zondervan explained, “A lot of the variance that we see for endometriosis is also experienced for low back pain and migraine, and that clearly has something to do with pain perception and pain mechanisms.”
A connection between the development of neural pathways and endometriosis has been proposed before, as researchers have found that endometriotic lesions can develop their own nerve supply, creating a direct interaction between the lesions and the central nervous system. And some clinicians have been employing treatment strategies that employ multimodal therapies – employing physical therapists, mental health practitioners, nutritionists, and pain specialists prior to and following surgical removal of lesions – to improve overall success rates of treatment.
But Dr. Zondervan’s team is the first to uncover an important clue about how this happens.
The study findings also provide solid clues to researchers about which genes and proteins to focus on for drug target discovery. In particular, the gene pathways shared by endometriosis and various pain conditions could allow for repurposing of drugs developed for other conditions for treating endometriosis, reported Dr. Zondervan.
Dr. Zondervan’s other important conclusion, echoed by Dr. Kondo and Dr. Kommagani, is that endometriosis is not one disease. Rather, it appears to be akin to cancer in terms of the heterogeneity of how it presents and the different subtypes of diseases. The Oxford study corroborated this belief, identifying certain genes that were closely associated with cystic lesions in ovaries, but failing to turn up a genetic link to other types of lesions in the pelvis long considered to be part of the spectrum of endometriosis disease.
Dr. Zondervan agreed that the potential link with Fusobacterium is a fascinating area given the critical role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of endometriosis, although she’d like to see the work replicated with larger sample sizes. “From a personal point of view, I’d be really fascinated to see how genetics interplays with this,” she added.
What’s next?
The chief limitation of human studies looking at mechanisms of endometriosis is that they are correlational: Tissue samples are collected from women with and without endometriosis, often through an invasive procedure such as laparoscopy or biopsy, at one point in time. Currently, the best tools for proving causation are animal models of endometriosis, such as the those used by Dr. Kondo’s and Dr. Kommagani’s teams.
Better diagnostic tools would solve that problem. The ultimate goal is a noninvasive test for endometriosis that would allow clinicians to follow women over time and permit the monitoring of disease progression, or regression, without the need for painful procedures. Such a diagnostic tool would facilitate rigorous longitudinal studies evaluating mechanisms of disease, as well as monitoring outcomes of clinical trials of new treatments.
Could stool samples be the answer?
The Japanese team found that women harboring Fusobacterium in endometrial tissue also had Fusobacterium in vaginal samples taken at the time of their hysterectomy – and stool samples can pick up changes in the gut microbiome.
“Vaginal swab or stool tests are probably the best and easiest for noninvasive early detection,” Dr. Kommagani said.
Spit tests for DNA would be even easier to obtain. Polygenic risk scores could be developed to estimate an individual’s risk of disease based on the number of variants, but Dr. Zondervan cautioned that not all the genes that account for endometriosis are known.
“The things that we found altogether explain about 5% of disease variability, basically – which is still not an awful lot,” she said.
Dr. Kondo’s work was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Research Grant of the Princess Takamatsu Cancer Research Fund. A patent method for detecting bacteria of genus Fusobacterium in order to diagnose endometriosis (WO2023/ 042714), was submitted (international publication date, March 23, 2023).
Dr. Kommagani’s work was funded, in part, by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grants R01HD102680, R01HD065435, and R00HD080742. He has no other conflicts of interest. Dr. Zondervan received funding from the Wellcome Trust (216767; 104036; 084766; 212904; 076113 and 085475) and also reported grants from Bayer AG, AbbVie, Volition Rx, MDNA Life Sciences, and Roche Diagnostics outside the submitted work.
Dr. Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist living in Portland, Ore.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
HT, even short-term use, linked to dementia risk in women
Short-term and cyclical use of estrogen and progestin therapy for menopausal symptoms is linked to an increased risk of dementia, results of a large observational study show.
(AD) 20 years later, compared with those who didn’t use HT. The risk was present even in women who used HT for brief periods at menopause onset.
However, both the investigators and experts not involved in the research caution that further studies are needed to explore whether the increased risk of dementia stems from HT use or whether women in need of HT have other underlying dementia risk factors.
“We cannot guarantee that our findings illustrate a causal relationship or if they represent underlying disposition to dementia in women in need of [HT],” lead investigator Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, from the Danish Dementia Research Centre at Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, told this news organization.
Still, he added, the findings supported evidence from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study (WHIMS), the largest randomized trial on menopausal hormone therapy and dementia.
The findings were published online in BMJ.
Conflicting findings
Before WHIMS was published in 2003, HT was widely prescribed to relieve menopausal symptoms. However, WHIMS, which included more than 4,000 women aged 65 years or older, revealed that HT was associated with a twofold increased risk of dementia.
Studies published since then have yielded mixed results, adding to the controversy surrounding the safety of HT.
To discover whether age of initiation or length of duration of HT affects health outcomes, Dr. Pourhadi and his team undertook the observational study.
Between 2000 and 2018, the researchers tracked more than 60,000 Danish women aged 50-60 years using diagnosis and prescription information from Denmark’s National Registry of Patients.
The registry records showed that nearly 5,600 women developed dementia and 56,000 did not develop dementia. Of the 5,600 women with dementia, 1,460 had a diagnosis of AD.
Nearly 18,000 participants in the study sample received HT – 1,790 (29%) in the dementia group and 16,150 (32%) in the control group. Half started treatment before age 53 years and half stopped within 4 years. Roughly 90% used oral medications, which included a combination of estrogen and progestin.
The median age at which participants started HT was 53 years for both cases and controls, and the median duration of use was 4 years.
Longer use equals greater risk
Compared with those who did not use HT, those who used estrogen-progestin therapy had a 24% increased risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.44).
The increased dementia risk was similar between continuous (estrogen and progestin taken daily) and cyclic (daily estrogen with progestin taken 10-14 days a month) treatment regimens.
Longer durations of HT use were associated with increased risk, ranging from a 21% increased risk (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.35) for those who used it for 1 year or less to a 74% increased risk (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.45-2.10) for use lasting 12 years or more.
Women who started HT between the age of 45 and 50 had a 26% increased risk of developing all-cause dementia (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.41) while women who initiated HT between age 51 and 60 had a 21% greater risk (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.29).
Progestin-only or vaginal-estrogen-only therapy was not associated with the development of dementia.
The investigators noted that because this is an observational study, “further studies are warranted to explore if the observed association in this study between menopausal hormone therapy use and increased risk of dementia illustrates a causal effect.”
No causal relationship
In an accompanying editorial, Kejal Kantarci, MD, a professor of radiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that three clinical trials, including the WHIMS of Younger Women (WHIMS-Y) in 2013, did not show a link between cognitive function and HT.
“Although [Dr.] Pourhadi and colleagues’ study was done carefully using national registries, the observed associations could be artefactual and should not be used to infer a causal relationship between hormone therapy and dementia risk. These findings cannot inform shared decision-making about use of hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms,” she states in the editorial.
Also commenting on the findings, Amanda Heslegrave, PhD, a senior research fellow at the U.K. Dementia Research Institute, London, said in a release from the U.K.’s Science Media Centre that while the study “may cause alarm for women taking [HT], it highlights just how much we still don’t know about the effects of hormones on women’s brain health, and with promising treatments on the horizon, it should be a call to action to make this a priority area of research.”
There was no specific funding for the study. Dr. Kantarci reported working on an unpaid educational activity on Alzheimer’s disease for Biogen and is the PI on a study of a PET imaging ligand for Alzheimer’s disease, to which Eli Lilly and Avid Radiopharmaceuticals donated supplies.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Short-term and cyclical use of estrogen and progestin therapy for menopausal symptoms is linked to an increased risk of dementia, results of a large observational study show.
(AD) 20 years later, compared with those who didn’t use HT. The risk was present even in women who used HT for brief periods at menopause onset.
However, both the investigators and experts not involved in the research caution that further studies are needed to explore whether the increased risk of dementia stems from HT use or whether women in need of HT have other underlying dementia risk factors.
“We cannot guarantee that our findings illustrate a causal relationship or if they represent underlying disposition to dementia in women in need of [HT],” lead investigator Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, from the Danish Dementia Research Centre at Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, told this news organization.
Still, he added, the findings supported evidence from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study (WHIMS), the largest randomized trial on menopausal hormone therapy and dementia.
The findings were published online in BMJ.
Conflicting findings
Before WHIMS was published in 2003, HT was widely prescribed to relieve menopausal symptoms. However, WHIMS, which included more than 4,000 women aged 65 years or older, revealed that HT was associated with a twofold increased risk of dementia.
Studies published since then have yielded mixed results, adding to the controversy surrounding the safety of HT.
To discover whether age of initiation or length of duration of HT affects health outcomes, Dr. Pourhadi and his team undertook the observational study.
Between 2000 and 2018, the researchers tracked more than 60,000 Danish women aged 50-60 years using diagnosis and prescription information from Denmark’s National Registry of Patients.
The registry records showed that nearly 5,600 women developed dementia and 56,000 did not develop dementia. Of the 5,600 women with dementia, 1,460 had a diagnosis of AD.
Nearly 18,000 participants in the study sample received HT – 1,790 (29%) in the dementia group and 16,150 (32%) in the control group. Half started treatment before age 53 years and half stopped within 4 years. Roughly 90% used oral medications, which included a combination of estrogen and progestin.
The median age at which participants started HT was 53 years for both cases and controls, and the median duration of use was 4 years.
Longer use equals greater risk
Compared with those who did not use HT, those who used estrogen-progestin therapy had a 24% increased risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.44).
The increased dementia risk was similar between continuous (estrogen and progestin taken daily) and cyclic (daily estrogen with progestin taken 10-14 days a month) treatment regimens.
Longer durations of HT use were associated with increased risk, ranging from a 21% increased risk (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.35) for those who used it for 1 year or less to a 74% increased risk (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.45-2.10) for use lasting 12 years or more.
Women who started HT between the age of 45 and 50 had a 26% increased risk of developing all-cause dementia (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.41) while women who initiated HT between age 51 and 60 had a 21% greater risk (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.29).
Progestin-only or vaginal-estrogen-only therapy was not associated with the development of dementia.
The investigators noted that because this is an observational study, “further studies are warranted to explore if the observed association in this study between menopausal hormone therapy use and increased risk of dementia illustrates a causal effect.”
No causal relationship
In an accompanying editorial, Kejal Kantarci, MD, a professor of radiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that three clinical trials, including the WHIMS of Younger Women (WHIMS-Y) in 2013, did not show a link between cognitive function and HT.
“Although [Dr.] Pourhadi and colleagues’ study was done carefully using national registries, the observed associations could be artefactual and should not be used to infer a causal relationship between hormone therapy and dementia risk. These findings cannot inform shared decision-making about use of hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms,” she states in the editorial.
Also commenting on the findings, Amanda Heslegrave, PhD, a senior research fellow at the U.K. Dementia Research Institute, London, said in a release from the U.K.’s Science Media Centre that while the study “may cause alarm for women taking [HT], it highlights just how much we still don’t know about the effects of hormones on women’s brain health, and with promising treatments on the horizon, it should be a call to action to make this a priority area of research.”
There was no specific funding for the study. Dr. Kantarci reported working on an unpaid educational activity on Alzheimer’s disease for Biogen and is the PI on a study of a PET imaging ligand for Alzheimer’s disease, to which Eli Lilly and Avid Radiopharmaceuticals donated supplies.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Short-term and cyclical use of estrogen and progestin therapy for menopausal symptoms is linked to an increased risk of dementia, results of a large observational study show.
(AD) 20 years later, compared with those who didn’t use HT. The risk was present even in women who used HT for brief periods at menopause onset.
However, both the investigators and experts not involved in the research caution that further studies are needed to explore whether the increased risk of dementia stems from HT use or whether women in need of HT have other underlying dementia risk factors.
“We cannot guarantee that our findings illustrate a causal relationship or if they represent underlying disposition to dementia in women in need of [HT],” lead investigator Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, from the Danish Dementia Research Centre at Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, told this news organization.
Still, he added, the findings supported evidence from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study (WHIMS), the largest randomized trial on menopausal hormone therapy and dementia.
The findings were published online in BMJ.
Conflicting findings
Before WHIMS was published in 2003, HT was widely prescribed to relieve menopausal symptoms. However, WHIMS, which included more than 4,000 women aged 65 years or older, revealed that HT was associated with a twofold increased risk of dementia.
Studies published since then have yielded mixed results, adding to the controversy surrounding the safety of HT.
To discover whether age of initiation or length of duration of HT affects health outcomes, Dr. Pourhadi and his team undertook the observational study.
Between 2000 and 2018, the researchers tracked more than 60,000 Danish women aged 50-60 years using diagnosis and prescription information from Denmark’s National Registry of Patients.
The registry records showed that nearly 5,600 women developed dementia and 56,000 did not develop dementia. Of the 5,600 women with dementia, 1,460 had a diagnosis of AD.
Nearly 18,000 participants in the study sample received HT – 1,790 (29%) in the dementia group and 16,150 (32%) in the control group. Half started treatment before age 53 years and half stopped within 4 years. Roughly 90% used oral medications, which included a combination of estrogen and progestin.
The median age at which participants started HT was 53 years for both cases and controls, and the median duration of use was 4 years.
Longer use equals greater risk
Compared with those who did not use HT, those who used estrogen-progestin therapy had a 24% increased risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.44).
The increased dementia risk was similar between continuous (estrogen and progestin taken daily) and cyclic (daily estrogen with progestin taken 10-14 days a month) treatment regimens.
