Women's Health

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral medication fezolinetant (Veozah) for the treatment of moderate to severe hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement. The approved dose is 45 mg once daily.

Fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonist, is the first drug of its kind to earn FDA approval for the vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, according to the statement. The drug works by binding to the NK3 receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, and blocking its activity. Fezolinetant is not a hormone, and can be taken by women for whom hormones are contraindicated, such as those with a history of vaginal bleeding, stroke, heart attack, blood clots, or liver disease, the FDA stated.

The approval was based on data from the SKYLIGHT 2 trial, results of which were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, reported by this news organization, and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

In the two-phase trial, women were randomized to 30 mg or 45 mg of fezolinetant or a placebo. After 12 weeks, women in placebo groups were rerandomized to fezolinetant for a 40-week safety study.

The study population included women aged 40-65 years, with an average minimum of seven moderate-to-severe hot flashes per day. The study included 120 sites in North America and Europe.

At 12 weeks, both placebo and fezolinetant patients experienced reductions in moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of approximately 60%, as well as a significant decrease in vasomotor symptom severity.

The FDA statement noted that patients should undergo baseline blood work before starting fezolinetant to test for liver infection or damage, and the prescribing information includes a warning for liver injury; blood work should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months after starting the medication, according to the FDA and a press release from the manufacturer Astellas.

The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant include abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flashes, and elevated liver values, according to the FDA statement. The FDA granted Astellas Pharma’s application a Priority Review designation. Astellas has priced the drug at $550 for a 30-day supply, significantly higher than the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s previously recommended range of $2,000 to $2,500 per year.

Full prescribing information is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral medication fezolinetant (Veozah) for the treatment of moderate to severe hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement. The approved dose is 45 mg once daily.

Fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonist, is the first drug of its kind to earn FDA approval for the vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, according to the statement. The drug works by binding to the NK3 receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, and blocking its activity. Fezolinetant is not a hormone, and can be taken by women for whom hormones are contraindicated, such as those with a history of vaginal bleeding, stroke, heart attack, blood clots, or liver disease, the FDA stated.

The approval was based on data from the SKYLIGHT 2 trial, results of which were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, reported by this news organization, and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

In the two-phase trial, women were randomized to 30 mg or 45 mg of fezolinetant or a placebo. After 12 weeks, women in placebo groups were rerandomized to fezolinetant for a 40-week safety study.

The study population included women aged 40-65 years, with an average minimum of seven moderate-to-severe hot flashes per day. The study included 120 sites in North America and Europe.

At 12 weeks, both placebo and fezolinetant patients experienced reductions in moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of approximately 60%, as well as a significant decrease in vasomotor symptom severity.

The FDA statement noted that patients should undergo baseline blood work before starting fezolinetant to test for liver infection or damage, and the prescribing information includes a warning for liver injury; blood work should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months after starting the medication, according to the FDA and a press release from the manufacturer Astellas.

The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant include abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flashes, and elevated liver values, according to the FDA statement. The FDA granted Astellas Pharma’s application a Priority Review designation. Astellas has priced the drug at $550 for a 30-day supply, significantly higher than the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s previously recommended range of $2,000 to $2,500 per year.

Full prescribing information is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral medication fezolinetant (Veozah) for the treatment of moderate to severe hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement. The approved dose is 45 mg once daily.

Fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonist, is the first drug of its kind to earn FDA approval for the vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, according to the statement. The drug works by binding to the NK3 receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, and blocking its activity. Fezolinetant is not a hormone, and can be taken by women for whom hormones are contraindicated, such as those with a history of vaginal bleeding, stroke, heart attack, blood clots, or liver disease, the FDA stated.

The approval was based on data from the SKYLIGHT 2 trial, results of which were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, reported by this news organization, and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

In the two-phase trial, women were randomized to 30 mg or 45 mg of fezolinetant or a placebo. After 12 weeks, women in placebo groups were rerandomized to fezolinetant for a 40-week safety study.

The study population included women aged 40-65 years, with an average minimum of seven moderate-to-severe hot flashes per day. The study included 120 sites in North America and Europe.

At 12 weeks, both placebo and fezolinetant patients experienced reductions in moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of approximately 60%, as well as a significant decrease in vasomotor symptom severity.

The FDA statement noted that patients should undergo baseline blood work before starting fezolinetant to test for liver infection or damage, and the prescribing information includes a warning for liver injury; blood work should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months after starting the medication, according to the FDA and a press release from the manufacturer Astellas.

The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant include abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flashes, and elevated liver values, according to the FDA statement. The FDA granted Astellas Pharma’s application a Priority Review designation. Astellas has priced the drug at $550 for a 30-day supply, significantly higher than the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s previously recommended range of $2,000 to $2,500 per year.

Full prescribing information is available here.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 32-year-old primigravida at 10 weeks’ gestation presents for an initial prenatal visit. Medical history includes hypertension that is currently well controlled on labetalol 200 mg twice daily. The patient’s blood pressure (BP) at today’s visit is 125/80 mm Hg. Should labetalol be discontinued?

Chronic hypertension in pregnancy is hypertension that predates the pregnancy or with onset prior to 20 weeks’ gestation. Diagnostic criteria include systolic BP > 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP > 90 mm Hg, use of antihypertensive medications prior to pregnancy, or pregnancy-related hypertension persisting > 12 weeks postpartum.^2,3 Chronic hypertension affects 0.9% to 5% of pregnancies and is associated with increased risk for complications, such as superimposed preeclampsia, small-for-gestational-age infant, preterm birth, cesarean delivery, and neonatal intensive care unit admission.⁴ Superimposed preeclampsia occurs in about 17% to 25% of pregnancies affected by chronic hypertension, compared with 3% to 5% of the general population.³

Historically, a higher treatment threshold of 160/110 mm Hg was preferred to avoid theoretical complications of low placental perfusion.² Practically, this often meant discontinuing antihypertensives at the onset of prenatal care if BP was well controlled. A few small trials previously demonstrated that tight BP goals reduced the risk for severe hypertension, but they did not show an improvement in pregnancy outcomes.^5-7 This larger RCT evaluated whether treatment of mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy at lower BP thresholds is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes without negative impact on fetal growth.

STUDY SUMMARY

Active BP treatment yielded better pregnancy outcomes

In a US multicenter, open-label RCT, 2419 pregnant patients with chronic hypertension and singleton fetuses at gestational age < 23 weeks were randomized to receive either active pharmacologic treatment with a BP goal of 140/90 mm Hg or standard treatment, in which BP medication was withheld unless BP reached 160/105 mm Hg (severe hypertension). If medication was initiated in the standard-treatment group, the goal was also 140/90 mm Hg. Exclusion criteria included severe hypertension or suspected intrauterine growth restriction at randomization, known secondary hypertension, certain high-risk comorbidities (eg, cardiac or renal disease), or a major fetal anomaly.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal– Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.

First-line medications were labetalol or extended-release nifedipine in the majority of patients in the active-treatment group and in standard-treatment patients who developed severe hypertension. Patients were followed until 6 weeks after delivery. Intention­-to-treat analyses were performed. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death before 28 days of life, superimposed preeclampsia with severe features up to 2 weeks postpartum, placental abruption leading to delivery, and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks’ gestation. Safety outcomes included birthweight < 10th and < 5th percentile for gestational age.

Primary outcome events occurred in 30.2% of the active-treatment group compared with 37% of the standard-treatment group (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92; number needed to treat [NNT] = 15). Preeclampsia with severe features (23.3% vs 29.1%; aRR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92) and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks (12.2% vs 16.7%; aRR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.6-0.89) occurred less often in the active-treatment group compared with the standard-treatment group. There were no differences in rates of placental abruption, fetal or neonatal death, or small-for-gestational-age infants.

WHAT’S NEW

Target BP of < 140/90 mm Hg reduced risk

This trial provides high-quality evidence that initiating or maintaining treatment at a nonsevere BP threshold (< 140/90 mm Hg) in pregnant patients with mild chronic hypertension reduces maternal and neonatal risk without increasing the risk for small-for-­gestational-age infants. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.^8,9

Continue to: CAVEATS

Patient characteristics and medication choices were limited

This trial does not identify a BP goal for patients who are at highest risk for complications of hypertension or who already have been given a diagnosis of a growth-restricted fetus, as those patients were excluded.

Most patients in the trial who required medications received labetalol or extended-­release nifedipine. It is unclear if other medications would produce similar outcomes.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Limited challenges anticipated

There should be limited challenges to implementation.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 32-year-old primigravida at 10 weeks’ gestation presents for an initial prenatal visit. Medical history includes hypertension that is currently well controlled on labetalol 200 mg twice daily. The patient’s blood pressure (BP) at today’s visit is 125/80 mm Hg. Should labetalol be discontinued?

Chronic hypertension in pregnancy is hypertension that predates the pregnancy or with onset prior to 20 weeks’ gestation. Diagnostic criteria include systolic BP > 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP > 90 mm Hg, use of antihypertensive medications prior to pregnancy, or pregnancy-related hypertension persisting > 12 weeks postpartum.^2,3 Chronic hypertension affects 0.9% to 5% of pregnancies and is associated with increased risk for complications, such as superimposed preeclampsia, small-for-gestational-age infant, preterm birth, cesarean delivery, and neonatal intensive care unit admission.⁴ Superimposed preeclampsia occurs in about 17% to 25% of pregnancies affected by chronic hypertension, compared with 3% to 5% of the general population.³

Historically, a higher treatment threshold of 160/110 mm Hg was preferred to avoid theoretical complications of low placental perfusion.² Practically, this often meant discontinuing antihypertensives at the onset of prenatal care if BP was well controlled. A few small trials previously demonstrated that tight BP goals reduced the risk for severe hypertension, but they did not show an improvement in pregnancy outcomes.^5-7 This larger RCT evaluated whether treatment of mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy at lower BP thresholds is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes without negative impact on fetal growth.

STUDY SUMMARY

Active BP treatment yielded better pregnancy outcomes

In a US multicenter, open-label RCT, 2419 pregnant patients with chronic hypertension and singleton fetuses at gestational age < 23 weeks were randomized to receive either active pharmacologic treatment with a BP goal of 140/90 mm Hg or standard treatment, in which BP medication was withheld unless BP reached 160/105 mm Hg (severe hypertension). If medication was initiated in the standard-treatment group, the goal was also 140/90 mm Hg. Exclusion criteria included severe hypertension or suspected intrauterine growth restriction at randomization, known secondary hypertension, certain high-risk comorbidities (eg, cardiac or renal disease), or a major fetal anomaly.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal– Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.