Longer durations of HT use were associated with increased risk, ranging from a 21% increased risk (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.35) for those who used it for 1 year or less to a 74% increased risk (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.45-2.10) for use lasting 12 years or more.
Women who started HT between the age of 45 and 50 had a 26% increased risk of developing all-cause dementia (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.41) while women who initiated HT between age 51 and 60 had a 21% greater risk (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.29).
Progestin-only or vaginal-estrogen-only therapy was not associated with the development of dementia.
The investigators noted that because this is an observational study, “further studies are warranted to explore if the observed association in this study between menopausal hormone therapy use and increased risk of dementia illustrates a causal effect.”
No causal relationship
In an accompanying editorial, Kejal Kantarci, MD, a professor of radiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that three clinical trials, including the WHIMS of Younger Women (WHIMS-Y) in 2013, did not show a link between cognitive function and HT.
“Although [Dr.] Pourhadi and colleagues’ study was done carefully using national registries, the observed associations could be artefactual and should not be used to infer a causal relationship between hormone therapy and dementia risk. These findings cannot inform shared decision-making about use of hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms,” she states in the editorial.
Also commenting on the findings, Amanda Heslegrave, PhD, a senior research fellow at the U.K. Dementia Research Institute, London, said in a release from the U.K.’s Science Media Centre that while the study “may cause alarm for women taking [HT], it highlights just how much we still don’t know about the effects of hormones on women’s brain health, and with promising treatments on the horizon, it should be a call to action to make this a priority area of research.”
There was no specific funding for the study. Dr. Kantarci reported working on an unpaid educational activity on Alzheimer’s disease for Biogen and is the PI on a study of a PET imaging ligand for Alzheimer’s disease, to which Eli Lilly and Avid Radiopharmaceuticals donated supplies.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Should breast cancer screening start at a younger age?
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently issued draft recommendations on breast cancer screening that lower the starting age for routine mammography screening for those at average risk.1 The proposed recommendations are an update to USPSTF’s 2016 guidance on this topic.
What’s different. There are 2 major differences in the new recommendations:
- Recommendation for routine mammography starting at age 40 for women at average risk for breast cancer (eg, no personal or family history or genetic risk factors). This is a “B” recommendation (offer or provide the service). Previously, the recommended age to start routine mammography was 50 years, with a “C” recommendation (individual decision-making) for those ages 40 to 49 years.
- No mention of digital tomosynthesis. Previously, this screening modality was rated as an “I” (insufficient evidence to assess). While the new draft recommendation does not mention tomosynthesis, the related evidence report concludes that there is still insufficient evidence to assess it.2
What’s the same. Several important recommendations have not changed. The USPSTF continues to state that the evidence is insufficient to assess the value of (1) supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in women with dense breasts and negative mammograms and (2) mammography in women ages 75 years and older.
And, most importantly, the USPSTF continues to recommend biennial, rather than annual, mammography screening. This recommendation is based on studies that show very little difference in outcomes between these strategies but higher rates of false-positive tests and subsequent biopsies with annual testing.2
What others say. USPSTF’s draft recommendations continue to differ from those of the American Cancer Society, which for average-risk women recommend individual decision-making from ages 40 to 45 years; routine annual mammography for those ages 45 to 54 years; annual or biennial mammography for those ages 55 years and older; and continued screening for women older than 75 years who are in good health and have a life expectancy ≥ 10 years.3
The USPSTF’s rationale for lowering the age at which to start routine mammography is a little puzzling. Several conclusions in the draft evidence report seem to contradict this recommendation:
In the summary of screening effectiveness, the report states “For women ages 39 to 49 years, the combined [relative risk] for breast cancer mortality was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02; 9 trials); absolute breast cancer mortality reduction was 2.9 (95% CI, –0.6 to 8.9) deaths prevented per 10,000 women over 10 years. None of the trials indicated statistically significantly reduced breast cancer mortality with screening….”2
And in a summary of screening harms, it states that for “every case of invasive breast cancer detected by mammography screening in women age[s] 40 to 49 years, 464 women had screening mammography, 58 were recommended for additional diagnostic imaging, and 10 were recommended for biopsies.”2
The USPSTF apparently based its decision on a modeling study conducted by the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) at USPSTF’s request. This analysis found that screening biennially from ages 50 to 74 years resulted in about 7 breast cancer deaths averted over the lifetimes of 1000 females and that 1 additional death was averted if the starting age for screening was 40 years.4
Financial implications. The USPSTF’s change from a “C” to a “B” recommendation for women ages 40 to 49 years has financial implications. The Affordable Care Act mandates that all “A” and “B” recommendations by the USPSTF have to be provided by commercial health plans with no out-of-pocket costs. (This is currently being challenged in the courts.) However, any follow-up testing for abnormal results is not subject to this provision—so false-positive work-ups and biopsies may result in out-of-pocket costs.
What to discuss with your patients. For women ages 40 to 50 years, discuss the differences in mammography recommendations and the potential risks and benefits of the procedure, as well as financial implications; respect the patient’s decision.
For those ages 50 to 74 years, recommend biennial mammography.
For those older than 74 years, assess life expectancy and other health problems. Discuss the potential risks and benefits of the procedure and respect the patient’s decision.
For all patients, document all discussions and decisions.
1. USPSTF. Breast cancer: screening. Draft recommendation statement. Published May 9, 2023. Accessed June 19, 2023. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/draft-recommendation/breast-cancer-screening-adults
2. Henderson JT, Webber, EM, Weyrich M, et al. Screening for breast cancer: a comparative effectiveness review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 231. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2023. Published May 9, 2023. Accessed June 19, 2023. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-evidence-review/breast-cancer-screening-adults
3. American Cancer Society. American Cancer Society recommendations for the early detection of breast cancer. Revised January 14, 2022. Accessed June 20, 2023. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/breast-cancer/screening-tests-and-early-detection/american-cancer-society-recommendations-for-the-early-detection-of-breast-cancer.html
4. Trentham Dietz A, Chapman CH, Jayasekera J, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: an updated decision analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Technical report. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2023. Published May 9, 2023. Accessed June 19, 2023. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-modeling-report/breast-cancer-screening-adults
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently issued draft recommendations on breast cancer screening that lower the starting age for routine mammography screening for those at average risk.1 The proposed recommendations are an update to USPSTF’s 2016 guidance on this topic.
What’s different. There are 2 major differences in the new recommendations:
- Recommendation for routine mammography starting at age 40 for women at average risk for breast cancer (eg, no personal or family history or genetic risk factors). This is a “B” recommendation (offer or provide the service). Previously, the recommended age to start routine mammography was 50 years, with a “C” recommendation (individual decision-making) for those ages 40 to 49 years.
- No mention of digital tomosynthesis. Previously, this screening modality was rated as an “I” (insufficient evidence to assess). While the new draft recommendation does not mention tomosynthesis, the related evidence report concludes that there is still insufficient evidence to assess it.2
What’s the same. Several important recommendations have not changed. The USPSTF continues to state that the evidence is insufficient to assess the value of (1) supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in women with dense breasts and negative mammograms and (2) mammography in women ages 75 years and older.
And, most importantly, the USPSTF continues to recommend biennial, rather than annual, mammography screening. This recommendation is based on studies that show very little difference in outcomes between these strategies but higher rates of false-positive tests and subsequent biopsies with annual testing.2
What others say. USPSTF’s draft recommendations continue to differ from those of the American Cancer Society, which for average-risk women recommend individual decision-making from ages 40 to 45 years; routine annual mammography for those ages 45 to 54 years; annual or biennial mammography for those ages 55 years and older; and continued screening for women older than 75 years who are in good health and have a life expectancy ≥ 10 years.3
The USPSTF’s rationale for lowering the age at which to start routine mammography is a little puzzling. Several conclusions in the draft evidence report seem to contradict this recommendation:
In the summary of screening effectiveness, the report states “For women ages 39 to 49 years, the combined [relative risk] for breast cancer mortality was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02; 9 trials); absolute breast cancer mortality reduction was 2.9 (95% CI, –0.6 to 8.9) deaths prevented per 10,000 women over 10 years. None of the trials indicated statistically significantly reduced breast cancer mortality with screening….”2
And in a summary of screening harms, it states that for “every case of invasive breast cancer detected by mammography screening in women age[s] 40 to 49 years, 464 women had screening mammography, 58 were recommended for additional diagnostic imaging, and 10 were recommended for biopsies.”2
The USPSTF apparently based its decision on a modeling study conducted by the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) at USPSTF’s request. This analysis found that screening biennially from ages 50 to 74 years resulted in about 7 breast cancer deaths averted over the lifetimes of 1000 females and that 1 additional death was averted if the starting age for screening was 40 years.4
Financial implications. The USPSTF’s change from a “C” to a “B” recommendation for women ages 40 to 49 years has financial implications. The Affordable Care Act mandates that all “A” and “B” recommendations by the USPSTF have to be provided by commercial health plans with no out-of-pocket costs. (This is currently being challenged in the courts.) However, any follow-up testing for abnormal results is not subject to this provision—so false-positive work-ups and biopsies may result in out-of-pocket costs.
What to discuss with your patients. For women ages 40 to 50 years, discuss the differences in mammography recommendations and the potential risks and benefits of the procedure, as well as financial implications; respect the patient’s decision.
For those ages 50 to 74 years, recommend biennial mammography.
For those older than 74 years, assess life expectancy and other health problems. Discuss the potential risks and benefits of the procedure and respect the patient’s decision.
For all patients, document all discussions and decisions.
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently issued draft recommendations on breast cancer screening that lower the starting age for routine mammography screening for those at average risk.1 The proposed recommendations are an update to USPSTF’s 2016 guidance on this topic.
What’s different. There are 2 major differences in the new recommendations:
- Recommendation for routine mammography starting at age 40 for women at average risk for breast cancer (eg, no personal or family history or genetic risk factors). This is a “B” recommendation (offer or provide the service). Previously, the recommended age to start routine mammography was 50 years, with a “C” recommendation (individual decision-making) for those ages 40 to 49 years.
- No mention of digital tomosynthesis. Previously, this screening modality was rated as an “I” (insufficient evidence to assess). While the new draft recommendation does not mention tomosynthesis, the related evidence report concludes that there is still insufficient evidence to assess it.2
What’s the same. Several important recommendations have not changed. The USPSTF continues to state that the evidence is insufficient to assess the value of (1) supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in women with dense breasts and negative mammograms and (2) mammography in women ages 75 years and older.
And, most importantly, the USPSTF continues to recommend biennial, rather than annual, mammography screening. This recommendation is based on studies that show very little difference in outcomes between these strategies but higher rates of false-positive tests and subsequent biopsies with annual testing.2
What others say. USPSTF’s draft recommendations continue to differ from those of the American Cancer Society, which for average-risk women recommend individual decision-making from ages 40 to 45 years; routine annual mammography for those ages 45 to 54 years; annual or biennial mammography for those ages 55 years and older; and continued screening for women older than 75 years who are in good health and have a life expectancy ≥ 10 years.3
The USPSTF’s rationale for lowering the age at which to start routine mammography is a little puzzling. Several conclusions in the draft evidence report seem to contradict this recommendation:
In the summary of screening effectiveness, the report states “For women ages 39 to 49 years, the combined [relative risk] for breast cancer mortality was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02; 9 trials); absolute breast cancer mortality reduction was 2.9 (95% CI, –0.6 to 8.9) deaths prevented per 10,000 women over 10 years. None of the trials indicated statistically significantly reduced breast cancer mortality with screening….”2
And in a summary of screening harms, it states that for “every case of invasive breast cancer detected by mammography screening in women age[s] 40 to 49 years, 464 women had screening mammography, 58 were recommended for additional diagnostic imaging, and 10 were recommended for biopsies.”2
The USPSTF apparently based its decision on a modeling study conducted by the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) at USPSTF’s request. This analysis found that screening biennially from ages 50 to 74 years resulted in about 7 breast cancer deaths averted over the lifetimes of 1000 females and that 1 additional death was averted if the starting age for screening was 40 years.4
Financial implications. The USPSTF’s change from a “C” to a “B” recommendation for women ages 40 to 49 years has financial implications. The Affordable Care Act mandates that all “A” and “B” recommendations by the USPSTF have to be provided by commercial health plans with no out-of-pocket costs. (This is currently being challenged in the courts.) However, any follow-up testing for abnormal results is not subject to this provision—so false-positive work-ups and biopsies may result in out-of-pocket costs.
What to discuss with your patients. For women ages 40 to 50 years, discuss the differences in mammography recommendations and the potential risks and benefits of the procedure, as well as financial implications; respect the patient’s decision.
For those ages 50 to 74 years, recommend biennial mammography.
For those older than 74 years, assess life expectancy and other health problems. Discuss the potential risks and benefits of the procedure and respect the patient’s decision.
For all patients, document all discussions and decisions.
1. USPSTF. Breast cancer: screening. Draft recommendation statement. Published May 9, 2023. Accessed June 19, 2023. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/draft-recommendation/breast-cancer-screening-adults
2. Henderson JT, Webber, EM, Weyrich M, et al. Screening for breast cancer: a comparative effectiveness review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 231. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2023. Published May 9, 2023. Accessed June 19, 2023. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-evidence-review/breast-cancer-screening-adults
3. American Cancer Society. American Cancer Society recommendations for the early detection of breast cancer. Revised January 14, 2022. Accessed June 20, 2023. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/breast-cancer/screening-tests-and-early-detection/american-cancer-society-recommendations-for-the-early-detection-of-breast-cancer.html
4. Trentham Dietz A, Chapman CH, Jayasekera J, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: an updated decision analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Technical report. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2023. Published May 9, 2023. Accessed June 19, 2023. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-modeling-report/breast-cancer-screening-adults
1. USPSTF. Breast cancer: screening. Draft recommendation statement. Published May 9, 2023. Accessed June 19, 2023. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/draft-recommendation/breast-cancer-screening-adults
2. Henderson JT, Webber, EM, Weyrich M, et al. Screening for breast cancer: a comparative effectiveness review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 231. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2023. Published May 9, 2023. Accessed June 19, 2023. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-evidence-review/breast-cancer-screening-adults
3. American Cancer Society. American Cancer Society recommendations for the early detection of breast cancer. Revised January 14, 2022. Accessed June 20, 2023. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/breast-cancer/screening-tests-and-early-detection/american-cancer-society-recommendations-for-the-early-detection-of-breast-cancer.html
4. Trentham Dietz A, Chapman CH, Jayasekera J, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: an updated decision analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Technical report. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2023. Published May 9, 2023. Accessed June 19, 2023. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-modeling-report/breast-cancer-screening-adults
HPV rates skyrocket despite safe, effective vaccine
An epidemic of sexually transmitted HPV is now swirling around the United States and the United Kingdom, with some serious cases leading to oropharyngeal cancer, which can affect the back of the throat, tonsils, and tongue.
HPV is the leading cause (70%) of this oropharyngeal cancer, according to the CDC. It is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the nation, and around 3.6% of women and 10% of men report oral HPV specifically. But over the past decade, oropharyngeal cases have been steadily falling a little under 4% and 2%, respectively, according to the National Cancer Institute.
HPV is often undetectable and can clear up within a few months. But unfortunately for some, serious disease, such as throat cancer, can develop.
Studies show the HPV vaccine to be extremely effective in lowering sexually transmitted HPV cases. Yet, only 54.5% of young people aged 13-15 have taken the recommended two to three doses, according to the National Cancer Institute.
Why aren’t more young people taking the vaccine?
Low public awareness of the dangers of HPV may be behind young people’s poor vaccination rates, according to Teresa Lee, MD, of the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “For example, while the link with head and neck cancers has been well-studied, the FDA labeling was not changed to reflect this as an indication until 2020,” she said.
Other reasons can include one’s socioeconomic background, poor health literacy, cultural or religious stigmas around vaccines, and lack of quality, low-cost health care, says Emmanuel Aguh, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician. “Some individuals and families are still resistant to vaccines and the noted lack of uptake.”
Doctors and other health care professionals should also be sure to tell patients of all ages about the risks of HPV infection and how well the vaccine works, Dr. Lee said. “Not everyone who is now eligible may have been offered the vaccine as a child, and the first time young adults may receive counseling on this subject may not be until they are entering a very busy period of their lives with many responsibilities – when it may be hard to fit in things like health maintenance.”
How safe is the HPV vaccine?
The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have studied the HPV vaccine for years to find out how safe it is and how well it works, Dr. Aguh said. No major side effects have been reported, and the most common side effect is soreness where you get the shot (which is normal after most vaccines). Some dizziness and fainting in adolescents can also occur, so young people are usually asked to sit or lie down during the shot and for 15 minutes afterward, he said.
“Serious adverse events have not been reported at higher rates than expected following HPV vaccination, meaning there is no clear evidence they are related to the vaccine,” Dr. Lee said. “The vaccine is highly effective in decreasing rates of detectable infection with the high-risk HPV strains responsible for HPV-associated cancers.”
The HPV vaccine is largely recommended for people aged 9-26, and sometimes up to age 45, depending on the individual, Dr. Aguh said. If you are over 26, talk to your doctor about whether you should consider getting the vaccine.
“It is usually given in two doses for complete protection if taken before the 15th birthday,” Dr. Aguh said. “If taken afterward, or in those with a weak immune system, they might require three doses to be fully protected.”
The vaccine produces antibodies that can stop HPV from infecting cells and lowers your chances of catching an HPV-related cancer, such as throat cancer or cancer of the cervix, he said.
While the vaccine is not guaranteed to protect you from the more than 100 strains of HPV, it can protect you from HPV 16 and HPV 18 – two high-risk strains that cause around 70% of cervical cancers.
What is fueling the rise of HPV cases?
A misconception that oral sex is somehow a “safe and risk-free” alternative to anal or vaginal sex could be one reason, Dr. Aguh said.
“It is important to know that, with oral sex, you are exposed to many of the risks associated with vaginal intercourse, especially if you do not take any measures to protect yourself and/or your partner,” Dr. Aguh said. “[With oral sex] it is possible to end up contracting an infection like chlamydia, gonorrhea, and even HPV, leading to an increased risk of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancers.”
A lack of public awareness of what can cause throat cancer could also explain this phenomenon. The number of people you have oral sex with, along with the age you begin sexual activity, can greatly determine your risk of the disease, according to Dr. Lee. She echoes a report by Hisham Mehanna, PhD, in The Conversation.
“For oropharyngeal cancer, the main risk factor is the number of lifetime sexual partners, especially oral sex,” wrote Dr. Mehanna, a professor at the Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences at the University of Birmingham (England). “Those with six or more lifetime oral-sex partners are 8.5 times more likely to develop oropharyngeal cancer than those who do not practice oral sex.”
What are symptoms of oropharyngeal cancer?
Labored breathing or swallowing, a cough that won’t go away, and crackling or hoarseness of your voice could all be signs of throat cancer. Other symptoms include earaches, swelling of the head or neck, and enlarged lymph nodes, among others, Dr. Aguh said.
“The signs and symptoms of HPV-related throat cancers can be difficult to identify and recognize, as they can be vague and are also associated with other medical conditions. Sometimes, there are no signs at all, or they are not easily noticeable due to the location,” he said.
You should go see your doctor if you have any of these ailments for an extended period.
How to reduce your risk
In addition to having six or more oral-sex partners, smoking and drinking heavily could also raise your risk of throat cancer, said Dr. Lee. Proper dental health – like seeing your dentist regularly and practicing proper oral hygiene – can also shave your risk.
“[Good dental health] can help not just with head and neck cancer risk, but with many other inflammation-related diseases,” Dr. Lee said.
Using dental dams and condoms can also be a good method of protection, Dr. Aguh said. A dental dam is a stretchy sheet of latex, or polyurethane plastic, in the shape of a square that is made for blocking body fluid to lower your risk of contracting an STD via oral sex.
Keep in mind: Even with these protections, make sure you and your partner discuss each other’s sexual history, any prior or current STDs and their preferred protection from STDs, said Dr. Aguh.
If you or your partner is being treated for an STD, consider opting out of oral sex and consulting a doctor.
The HPV vaccine is another common method of protection. The shot is “approved for prevention of nine of the most high-risk strains of HPV,” or those that are most commonly linked to cancer, according to Dr. Lee. The vaccine “reduces the frequency of infection” with these viruses, which can ultimately lower the risk of cancers linked to HPV, including cervical, anal, and vulvar and vaginal cancers, she said.
“The best time to receive treatment for prevention of disease is prior to onset of sexual intercourse,” said Dr. Lee.
To get your HPV vaccine, head to your family doctor, school- or community-based health center, or state health department, suggests the CDC.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
An epidemic of sexually transmitted HPV is now swirling around the United States and the United Kingdom, with some serious cases leading to oropharyngeal cancer, which can affect the back of the throat, tonsils, and tongue.
HPV is the leading cause (70%) of this oropharyngeal cancer, according to the CDC. It is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the nation, and around 3.6% of women and 10% of men report oral HPV specifically. But over the past decade, oropharyngeal cases have been steadily falling a little under 4% and 2%, respectively, according to the National Cancer Institute.
HPV is often undetectable and can clear up within a few months. But unfortunately for some, serious disease, such as throat cancer, can develop.
Studies show the HPV vaccine to be extremely effective in lowering sexually transmitted HPV cases. Yet, only 54.5% of young people aged 13-15 have taken the recommended two to three doses, according to the National Cancer Institute.
Why aren’t more young people taking the vaccine?
Low public awareness of the dangers of HPV may be behind young people’s poor vaccination rates, according to Teresa Lee, MD, of the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “For example, while the link with head and neck cancers has been well-studied, the FDA labeling was not changed to reflect this as an indication until 2020,” she said.
Other reasons can include one’s socioeconomic background, poor health literacy, cultural or religious stigmas around vaccines, and lack of quality, low-cost health care, says Emmanuel Aguh, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician. “Some individuals and families are still resistant to vaccines and the noted lack of uptake.”
Doctors and other health care professionals should also be sure to tell patients of all ages about the risks of HPV infection and how well the vaccine works, Dr. Lee said. “Not everyone who is now eligible may have been offered the vaccine as a child, and the first time young adults may receive counseling on this subject may not be until they are entering a very busy period of their lives with many responsibilities – when it may be hard to fit in things like health maintenance.”
How safe is the HPV vaccine?
The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have studied the HPV vaccine for years to find out how safe it is and how well it works, Dr. Aguh said. No major side effects have been reported, and the most common side effect is soreness where you get the shot (which is normal after most vaccines). Some dizziness and fainting in adolescents can also occur, so young people are usually asked to sit or lie down during the shot and for 15 minutes afterward, he said.
“Serious adverse events have not been reported at higher rates than expected following HPV vaccination, meaning there is no clear evidence they are related to the vaccine,” Dr. Lee said. “The vaccine is highly effective in decreasing rates of detectable infection with the high-risk HPV strains responsible for HPV-associated cancers.”
The HPV vaccine is largely recommended for people aged 9-26, and sometimes up to age 45, depending on the individual, Dr. Aguh said. If you are over 26, talk to your doctor about whether you should consider getting the vaccine.
“It is usually given in two doses for complete protection if taken before the 15th birthday,” Dr. Aguh said. “If taken afterward, or in those with a weak immune system, they might require three doses to be fully protected.”
The vaccine produces antibodies that can stop HPV from infecting cells and lowers your chances of catching an HPV-related cancer, such as throat cancer or cancer of the cervix, he said.
While the vaccine is not guaranteed to protect you from the more than 100 strains of HPV, it can protect you from HPV 16 and HPV 18 – two high-risk strains that cause around 70% of cervical cancers.
What is fueling the rise of HPV cases?
A misconception that oral sex is somehow a “safe and risk-free” alternative to anal or vaginal sex could be one reason, Dr. Aguh said.
“It is important to know that, with oral sex, you are exposed to many of the risks associated with vaginal intercourse, especially if you do not take any measures to protect yourself and/or your partner,” Dr. Aguh said. “[With oral sex] it is possible to end up contracting an infection like chlamydia, gonorrhea, and even HPV, leading to an increased risk of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancers.”
A lack of public awareness of what can cause throat cancer could also explain this phenomenon. The number of people you have oral sex with, along with the age you begin sexual activity, can greatly determine your risk of the disease, according to Dr. Lee. She echoes a report by Hisham Mehanna, PhD, in The Conversation.
“For oropharyngeal cancer, the main risk factor is the number of lifetime sexual partners, especially oral sex,” wrote Dr. Mehanna, a professor at the Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences at the University of Birmingham (England). “Those with six or more lifetime oral-sex partners are 8.5 times more likely to develop oropharyngeal cancer than those who do not practice oral sex.”
What are symptoms of oropharyngeal cancer?
Labored breathing or swallowing, a cough that won’t go away, and crackling or hoarseness of your voice could all be signs of throat cancer. Other symptoms include earaches, swelling of the head or neck, and enlarged lymph nodes, among others, Dr. Aguh said.
“The signs and symptoms of HPV-related throat cancers can be difficult to identify and recognize, as they can be vague and are also associated with other medical conditions. Sometimes, there are no signs at all, or they are not easily noticeable due to the location,” he said.
You should go see your doctor if you have any of these ailments for an extended period.
How to reduce your risk
In addition to having six or more oral-sex partners, smoking and drinking heavily could also raise your risk of throat cancer, said Dr. Lee. Proper dental health – like seeing your dentist regularly and practicing proper oral hygiene – can also shave your risk.
“[Good dental health] can help not just with head and neck cancer risk, but with many other inflammation-related diseases,” Dr. Lee said.
Using dental dams and condoms can also be a good method of protection, Dr. Aguh said. A dental dam is a stretchy sheet of latex, or polyurethane plastic, in the shape of a square that is made for blocking body fluid to lower your risk of contracting an STD via oral sex.
Keep in mind: Even with these protections, make sure you and your partner discuss each other’s sexual history, any prior or current STDs and their preferred protection from STDs, said Dr. Aguh.
If you or your partner is being treated for an STD, consider opting out of oral sex and consulting a doctor.
The HPV vaccine is another common method of protection. The shot is “approved for prevention of nine of the most high-risk strains of HPV,” or those that are most commonly linked to cancer, according to Dr. Lee. The vaccine “reduces the frequency of infection” with these viruses, which can ultimately lower the risk of cancers linked to HPV, including cervical, anal, and vulvar and vaginal cancers, she said.
“The best time to receive treatment for prevention of disease is prior to onset of sexual intercourse,” said Dr. Lee.
To get your HPV vaccine, head to your family doctor, school- or community-based health center, or state health department, suggests the CDC.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
An epidemic of sexually transmitted HPV is now swirling around the United States and the United Kingdom, with some serious cases leading to oropharyngeal cancer, which can affect the back of the throat, tonsils, and tongue.