First-line medications were labetalol or extended-release nifedipine in the majority of patients in the active-treatment group and in standard-treatment patients who developed severe hypertension. Patients were followed until 6 weeks after delivery. Intention­-to-treat analyses were performed. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death before 28 days of life, superimposed preeclampsia with severe features up to 2 weeks postpartum, placental abruption leading to delivery, and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks’ gestation. Safety outcomes included birthweight < 10th and < 5th percentile for gestational age.

Primary outcome events occurred in 30.2% of the active-treatment group compared with 37% of the standard-treatment group (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92; number needed to treat [NNT] = 15). Preeclampsia with severe features (23.3% vs 29.1%; aRR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92) and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks (12.2% vs 16.7%; aRR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.6-0.89) occurred less often in the active-treatment group compared with the standard-treatment group. There were no differences in rates of placental abruption, fetal or neonatal death, or small-for-gestational-age infants.

WHAT’S NEW

Target BP of < 140/90 mm Hg reduced risk

This trial provides high-quality evidence that initiating or maintaining treatment at a nonsevere BP threshold (< 140/90 mm Hg) in pregnant patients with mild chronic hypertension reduces maternal and neonatal risk without increasing the risk for small-for-­gestational-age infants. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.^8,9

Continue to: CAVEATS

Patient characteristics and medication choices were limited

This trial does not identify a BP goal for patients who are at highest risk for complications of hypertension or who already have been given a diagnosis of a growth-restricted fetus, as those patients were excluded.

Most patients in the trial who required medications received labetalol or extended-­release nifedipine. It is unclear if other medications would produce similar outcomes.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Limited challenges anticipated

There should be limited challenges to implementation.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 32-year-old primigravida at 10 weeks’ gestation presents for an initial prenatal visit. Medical history includes hypertension that is currently well controlled on labetalol 200 mg twice daily. The patient’s blood pressure (BP) at today’s visit is 125/80 mm Hg. Should labetalol be discontinued?

Chronic hypertension in pregnancy is hypertension that predates the pregnancy or with onset prior to 20 weeks’ gestation. Diagnostic criteria include systolic BP > 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP > 90 mm Hg, use of antihypertensive medications prior to pregnancy, or pregnancy-related hypertension persisting > 12 weeks postpartum.^2,3 Chronic hypertension affects 0.9% to 5% of pregnancies and is associated with increased risk for complications, such as superimposed preeclampsia, small-for-gestational-age infant, preterm birth, cesarean delivery, and neonatal intensive care unit admission.⁴ Superimposed preeclampsia occurs in about 17% to 25% of pregnancies affected by chronic hypertension, compared with 3% to 5% of the general population.³

Historically, a higher treatment threshold of 160/110 mm Hg was preferred to avoid theoretical complications of low placental perfusion.² Practically, this often meant discontinuing antihypertensives at the onset of prenatal care if BP was well controlled. A few small trials previously demonstrated that tight BP goals reduced the risk for severe hypertension, but they did not show an improvement in pregnancy outcomes.^5-7 This larger RCT evaluated whether treatment of mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy at lower BP thresholds is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes without negative impact on fetal growth.

STUDY SUMMARY

Active BP treatment yielded better pregnancy outcomes

In a US multicenter, open-label RCT, 2419 pregnant patients with chronic hypertension and singleton fetuses at gestational age < 23 weeks were randomized to receive either active pharmacologic treatment with a BP goal of 140/90 mm Hg or standard treatment, in which BP medication was withheld unless BP reached 160/105 mm Hg (severe hypertension). If medication was initiated in the standard-treatment group, the goal was also 140/90 mm Hg. Exclusion criteria included severe hypertension or suspected intrauterine growth restriction at randomization, known secondary hypertension, certain high-risk comorbidities (eg, cardiac or renal disease), or a major fetal anomaly.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal– Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.

First-line medications were labetalol or extended-release nifedipine in the majority of patients in the active-treatment group and in standard-treatment patients who developed severe hypertension. Patients were followed until 6 weeks after delivery. Intention­-to-treat analyses were performed. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death before 28 days of life, superimposed preeclampsia with severe features up to 2 weeks postpartum, placental abruption leading to delivery, and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks’ gestation. Safety outcomes included birthweight < 10th and < 5th percentile for gestational age.

Primary outcome events occurred in 30.2% of the active-treatment group compared with 37% of the standard-treatment group (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92; number needed to treat [NNT] = 15). Preeclampsia with severe features (23.3% vs 29.1%; aRR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92) and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks (12.2% vs 16.7%; aRR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.6-0.89) occurred less often in the active-treatment group compared with the standard-treatment group. There were no differences in rates of placental abruption, fetal or neonatal death, or small-for-gestational-age infants.

WHAT’S NEW

Target BP of < 140/90 mm Hg reduced risk

This trial provides high-quality evidence that initiating or maintaining treatment at a nonsevere BP threshold (< 140/90 mm Hg) in pregnant patients with mild chronic hypertension reduces maternal and neonatal risk without increasing the risk for small-for-­gestational-age infants. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.^8,9

Continue to: CAVEATS

Patient characteristics and medication choices were limited

This trial does not identify a BP goal for patients who are at highest risk for complications of hypertension or who already have been given a diagnosis of a growth-restricted fetus, as those patients were excluded.

Most patients in the trial who required medications received labetalol or extended-­release nifedipine. It is unclear if other medications would produce similar outcomes.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Limited challenges anticipated

There should be limited challenges to implementation.

In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, overweight and obesity were overall predictors of lower disease-free survival, but body mass index had no apparent association with the effect of extended endocrine therapy on disease-free survival, new data suggest.

Obesity is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women and has been associated with adverse prognosis, said Senna W.M. Lammers, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. In addition, some studies suggest that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) experience reduced benefits from endocrine therapy, she said.

Dr. Lammers and colleagues conducted a study to determine the prognostic and predictive effect of BMI on disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who were treated with extended endocrine therapy.

The study population included participants in the randomized, phase III DATA trial, which evaluated the use of 6 years vs. 3 years of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer who were disease-free after 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy.

Patients were categorized based on BMI as having normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m²), or obese (30 kg/m² or higher). The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS); the median follow-up period was 13.1 years.

DFS for patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity was 66.2%, 59.5%, and 52.4%, with a P value of less than .001 for the trend, Dr. Lammers said. “These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis,” she said. Overall, patients with overweight and obesity had a worse DFS when compared with patients with normal weight (hazard ratio, 1.16; P = .10, for patients with overweight and HR, 1.26; P = .03 for patients with obesity).

“Next, we aimed to determine whether the prognostic effect of BMI differed by age,” Dr. Lammers said.

In women younger than 60 years, overweight and obesity were significantly associated with worse DFS (HR, 1.29; P = .05 and HR 1.83, P less than .001, respectively). However, this effect was not observed in women aged 60 years and older.

The researchers also examined the treatment effect of extended anastrozole on adapted DFS by weight, and found no significant differences among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity (HR, 1.00; HR, 0.74; and HR, 0.97, respectively), said Dr. Lammers.

In the question and answer session, Dr. Lammers was asked about possible explanations for the difference in DFS by age. Potential explanations include possible survival bias “as only the healthier [patients with obesity] survive to old age,” she said. Other potential explanations are biological, such as the potentially higher levels of bone density in older [patients with obesity], she said.

When asked about additional clinical implications, Dr. Lammers emphasized the importance of maintaining a healthy BMI for breast cancer patients of all ages. Other research areas might involve the use of lifestyle interventions, although these are challenging to implement, she noted.
 

Data draw attention to quality of life and lifestyle factors

The need to “look at drug development with new eyes” is particularly important when reviewing patient-reported outcomes, said Otto Metzger, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who served as the discussant for the session.

Dr. Metzger brought up the association between age and the effect of BMI on DFS, specifically.

Based on data from multiple studies and meta-analyses, “I do believe that obesity does play a role in prognosis,” he said, but the question is how long will researchers continue to simply record data without acting to add lifestyle interventions while also trying to develop new drugs, he said. Although convincing patients to make lifestyle changes remains a challenge, patients are often more motivated to make such changes after a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Metzger noted.

“I am a firm believer in the use of digital therapeutics in the context of clinical trials,” said Dr. Metzger. Digital technology offers great potential to educate patients on [adverse effects] and also to improve treatment adherence and quality of life, he concluded.

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, and Dr. Lammers disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. Dr. Metzger disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi, and serving as an adviser/consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Oncoclinicas, Resilience, and Roche.

In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, overweight and obesity were overall predictors of lower disease-free survival, but body mass index had no apparent association with the effect of extended endocrine therapy on disease-free survival, new data suggest.

Obesity is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women and has been associated with adverse prognosis, said Senna W.M. Lammers, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. In addition, some studies suggest that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) experience reduced benefits from endocrine therapy, she said.

Dr. Lammers and colleagues conducted a study to determine the prognostic and predictive effect of BMI on disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who were treated with extended endocrine therapy.

The study population included participants in the randomized, phase III DATA trial, which evaluated the use of 6 years vs. 3 years of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer who were disease-free after 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy.

Patients were categorized based on BMI as having normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m²), or obese (30 kg/m² or higher). The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS); the median follow-up period was 13.1 years.

DFS for patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity was 66.2%, 59.5%, and 52.4%, with a P value of less than .001 for the trend, Dr. Lammers said. “These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis,” she said. Overall, patients with overweight and obesity had a worse DFS when compared with patients with normal weight (hazard ratio, 1.16; P = .10, for patients with overweight and HR, 1.26; P = .03 for patients with obesity).

“Next, we aimed to determine whether the prognostic effect of BMI differed by age,” Dr. Lammers said.

In women younger than 60 years, overweight and obesity were significantly associated with worse DFS (HR, 1.29; P = .05 and HR 1.83, P less than .001, respectively). However, this effect was not observed in women aged 60 years and older.

The researchers also examined the treatment effect of extended anastrozole on adapted DFS by weight, and found no significant differences among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity (HR, 1.00; HR, 0.74; and HR, 0.97, respectively), said Dr. Lammers.

In the question and answer session, Dr. Lammers was asked about possible explanations for the difference in DFS by age. Potential explanations include possible survival bias “as only the healthier [patients with obesity] survive to old age,” she said. Other potential explanations are biological, such as the potentially higher levels of bone density in older [patients with obesity], she said.

When asked about additional clinical implications, Dr. Lammers emphasized the importance of maintaining a healthy BMI for breast cancer patients of all ages. Other research areas might involve the use of lifestyle interventions, although these are challenging to implement, she noted.
 

Data draw attention to quality of life and lifestyle factors

The need to “look at drug development with new eyes” is particularly important when reviewing patient-reported outcomes, said Otto Metzger, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who served as the discussant for the session.

Dr. Metzger brought up the association between age and the effect of BMI on DFS, specifically.

Based on data from multiple studies and meta-analyses, “I do believe that obesity does play a role in prognosis,” he said, but the question is how long will researchers continue to simply record data without acting to add lifestyle interventions while also trying to develop new drugs, he said. Although convincing patients to make lifestyle changes remains a challenge, patients are often more motivated to make such changes after a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Metzger noted.