HPV is the leading cause (70%) of this oropharyngeal cancer, according to the CDC. It is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the nation, and around 3.6% of women and 10% of men report oral HPV specifically. But over the past decade, oropharyngeal cases have been steadily falling a little under 4% and 2%, respectively, according to the National Cancer Institute.
HPV is often undetectable and can clear up within a few months. But unfortunately for some, serious disease, such as throat cancer, can develop.
Studies show the HPV vaccine to be extremely effective in lowering sexually transmitted HPV cases. Yet, only 54.5% of young people aged 13-15 have taken the recommended two to three doses, according to the National Cancer Institute.
Why aren’t more young people taking the vaccine?
Low public awareness of the dangers of HPV may be behind young people’s poor vaccination rates, according to Teresa Lee, MD, of the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “For example, while the link with head and neck cancers has been well-studied, the FDA labeling was not changed to reflect this as an indication until 2020,” she said.
Other reasons can include one’s socioeconomic background, poor health literacy, cultural or religious stigmas around vaccines, and lack of quality, low-cost health care, says Emmanuel Aguh, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician. “Some individuals and families are still resistant to vaccines and the noted lack of uptake.”
Doctors and other health care professionals should also be sure to tell patients of all ages about the risks of HPV infection and how well the vaccine works, Dr. Lee said. “Not everyone who is now eligible may have been offered the vaccine as a child, and the first time young adults may receive counseling on this subject may not be until they are entering a very busy period of their lives with many responsibilities – when it may be hard to fit in things like health maintenance.”
How safe is the HPV vaccine?
The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have studied the HPV vaccine for years to find out how safe it is and how well it works, Dr. Aguh said. No major side effects have been reported, and the most common side effect is soreness where you get the shot (which is normal after most vaccines). Some dizziness and fainting in adolescents can also occur, so young people are usually asked to sit or lie down during the shot and for 15 minutes afterward, he said.
“Serious adverse events have not been reported at higher rates than expected following HPV vaccination, meaning there is no clear evidence they are related to the vaccine,” Dr. Lee said. “The vaccine is highly effective in decreasing rates of detectable infection with the high-risk HPV strains responsible for HPV-associated cancers.”
The HPV vaccine is largely recommended for people aged 9-26, and sometimes up to age 45, depending on the individual, Dr. Aguh said. If you are over 26, talk to your doctor about whether you should consider getting the vaccine.
“It is usually given in two doses for complete protection if taken before the 15th birthday,” Dr. Aguh said. “If taken afterward, or in those with a weak immune system, they might require three doses to be fully protected.”
The vaccine produces antibodies that can stop HPV from infecting cells and lowers your chances of catching an HPV-related cancer, such as throat cancer or cancer of the cervix, he said.
While the vaccine is not guaranteed to protect you from the more than 100 strains of HPV, it can protect you from HPV 16 and HPV 18 – two high-risk strains that cause around 70% of cervical cancers.
What is fueling the rise of HPV cases?
A misconception that oral sex is somehow a “safe and risk-free” alternative to anal or vaginal sex could be one reason, Dr. Aguh said.
“It is important to know that, with oral sex, you are exposed to many of the risks associated with vaginal intercourse, especially if you do not take any measures to protect yourself and/or your partner,” Dr. Aguh said. “[With oral sex] it is possible to end up contracting an infection like chlamydia, gonorrhea, and even HPV, leading to an increased risk of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancers.”
A lack of public awareness of what can cause throat cancer could also explain this phenomenon. The number of people you have oral sex with, along with the age you begin sexual activity, can greatly determine your risk of the disease, according to Dr. Lee. She echoes a report by Hisham Mehanna, PhD, in The Conversation.
“For oropharyngeal cancer, the main risk factor is the number of lifetime sexual partners, especially oral sex,” wrote Dr. Mehanna, a professor at the Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences at the University of Birmingham (England). “Those with six or more lifetime oral-sex partners are 8.5 times more likely to develop oropharyngeal cancer than those who do not practice oral sex.”
What are symptoms of oropharyngeal cancer?
Labored breathing or swallowing, a cough that won’t go away, and crackling or hoarseness of your voice could all be signs of throat cancer. Other symptoms include earaches, swelling of the head or neck, and enlarged lymph nodes, among others, Dr. Aguh said.
“The signs and symptoms of HPV-related throat cancers can be difficult to identify and recognize, as they can be vague and are also associated with other medical conditions. Sometimes, there are no signs at all, or they are not easily noticeable due to the location,” he said.
You should go see your doctor if you have any of these ailments for an extended period.
How to reduce your risk
In addition to having six or more oral-sex partners, smoking and drinking heavily could also raise your risk of throat cancer, said Dr. Lee. Proper dental health – like seeing your dentist regularly and practicing proper oral hygiene – can also shave your risk.
“[Good dental health] can help not just with head and neck cancer risk, but with many other inflammation-related diseases,” Dr. Lee said.
Using dental dams and condoms can also be a good method of protection, Dr. Aguh said. A dental dam is a stretchy sheet of latex, or polyurethane plastic, in the shape of a square that is made for blocking body fluid to lower your risk of contracting an STD via oral sex.
Keep in mind: Even with these protections, make sure you and your partner discuss each other’s sexual history, any prior or current STDs and their preferred protection from STDs, said Dr. Aguh.
If you or your partner is being treated for an STD, consider opting out of oral sex and consulting a doctor.
The HPV vaccine is another common method of protection. The shot is “approved for prevention of nine of the most high-risk strains of HPV,” or those that are most commonly linked to cancer, according to Dr. Lee. The vaccine “reduces the frequency of infection” with these viruses, which can ultimately lower the risk of cancers linked to HPV, including cervical, anal, and vulvar and vaginal cancers, she said.
“The best time to receive treatment for prevention of disease is prior to onset of sexual intercourse,” said Dr. Lee.
To get your HPV vaccine, head to your family doctor, school- or community-based health center, or state health department, suggests the CDC.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Vaginal microbiota transfer may affect neurodevelopment in cesarean infants
Previous studies have shown that gut microbiota in infancy could affect neurodevelopment, and infants delivered by cesarean are not exposed to potentially helpful microbes acquired by infants during vaginal delivery, wrote Lepeng Zhou, MD, of Southern Medical University, Guangdong, China, and colleagues.
“Infants delivered by C-section start life with very different bacteria than those born vaginally,” corresponding author Jose Clemente, PhD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview. “Because this is the first time the newborn is exposed to microbes, we and others have hypothesized for some time that this ‘first encounter’ might be significant to shape the development of the baby,” he said.
“A few years ago, we demonstrated that it is possible to change the microbiome of C-section–delivered infants using an intervention that makes their microbiome more similar to that of a vaginally-delivered infant,” Dr. Clemente told this news organization. “In this study just published, we show that this procedure not only changes the microbiome of C-section infants, but it also modifies a health outcome (in this case, neurodevelopment). This is highly significant because it opens the way to reduce the risk that C-section infants have for certain conditions through a very simple microbial intervention,” he said.
‘Significantly higher’ ASQ-3 scores
In the current study, published in Cell Host & Microbe, the researchers examined the impact of vaginal microbiota transfer (VMT) on the neurodevelopment of cesarean-delivered infants. They randomized 35 women scheduled for cesarean delivery with a single infant to VMT and 41 to a control intervention of saline gauze for their infants immediately after delivery.
The primary outcome of infant neurodevelopment was assessed using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3) score at 6 months. The researchers also collected fecal samples and assessed safety outcomes for the infants at 3, 7, 30, and 42 days after birth. The final analysis comprised 32 infants in the VMT group and 36 in the control group. The mean age of the mothers was 32 years; the mean gestational age of the infants was 39 weeks, but the difference was significant and slightly less in the VMT group compared with the controls (38.38 weeks vs. 39.13 weeks, P = .007). A group of 33 vaginally-delivered infants (VD) underwent ASQ-3 testing to serve as a reference group.
At 6 months, ASQ-3 scores were significantly higher (10.09%, P = .014) with VMT compared with controls, and the difference remained significant after adjustment for multiple factors including gestational age.
ASQ-3 total scores at 6 months were not significantly different between the VMT group and the VD reference group (mean difference of 8.84 VMT to VD, P = .346); scores between these groups also were similar at 3 months (mean difference of –1.48 VMT to VD, P = .900) and no significant differences appeared in ASQ-3 subdomains between these groups at either time period.
An examination of gut metabolites in stool showed significant differences in fecal metabolites and metabolic function, signs of gut microbiota maturation, the researchers noted.
“Interestingly, all the genera and metabolites that exhibited positive correlations with neurodevelopmental scores were upregulated in the VMT group, whereas the only negative correlation of Klebsiella was downregulated, indicating that VMT may impact neurodevelopment through the modulation of specific gut microbial genera and metabolites,” the researchers wrote.
No serious adverse events occurred in either group during the study period. Nine adverse events were reported; 4 in the VMT group and 5 in the control group. The most common AEs were mild skin disorders, including papules, pustules, and erythema.
The findings were limited by several factors including the potential for transfer not only of vaginal microbiota, but also vaginal metabolites, mycobiome, and virome, which blurs the potential mechanism of VMT, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the relatively short study period, small sample size, and cervical HPV screening within the past 5 years, not during pregnancy, they wrote.
However, the results suggest that VMT is safe, and may help improve the fecal microbiome in cesarean-delivered infants, and the long-term effects merit further studies in larger populations, they concluded.
Limitations and outlook
Dr. Clemente said in an interview that the researchers were “hopeful that the study would demonstrate a health benefit, as it does with some limitations.” The current study findings confirm some previous results showing that modification of the microbiomes of C-section infants is possible through a transfer of maternal vaginal microbes, he said.
“There is also an important aspect that was confirmed here: The lack of serious adverse events associated with the procedure, and the fact that transferring vaginal microbes did not increase the risk of adverse events compared to the control group or to vaginally-delivered infants. This is fundamental to establish that using rigorous exclusion criteria we can perform this procedure safely for infants and mothers,” he added.
“We are at very early stages yet to talk about clinical implications,” said Dr. Clemente. “This is one of the first studies to demonstrate a benefit to the transfer of microbes from mothers to infants, and as such it opens the way for future trials that confirm these findings. The clinical application is still in the future, but this is an important first step towards that goal.”
Interest in restoring gut microbiota to potentially benefit infants persists, but a recent study published in Frontiers and Cellular and Infection Microbiology contradicted the potential association between maternal vaginal microbiome and an infant’s gut microbiome based on an analysis of infant stool.
“There are many reasons why different studies might reach different conclusions: The experimental procedures, the analytical methods, the cohort under study,” Dr. Clemente said when asked to comment on the Frontiers study. “Further studies are needed to establish whether this procedure is equally effective under all conditions and whether health benefits are generalizable or specific to particular populations.”
Several research gaps remain, Dr. Clemente said. “First, neurodevelopment was measured through a questionnaire that captures various aspects such as communication, motor skills, or problem solving. While this is a standard way to establish that an infant is in the correct neurodevelopmental pathway, it is not a ‘hard’ measure of cellular or biochemical processes being impacted by the intervention. Some of our results suggest that there is a change in the metabolome of this infants, particularly an enrichment in GABA, a neurotransmitter, but the exact mechanisms by which the intervention is resulting in a health benefit still remains to be explored,” he said.
“We have an ongoing study here at Mount Sinai to test whether this microbial intervention can be effective in lowering the risk of developing food allergies in newborns who are at high risk, so that is another important future question: What other conditions could benefit from this approach,” said Dr. Clemente.
A third research goal, he added, is “determining what microbes precisely are responsible for the health benefits; this study uses a full microbial community to colonize infants. We show that this is effective and, importantly, that there were no significant adverse events in the treated infants,” he noted. “However, identifying what specific microbes are beneficial would further lower the risk of any potential side effects, while facilitating the development of drugs based on defined microbial consortia,” he said.
Safety and efficacy support further studies
“It is widely accepted that the gut microbiome of neonates varies based on mode of delivery,” Anna K. Knight, PhD, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.
“C-sections have been associated with increased risk of asthma and metabolic disease, and have been associated with differences in the development of the immune system,” said Dr. Knight, who was not involved in the study. “There have been small pilot studies examining the use of vaginal microbiome transplants to shift the gut microbiome of neonates born by C-section to be more like the gut microbiome of neonates born via vaginal delivery, but the safety and efficacy of this treatment has not been well established. This study examines both, while also evaluating potential changes in the metabolome and neurodevelopmental trajectories.”
The current study confirmed the impact of the neonatal gut microbe on neurodevelopmental outcomes during a sensitive period, said Dr. Knight. “The fact that these differences persisted at 6 months suggests that even if the microbiome composition between vaginally-delivered and preterm infants converged at 1-2 years old, there may be lasting impacts of mode of delivery,” she said.
“The results of this study suggest that vaginal microbiome transplant may be a safe and effective way to mitigate the negative impacts of C-section delivery on the neonatal gut microbiome, and may be protective for neurodevelopment,” she added.
Regarding the Frontiers in Medicine study, Dr. Knight noted that it examined a very different population, with Zhou and colleagues focusing on Chinese infants, while Dos Santos and colleagues focused on Canadian infants.
“There was also a substantial difference in sample size between the two studies, with Dos Santos and colleagues examining > 500 more infants,” she said. “Additionally, the two studies differed in the sequencing technology used, sample collection methods, and antibiotic exposure, which can all impact microbiome study results.”
Since the current study showed efficacy and safety of VMT in a small clinical trial, larger trials with more diverse participants are needed to further examine the impact of VMT, said Dr. Knight. “The risks of vaginal microbiome transplant in mothers with infections should also be considered, and the mechanisms by which the neonatal gut microbiome impacts neurodevelopment need further investigation,” she said.