“I am a firm believer in the use of digital therapeutics in the context of clinical trials,” said Dr. Metzger. Digital technology offers great potential to educate patients on [adverse effects] and also to improve treatment adherence and quality of life, he concluded.

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, and Dr. Lammers disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. Dr. Metzger disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi, and serving as an adviser/consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Oncoclinicas, Resilience, and Roche.

In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, overweight and obesity were overall predictors of lower disease-free survival, but body mass index had no apparent association with the effect of extended endocrine therapy on disease-free survival, new data suggest.

Obesity is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women and has been associated with adverse prognosis, said Senna W.M. Lammers, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. In addition, some studies suggest that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) experience reduced benefits from endocrine therapy, she said.

Dr. Lammers and colleagues conducted a study to determine the prognostic and predictive effect of BMI on disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who were treated with extended endocrine therapy.

The study population included participants in the randomized, phase III DATA trial, which evaluated the use of 6 years vs. 3 years of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer who were disease-free after 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy.

Patients were categorized based on BMI as having normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m²), or obese (30 kg/m² or higher). The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS); the median follow-up period was 13.1 years.

DFS for patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity was 66.2%, 59.5%, and 52.4%, with a P value of less than .001 for the trend, Dr. Lammers said. “These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis,” she said. Overall, patients with overweight and obesity had a worse DFS when compared with patients with normal weight (hazard ratio, 1.16; P = .10, for patients with overweight and HR, 1.26; P = .03 for patients with obesity).

“Next, we aimed to determine whether the prognostic effect of BMI differed by age,” Dr. Lammers said.

In women younger than 60 years, overweight and obesity were significantly associated with worse DFS (HR, 1.29; P = .05 and HR 1.83, P less than .001, respectively). However, this effect was not observed in women aged 60 years and older.

The researchers also examined the treatment effect of extended anastrozole on adapted DFS by weight, and found no significant differences among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity (HR, 1.00; HR, 0.74; and HR, 0.97, respectively), said Dr. Lammers.

In the question and answer session, Dr. Lammers was asked about possible explanations for the difference in DFS by age. Potential explanations include possible survival bias “as only the healthier [patients with obesity] survive to old age,” she said. Other potential explanations are biological, such as the potentially higher levels of bone density in older [patients with obesity], she said.

When asked about additional clinical implications, Dr. Lammers emphasized the importance of maintaining a healthy BMI for breast cancer patients of all ages. Other research areas might involve the use of lifestyle interventions, although these are challenging to implement, she noted.
 

Data draw attention to quality of life and lifestyle factors

The need to “look at drug development with new eyes” is particularly important when reviewing patient-reported outcomes, said Otto Metzger, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who served as the discussant for the session.

Dr. Metzger brought up the association between age and the effect of BMI on DFS, specifically.

Based on data from multiple studies and meta-analyses, “I do believe that obesity does play a role in prognosis,” he said, but the question is how long will researchers continue to simply record data without acting to add lifestyle interventions while also trying to develop new drugs, he said. Although convincing patients to make lifestyle changes remains a challenge, patients are often more motivated to make such changes after a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Metzger noted.

“I am a firm believer in the use of digital therapeutics in the context of clinical trials,” said Dr. Metzger. Digital technology offers great potential to educate patients on [adverse effects] and also to improve treatment adherence and quality of life, he concluded.

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, and Dr. Lammers disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. Dr. Metzger disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi, and serving as an adviser/consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Oncoclinicas, Resilience, and Roche.

Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in 24.9% of women treated for gestational diabetes at less than 20 weeks’ gestation compared to 30.5% of controls treated later or not at all, based on data from nearly 800 women.

Screening and treatment for gestational diabetes are currently recommended at 24-28 weeks’ gestation, with earlier testing recommended for women at increased risk, but the potential benefits of earlier intervention remain debatable, wrote David Simmons, MD, of Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, Australia, and colleagues.

“Until now, there has been complete equipoise over whether to treat hyperglycemia below that of overt diabetes early in pregnancy,” Dr. Simmons said in an interview. The conflicting questions: “Would early treatment reduce the excess deposition of fat on the baby with all of its sequelae; but would early treatment reduce fuel supply to some babies at a critical time and lead to SGA [small for gestational age]?” Dr. Simmons noted.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Simmons and colleagues randomized 406 women aged 18 years and older with singleton pregnancies to immediate treatment for gestational diabetes. Another 396 women were randomized to a control group for deferred treatment or no treatment, based on results of an oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 weeks’ gestation. All participants had at least one risk factor for hyperglycemia, and met the World Health Organization criteria for gestational diabetes. Women with preexisting diabetes or contraindicating comorbid medical conditions were excluded.

The study had three primary outcomes. The first was a composite of neonatal outcomes including birth before 37 weeks’ gestation, birth weight of 4,500 g or higher, birth trauma, neonatal respiratory distress, phototherapy, stillbirth or neonatal death, or shoulder dystocia.

The final sample included 748 women for adverse neonatal outcomes, 750 for pregnancy-related hypertension, and 492 for neonatal lean body mass. The mean age of the participants was 32 years; approximately one-third were white European and another third were South Asian. Overall baseline demographics were similar between the groups, and the initial oral glucose tolerance tests were performed at a mean of 15.6 weeks’ gestation.

Overall, 24.9% of women in the early treatment group experienced an adverse neonatal event vs. 30.5% of controls, for an adjusted risk difference of –5.6% and adjusted relative risk of 0.82.

Notably, in an exploratory subgroup analysis, respiratory distress occurred in 9.8% of infants born to women in the immediate treatment group vs. 17.0% of infants in the control group. “Neonatal respiratory distress was the main driver of the between-group difference observed for the first primary outcome,” the researchers wrote. A prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that the impact of an earlier intervention on adverse neonatal outcomes might be greater among women with a higher glycemic value and those whose oral glucose tolerance tests occurred at less than 14 weeks’ gestation, they noted. Stillbirths or neonatal deaths were similar and infrequent in both groups.

Pregnancy-related hypertension occurred in 10.6% of the immediate-treatment group and 9.9% of the controls group (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%). For the third outcome, the mean neonatal lean body mass was 2.86 g in the immediate-treatment group and 2.91 g for the controls (adjusted mean difference, −0.04 g).

No differences in serious adverse events related to either screening or treatment were noted between the groups.
 

Impact on neonatal outcomes merits further study

Dr. Simmons said that he was surprised by the study findings. “We thought if there was an effect, it would be small, but it isn’t,” he told this publication.

“If you combine the severe adverse outcomes, the perineal trauma and the reduction in days in NICU/special care unit, this is a significant impact on morbidity and likely on cost,” and researchers are currently examining data for cost-effectiveness, he said.

“We did not expect the likely large impact on reducing respiratory distress and perineal trauma,” he noted. “These findings have not been previously reported, perhaps because they were not looked for.” By contrast, “we thought here might be reductions in lower gestational age and cesarean delivery, but there was not,” he added.

The findings were limited by several factors including the nonstandardized approach to gestational diabetes treatment and the use of third-trimester treatment targets that had not been tested in earlier trimesters, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on women already at high risk for hyperglycemia; therefore, the results might not generalize to women not at risk, they wrote.

The current study represents a beginning of answers, with data suggesting that early treatment for gestational diabetes reduces severe adverse pregnancy outcomes, days in NICU/special care unit, and perineal trauma, likely from the first trimester, said Dr. Simmons. However, the findings must be interpreted with caution, as criteria that are too low “might lead to more small babies,” he said. “We look forward to working with others to translate these findings into practice,” he added.

Much more research is needed to answer the many questions prompted by the current study, including who did and did not have complications, Dr. Simmons told this publication. Other studies are needed to collect data on cost-effectiveness, as well as consumer views, especially “different perspectives from different parts of the globe,” he said. Although there is not enough evidence yet to draw conclusions about the role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in managing gestational diabetes, many studies are underway; “we look forward to the results,” of these studies, Dr. Simmons added.
 

Findings support early screening

Gestational diabetes is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy, and accounts for more than 80% of diabetes-related diagnoses in pregnancy, said Emily Fay, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

“Previous studies have found that women with gestational diabetes are at higher risk in their pregnancy, including higher chance of developing preeclampsia, higher chance of cesarean delivery, and higher risks for their baby, including risk of shoulder dystocia, birth trauma, and jaundice, and higher birth weights,” she said. “Fortunately, studies have also shown that treatment of gestational diabetes helps lower these risks,” she noted. Currently, patients undergo routine screening for gestational diabetes between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy, but some who have risk factors for gestational diabetes may have screening in the early part of pregnancy, said Dr. Fay.

The current findings were not surprising overall, said Dr. Fay, who was not involved in the study. “The study authors looked at a variety of outcomes including neonatal adverse outcomes, neonatal body weight, and pregnancy-related hypertension,” she said.

The researchers found that patients treated early had a lower rate of adverse neonatal outcomes, which was to be expected, Dr. Fay said. “They did not find a difference in neonatal body weight; this also was not surprising, as the women who were not in the early treatment group still received treatment at the time of diagnosis later in pregnancy, which likely helped normalize the weights,” she explained.

“My takeaway from this study is that we should continue to screen patients with risk factors for gestational diabetes early in pregnancy and treat them at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fay told this publication. However, barriers that may exist to early treatment involve access to care, including being able to see a provider early in pregnancy, she said. “The treatment for gestational diabetes includes dietary education with diet changes and checking blood sugars frequently. Access to nutrition education can be limited and access to healthy foods can be expensive and difficult to obtain,” she noted. “Checking blood sugars throughout the day can also be difficult for those who are busy or working and who may not have the ability to take time to do this,” she said. However, “these barriers may be overcome by health care reform that improves patient access to and coverage of pregnancy care, improved access and affordability of healthy foods, and employer flexibility to allow the time and space to check blood sugars if needed,” she added.

Looking ahead, the use of continuous glucose monitors in pregnancy is an expanding area of research, said Dr. Fay. “Patients can quickly view their blood sugar without the use of finger sticks, which may help overcome some of the barriers patients may have with using finger sticks,” she noted. “Continuous glucose monitors have been used for those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes with success, and we need to better understand if these can also be helpful in gestational diabetes,” she said. Dr. Fay and colleagues at the University of Washington are currently conducting an ongoing study to explore the use of CGM in gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Region Örebro Research Committee, the Medical Scientific Fund of the Mayor of Vienna, the South Western Sydney Local Health District Academic Unit, and a Western Sydney University Ainsworth Trust Grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Fay had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in 24.9% of women treated for gestational diabetes at less than 20 weeks’ gestation compared to 30.5% of controls treated later or not at all, based on data from nearly 800 women.

Screening and treatment for gestational diabetes are currently recommended at 24-28 weeks’ gestation, with earlier testing recommended for women at increased risk, but the potential benefits of earlier intervention remain debatable, wrote David Simmons, MD, of Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, Australia, and colleagues.

“Until now, there has been complete equipoise over whether to treat hyperglycemia below that of overt diabetes early in pregnancy,” Dr. Simmons said in an interview. The conflicting questions: “Would early treatment reduce the excess deposition of fat on the baby with all of its sequelae; but would early treatment reduce fuel supply to some babies at a critical time and lead to SGA [small for gestational age]?” Dr. Simmons noted.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Simmons and colleagues randomized 406 women aged 18 years and older with singleton pregnancies to immediate treatment for gestational diabetes. Another 396 women were randomized to a control group for deferred treatment or no treatment, based on results of an oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 weeks’ gestation. All participants had at least one risk factor for hyperglycemia, and met the World Health Organization criteria for gestational diabetes. Women with preexisting diabetes or contraindicating comorbid medical conditions were excluded.

The study had three primary outcomes. The first was a composite of neonatal outcomes including birth before 37 weeks’ gestation, birth weight of 4,500 g or higher, birth trauma, neonatal respiratory distress, phototherapy, stillbirth or neonatal death, or shoulder dystocia.

The final sample included 748 women for adverse neonatal outcomes, 750 for pregnancy-related hypertension, and 492 for neonatal lean body mass. The mean age of the participants was 32 years; approximately one-third were white European and another third were South Asian. Overall baseline demographics were similar between the groups, and the initial oral glucose tolerance tests were performed at a mean of 15.6 weeks’ gestation.

Overall, 24.9% of women in the early treatment group experienced an adverse neonatal event vs. 30.5% of controls, for an adjusted risk difference of –5.6% and adjusted relative risk of 0.82.

Notably, in an exploratory subgroup analysis, respiratory distress occurred in 9.8% of infants born to women in the immediate treatment group vs. 17.0% of infants in the control group. “Neonatal respiratory distress was the main driver of the between-group difference observed for the first primary outcome,” the researchers wrote. A prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that the impact of an earlier intervention on adverse neonatal outcomes might be greater among women with a higher glycemic value and those whose oral glucose tolerance tests occurred at less than 14 weeks’ gestation, they noted. Stillbirths or neonatal deaths were similar and infrequent in both groups.

Pregnancy-related hypertension occurred in 10.6% of the immediate-treatment group and 9.9% of the controls group (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%). For the third outcome, the mean neonatal lean body mass was 2.86 g in the immediate-treatment group and 2.91 g for the controls (adjusted mean difference, −0.04 g).

No differences in serious adverse events related to either screening or treatment were noted between the groups.
 

Impact on neonatal outcomes merits further study

Dr. Simmons said that he was surprised by the study findings. “We thought if there was an effect, it would be small, but it isn’t,” he told this publication.

“If you combine the severe adverse outcomes, the perineal trauma and the reduction in days in NICU/special care unit, this is a significant impact on morbidity and likely on cost,” and researchers are currently examining data for cost-effectiveness, he said.

“We did not expect the likely large impact on reducing respiratory distress and perineal trauma,” he noted. “These findings have not been previously reported, perhaps because they were not looked for.” By contrast, “we thought here might be reductions in lower gestational age and cesarean delivery, but there was not,” he added.

The findings were limited by several factors including the nonstandardized approach to gestational diabetes treatment and the use of third-trimester treatment targets that had not been tested in earlier trimesters, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on women already at high risk for hyperglycemia; therefore, the results might not generalize to women not at risk, they wrote.

The current study represents a beginning of answers, with data suggesting that early treatment for gestational diabetes reduces severe adverse pregnancy outcomes, days in NICU/special care unit, and perineal trauma, likely from the first trimester, said Dr. Simmons. However, the findings must be interpreted with caution, as criteria that are too low “might lead to more small babies,” he said. “We look forward to working with others to translate these findings into practice,” he added.

Much more research is needed to answer the many questions prompted by the current study, including who did and did not have complications, Dr. Simmons told this publication. Other studies are needed to collect data on cost-effectiveness, as well as consumer views, especially “different perspectives from different parts of the globe,” he said. Although there is not enough evidence yet to draw conclusions about the role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in managing gestational diabetes, many studies are underway; “we look forward to the results,” of these studies, Dr. Simmons added.
 

Findings support early screening

Gestational diabetes is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy, and accounts for more than 80% of diabetes-related diagnoses in pregnancy, said Emily Fay, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

“Previous studies have found that women with gestational diabetes are at higher risk in their pregnancy, including higher chance of developing preeclampsia, higher chance of cesarean delivery, and higher risks for their baby, including risk of shoulder dystocia, birth trauma, and jaundice, and higher birth weights,” she said. “Fortunately, studies have also shown that treatment of gestational diabetes helps lower these risks,” she noted. Currently, patients undergo routine screening for gestational diabetes between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy, but some who have risk factors for gestational diabetes may have screening in the early part of pregnancy, said Dr. Fay.

The current findings were not surprising overall, said Dr. Fay, who was not involved in the study. “The study authors looked at a variety of outcomes including neonatal adverse outcomes, neonatal body weight, and pregnancy-related hypertension,” she said.

The researchers found that patients treated early had a lower rate of adverse neonatal outcomes, which was to be expected, Dr. Fay said. “They did not find a difference in neonatal body weight; this also was not surprising, as the women who were not in the early treatment group still received treatment at the time of diagnosis later in pregnancy, which likely helped normalize the weights,” she explained.

“My takeaway from this study is that we should continue to screen patients with risk factors for gestational diabetes early in pregnancy and treat them at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fay told this publication. However, barriers that may exist to early treatment involve access to care, including being able to see a provider early in pregnancy, she said. “The treatment for gestational diabetes includes dietary education with diet changes and checking blood sugars frequently. Access to nutrition education can be limited and access to healthy foods can be expensive and difficult to obtain,” she noted. “Checking blood sugars throughout the day can also be difficult for those who are busy or working and who may not have the ability to take time to do this,” she said. However, “these barriers may be overcome by health care reform that improves patient access to and coverage of pregnancy care, improved access and affordability of healthy foods, and employer flexibility to allow the time and space to check blood sugars if needed,” she added.

Looking ahead, the use of continuous glucose monitors in pregnancy is an expanding area of research, said Dr. Fay. “Patients can quickly view their blood sugar without the use of finger sticks, which may help overcome some of the barriers patients may have with using finger sticks,” she noted. “Continuous glucose monitors have been used for those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes with success, and we need to better understand if these can also be helpful in gestational diabetes,” she said. Dr. Fay and colleagues at the University of Washington are currently conducting an ongoing study to explore the use of CGM in gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Region Örebro Research Committee, the Medical Scientific Fund of the Mayor of Vienna, the South Western Sydney Local Health District Academic Unit, and a Western Sydney University Ainsworth Trust Grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Fay had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in 24.9% of women treated for gestational diabetes at less than 20 weeks’ gestation compared to 30.5% of controls treated later or not at all, based on data from nearly 800 women.

Screening and treatment for gestational diabetes are currently recommended at 24-28 weeks’ gestation, with earlier testing recommended for women at increased risk, but the potential benefits of earlier intervention remain debatable, wrote David Simmons, MD, of Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, Australia, and colleagues.

“Until now, there has been complete equipoise over whether to treat hyperglycemia below that of overt diabetes early in pregnancy,” Dr. Simmons said in an interview. The conflicting questions: “Would early treatment reduce the excess deposition of fat on the baby with all of its sequelae; but would early treatment reduce fuel supply to some babies at a critical time and lead to SGA [small for gestational age]?” Dr. Simmons noted.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Simmons and colleagues randomized 406 women aged 18 years and older with singleton pregnancies to immediate treatment for gestational diabetes. Another 396 women were randomized to a control group for deferred treatment or no treatment, based on results of an oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 weeks’ gestation. All participants had at least one risk factor for hyperglycemia, and met the World Health Organization criteria for gestational diabetes. Women with preexisting diabetes or contraindicating comorbid medical conditions were excluded.

The study had three primary outcomes. The first was a composite of neonatal outcomes including birth before 37 weeks’ gestation, birth weight of 4,500 g or higher, birth trauma, neonatal respiratory distress, phototherapy, stillbirth or neonatal death, or shoulder dystocia.

The final sample included 748 women for adverse neonatal outcomes, 750 for pregnancy-related hypertension, and 492 for neonatal lean body mass. The mean age of the participants was 32 years; approximately one-third were white European and another third were South Asian. Overall baseline demographics were similar between the groups, and the initial oral glucose tolerance tests were performed at a mean of 15.6 weeks’ gestation.

Overall, 24.9% of women in the early treatment group experienced an adverse neonatal event vs. 30.5% of controls, for an adjusted risk difference of –5.6% and adjusted relative risk of 0.82.

Notably, in an exploratory subgroup analysis, respiratory distress occurred in 9.8% of infants born to women in the immediate treatment group vs. 17.0% of infants in the control group. “Neonatal respiratory distress was the main driver of the between-group difference observed for the first primary outcome,” the researchers wrote. A prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that the impact of an earlier intervention on adverse neonatal outcomes might be greater among women with a higher glycemic value and those whose oral glucose tolerance tests occurred at less than 14 weeks’ gestation, they noted. Stillbirths or neonatal deaths were similar and infrequent in both groups.

Pregnancy-related hypertension occurred in 10.6% of the immediate-treatment group and 9.9% of the controls group (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%). For the third outcome, the mean neonatal lean body mass was 2.86 g in the immediate-treatment group and 2.91 g for the controls (adjusted mean difference, −0.04 g).

No differences in serious adverse events related to either screening or treatment were noted between the groups.
 

Impact on neonatal outcomes merits further study

Dr. Simmons said that he was surprised by the study findings. “We thought if there was an effect, it would be small, but it isn’t,” he told this publication.

“If you combine the severe adverse outcomes, the perineal trauma and the reduction in days in NICU/special care unit, this is a significant impact on morbidity and likely on cost,” and researchers are currently examining data for cost-effectiveness, he said.

“We did not expect the likely large impact on reducing respiratory distress and perineal trauma,” he noted. “These findings have not been previously reported, perhaps because they were not looked for.” By contrast, “we thought here might be reductions in lower gestational age and cesarean delivery, but there was not,” he added.

The findings were limited by several factors including the nonstandardized approach to gestational diabetes treatment and the use of third-trimester treatment targets that had not been tested in earlier trimesters, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on women already at high risk for hyperglycemia; therefore, the results might not generalize to women not at risk, they wrote.