The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Canadian Institute of Health Research, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Clinical Research Startup Program of Southern Medical University, China, and the Top Talent Program of Foshan Women and Children Hospital, China. The researchers and Dr. Knight had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Previous studies have shown that gut microbiota in infancy could affect neurodevelopment, and infants delivered by cesarean are not exposed to potentially helpful microbes acquired by infants during vaginal delivery, wrote Lepeng Zhou, MD, of Southern Medical University, Guangdong, China, and colleagues.
“Infants delivered by C-section start life with very different bacteria than those born vaginally,” corresponding author Jose Clemente, PhD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview. “Because this is the first time the newborn is exposed to microbes, we and others have hypothesized for some time that this ‘first encounter’ might be significant to shape the development of the baby,” he said.
“A few years ago, we demonstrated that it is possible to change the microbiome of C-section–delivered infants using an intervention that makes their microbiome more similar to that of a vaginally-delivered infant,” Dr. Clemente told this news organization. “In this study just published, we show that this procedure not only changes the microbiome of C-section infants, but it also modifies a health outcome (in this case, neurodevelopment). This is highly significant because it opens the way to reduce the risk that C-section infants have for certain conditions through a very simple microbial intervention,” he said.
‘Significantly higher’ ASQ-3 scores
In the current study, published in Cell Host & Microbe, the researchers examined the impact of vaginal microbiota transfer (VMT) on the neurodevelopment of cesarean-delivered infants. They randomized 35 women scheduled for cesarean delivery with a single infant to VMT and 41 to a control intervention of saline gauze for their infants immediately after delivery.
The primary outcome of infant neurodevelopment was assessed using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3) score at 6 months. The researchers also collected fecal samples and assessed safety outcomes for the infants at 3, 7, 30, and 42 days after birth. The final analysis comprised 32 infants in the VMT group and 36 in the control group. The mean age of the mothers was 32 years; the mean gestational age of the infants was 39 weeks, but the difference was significant and slightly less in the VMT group compared with the controls (38.38 weeks vs. 39.13 weeks, P = .007). A group of 33 vaginally-delivered infants (VD) underwent ASQ-3 testing to serve as a reference group.
At 6 months, ASQ-3 scores were significantly higher (10.09%, P = .014) with VMT compared with controls, and the difference remained significant after adjustment for multiple factors including gestational age.
ASQ-3 total scores at 6 months were not significantly different between the VMT group and the VD reference group (mean difference of 8.84 VMT to VD, P = .346); scores between these groups also were similar at 3 months (mean difference of –1.48 VMT to VD, P = .900) and no significant differences appeared in ASQ-3 subdomains between these groups at either time period.
An examination of gut metabolites in stool showed significant differences in fecal metabolites and metabolic function, signs of gut microbiota maturation, the researchers noted.
“Interestingly, all the genera and metabolites that exhibited positive correlations with neurodevelopmental scores were upregulated in the VMT group, whereas the only negative correlation of Klebsiella was downregulated, indicating that VMT may impact neurodevelopment through the modulation of specific gut microbial genera and metabolites,” the researchers wrote.
No serious adverse events occurred in either group during the study period. Nine adverse events were reported; 4 in the VMT group and 5 in the control group. The most common AEs were mild skin disorders, including papules, pustules, and erythema.
The findings were limited by several factors including the potential for transfer not only of vaginal microbiota, but also vaginal metabolites, mycobiome, and virome, which blurs the potential mechanism of VMT, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the relatively short study period, small sample size, and cervical HPV screening within the past 5 years, not during pregnancy, they wrote.
However, the results suggest that VMT is safe, and may help improve the fecal microbiome in cesarean-delivered infants, and the long-term effects merit further studies in larger populations, they concluded.
Limitations and outlook
Dr. Clemente said in an interview that the researchers were “hopeful that the study would demonstrate a health benefit, as it does with some limitations.” The current study findings confirm some previous results showing that modification of the microbiomes of C-section infants is possible through a transfer of maternal vaginal microbes, he said.
“There is also an important aspect that was confirmed here: The lack of serious adverse events associated with the procedure, and the fact that transferring vaginal microbes did not increase the risk of adverse events compared to the control group or to vaginally-delivered infants. This is fundamental to establish that using rigorous exclusion criteria we can perform this procedure safely for infants and mothers,” he added.
“We are at very early stages yet to talk about clinical implications,” said Dr. Clemente. “This is one of the first studies to demonstrate a benefit to the transfer of microbes from mothers to infants, and as such it opens the way for future trials that confirm these findings. The clinical application is still in the future, but this is an important first step towards that goal.”
Interest in restoring gut microbiota to potentially benefit infants persists, but a recent study published in Frontiers and Cellular and Infection Microbiology contradicted the potential association between maternal vaginal microbiome and an infant’s gut microbiome based on an analysis of infant stool.
“There are many reasons why different studies might reach different conclusions: The experimental procedures, the analytical methods, the cohort under study,” Dr. Clemente said when asked to comment on the Frontiers study. “Further studies are needed to establish whether this procedure is equally effective under all conditions and whether health benefits are generalizable or specific to particular populations.”
Several research gaps remain, Dr. Clemente said. “First, neurodevelopment was measured through a questionnaire that captures various aspects such as communication, motor skills, or problem solving. While this is a standard way to establish that an infant is in the correct neurodevelopmental pathway, it is not a ‘hard’ measure of cellular or biochemical processes being impacted by the intervention. Some of our results suggest that there is a change in the metabolome of this infants, particularly an enrichment in GABA, a neurotransmitter, but the exact mechanisms by which the intervention is resulting in a health benefit still remains to be explored,” he said.
“We have an ongoing study here at Mount Sinai to test whether this microbial intervention can be effective in lowering the risk of developing food allergies in newborns who are at high risk, so that is another important future question: What other conditions could benefit from this approach,” said Dr. Clemente.
A third research goal, he added, is “determining what microbes precisely are responsible for the health benefits; this study uses a full microbial community to colonize infants. We show that this is effective and, importantly, that there were no significant adverse events in the treated infants,” he noted. “However, identifying what specific microbes are beneficial would further lower the risk of any potential side effects, while facilitating the development of drugs based on defined microbial consortia,” he said.
Safety and efficacy support further studies
“It is widely accepted that the gut microbiome of neonates varies based on mode of delivery,” Anna K. Knight, PhD, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.
“C-sections have been associated with increased risk of asthma and metabolic disease, and have been associated with differences in the development of the immune system,” said Dr. Knight, who was not involved in the study. “There have been small pilot studies examining the use of vaginal microbiome transplants to shift the gut microbiome of neonates born by C-section to be more like the gut microbiome of neonates born via vaginal delivery, but the safety and efficacy of this treatment has not been well established. This study examines both, while also evaluating potential changes in the metabolome and neurodevelopmental trajectories.”
The current study confirmed the impact of the neonatal gut microbe on neurodevelopmental outcomes during a sensitive period, said Dr. Knight. “The fact that these differences persisted at 6 months suggests that even if the microbiome composition between vaginally-delivered and preterm infants converged at 1-2 years old, there may be lasting impacts of mode of delivery,” she said.
“The results of this study suggest that vaginal microbiome transplant may be a safe and effective way to mitigate the negative impacts of C-section delivery on the neonatal gut microbiome, and may be protective for neurodevelopment,” she added.
Regarding the Frontiers in Medicine study, Dr. Knight noted that it examined a very different population, with Zhou and colleagues focusing on Chinese infants, while Dos Santos and colleagues focused on Canadian infants.
“There was also a substantial difference in sample size between the two studies, with Dos Santos and colleagues examining > 500 more infants,” she said. “Additionally, the two studies differed in the sequencing technology used, sample collection methods, and antibiotic exposure, which can all impact microbiome study results.”
Since the current study showed efficacy and safety of VMT in a small clinical trial, larger trials with more diverse participants are needed to further examine the impact of VMT, said Dr. Knight. “The risks of vaginal microbiome transplant in mothers with infections should also be considered, and the mechanisms by which the neonatal gut microbiome impacts neurodevelopment need further investigation,” she said.
The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Canadian Institute of Health Research, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Clinical Research Startup Program of Southern Medical University, China, and the Top Talent Program of Foshan Women and Children Hospital, China. The researchers and Dr. Knight had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Previous studies have shown that gut microbiota in infancy could affect neurodevelopment, and infants delivered by cesarean are not exposed to potentially helpful microbes acquired by infants during vaginal delivery, wrote Lepeng Zhou, MD, of Southern Medical University, Guangdong, China, and colleagues.
“Infants delivered by C-section start life with very different bacteria than those born vaginally,” corresponding author Jose Clemente, PhD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview. “Because this is the first time the newborn is exposed to microbes, we and others have hypothesized for some time that this ‘first encounter’ might be significant to shape the development of the baby,” he said.
“A few years ago, we demonstrated that it is possible to change the microbiome of C-section–delivered infants using an intervention that makes their microbiome more similar to that of a vaginally-delivered infant,” Dr. Clemente told this news organization. “In this study just published, we show that this procedure not only changes the microbiome of C-section infants, but it also modifies a health outcome (in this case, neurodevelopment). This is highly significant because it opens the way to reduce the risk that C-section infants have for certain conditions through a very simple microbial intervention,” he said.
‘Significantly higher’ ASQ-3 scores
In the current study, published in Cell Host & Microbe, the researchers examined the impact of vaginal microbiota transfer (VMT) on the neurodevelopment of cesarean-delivered infants. They randomized 35 women scheduled for cesarean delivery with a single infant to VMT and 41 to a control intervention of saline gauze for their infants immediately after delivery.
The primary outcome of infant neurodevelopment was assessed using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3) score at 6 months. The researchers also collected fecal samples and assessed safety outcomes for the infants at 3, 7, 30, and 42 days after birth. The final analysis comprised 32 infants in the VMT group and 36 in the control group. The mean age of the mothers was 32 years; the mean gestational age of the infants was 39 weeks, but the difference was significant and slightly less in the VMT group compared with the controls (38.38 weeks vs. 39.13 weeks, P = .007). A group of 33 vaginally-delivered infants (VD) underwent ASQ-3 testing to serve as a reference group.
At 6 months, ASQ-3 scores were significantly higher (10.09%, P = .014) with VMT compared with controls, and the difference remained significant after adjustment for multiple factors including gestational age.
ASQ-3 total scores at 6 months were not significantly different between the VMT group and the VD reference group (mean difference of 8.84 VMT to VD, P = .346); scores between these groups also were similar at 3 months (mean difference of –1.48 VMT to VD, P = .900) and no significant differences appeared in ASQ-3 subdomains between these groups at either time period.
An examination of gut metabolites in stool showed significant differences in fecal metabolites and metabolic function, signs of gut microbiota maturation, the researchers noted.
“Interestingly, all the genera and metabolites that exhibited positive correlations with neurodevelopmental scores were upregulated in the VMT group, whereas the only negative correlation of Klebsiella was downregulated, indicating that VMT may impact neurodevelopment through the modulation of specific gut microbial genera and metabolites,” the researchers wrote.
No serious adverse events occurred in either group during the study period. Nine adverse events were reported; 4 in the VMT group and 5 in the control group. The most common AEs were mild skin disorders, including papules, pustules, and erythema.
The findings were limited by several factors including the potential for transfer not only of vaginal microbiota, but also vaginal metabolites, mycobiome, and virome, which blurs the potential mechanism of VMT, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the relatively short study period, small sample size, and cervical HPV screening within the past 5 years, not during pregnancy, they wrote.
However, the results suggest that VMT is safe, and may help improve the fecal microbiome in cesarean-delivered infants, and the long-term effects merit further studies in larger populations, they concluded.
Limitations and outlook
Dr. Clemente said in an interview that the researchers were “hopeful that the study would demonstrate a health benefit, as it does with some limitations.” The current study findings confirm some previous results showing that modification of the microbiomes of C-section infants is possible through a transfer of maternal vaginal microbes, he said.
“There is also an important aspect that was confirmed here: The lack of serious adverse events associated with the procedure, and the fact that transferring vaginal microbes did not increase the risk of adverse events compared to the control group or to vaginally-delivered infants. This is fundamental to establish that using rigorous exclusion criteria we can perform this procedure safely for infants and mothers,” he added.
“We are at very early stages yet to talk about clinical implications,” said Dr. Clemente. “This is one of the first studies to demonstrate a benefit to the transfer of microbes from mothers to infants, and as such it opens the way for future trials that confirm these findings. The clinical application is still in the future, but this is an important first step towards that goal.”
Interest in restoring gut microbiota to potentially benefit infants persists, but a recent study published in Frontiers and Cellular and Infection Microbiology contradicted the potential association between maternal vaginal microbiome and an infant’s gut microbiome based on an analysis of infant stool.
“There are many reasons why different studies might reach different conclusions: The experimental procedures, the analytical methods, the cohort under study,” Dr. Clemente said when asked to comment on the Frontiers study. “Further studies are needed to establish whether this procedure is equally effective under all conditions and whether health benefits are generalizable or specific to particular populations.”
Several research gaps remain, Dr. Clemente said. “First, neurodevelopment was measured through a questionnaire that captures various aspects such as communication, motor skills, or problem solving. While this is a standard way to establish that an infant is in the correct neurodevelopmental pathway, it is not a ‘hard’ measure of cellular or biochemical processes being impacted by the intervention. Some of our results suggest that there is a change in the metabolome of this infants, particularly an enrichment in GABA, a neurotransmitter, but the exact mechanisms by which the intervention is resulting in a health benefit still remains to be explored,” he said.