The current study represents a beginning of answers, with data suggesting that early treatment for gestational diabetes reduces severe adverse pregnancy outcomes, days in NICU/special care unit, and perineal trauma, likely from the first trimester, said Dr. Simmons. However, the findings must be interpreted with caution, as criteria that are too low “might lead to more small babies,” he said. “We look forward to working with others to translate these findings into practice,” he added.

Much more research is needed to answer the many questions prompted by the current study, including who did and did not have complications, Dr. Simmons told this publication. Other studies are needed to collect data on cost-effectiveness, as well as consumer views, especially “different perspectives from different parts of the globe,” he said. Although there is not enough evidence yet to draw conclusions about the role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in managing gestational diabetes, many studies are underway; “we look forward to the results,” of these studies, Dr. Simmons added.
 

Findings support early screening

Gestational diabetes is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy, and accounts for more than 80% of diabetes-related diagnoses in pregnancy, said Emily Fay, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

“Previous studies have found that women with gestational diabetes are at higher risk in their pregnancy, including higher chance of developing preeclampsia, higher chance of cesarean delivery, and higher risks for their baby, including risk of shoulder dystocia, birth trauma, and jaundice, and higher birth weights,” she said. “Fortunately, studies have also shown that treatment of gestational diabetes helps lower these risks,” she noted. Currently, patients undergo routine screening for gestational diabetes between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy, but some who have risk factors for gestational diabetes may have screening in the early part of pregnancy, said Dr. Fay.

The current findings were not surprising overall, said Dr. Fay, who was not involved in the study. “The study authors looked at a variety of outcomes including neonatal adverse outcomes, neonatal body weight, and pregnancy-related hypertension,” she said.

The researchers found that patients treated early had a lower rate of adverse neonatal outcomes, which was to be expected, Dr. Fay said. “They did not find a difference in neonatal body weight; this also was not surprising, as the women who were not in the early treatment group still received treatment at the time of diagnosis later in pregnancy, which likely helped normalize the weights,” she explained.

“My takeaway from this study is that we should continue to screen patients with risk factors for gestational diabetes early in pregnancy and treat them at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fay told this publication. However, barriers that may exist to early treatment involve access to care, including being able to see a provider early in pregnancy, she said. “The treatment for gestational diabetes includes dietary education with diet changes and checking blood sugars frequently. Access to nutrition education can be limited and access to healthy foods can be expensive and difficult to obtain,” she noted. “Checking blood sugars throughout the day can also be difficult for those who are busy or working and who may not have the ability to take time to do this,” she said. However, “these barriers may be overcome by health care reform that improves patient access to and coverage of pregnancy care, improved access and affordability of healthy foods, and employer flexibility to allow the time and space to check blood sugars if needed,” she added.

Looking ahead, the use of continuous glucose monitors in pregnancy is an expanding area of research, said Dr. Fay. “Patients can quickly view their blood sugar without the use of finger sticks, which may help overcome some of the barriers patients may have with using finger sticks,” she noted. “Continuous glucose monitors have been used for those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes with success, and we need to better understand if these can also be helpful in gestational diabetes,” she said. Dr. Fay and colleagues at the University of Washington are currently conducting an ongoing study to explore the use of CGM in gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Region Örebro Research Committee, the Medical Scientific Fund of the Mayor of Vienna, the South Western Sydney Local Health District Academic Unit, and a Western Sydney University Ainsworth Trust Grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Fay had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A new Canadian guideline on screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures recommends risk assessment first, before bone mineral density (BMD) testing, for women aged 65 and older. For younger women and men aged 40 and older, screening is not recommended.

To develop the guideline, a writing group from Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care commissioned systematic reviews of studies on the benefits and harms of fragility fracture screenings; the predictive accuracy of current risk-assessment tools; patient acceptability; and benefits of treatment. Treatment harms were analyzed via a rapid overview of reviews.

The guideline, published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, is aimed at primary care practitioners for their community-dwelling patients aged 40 and older. The recommendations do not apply to people already taking preventive drugs.

Nondrug treatments were beyond the scope of the current guideline, but guidelines on the prevention of falls and other strategies are planned, Roland Grad, MD, a guideline author and associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization.

The new guideline says that women aged 65 and older may be able to avoid fracture through screening and preventive medication. An individual’s fracture risk can be estimated with a new Fragility Fractures Decision Aid, which uses the Canadian FRAX risk-assessment tool.

“A risk assessment–first approach promotes shared decision-making with the patient, based on best medical evidence,” Dr. Grad said.

“To help clinicians, we have created an infographic with visuals to communicate the time spent on BMD vs risk assessment first.”
 

New evidence

“At least three things motivated this new guideline,” Dr. Grad said. “When we started work on this prior to the pandemic, we saw a need for updated guidance on screening to prevent fragility fractures. We were also aware of new evidence from the publication of screening trials in females older than 65.”

To conduct the risk assessment in older women, clinicians are advised to do the following:

• Use the decision aid (which patients can also use on their own).
• Use the 10-year absolute risk of major osteoporotic fracture to facilitate shared decision-making about possible benefits and harms of preventive pharmacotherapy.
• If pharmacotherapy is being considered, request a BMD using DXA of the femoral neck, then reestimate the fracture risk by adding the BMD T-score into the FRAX.

Potential harms associated with various treatments, with varying levels of evidence, include the following: with alendronate and denosumab, nonserious gastrointestinal adverse events; with denosumab, rash, eczema, and infections; with zoledronic acid, nonserious events, such as headache and flulike symptoms; and with alendronate and bisphosphonates, rare but serious harms of atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw.

“These recommendations emphasize the importance of good clinical practice, where clinicians are alert to changes in physical health and patient well-being,” the authors wrote. “Clinicians should also be aware of the importance of secondary prevention (i.e., after fracture) and manage patients accordingly.”

“This is an important topic,” Dr. Grad said. “Fragility fractures are consequential for individuals and for our publicly funded health care system. We anticipate questions from clinicians about the time needed to screen with the risk assessment–first strategy. Our modeling work suggests time savings with [this] strategy compared to a strategy of BMD testing first. Following our recommendations may lead to a reduction in BMD testing.”

To promote the guideline, the CMAJ has recorded a podcast and will use other strategies to increase awareness, Dr. Grad said. “The Canadian Task Force has a communications strategy that includes outreach to primary care, stakeholder webinars, social media, partnerships, and other tactics. The College of Family Physicians of Canada has endorsed the guideline and will help promote to its members.”
 

Other at-risk groups?

Aliya Khan, MD, FRCPC, FACP, FACE, professor in the divisions of endocrinology and metabolism and geriatrics and director of the fellowship in metabolic bone diseases at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization she agrees with the strategy of evaluating women aged 65 and older for fracture risk.

“The decision aid is useful, but I would like to see it expanded to other circumstances and situations,” she said.

For example, Dr. Khan would like to see recommendations for younger women and for men of all ages regarding secondary causes of osteoporosis or medications known to have a detrimental effect on bone health. By not addressing these patients, she said, “we may miss patients who would benefit from a fracture risk assessment and potentially treatment to prevent low-trauma fractures.”

A recommendation for younger postmenopausal women was included in the most recent Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Canada guideline, she noted.

Overall, she said, “I believe these recommendations will reduce the excess or inappropriate use of BMD testing and that is welcome.”

Funding for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The task force members report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new Canadian guideline on screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures recommends risk assessment first, before bone mineral density (BMD) testing, for women aged 65 and older. For younger women and men aged 40 and older, screening is not recommended.

To develop the guideline, a writing group from Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care commissioned systematic reviews of studies on the benefits and harms of fragility fracture screenings; the predictive accuracy of current risk-assessment tools; patient acceptability; and benefits of treatment. Treatment harms were analyzed via a rapid overview of reviews.

The guideline, published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, is aimed at primary care practitioners for their community-dwelling patients aged 40 and older. The recommendations do not apply to people already taking preventive drugs.

Nondrug treatments were beyond the scope of the current guideline, but guidelines on the prevention of falls and other strategies are planned, Roland Grad, MD, a guideline author and associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization.

The new guideline says that women aged 65 and older may be able to avoid fracture through screening and preventive medication. An individual’s fracture risk can be estimated with a new Fragility Fractures Decision Aid, which uses the Canadian FRAX risk-assessment tool.

“A risk assessment–first approach promotes shared decision-making with the patient, based on best medical evidence,” Dr. Grad said.

“To help clinicians, we have created an infographic with visuals to communicate the time spent on BMD vs risk assessment first.”
 

New evidence

“At least three things motivated this new guideline,” Dr. Grad said. “When we started work on this prior to the pandemic, we saw a need for updated guidance on screening to prevent fragility fractures. We were also aware of new evidence from the publication of screening trials in females older than 65.”

To conduct the risk assessment in older women, clinicians are advised to do the following:

• Use the decision aid (which patients can also use on their own).
• Use the 10-year absolute risk of major osteoporotic fracture to facilitate shared decision-making about possible benefits and harms of preventive pharmacotherapy.
• If pharmacotherapy is being considered, request a BMD using DXA of the femoral neck, then reestimate the fracture risk by adding the BMD T-score into the FRAX.

Potential harms associated with various treatments, with varying levels of evidence, include the following: with alendronate and denosumab, nonserious gastrointestinal adverse events; with denosumab, rash, eczema, and infections; with zoledronic acid, nonserious events, such as headache and flulike symptoms; and with alendronate and bisphosphonates, rare but serious harms of atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw.

“These recommendations emphasize the importance of good clinical practice, where clinicians are alert to changes in physical health and patient well-being,” the authors wrote. “Clinicians should also be aware of the importance of secondary prevention (i.e., after fracture) and manage patients accordingly.”

“This is an important topic,” Dr. Grad said. “Fragility fractures are consequential for individuals and for our publicly funded health care system. We anticipate questions from clinicians about the time needed to screen with the risk assessment–first strategy. Our modeling work suggests time savings with [this] strategy compared to a strategy of BMD testing first. Following our recommendations may lead to a reduction in BMD testing.”

To promote the guideline, the CMAJ has recorded a podcast and will use other strategies to increase awareness, Dr. Grad said. “The Canadian Task Force has a communications strategy that includes outreach to primary care, stakeholder webinars, social media, partnerships, and other tactics. The College of Family Physicians of Canada has endorsed the guideline and will help promote to its members.”
 

Other at-risk groups?

Aliya Khan, MD, FRCPC, FACP, FACE, professor in the divisions of endocrinology and metabolism and geriatrics and director of the fellowship in metabolic bone diseases at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization she agrees with the strategy of evaluating women aged 65 and older for fracture risk.

“The decision aid is useful, but I would like to see it expanded to other circumstances and situations,” she said.

For example, Dr. Khan would like to see recommendations for younger women and for men of all ages regarding secondary causes of osteoporosis or medications known to have a detrimental effect on bone health. By not addressing these patients, she said, “we may miss patients who would benefit from a fracture risk assessment and potentially treatment to prevent low-trauma fractures.”

A recommendation for younger postmenopausal women was included in the most recent Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Canada guideline, she noted.

Overall, she said, “I believe these recommendations will reduce the excess or inappropriate use of BMD testing and that is welcome.”

Funding for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The task force members report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new Canadian guideline on screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures recommends risk assessment first, before bone mineral density (BMD) testing, for women aged 65 and older. For younger women and men aged 40 and older, screening is not recommended.

To develop the guideline, a writing group from Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care commissioned systematic reviews of studies on the benefits and harms of fragility fracture screenings; the predictive accuracy of current risk-assessment tools; patient acceptability; and benefits of treatment. Treatment harms were analyzed via a rapid overview of reviews.

The guideline, published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, is aimed at primary care practitioners for their community-dwelling patients aged 40 and older. The recommendations do not apply to people already taking preventive drugs.

Nondrug treatments were beyond the scope of the current guideline, but guidelines on the prevention of falls and other strategies are planned, Roland Grad, MD, a guideline author and associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization.

The new guideline says that women aged 65 and older may be able to avoid fracture through screening and preventive medication. An individual’s fracture risk can be estimated with a new Fragility Fractures Decision Aid, which uses the Canadian FRAX risk-assessment tool.

“A risk assessment–first approach promotes shared decision-making with the patient, based on best medical evidence,” Dr. Grad said.

“To help clinicians, we have created an infographic with visuals to communicate the time spent on BMD vs risk assessment first.”
 

New evidence

“At least three things motivated this new guideline,” Dr. Grad said. “When we started work on this prior to the pandemic, we saw a need for updated guidance on screening to prevent fragility fractures. We were also aware of new evidence from the publication of screening trials in females older than 65.”

To conduct the risk assessment in older women, clinicians are advised to do the following:

• Use the decision aid (which patients can also use on their own).
• Use the 10-year absolute risk of major osteoporotic fracture to facilitate shared decision-making about possible benefits and harms of preventive pharmacotherapy.
• If pharmacotherapy is being considered, request a BMD using DXA of the femoral neck, then reestimate the fracture risk by adding the BMD T-score into the FRAX.

Potential harms associated with various treatments, with varying levels of evidence, include the following: with alendronate and denosumab, nonserious gastrointestinal adverse events; with denosumab, rash, eczema, and infections; with zoledronic acid, nonserious events, such as headache and flulike symptoms; and with alendronate and bisphosphonates, rare but serious harms of atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw.

“These recommendations emphasize the importance of good clinical practice, where clinicians are alert to changes in physical health and patient well-being,” the authors wrote. “Clinicians should also be aware of the importance of secondary prevention (i.e., after fracture) and manage patients accordingly.”

“This is an important topic,” Dr. Grad said. “Fragility fractures are consequential for individuals and for our publicly funded health care system. We anticipate questions from clinicians about the time needed to screen with the risk assessment–first strategy. Our modeling work suggests time savings with [this] strategy compared to a strategy of BMD testing first. Following our recommendations may lead to a reduction in BMD testing.”

To promote the guideline, the CMAJ has recorded a podcast and will use other strategies to increase awareness, Dr. Grad said. “The Canadian Task Force has a communications strategy that includes outreach to primary care, stakeholder webinars, social media, partnerships, and other tactics. The College of Family Physicians of Canada has endorsed the guideline and will help promote to its members.”
 

Other at-risk groups?

Aliya Khan, MD, FRCPC, FACP, FACE, professor in the divisions of endocrinology and metabolism and geriatrics and director of the fellowship in metabolic bone diseases at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization she agrees with the strategy of evaluating women aged 65 and older for fracture risk.

“The decision aid is useful, but I would like to see it expanded to other circumstances and situations,” she said.

For example, Dr. Khan would like to see recommendations for younger women and for men of all ages regarding secondary causes of osteoporosis or medications known to have a detrimental effect on bone health. By not addressing these patients, she said, “we may miss patients who would benefit from a fracture risk assessment and potentially treatment to prevent low-trauma fractures.”

A recommendation for younger postmenopausal women was included in the most recent Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Canada guideline, she noted.

Overall, she said, “I believe these recommendations will reduce the excess or inappropriate use of BMD testing and that is welcome.”

Funding for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The task force members report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on May 9 released a draft recommendation statement and evidence review that provides critical updates to its breast cancer screening recommendations.

The major change: USPSTF proposed reducing the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms from age 50 to age 40. The latest recommendation, which carries a B grade, also calls for screening every other year and sets a cutoff age of 74.

The task force’s A and B ratings indicate strong confidence in the evidence for benefit, meaning that clinicians should encourage their patients to get these services as appropriate.

The influential federal advisory panel last updated these recommendations in 2016. At the time, USPSTF recommended routine screening mammograms starting at age 50, and gave a C grade to starting before that.

In the 2016 recommendations, “we felt a woman could start screening in her 40s depending on how she feels about the harms and benefits in an individualized personal decision,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “In this draft recommendation, we now recommend that all women get screened starting at age 40.”

Two major factors prompted the change, explained Dr. Wong. One is that more women are being diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40s. The other is that a growing body of evidence showing that Black women get breast cancer younger, are more likely to die of breast cancer, and would benefit from earlier screening.

“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Dr. Wong said.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) called the draft recommendations a “significant positive change,” while noting that the task force recommendations only apply to women at average risk for breast cancer.

The American College of Radiology (ACR) already recommends yearly mammograms for average risk women starting at age 40. Its latest guidelines on mammography call for women at higher-than-average risk for breast cancer to undergo a risk assessment by age 25 to determine if screening before age 40 is needed.

When asked about the differing views, Debra Monticciolo, MD, division chief for breast imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital, said annual screenings that follow ACR recommendations would save more lives than the every-other-year approach backed by the task force. Dr. Monticciolo also highlighted that the available scientific evidence supports earlier assessment as well as augmented and earlier-than-age-40 screening of many women – particularly Black women.

“These evidence-based updates should spur more-informed doctor–patient conversations and help providers save more lives,” Dr. Monticciolo said in a press release.
 

Insurance access

Typically, upgrading a USPSTF recommendation from C to B leads to better access and insurance coverage for patients. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 requires insurers to cover the cost of services that get A and B recommendations from the USPSTF without charging copays – a mandate intended to promote greater use for highly regarded services.

But Congress created a special workaround that effectively makes the ACA mandate apply to the 2002 task force recommendations on mammography. In those recommendations, the task force gave a B grade to screening mammograms every 1 or 2 years starting at age 40 without an age limit. 

Federal lawmakers have sought to provide copay-free access to mammograms for this entire population even when the USPSTF recommendations in 2009 and 2016 gave a C grade to routine screening for women under 50.

Still, “it is important to note that our recommendation is based solely on the science of what works to prevent breast cancer and it is not a recommendation for or against insurance coverage,” the task force acknowledged when unveiling the new draft update. “Coverage decisions involve considerations beyond the evidence about clinical benefit, and in the end, these decisions are the responsibility of payors, regulators, and legislators.”
 

Uncertainties persist

The new draft recommendations also highlight the persistent gaps in knowledge about the uses of mammography, despite years of widespread use of this screening tool.

The updated draft recommendations emphasize the lack of sufficient evidence to address major areas of concern related to screening and treating Black women, older women, women with dense breasts, and those with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

The task force called for more research addressing the underlying causes of elevated breast cancer mortality rates among Black women.

The USPSTF also issued an ‘I’ statement for providing women with dense breasts additional screening with breast ultrasound or MRI and for screening women older than 75 for breast cancer. Such statements indicate that the available evidence is lacking, poor quality, or conflicting, and thus the USPSTF can’t assess the benefits and harms or make a recommendation for or against providing the preventive service.

“Nearly half of all women have dense breasts, which increases their risk for breast cancer and means that mammograms may not work as well for them. We need to know more about whether and how additional screening might help women with dense breasts stay healthy,” the task force explained.

The task force also called for more research on approaches to reduce the risk for overdiagnosis and overtreatment for breast lesions, such as DCIS, which are identified through screening.

One analysis – the COMET study – is currently underway to assess whether women could be spared surgery for DCIS and opt for watchful waiting instead.

“If we can find that monitoring them carefully, either with or without some sort of endocrine therapy, is just as effective in keeping patients free of invasive cancer as surgery, then I think we could help to de-escalate treatment for this very low-risk group of patients,” Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the COMET study, told this news organization in December.

The task force will accept comments from the public on this draft update through June 5.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on May 9 released a draft recommendation statement and evidence review that provides critical updates to its breast cancer screening recommendations.

The major change: USPSTF proposed reducing the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms from age 50 to age 40. The latest recommendation, which carries a B grade, also calls for screening every other year and sets a cutoff age of 74.

The task force’s A and B ratings indicate strong confidence in the evidence for benefit, meaning that clinicians should encourage their patients to get these services as appropriate.

The influential federal advisory panel last updated these recommendations in 2016. At the time, USPSTF recommended routine screening mammograms starting at age 50, and gave a C grade to starting before that.

In the 2016 recommendations, “we felt a woman could start screening in her 40s depending on how she feels about the harms and benefits in an individualized personal decision,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “In this draft recommendation, we now recommend that all women get screened starting at age 40.”

Two major factors prompted the change, explained Dr. Wong. One is that more women are being diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40s. The other is that a growing body of evidence showing that Black women get breast cancer younger, are more likely to die of breast cancer, and would benefit from earlier screening.

“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Dr. Wong said.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) called the draft recommendations a “significant positive change,” while noting that the task force recommendations only apply to women at average risk for breast cancer.

The American College of Radiology (ACR) already recommends yearly mammograms for average risk women starting at age 40. Its latest guidelines on mammography call for women at higher-than-average risk for breast cancer to undergo a risk assessment by age 25 to determine if screening before age 40 is needed.

When asked about the differing views, Debra Monticciolo, MD, division chief for breast imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital, said annual screenings that follow ACR recommendations would save more lives than the every-other-year approach backed by the task force. Dr. Monticciolo also highlighted that the available scientific evidence supports earlier assessment as well as augmented and earlier-than-age-40 screening of many women – particularly Black women.

“These evidence-based updates should spur more-informed doctor–patient conversations and help providers save more lives,” Dr. Monticciolo said in a press release.
 

Insurance access

Typically, upgrading a USPSTF recommendation from C to B leads to better access and insurance coverage for patients. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 requires insurers to cover the cost of services that get A and B recommendations from the USPSTF without charging copays – a mandate intended to promote greater use for highly regarded services.

But Congress created a special workaround that effectively makes the ACA mandate apply to the 2002 task force recommendations on mammography. In those recommendations, the task force gave a B grade to screening mammograms every 1 or 2 years starting at age 40 without an age limit. 