“We have an ongoing study here at Mount Sinai to test whether this microbial intervention can be effective in lowering the risk of developing food allergies in newborns who are at high risk, so that is another important future question: What other conditions could benefit from this approach,” said Dr. Clemente.
A third research goal, he added, is “determining what microbes precisely are responsible for the health benefits; this study uses a full microbial community to colonize infants. We show that this is effective and, importantly, that there were no significant adverse events in the treated infants,” he noted. “However, identifying what specific microbes are beneficial would further lower the risk of any potential side effects, while facilitating the development of drugs based on defined microbial consortia,” he said.
Safety and efficacy support further studies
“It is widely accepted that the gut microbiome of neonates varies based on mode of delivery,” Anna K. Knight, PhD, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.
“C-sections have been associated with increased risk of asthma and metabolic disease, and have been associated with differences in the development of the immune system,” said Dr. Knight, who was not involved in the study. “There have been small pilot studies examining the use of vaginal microbiome transplants to shift the gut microbiome of neonates born by C-section to be more like the gut microbiome of neonates born via vaginal delivery, but the safety and efficacy of this treatment has not been well established. This study examines both, while also evaluating potential changes in the metabolome and neurodevelopmental trajectories.”
The current study confirmed the impact of the neonatal gut microbe on neurodevelopmental outcomes during a sensitive period, said Dr. Knight. “The fact that these differences persisted at 6 months suggests that even if the microbiome composition between vaginally-delivered and preterm infants converged at 1-2 years old, there may be lasting impacts of mode of delivery,” she said.
“The results of this study suggest that vaginal microbiome transplant may be a safe and effective way to mitigate the negative impacts of C-section delivery on the neonatal gut microbiome, and may be protective for neurodevelopment,” she added.
Regarding the Frontiers in Medicine study, Dr. Knight noted that it examined a very different population, with Zhou and colleagues focusing on Chinese infants, while Dos Santos and colleagues focused on Canadian infants.
“There was also a substantial difference in sample size between the two studies, with Dos Santos and colleagues examining > 500 more infants,” she said. “Additionally, the two studies differed in the sequencing technology used, sample collection methods, and antibiotic exposure, which can all impact microbiome study results.”
Since the current study showed efficacy and safety of VMT in a small clinical trial, larger trials with more diverse participants are needed to further examine the impact of VMT, said Dr. Knight. “The risks of vaginal microbiome transplant in mothers with infections should also be considered, and the mechanisms by which the neonatal gut microbiome impacts neurodevelopment need further investigation,” she said.
The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Canadian Institute of Health Research, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Clinical Research Startup Program of Southern Medical University, China, and the Top Talent Program of Foshan Women and Children Hospital, China. The researchers and Dr. Knight had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM CELL HOST & MICROBE
Malpractice lawsuits over denied abortion care may be on the horizon
Some experts predict those providers could soon face a new legal threat: medical malpractice lawsuits alleging they harmed patients by failing to provide timely, necessary abortion care.
“We will absolutely see medical malpractice cases emerge,” said Diana Nordlund, an emergency physician in Grand Rapids, Mich., and former malpractice defense attorney, who chairs the Medical-Legal Committee of the American College of Emergency Physicians. When physicians decide not to provide treatments widely accepted as the standard of care because of these new laws, “that’s perceived as substandard care and there is increased civil liability.”
To some physicians and malpractice attorneys, the question is when – not if – a pregnant patient will die from lack of care and set the stage for a big-dollar wrongful death claim. Abortion rights supporters said such a case could pressure doctors and hospitals to provide appropriate abortion care, counterbalancing their fears of running afoul of state abortion bans, many of which call for criminal prosecution and revocation of medical licenses as punishment for violations.
“If we want to encourage proper care, there has to be some sort of counter-risk to physicians and hospitals for refusing to provide care that should be legal,” said Greer Donley, an associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh school of law who studies the impact of abortion bans. “But most rational people would be more afraid of going to jail.”
Some supporters of abortion bans said they would welcome malpractice lawsuits. Providers are refusing to use the exceptions in some state laws that allow them to perform abortions to save a patient’s life or health, they said.
“It could help achieve our goal if it clarifies that the law did not contradict standard medical practice,” said John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, referring to the state’s abortion ban.
A new KFF poll found that 59% of ob.gyns. practicing in states with gestational limits on abortion, and 61% of those in states with bans, are somewhat or very concerned about their legal risk when making decisions about the necessity of an abortion.
Some attorneys are exploring lawsuits on behalf of women who they said have been harmed by a state abortion ban. An attorney for Mylissa Farmer, a Missouri woman who was refused an abortion at two hospitals in August after her water broke about 18 weeks into her pregnancy, said she may sue for malpractice. Missouri’s abortion ban, which took effect last year, makes an exception for medical emergencies.
The federal government recently found that the two hospitals violated a federal emergency care law in denying Ms. Farmer an abortion, which experts said could strengthen a malpractice claim. One of the hospitals, Freeman Health System in Joplin, Mo., did not respond to a request for comment. The other, the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City, said the care provided “was reviewed by the hospital and found to be in accordance with hospital policy,” according to a spokesperson, Jill Chadwick.
Ms. Farmer “experienced permanent physical and emotional damage,” said Michelle Banker, one of her lawyers at the National Women’s Law Center, who added that Ms. Farmer and her attorneys are “considering all our legal options.”
News reports and medical studies show that some women with pregnancy complications have suffered serious health consequences when doctors and hospitals did not provide once-routine abortion care.
Last month, researchers released a study identifying dozens of cases in 14 states in which physicians said deficiencies in care due to abortion restrictions led to preventable complications and hospitalizations, with some patients nearly dying.
“The patients were sent home and told to come back when they had signs of infection,” said Daniel Grossman, an ob.gyn. at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the study. “Many developed serious infections. And it’s clear many of these cases were very emotionally traumatic.”
He said though the researchers did not track patient outcomes, the lack of timely abortion care in such cases could result in severe health harms including loss of fertility, stroke, or heart attack.
“It’s just a matter of time before there will be a death that comes to light,” Dr. Grossman said.
Still, considering the conflict for doctors between medical ethics and personal risk, some stakeholders said patients may be reluctant to sue doctors and juries may balk at finding them liable.
“It’s a terrible position that providers are being put into, and I don’t think juries will blame the doctor unless it’s a super clear case,” said Morgan Murphy, a malpractice plaintiff’s attorney in Missouri.
She said her firm will not pursue malpractice cases based on abortion denials except in “pretty extreme” situations, such as when a patient dies. “Unless a mother is on her deathbed, it’s pretty hard to fault a provider who thinks if they provide treatment they’re going to be criminally liable or will lose their medical license.”
Another hurdle for malpractice cases is that state abortion bans could undermine the argument that abortion is the legal “standard of care,” meaning that it is a widely accepted and prescribed treatment for pregnancy complications such as miscarriage and for fatal fetal abnormalities.
“I absolutely see a breach of the standard of care in these cases,” said Maria A. Phillis, an ob.gyn. and former lawyer in Cleveland. “But if someone goes to trial in a malpractice case, it will come down to a battle of medical experts about whether it’s no longer the standard of care, and the jury would have to decide.”
An additional justification for physicians not to provide abortions is that medical liability insurers generally do not cover damages from criminal acts, which “puts the finger on the scales even more to not do anything,” Dr. Phillis said.
Stuart Grossman, a prominent malpractice plaintiff’s attorney in Florida, said he would be eager to take an abortion-denial case in which the woman suffered serious health or emotional injuries.
Unlike other states with abortion bans, Florida does not cap damage amounts for pain and suffering in malpractice cases, making it more financially viable to sue there.
Mr. Grossman cited the case of Deborah Dorbert, a Florida woman who reportedly was denied an abortion despite being told by her physicians at 24 weeks of pregnancy that her fetus, with no kidneys and underdeveloped lungs, had a fatal condition called Potter syndrome.
Her doctors and the hospital refused to end the pregnancy even though the state’s abortion ban has an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. Months later, her baby died in his parents’ arms shortly after birth.
“You can see how she’s been devastated mentally,” Mr. Grossman said. “She has a wrongful death case that I’d take in a minute.” He said the couple could file a malpractice suit for Ms. Dorbert’s physical and emotional damages and a separate malpractice and wrongful death suit for the couple’s suffering over the infant’s death.
Failing to counsel patients about their options and connect them with providers willing to terminate a pregnancy is also possible grounds for a malpractice suit, attorneys said. Katie Watson, an associate professor at Northwestern University, Chicago’s school of medicine who has studied state abortion bans, said counseling and referral are not prohibited under these laws and that physicians have an ethical obligation to offer those services.
“I think breaching the obligation for counseling would make a strong malpractice lawsuit,” she said.
Nancy Davis said she received no counseling or referral assistance last July after her doctors at Woman’s Hospital in Baton Rouge, La., told her 10 weeks into her pregnancy that her fetus would not survive because it was missing the top of its skull, a fatal condition called acrania. She said they recommended that she terminate the pregnancy and she agreed.
Ms. Davis said her doctors then told her a hospital executive had denied permission for the procedure because of Louisiana’s abortion ban, even though the law has an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. A hospital spokesperson declined to comment.
Ms. Davis, who has three children, contacted Planned Parenthood of Greater New York, which arranged for child care and a flight to New York. She had an abortion performed there in September.
“The whole situation has been mentally and physically draining, and my family and I are receiving counseling,” Ms. Davis said. “I’m still very angry at the hospital and the doctors. I feel like I’m owed compensation for the trauma and the heartbreak.”
She sought the counsel of Benjamin Crump, a prominent attorney known for pursuing high-profile cases like wrongful death lawsuits on behalf of the families of Trayvon Martin and George Floyd.
But Mr. Crump said that after studying Ms. Davis’ legal options, he decided a judge would likely dismiss a malpractice suit and that Ms. Davis could end up paying the defendants’ legal fees and costs.
“The doctor’s lawyers will say, ‘You can’t expect my client to break the law and go to prison for up to 25 years,’ ” Mr. Crump said. “Unless you change the law, there is no option for her to receive compensation.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Some experts predict those providers could soon face a new legal threat: medical malpractice lawsuits alleging they harmed patients by failing to provide timely, necessary abortion care.
“We will absolutely see medical malpractice cases emerge,” said Diana Nordlund, an emergency physician in Grand Rapids, Mich., and former malpractice defense attorney, who chairs the Medical-Legal Committee of the American College of Emergency Physicians. When physicians decide not to provide treatments widely accepted as the standard of care because of these new laws, “that’s perceived as substandard care and there is increased civil liability.”
To some physicians and malpractice attorneys, the question is when – not if – a pregnant patient will die from lack of care and set the stage for a big-dollar wrongful death claim. Abortion rights supporters said such a case could pressure doctors and hospitals to provide appropriate abortion care, counterbalancing their fears of running afoul of state abortion bans, many of which call for criminal prosecution and revocation of medical licenses as punishment for violations.
“If we want to encourage proper care, there has to be some sort of counter-risk to physicians and hospitals for refusing to provide care that should be legal,” said Greer Donley, an associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh school of law who studies the impact of abortion bans. “But most rational people would be more afraid of going to jail.”
Some supporters of abortion bans said they would welcome malpractice lawsuits. Providers are refusing to use the exceptions in some state laws that allow them to perform abortions to save a patient’s life or health, they said.
“It could help achieve our goal if it clarifies that the law did not contradict standard medical practice,” said John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, referring to the state’s abortion ban.
A new KFF poll found that 59% of ob.gyns. practicing in states with gestational limits on abortion, and 61% of those in states with bans, are somewhat or very concerned about their legal risk when making decisions about the necessity of an abortion.
Some attorneys are exploring lawsuits on behalf of women who they said have been harmed by a state abortion ban. An attorney for Mylissa Farmer, a Missouri woman who was refused an abortion at two hospitals in August after her water broke about 18 weeks into her pregnancy, said she may sue for malpractice. Missouri’s abortion ban, which took effect last year, makes an exception for medical emergencies.
The federal government recently found that the two hospitals violated a federal emergency care law in denying Ms. Farmer an abortion, which experts said could strengthen a malpractice claim. One of the hospitals, Freeman Health System in Joplin, Mo., did not respond to a request for comment. The other, the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City, said the care provided “was reviewed by the hospital and found to be in accordance with hospital policy,” according to a spokesperson, Jill Chadwick.
Ms. Farmer “experienced permanent physical and emotional damage,” said Michelle Banker, one of her lawyers at the National Women’s Law Center, who added that Ms. Farmer and her attorneys are “considering all our legal options.”
News reports and medical studies show that some women with pregnancy complications have suffered serious health consequences when doctors and hospitals did not provide once-routine abortion care.
Last month, researchers released a study identifying dozens of cases in 14 states in which physicians said deficiencies in care due to abortion restrictions led to preventable complications and hospitalizations, with some patients nearly dying.
“The patients were sent home and told to come back when they had signs of infection,” said Daniel Grossman, an ob.gyn. at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the study. “Many developed serious infections. And it’s clear many of these cases were very emotionally traumatic.”
He said though the researchers did not track patient outcomes, the lack of timely abortion care in such cases could result in severe health harms including loss of fertility, stroke, or heart attack.
“It’s just a matter of time before there will be a death that comes to light,” Dr. Grossman said.
Still, considering the conflict for doctors between medical ethics and personal risk, some stakeholders said patients may be reluctant to sue doctors and juries may balk at finding them liable.