Federal lawmakers have sought to provide copay-free access to mammograms for this entire population even when the USPSTF recommendations in 2009 and 2016 gave a C grade to routine screening for women under 50.

Still, “it is important to note that our recommendation is based solely on the science of what works to prevent breast cancer and it is not a recommendation for or against insurance coverage,” the task force acknowledged when unveiling the new draft update. “Coverage decisions involve considerations beyond the evidence about clinical benefit, and in the end, these decisions are the responsibility of payors, regulators, and legislators.”
 

Uncertainties persist

The new draft recommendations also highlight the persistent gaps in knowledge about the uses of mammography, despite years of widespread use of this screening tool.

The updated draft recommendations emphasize the lack of sufficient evidence to address major areas of concern related to screening and treating Black women, older women, women with dense breasts, and those with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

The task force called for more research addressing the underlying causes of elevated breast cancer mortality rates among Black women.

The USPSTF also issued an ‘I’ statement for providing women with dense breasts additional screening with breast ultrasound or MRI and for screening women older than 75 for breast cancer. Such statements indicate that the available evidence is lacking, poor quality, or conflicting, and thus the USPSTF can’t assess the benefits and harms or make a recommendation for or against providing the preventive service.

“Nearly half of all women have dense breasts, which increases their risk for breast cancer and means that mammograms may not work as well for them. We need to know more about whether and how additional screening might help women with dense breasts stay healthy,” the task force explained.

The task force also called for more research on approaches to reduce the risk for overdiagnosis and overtreatment for breast lesions, such as DCIS, which are identified through screening.

One analysis – the COMET study – is currently underway to assess whether women could be spared surgery for DCIS and opt for watchful waiting instead.

“If we can find that monitoring them carefully, either with or without some sort of endocrine therapy, is just as effective in keeping patients free of invasive cancer as surgery, then I think we could help to de-escalate treatment for this very low-risk group of patients,” Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the COMET study, told this news organization in December.

The task force will accept comments from the public on this draft update through June 5.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on May 9 released a draft recommendation statement and evidence review that provides critical updates to its breast cancer screening recommendations.

The major change: USPSTF proposed reducing the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms from age 50 to age 40. The latest recommendation, which carries a B grade, also calls for screening every other year and sets a cutoff age of 74.

The task force’s A and B ratings indicate strong confidence in the evidence for benefit, meaning that clinicians should encourage their patients to get these services as appropriate.

The influential federal advisory panel last updated these recommendations in 2016. At the time, USPSTF recommended routine screening mammograms starting at age 50, and gave a C grade to starting before that.

In the 2016 recommendations, “we felt a woman could start screening in her 40s depending on how she feels about the harms and benefits in an individualized personal decision,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “In this draft recommendation, we now recommend that all women get screened starting at age 40.”

Two major factors prompted the change, explained Dr. Wong. One is that more women are being diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40s. The other is that a growing body of evidence showing that Black women get breast cancer younger, are more likely to die of breast cancer, and would benefit from earlier screening.

“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Dr. Wong said.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) called the draft recommendations a “significant positive change,” while noting that the task force recommendations only apply to women at average risk for breast cancer.

The American College of Radiology (ACR) already recommends yearly mammograms for average risk women starting at age 40. Its latest guidelines on mammography call for women at higher-than-average risk for breast cancer to undergo a risk assessment by age 25 to determine if screening before age 40 is needed.

When asked about the differing views, Debra Monticciolo, MD, division chief for breast imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital, said annual screenings that follow ACR recommendations would save more lives than the every-other-year approach backed by the task force. Dr. Monticciolo also highlighted that the available scientific evidence supports earlier assessment as well as augmented and earlier-than-age-40 screening of many women – particularly Black women.

“These evidence-based updates should spur more-informed doctor–patient conversations and help providers save more lives,” Dr. Monticciolo said in a press release.
 

Insurance access

Typically, upgrading a USPSTF recommendation from C to B leads to better access and insurance coverage for patients. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 requires insurers to cover the cost of services that get A and B recommendations from the USPSTF without charging copays – a mandate intended to promote greater use for highly regarded services.

But Congress created a special workaround that effectively makes the ACA mandate apply to the 2002 task force recommendations on mammography. In those recommendations, the task force gave a B grade to screening mammograms every 1 or 2 years starting at age 40 without an age limit. 

Federal lawmakers have sought to provide copay-free access to mammograms for this entire population even when the USPSTF recommendations in 2009 and 2016 gave a C grade to routine screening for women under 50.

Still, “it is important to note that our recommendation is based solely on the science of what works to prevent breast cancer and it is not a recommendation for or against insurance coverage,” the task force acknowledged when unveiling the new draft update. “Coverage decisions involve considerations beyond the evidence about clinical benefit, and in the end, these decisions are the responsibility of payors, regulators, and legislators.”
 

Uncertainties persist

The new draft recommendations also highlight the persistent gaps in knowledge about the uses of mammography, despite years of widespread use of this screening tool.

The updated draft recommendations emphasize the lack of sufficient evidence to address major areas of concern related to screening and treating Black women, older women, women with dense breasts, and those with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

The task force called for more research addressing the underlying causes of elevated breast cancer mortality rates among Black women.

The USPSTF also issued an ‘I’ statement for providing women with dense breasts additional screening with breast ultrasound or MRI and for screening women older than 75 for breast cancer. Such statements indicate that the available evidence is lacking, poor quality, or conflicting, and thus the USPSTF can’t assess the benefits and harms or make a recommendation for or against providing the preventive service.

“Nearly half of all women have dense breasts, which increases their risk for breast cancer and means that mammograms may not work as well for them. We need to know more about whether and how additional screening might help women with dense breasts stay healthy,” the task force explained.

The task force also called for more research on approaches to reduce the risk for overdiagnosis and overtreatment for breast lesions, such as DCIS, which are identified through screening.

One analysis – the COMET study – is currently underway to assess whether women could be spared surgery for DCIS and opt for watchful waiting instead.

“If we can find that monitoring them carefully, either with or without some sort of endocrine therapy, is just as effective in keeping patients free of invasive cancer as surgery, then I think we could help to de-escalate treatment for this very low-risk group of patients,” Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the COMET study, told this news organization in December.

The task force will accept comments from the public on this draft update through June 5.

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

Young patients with breast cancer can safely interrupt adjuvant endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy without increasing their risk of breast cancer recurrence or new contralateral breast cancer.

The results provide the “strongest evidence to date on the short-term safety of this choice,” Sharon Giordano, MD, MPH, with University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

“Physicians should now incorporate these positive data into their shared decision-making process with patients,” Dr. Giordano said.

The POSITIVE trial findings were published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Before the analysis, the risks associated with taking a break from endocrine therapy among young women with hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer remained unclear.

In the current trial, Ann Partridge, MD, MPH, and colleagues sought prospective data on the safety associated with taking a temporary break from therapy to attempt pregnancy.

The single-group trial enrolled more than 500 premenopausal women who had received 18-30 months of endocrine therapy for mostly stage I or II HR-positive breast cancer. After a 3-month washout, the women were given 2 years to conceive, deliver, and breastfeed, if desired, before resuming treatment. Breast cancer events – the primary outcome – were defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence of invasive breast cancer or new contralateral invasive breast cancer.

The results, initially reported at San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2022, showed that a temporary interruption of therapy to attempt pregnancy did not appear to lead to worse breast cancer outcomes.

Among 497 women who were followed for pregnancy status, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy, and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth.

After a median follow-up of 3.4 years, 44 women had had a breast cancer event – a result that was close to, but did not exceed, the safety threshold of 46 breast cancer events.

The 3-year incidence of breast cancer events was 8.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.3-11.6) in the treatment-interruption group compared with 9.2% (95% CI, 7.6-10.8) among historical controls, which included women who would have met the entry criteria for the trial.

“These results suggest that although endocrine therapy for a period of 5-10 years substantially improves disease outcomes in patients with hormone receptor–positive early breast cancer, a temporary interruption of therapy to attempt pregnancy does not appear to have an appreciable negative short-term effect,” wrote Dr. Partridge, vice chair of medical oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

The authors cautioned, however, that the median follow-up was only 3.4 years and that 10-year follow-up data will be “critical” to confirm the safety of interruption of adjuvant endocrine therapy.

Dr. Giordano agreed, noting that “recurrences of breast cancer are reported to occur at a steady rate for up to 20 years after diagnosis among patients with hormone receptor–positive disease; the protocol-specified 10-year follow-up data will be essential to establish longer-term safety.”

The study was supported by the International Breast Cancer Study Group and by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology in North America in collaboration with the Breast International Group (BIG). Disclosures for authors and editorial writer are available at NEJM.org.

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

Young patients with breast cancer can safely interrupt adjuvant endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy without increasing their risk of breast cancer recurrence or new contralateral breast cancer.

The results provide the “strongest evidence to date on the short-term safety of this choice,” Sharon Giordano, MD, MPH, with University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

“Physicians should now incorporate these positive data into their shared decision-making process with patients,” Dr. Giordano said.

The POSITIVE trial findings were published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Before the analysis, the risks associated with taking a break from endocrine therapy among young women with hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer remained unclear.

In the current trial, Ann Partridge, MD, MPH, and colleagues sought prospective data on the safety associated with taking a temporary break from therapy to attempt pregnancy.

The single-group trial enrolled more than 500 premenopausal women who had received 18-30 months of endocrine therapy for mostly stage I or II HR-positive breast cancer. After a 3-month washout, the women were given 2 years to conceive, deliver, and breastfeed, if desired, before resuming treatment. Breast cancer events – the primary outcome – were defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence of invasive breast cancer or new contralateral invasive breast cancer.

The results, initially reported at San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2022, showed that a temporary interruption of therapy to attempt pregnancy did not appear to lead to worse breast cancer outcomes.

Among 497 women who were followed for pregnancy status, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy, and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth.

After a median follow-up of 3.4 years, 44 women had had a breast cancer event – a result that was close to, but did not exceed, the safety threshold of 46 breast cancer events.

The 3-year incidence of breast cancer events was 8.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.3-11.6) in the treatment-interruption group compared with 9.2% (95% CI, 7.6-10.8) among historical controls, which included women who would have met the entry criteria for the trial.

“These results suggest that although endocrine therapy for a period of 5-10 years substantially improves disease outcomes in patients with hormone receptor–positive early breast cancer, a temporary interruption of therapy to attempt pregnancy does not appear to have an appreciable negative short-term effect,” wrote Dr. Partridge, vice chair of medical oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

The authors cautioned, however, that the median follow-up was only 3.4 years and that 10-year follow-up data will be “critical” to confirm the safety of interruption of adjuvant endocrine therapy.

Dr. Giordano agreed, noting that “recurrences of breast cancer are reported to occur at a steady rate for up to 20 years after diagnosis among patients with hormone receptor–positive disease; the protocol-specified 10-year follow-up data will be essential to establish longer-term safety.”