“It’s a terrible position that providers are being put into, and I don’t think juries will blame the doctor unless it’s a super clear case,” said Morgan Murphy, a malpractice plaintiff’s attorney in Missouri.
She said her firm will not pursue malpractice cases based on abortion denials except in “pretty extreme” situations, such as when a patient dies. “Unless a mother is on her deathbed, it’s pretty hard to fault a provider who thinks if they provide treatment they’re going to be criminally liable or will lose their medical license.”
Another hurdle for malpractice cases is that state abortion bans could undermine the argument that abortion is the legal “standard of care,” meaning that it is a widely accepted and prescribed treatment for pregnancy complications such as miscarriage and for fatal fetal abnormalities.
“I absolutely see a breach of the standard of care in these cases,” said Maria A. Phillis, an ob.gyn. and former lawyer in Cleveland. “But if someone goes to trial in a malpractice case, it will come down to a battle of medical experts about whether it’s no longer the standard of care, and the jury would have to decide.”
An additional justification for physicians not to provide abortions is that medical liability insurers generally do not cover damages from criminal acts, which “puts the finger on the scales even more to not do anything,” Dr. Phillis said.
Stuart Grossman, a prominent malpractice plaintiff’s attorney in Florida, said he would be eager to take an abortion-denial case in which the woman suffered serious health or emotional injuries.
Unlike other states with abortion bans, Florida does not cap damage amounts for pain and suffering in malpractice cases, making it more financially viable to sue there.
Mr. Grossman cited the case of Deborah Dorbert, a Florida woman who reportedly was denied an abortion despite being told by her physicians at 24 weeks of pregnancy that her fetus, with no kidneys and underdeveloped lungs, had a fatal condition called Potter syndrome.
Her doctors and the hospital refused to end the pregnancy even though the state’s abortion ban has an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. Months later, her baby died in his parents’ arms shortly after birth.
“You can see how she’s been devastated mentally,” Mr. Grossman said. “She has a wrongful death case that I’d take in a minute.” He said the couple could file a malpractice suit for Ms. Dorbert’s physical and emotional damages and a separate malpractice and wrongful death suit for the couple’s suffering over the infant’s death.
Failing to counsel patients about their options and connect them with providers willing to terminate a pregnancy is also possible grounds for a malpractice suit, attorneys said. Katie Watson, an associate professor at Northwestern University, Chicago’s school of medicine who has studied state abortion bans, said counseling and referral are not prohibited under these laws and that physicians have an ethical obligation to offer those services.
“I think breaching the obligation for counseling would make a strong malpractice lawsuit,” she said.
Nancy Davis said she received no counseling or referral assistance last July after her doctors at Woman’s Hospital in Baton Rouge, La., told her 10 weeks into her pregnancy that her fetus would not survive because it was missing the top of its skull, a fatal condition called acrania. She said they recommended that she terminate the pregnancy and she agreed.
Ms. Davis said her doctors then told her a hospital executive had denied permission for the procedure because of Louisiana’s abortion ban, even though the law has an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. A hospital spokesperson declined to comment.
Ms. Davis, who has three children, contacted Planned Parenthood of Greater New York, which arranged for child care and a flight to New York. She had an abortion performed there in September.
“The whole situation has been mentally and physically draining, and my family and I are receiving counseling,” Ms. Davis said. “I’m still very angry at the hospital and the doctors. I feel like I’m owed compensation for the trauma and the heartbreak.”
She sought the counsel of Benjamin Crump, a prominent attorney known for pursuing high-profile cases like wrongful death lawsuits on behalf of the families of Trayvon Martin and George Floyd.
But Mr. Crump said that after studying Ms. Davis’ legal options, he decided a judge would likely dismiss a malpractice suit and that Ms. Davis could end up paying the defendants’ legal fees and costs.
“The doctor’s lawyers will say, ‘You can’t expect my client to break the law and go to prison for up to 25 years,’ ” Mr. Crump said. “Unless you change the law, there is no option for her to receive compensation.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Some experts predict those providers could soon face a new legal threat: medical malpractice lawsuits alleging they harmed patients by failing to provide timely, necessary abortion care.
“We will absolutely see medical malpractice cases emerge,” said Diana Nordlund, an emergency physician in Grand Rapids, Mich., and former malpractice defense attorney, who chairs the Medical-Legal Committee of the American College of Emergency Physicians. When physicians decide not to provide treatments widely accepted as the standard of care because of these new laws, “that’s perceived as substandard care and there is increased civil liability.”
To some physicians and malpractice attorneys, the question is when – not if – a pregnant patient will die from lack of care and set the stage for a big-dollar wrongful death claim. Abortion rights supporters said such a case could pressure doctors and hospitals to provide appropriate abortion care, counterbalancing their fears of running afoul of state abortion bans, many of which call for criminal prosecution and revocation of medical licenses as punishment for violations.
“If we want to encourage proper care, there has to be some sort of counter-risk to physicians and hospitals for refusing to provide care that should be legal,” said Greer Donley, an associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh school of law who studies the impact of abortion bans. “But most rational people would be more afraid of going to jail.”
Some supporters of abortion bans said they would welcome malpractice lawsuits. Providers are refusing to use the exceptions in some state laws that allow them to perform abortions to save a patient’s life or health, they said.
“It could help achieve our goal if it clarifies that the law did not contradict standard medical practice,” said John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, referring to the state’s abortion ban.
A new KFF poll found that 59% of ob.gyns. practicing in states with gestational limits on abortion, and 61% of those in states with bans, are somewhat or very concerned about their legal risk when making decisions about the necessity of an abortion.
Some attorneys are exploring lawsuits on behalf of women who they said have been harmed by a state abortion ban. An attorney for Mylissa Farmer, a Missouri woman who was refused an abortion at two hospitals in August after her water broke about 18 weeks into her pregnancy, said she may sue for malpractice. Missouri’s abortion ban, which took effect last year, makes an exception for medical emergencies.
The federal government recently found that the two hospitals violated a federal emergency care law in denying Ms. Farmer an abortion, which experts said could strengthen a malpractice claim. One of the hospitals, Freeman Health System in Joplin, Mo., did not respond to a request for comment. The other, the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City, said the care provided “was reviewed by the hospital and found to be in accordance with hospital policy,” according to a spokesperson, Jill Chadwick.
Ms. Farmer “experienced permanent physical and emotional damage,” said Michelle Banker, one of her lawyers at the National Women’s Law Center, who added that Ms. Farmer and her attorneys are “considering all our legal options.”
News reports and medical studies show that some women with pregnancy complications have suffered serious health consequences when doctors and hospitals did not provide once-routine abortion care.
Last month, researchers released a study identifying dozens of cases in 14 states in which physicians said deficiencies in care due to abortion restrictions led to preventable complications and hospitalizations, with some patients nearly dying.
“The patients were sent home and told to come back when they had signs of infection,” said Daniel Grossman, an ob.gyn. at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the study. “Many developed serious infections. And it’s clear many of these cases were very emotionally traumatic.”
He said though the researchers did not track patient outcomes, the lack of timely abortion care in such cases could result in severe health harms including loss of fertility, stroke, or heart attack.
“It’s just a matter of time before there will be a death that comes to light,” Dr. Grossman said.
Still, considering the conflict for doctors between medical ethics and personal risk, some stakeholders said patients may be reluctant to sue doctors and juries may balk at finding them liable.
“It’s a terrible position that providers are being put into, and I don’t think juries will blame the doctor unless it’s a super clear case,” said Morgan Murphy, a malpractice plaintiff’s attorney in Missouri.
She said her firm will not pursue malpractice cases based on abortion denials except in “pretty extreme” situations, such as when a patient dies. “Unless a mother is on her deathbed, it’s pretty hard to fault a provider who thinks if they provide treatment they’re going to be criminally liable or will lose their medical license.”
Another hurdle for malpractice cases is that state abortion bans could undermine the argument that abortion is the legal “standard of care,” meaning that it is a widely accepted and prescribed treatment for pregnancy complications such as miscarriage and for fatal fetal abnormalities.
“I absolutely see a breach of the standard of care in these cases,” said Maria A. Phillis, an ob.gyn. and former lawyer in Cleveland. “But if someone goes to trial in a malpractice case, it will come down to a battle of medical experts about whether it’s no longer the standard of care, and the jury would have to decide.”
An additional justification for physicians not to provide abortions is that medical liability insurers generally do not cover damages from criminal acts, which “puts the finger on the scales even more to not do anything,” Dr. Phillis said.
Stuart Grossman, a prominent malpractice plaintiff’s attorney in Florida, said he would be eager to take an abortion-denial case in which the woman suffered serious health or emotional injuries.
Unlike other states with abortion bans, Florida does not cap damage amounts for pain and suffering in malpractice cases, making it more financially viable to sue there.
Mr. Grossman cited the case of Deborah Dorbert, a Florida woman who reportedly was denied an abortion despite being told by her physicians at 24 weeks of pregnancy that her fetus, with no kidneys and underdeveloped lungs, had a fatal condition called Potter syndrome.
Her doctors and the hospital refused to end the pregnancy even though the state’s abortion ban has an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. Months later, her baby died in his parents’ arms shortly after birth.
“You can see how she’s been devastated mentally,” Mr. Grossman said. “She has a wrongful death case that I’d take in a minute.” He said the couple could file a malpractice suit for Ms. Dorbert’s physical and emotional damages and a separate malpractice and wrongful death suit for the couple’s suffering over the infant’s death.
Failing to counsel patients about their options and connect them with providers willing to terminate a pregnancy is also possible grounds for a malpractice suit, attorneys said. Katie Watson, an associate professor at Northwestern University, Chicago’s school of medicine who has studied state abortion bans, said counseling and referral are not prohibited under these laws and that physicians have an ethical obligation to offer those services.
“I think breaching the obligation for counseling would make a strong malpractice lawsuit,” she said.
Nancy Davis said she received no counseling or referral assistance last July after her doctors at Woman’s Hospital in Baton Rouge, La., told her 10 weeks into her pregnancy that her fetus would not survive because it was missing the top of its skull, a fatal condition called acrania. She said they recommended that she terminate the pregnancy and she agreed.
Ms. Davis said her doctors then told her a hospital executive had denied permission for the procedure because of Louisiana’s abortion ban, even though the law has an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. A hospital spokesperson declined to comment.
Ms. Davis, who has three children, contacted Planned Parenthood of Greater New York, which arranged for child care and a flight to New York. She had an abortion performed there in September.
“The whole situation has been mentally and physically draining, and my family and I are receiving counseling,” Ms. Davis said. “I’m still very angry at the hospital and the doctors. I feel like I’m owed compensation for the trauma and the heartbreak.”
She sought the counsel of Benjamin Crump, a prominent attorney known for pursuing high-profile cases like wrongful death lawsuits on behalf of the families of Trayvon Martin and George Floyd.
But Mr. Crump said that after studying Ms. Davis’ legal options, he decided a judge would likely dismiss a malpractice suit and that Ms. Davis could end up paying the defendants’ legal fees and costs.
“The doctor’s lawyers will say, ‘You can’t expect my client to break the law and go to prison for up to 25 years,’ ” Mr. Crump said. “Unless you change the law, there is no option for her to receive compensation.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Breast cancer family history linked to better BC survival
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Investigators reviewed 28,649 Swedish women diagnosed with breast cancer from 1991 to 2019.
- Overall, 5,081 patients (17.7%) had at least one female first-degree relative previously diagnosed with breast cancer.
TAKEAWAYS:
- After adjusting for demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatments, a family history of breast cancer was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer–specific death in the full cohort (hazard ratio, 0.78) and in ER-negative women (HR, 0.57) within 5 years of diagnosis, after which point the association was no longer significant.
- The lower risk of death among women with a family history could mean that these women are more motivated and likely to get screened, potentially catching tumors earlier, and may be more likely to adhere to treatment recommendations.
- However, having a family history of early-onset breast cancer (before the age of 40) was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer–specific death (HR, 1.41).
IN PRACTICE:
Although the findings are reassuring for many women with breast cancer, “genetic testing of newly diagnosed patients with early-onset family history may provide useful information to aid treatment and future research,” the researchers concluded.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was led by Yuqi Zhang, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and published in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
- The main analysis did not include tumor characteristics only available within the last 20 years, including ERBB2 status.
- Relatively wide confidence intervals make the association between a family history of early-onset breast cancer and higher risk of breast cancer death somewhat uncertain.
DISCLOSURES:
- The work was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and others.
- The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Investigators reviewed 28,649 Swedish women diagnosed with breast cancer from 1991 to 2019.
- Overall, 5,081 patients (17.7%) had at least one female first-degree relative previously diagnosed with breast cancer.
TAKEAWAYS:
- After adjusting for demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatments, a family history of breast cancer was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer–specific death in the full cohort (hazard ratio, 0.78) and in ER-negative women (HR, 0.57) within 5 years of diagnosis, after which point the association was no longer significant.
- The lower risk of death among women with a family history could mean that these women are more motivated and likely to get screened, potentially catching tumors earlier, and may be more likely to adhere to treatment recommendations.
- However, having a family history of early-onset breast cancer (before the age of 40) was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer–specific death (HR, 1.41).
IN PRACTICE:
Although the findings are reassuring for many women with breast cancer, “genetic testing of newly diagnosed patients with early-onset family history may provide useful information to aid treatment and future research,” the researchers concluded.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was led by Yuqi Zhang, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and published in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
- The main analysis did not include tumor characteristics only available within the last 20 years, including ERBB2 status.
- Relatively wide confidence intervals make the association between a family history of early-onset breast cancer and higher risk of breast cancer death somewhat uncertain.
DISCLOSURES:
- The work was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and others.
- The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Investigators reviewed 28,649 Swedish women diagnosed with breast cancer from 1991 to 2019.
- Overall, 5,081 patients (17.7%) had at least one female first-degree relative previously diagnosed with breast cancer.
TAKEAWAYS:
- After adjusting for demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatments, a family history of breast cancer was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer–specific death in the full cohort (hazard ratio, 0.78) and in ER-negative women (HR, 0.57) within 5 years of diagnosis, after which point the association was no longer significant.
- The lower risk of death among women with a family history could mean that these women are more motivated and likely to get screened, potentially catching tumors earlier, and may be more likely to adhere to treatment recommendations.
- However, having a family history of early-onset breast cancer (before the age of 40) was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer–specific death (HR, 1.41).
IN PRACTICE:
Although the findings are reassuring for many women with breast cancer, “genetic testing of newly diagnosed patients with early-onset family history may provide useful information to aid treatment and future research,” the researchers concluded.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was led by Yuqi Zhang, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and published in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
- The main analysis did not include tumor characteristics only available within the last 20 years, including ERBB2 status.
- Relatively wide confidence intervals make the association between a family history of early-onset breast cancer and higher risk of breast cancer death somewhat uncertain.
DISCLOSURES:
- The work was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and others.
- The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Does ‘skeletal age’ describe fracture impact on mortality?
Thach Tran, MD, and colleagues introduced the concept of “skeletal age” in a recently published paper that aims to incorporate the impact of fragility, or low trauma, fractures – which can occur in patients with osteoporosis – on mortality risk.
They defined “skeletal age” as the age of the skeleton following a fragility fracture. This is calculated as the chronological age of the individual plus the number of years of “life lost” as a consequence of the specific fracture.
The risk for premature death following fragility fractures is concerning, with 22%-58% of patients with hip fracture dying within a year (Brauer et al.; Rapp et al.). Thus, it’s important to treat osteoporosis in a timely fashion to reduce the risk for such fractures and the excess mortality risk associated with them.
Implementation and uptake of such treatment, however, either before or after a fragility fracture, is far from optimal (Solomon et al). This may be because patients don’t fully understand the consequence of such a fracture, and outcomes measures currently in use (such as relative risk or hazard of mortality) are difficult to communicate to patients.
In the recent paper by Dr. Tran and colleagues, the authors examined the association between fractures and mortality based on sex, age, associated comorbidities, and fracture site. They pooled this information to create a “skeletal age” for each fracture site, using data from the Danish National Hospital Discharge Registry, which documents fractures and related mortality for all Danish people.
They examined mortality over a period of at least 2 years following a fragility fracture in individuals aged 50 or older, and reported that occurrence of any fragility fracture is associated with a 30%-45% increased risk for death, with the highest risk noted for hip and femur fractures (twofold increase). Fractures of the pelvis, vertebrae, humerus, ribs, clavicle, and lower leg were also associated with increased mortality risk, but no increase was seen with fractures of the forearm, knee, ankle, hand, or foot.
The number of years of life lost at any age depending on the fracture site is represented as a linear graph of skeletal age for any chronological age, for specific fracture sites, separated by sex.
For example, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man who has a hip fracture is 57 years (7 years of life lost as a consequence of the fracture), while that for a 70-year-old man with the same fracture is 75 years (5 years of life lost because of the fracture). Similarly, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man with a fracture of the pelvis, femur, vertebrae, and humerus is 55 years (5 years of life lost). Fractures of the lower leg, humerus, and clavicle lead to fewer lost years of life.
The authors are to be commended for creating a simple strategy to quantify mortality risk following low-impact or fragility fractures in older individuals; this could enable providers to communicate the importance of osteoporosis treatment more effectively to patients on the basis of their skeletal age, and for patients to better understand this information.
The study design appears reasonably robust as the authors considered many factors that might affect mortality risk, such as sex, age, and comorbidities, and the results are based on information from a very large number of people – 1.6 million.
However, there’s a major issue with the concept of “skeletal age” as proposed by Dr. Tran and colleagues. The term is already in use and defines the maturity of bones in children and adolescents, also called “bone age” (Greulich and Pyle 1959; Skeletal Age, Radiology Key). This is a real oversight and could cause confusion in interpreting “skeletal age.”
Skeletal age as currently defined in children and adolescents is influenced by chronological age, exposure to certain hormones, nutritional deficiencies, and systemic diseases, and is a predictor of adult height based on the skeletal age and current height. This concept is completely different from that being proposed by the authors in this paper. Dr. Tran and colleagues (and the reviewers of this paper) are probably not familiar with the use of the terminology in youth, which is a major oversight; they should consider changing the terminology given this overlap.
Further, fragility fractures can occur from osteoporosis at any age, and this study doesn’t provide information regarding years of life lost from occurrence of fragility fractures at younger ages, or the age at which mortality risk starts to increase (as the study was performed only in those aged 50 or older).
While the study takes into account general comorbidities in developing the model to define years of life lost, it doesn’t account for other factors that can influence fracture risk, such as lifestyle factors, activity level, and genetic risk (family history of osteoporosis, for example). Of note, the impact of additional fractures isn’t considered either and should be factored into future investigations.
Overall, the study is robust and important and provides valuable information regarding mortality risk from a fragility fracture in older people. However, there are some flaws that need to be considered and addressed, the most serious of which is that the term “skeletal age” has been in existence for decades, applied to a much younger age group, and its implications are completely different from those being proposed by the authors here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Thach Tran, MD, and colleagues introduced the concept of “skeletal age” in a recently published paper that aims to incorporate the impact of fragility, or low trauma, fractures – which can occur in patients with osteoporosis – on mortality risk.
They defined “skeletal age” as the age of the skeleton following a fragility fracture. This is calculated as the chronological age of the individual plus the number of years of “life lost” as a consequence of the specific fracture.
The risk for premature death following fragility fractures is concerning, with 22%-58% of patients with hip fracture dying within a year (Brauer et al.; Rapp et al.). Thus, it’s important to treat osteoporosis in a timely fashion to reduce the risk for such fractures and the excess mortality risk associated with them.
Implementation and uptake of such treatment, however, either before or after a fragility fracture, is far from optimal (Solomon et al). This may be because patients don’t fully understand the consequence of such a fracture, and outcomes measures currently in use (such as relative risk or hazard of mortality) are difficult to communicate to patients.
In the recent paper by Dr. Tran and colleagues, the authors examined the association between fractures and mortality based on sex, age, associated comorbidities, and fracture site. They pooled this information to create a “skeletal age” for each fracture site, using data from the Danish National Hospital Discharge Registry, which documents fractures and related mortality for all Danish people.
They examined mortality over a period of at least 2 years following a fragility fracture in individuals aged 50 or older, and reported that occurrence of any fragility fracture is associated with a 30%-45% increased risk for death, with the highest risk noted for hip and femur fractures (twofold increase). Fractures of the pelvis, vertebrae, humerus, ribs, clavicle, and lower leg were also associated with increased mortality risk, but no increase was seen with fractures of the forearm, knee, ankle, hand, or foot.
The number of years of life lost at any age depending on the fracture site is represented as a linear graph of skeletal age for any chronological age, for specific fracture sites, separated by sex.
For example, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man who has a hip fracture is 57 years (7 years of life lost as a consequence of the fracture), while that for a 70-year-old man with the same fracture is 75 years (5 years of life lost because of the fracture). Similarly, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man with a fracture of the pelvis, femur, vertebrae, and humerus is 55 years (5 years of life lost). Fractures of the lower leg, humerus, and clavicle lead to fewer lost years of life.
The authors are to be commended for creating a simple strategy to quantify mortality risk following low-impact or fragility fractures in older individuals; this could enable providers to communicate the importance of osteoporosis treatment more effectively to patients on the basis of their skeletal age, and for patients to better understand this information.
The study design appears reasonably robust as the authors considered many factors that might affect mortality risk, such as sex, age, and comorbidities, and the results are based on information from a very large number of people – 1.6 million.
However, there’s a major issue with the concept of “skeletal age” as proposed by Dr. Tran and colleagues. The term is already in use and defines the maturity of bones in children and adolescents, also called “bone age” (Greulich and Pyle 1959; Skeletal Age, Radiology Key). This is a real oversight and could cause confusion in interpreting “skeletal age.”
Skeletal age as currently defined in children and adolescents is influenced by chronological age, exposure to certain hormones, nutritional deficiencies, and systemic diseases, and is a predictor of adult height based on the skeletal age and current height. This concept is completely different from that being proposed by the authors in this paper. Dr. Tran and colleagues (and the reviewers of this paper) are probably not familiar with the use of the terminology in youth, which is a major oversight; they should consider changing the terminology given this overlap.
Further, fragility fractures can occur from osteoporosis at any age, and this study doesn’t provide information regarding years of life lost from occurrence of fragility fractures at younger ages, or the age at which mortality risk starts to increase (as the study was performed only in those aged 50 or older).
While the study takes into account general comorbidities in developing the model to define years of life lost, it doesn’t account for other factors that can influence fracture risk, such as lifestyle factors, activity level, and genetic risk (family history of osteoporosis, for example). Of note, the impact of additional fractures isn’t considered either and should be factored into future investigations.
Overall, the study is robust and important and provides valuable information regarding mortality risk from a fragility fracture in older people. However, there are some flaws that need to be considered and addressed, the most serious of which is that the term “skeletal age” has been in existence for decades, applied to a much younger age group, and its implications are completely different from those being proposed by the authors here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Thach Tran, MD, and colleagues introduced the concept of “skeletal age” in a recently published paper that aims to incorporate the impact of fragility, or low trauma, fractures – which can occur in patients with osteoporosis – on mortality risk.
They defined “skeletal age” as the age of the skeleton following a fragility fracture. This is calculated as the chronological age of the individual plus the number of years of “life lost” as a consequence of the specific fracture.
The risk for premature death following fragility fractures is concerning, with 22%-58% of patients with hip fracture dying within a year (Brauer et al.; Rapp et al.). Thus, it’s important to treat osteoporosis in a timely fashion to reduce the risk for such fractures and the excess mortality risk associated with them.
Implementation and uptake of such treatment, however, either before or after a fragility fracture, is far from optimal (Solomon et al). This may be because patients don’t fully understand the consequence of such a fracture, and outcomes measures currently in use (such as relative risk or hazard of mortality) are difficult to communicate to patients.
In the recent paper by Dr. Tran and colleagues, the authors examined the association between fractures and mortality based on sex, age, associated comorbidities, and fracture site. They pooled this information to create a “skeletal age” for each fracture site, using data from the Danish National Hospital Discharge Registry, which documents fractures and related mortality for all Danish people.
They examined mortality over a period of at least 2 years following a fragility fracture in individuals aged 50 or older, and reported that occurrence of any fragility fracture is associated with a 30%-45% increased risk for death, with the highest risk noted for hip and femur fractures (twofold increase). Fractures of the pelvis, vertebrae, humerus, ribs, clavicle, and lower leg were also associated with increased mortality risk, but no increase was seen with fractures of the forearm, knee, ankle, hand, or foot.
The number of years of life lost at any age depending on the fracture site is represented as a linear graph of skeletal age for any chronological age, for specific fracture sites, separated by sex.
For example, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man who has a hip fracture is 57 years (7 years of life lost as a consequence of the fracture), while that for a 70-year-old man with the same fracture is 75 years (5 years of life lost because of the fracture). Similarly, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man with a fracture of the pelvis, femur, vertebrae, and humerus is 55 years (5 years of life lost). Fractures of the lower leg, humerus, and clavicle lead to fewer lost years of life.
The authors are to be commended for creating a simple strategy to quantify mortality risk following low-impact or fragility fractures in older individuals; this could enable providers to communicate the importance of osteoporosis treatment more effectively to patients on the basis of their skeletal age, and for patients to better understand this information.
The study design appears reasonably robust as the authors considered many factors that might affect mortality risk, such as sex, age, and comorbidities, and the results are based on information from a very large number of people – 1.6 million.
However, there’s a major issue with the concept of “skeletal age” as proposed by Dr. Tran and colleagues. The term is already in use and defines the maturity of bones in children and adolescents, also called “bone age” (Greulich and Pyle 1959; Skeletal Age, Radiology Key). This is a real oversight and could cause confusion in interpreting “skeletal age.”
Skeletal age as currently defined in children and adolescents is influenced by chronological age, exposure to certain hormones, nutritional deficiencies, and systemic diseases, and is a predictor of adult height based on the skeletal age and current height. This concept is completely different from that being proposed by the authors in this paper. Dr. Tran and colleagues (and the reviewers of this paper) are probably not familiar with the use of the terminology in youth, which is a major oversight; they should consider changing the terminology given this overlap.
Further, fragility fractures can occur from osteoporosis at any age, and this study doesn’t provide information regarding years of life lost from occurrence of fragility fractures at younger ages, or the age at which mortality risk starts to increase (as the study was performed only in those aged 50 or older).
While the study takes into account general comorbidities in developing the model to define years of life lost, it doesn’t account for other factors that can influence fracture risk, such as lifestyle factors, activity level, and genetic risk (family history of osteoporosis, for example). Of note, the impact of additional fractures isn’t considered either and should be factored into future investigations.
Overall, the study is robust and important and provides valuable information regarding mortality risk from a fragility fracture in older people. However, there are some flaws that need to be considered and addressed, the most serious of which is that the term “skeletal age” has been in existence for decades, applied to a much younger age group, and its implications are completely different from those being proposed by the authors here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.