The study was supported by the International Breast Cancer Study Group and by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology in North America in collaboration with the Breast International Group (BIG). Disclosures for authors and editorial writer are available at NEJM.org.

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

Young patients with breast cancer can safely interrupt adjuvant endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy without increasing their risk of breast cancer recurrence or new contralateral breast cancer.

The results provide the “strongest evidence to date on the short-term safety of this choice,” Sharon Giordano, MD, MPH, with University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

“Physicians should now incorporate these positive data into their shared decision-making process with patients,” Dr. Giordano said.

The POSITIVE trial findings were published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Before the analysis, the risks associated with taking a break from endocrine therapy among young women with hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer remained unclear.

In the current trial, Ann Partridge, MD, MPH, and colleagues sought prospective data on the safety associated with taking a temporary break from therapy to attempt pregnancy.

The single-group trial enrolled more than 500 premenopausal women who had received 18-30 months of endocrine therapy for mostly stage I or II HR-positive breast cancer. After a 3-month washout, the women were given 2 years to conceive, deliver, and breastfeed, if desired, before resuming treatment. Breast cancer events – the primary outcome – were defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence of invasive breast cancer or new contralateral invasive breast cancer.

The results, initially reported at San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2022, showed that a temporary interruption of therapy to attempt pregnancy did not appear to lead to worse breast cancer outcomes.

Among 497 women who were followed for pregnancy status, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy, and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth.

After a median follow-up of 3.4 years, 44 women had had a breast cancer event – a result that was close to, but did not exceed, the safety threshold of 46 breast cancer events.

The 3-year incidence of breast cancer events was 8.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.3-11.6) in the treatment-interruption group compared with 9.2% (95% CI, 7.6-10.8) among historical controls, which included women who would have met the entry criteria for the trial.

“These results suggest that although endocrine therapy for a period of 5-10 years substantially improves disease outcomes in patients with hormone receptor–positive early breast cancer, a temporary interruption of therapy to attempt pregnancy does not appear to have an appreciable negative short-term effect,” wrote Dr. Partridge, vice chair of medical oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

The authors cautioned, however, that the median follow-up was only 3.4 years and that 10-year follow-up data will be “critical” to confirm the safety of interruption of adjuvant endocrine therapy.

Dr. Giordano agreed, noting that “recurrences of breast cancer are reported to occur at a steady rate for up to 20 years after diagnosis among patients with hormone receptor–positive disease; the protocol-specified 10-year follow-up data will be essential to establish longer-term safety.”

The study was supported by the International Breast Cancer Study Group and by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology in North America in collaboration with the Breast International Group (BIG). Disclosures for authors and editorial writer are available at NEJM.org.

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

Among women with early-stage, high-risk breast cancer, strong adherence to prevention recommendations was linked with a significantly reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence and mortality in a new study.

Following such recommendations surrounding smoking, physical activity (PA), eating fruits and vegetables and reducing or eliminating sugar-sweetened beverages seemed to be the most beneficial, wrote the authors of the paper published online in JAMA Network Open.

Rikki A. Cannioto, PhD, EdD, with the department of cancer prevention & control, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., led the prospective cohort study of 1,340 patients.

The American Institute for Cancer Research and American Cancer Society regularly recommend and publish lifestyle modifications for cancer prevention. To conduct this study Dr. Cannioto and colleagues developed an aggregate lifestyle scoring index to investigate whether those recommendations have an effect on high-risk breast cancer survival.

Highest adherence vs. lowest cut death risk by more than half

The researchers found patients with highest vs. lowest lifestyle index scores saw a 37% reduction in cancer recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.82) and a 58% reduction in mortality (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30-0.59).

“As a person who has based her career on the belief that our modifiable lifestyle behaviors are associated with cancer survival, I was actually surprised about how strong these associations were, especially for breast cancer recurrence,” Dr. Cannioto said in an interview,

The author also expressed surprise about the associations that were seen “in patients diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer and HER2-positive breast cancer, which are the two subtypes traditionally more aggressive and more difficult to treat.”

Most patients in the study were diagnosed with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (873 [65.3%]); completed some education beyond high school (954 [71.2%]); were postmenopausal (696 [52.5%]); and self-identified as non-Hispanic White (1,118 [83.7%]).

Patients were drawn from the Diet, Exercise, Lifestyles, and Cancer Prognosis (DELCaP) study, a prospective, observational cohort study ancillary to a multicenter phase 3 trial led by the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG). The DELCaP study was designed to examine lifestyles before diagnosis, during treatment, and at 1 and 2 years after treatment.

Never smoking, physical activity had strongest links

Never smoking and meeting or exceeding PA guidelines had the strongest and most consistent associations with outcomes; each factor was linked with a 44%-45% reduced risk of mortality and a 35% reduced risk of recurrence.

Strongest adherence to the alcohol and body mass index (BMI) recommendations were not significantly associated with improved outcomes.

Partial and full adherence to red and processed meat recommendations were associated with significant reductions in mortality, but not recurrence.

The authors note that, while medications are the foundation for breast cancer treatment, lifestyle interventions could be a safe and inexpensive additional strategy for delaying and preventing recurrence and death.

“Such developments could be especially impactful for patients diagnosed with more aggressive tumors that do not respond well to current therapies,” they write.

Dr. Cannioto says the guidelines around physical activity advise 150 minutes or more of moderate to vigorous intensity a week. But she noted that this research shows that any physical activity can lead to longer survival.

“The greatest benefits from physical activity occur from moving from a sedentary lifestyle to beginning to be active,” she said.

Dr. Cannioto acknowledged the homogeneity of the study population as a limitation and recommended the associations next be tested in a more racially and ethnically diverse population of breast cancer patients.

This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Amgen.

The authors report receiving grants from the Southwest Oncology Group and the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and receiving personal fees, grants, or serving on the boards or independent monitoring committees of many pharmaceutical companies. A full list of disclosures is available with the paper.

Among women with early-stage, high-risk breast cancer, strong adherence to prevention recommendations was linked with a significantly reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence and mortality in a new study.

Following such recommendations surrounding smoking, physical activity (PA), eating fruits and vegetables and reducing or eliminating sugar-sweetened beverages seemed to be the most beneficial, wrote the authors of the paper published online in JAMA Network Open.

Rikki A. Cannioto, PhD, EdD, with the department of cancer prevention & control, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., led the prospective cohort study of 1,340 patients.

The American Institute for Cancer Research and American Cancer Society regularly recommend and publish lifestyle modifications for cancer prevention. To conduct this study Dr. Cannioto and colleagues developed an aggregate lifestyle scoring index to investigate whether those recommendations have an effect on high-risk breast cancer survival.

Highest adherence vs. lowest cut death risk by more than half

The researchers found patients with highest vs. lowest lifestyle index scores saw a 37% reduction in cancer recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.82) and a 58% reduction in mortality (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30-0.59).

“As a person who has based her career on the belief that our modifiable lifestyle behaviors are associated with cancer survival, I was actually surprised about how strong these associations were, especially for breast cancer recurrence,” Dr. Cannioto said in an interview,

The author also expressed surprise about the associations that were seen “in patients diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer and HER2-positive breast cancer, which are the two subtypes traditionally more aggressive and more difficult to treat.”

Most patients in the study were diagnosed with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (873 [65.3%]); completed some education beyond high school (954 [71.2%]); were postmenopausal (696 [52.5%]); and self-identified as non-Hispanic White (1,118 [83.7%]).

Patients were drawn from the Diet, Exercise, Lifestyles, and Cancer Prognosis (DELCaP) study, a prospective, observational cohort study ancillary to a multicenter phase 3 trial led by the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG). The DELCaP study was designed to examine lifestyles before diagnosis, during treatment, and at 1 and 2 years after treatment.

Never smoking, physical activity had strongest links

Never smoking and meeting or exceeding PA guidelines had the strongest and most consistent associations with outcomes; each factor was linked with a 44%-45% reduced risk of mortality and a 35% reduced risk of recurrence.

Strongest adherence to the alcohol and body mass index (BMI) recommendations were not significantly associated with improved outcomes.

Partial and full adherence to red and processed meat recommendations were associated with significant reductions in mortality, but not recurrence.

The authors note that, while medications are the foundation for breast cancer treatment, lifestyle interventions could be a safe and inexpensive additional strategy for delaying and preventing recurrence and death.

“Such developments could be especially impactful for patients diagnosed with more aggressive tumors that do not respond well to current therapies,” they write.

Dr. Cannioto says the guidelines around physical activity advise 150 minutes or more of moderate to vigorous intensity a week. But she noted that this research shows that any physical activity can lead to longer survival.

“The greatest benefits from physical activity occur from moving from a sedentary lifestyle to beginning to be active,” she said.

Dr. Cannioto acknowledged the homogeneity of the study population as a limitation and recommended the associations next be tested in a more racially and ethnically diverse population of breast cancer patients.

This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Amgen.

The authors report receiving grants from the Southwest Oncology Group and the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and receiving personal fees, grants, or serving on the boards or independent monitoring committees of many pharmaceutical companies. A full list of disclosures is available with the paper.

Among women with early-stage, high-risk breast cancer, strong adherence to prevention recommendations was linked with a significantly reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence and mortality in a new study.

Following such recommendations surrounding smoking, physical activity (PA), eating fruits and vegetables and reducing or eliminating sugar-sweetened beverages seemed to be the most beneficial, wrote the authors of the paper published online in JAMA Network Open.

Rikki A. Cannioto, PhD, EdD, with the department of cancer prevention & control, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., led the prospective cohort study of 1,340 patients.

The American Institute for Cancer Research and American Cancer Society regularly recommend and publish lifestyle modifications for cancer prevention. To conduct this study Dr. Cannioto and colleagues developed an aggregate lifestyle scoring index to investigate whether those recommendations have an effect on high-risk breast cancer survival.

Highest adherence vs. lowest cut death risk by more than half

The researchers found patients with highest vs. lowest lifestyle index scores saw a 37% reduction in cancer recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.82) and a 58% reduction in mortality (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30-0.59).

“As a person who has based her career on the belief that our modifiable lifestyle behaviors are associated with cancer survival, I was actually surprised about how strong these associations were, especially for breast cancer recurrence,” Dr. Cannioto said in an interview,

The author also expressed surprise about the associations that were seen “in patients diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer and HER2-positive breast cancer, which are the two subtypes traditionally more aggressive and more difficult to treat.”

Most patients in the study were diagnosed with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (873 [65.3%]); completed some education beyond high school (954 [71.2%]); were postmenopausal (696 [52.5%]); and self-identified as non-Hispanic White (1,118 [83.7%]).

Patients were drawn from the Diet, Exercise, Lifestyles, and Cancer Prognosis (DELCaP) study, a prospective, observational cohort study ancillary to a multicenter phase 3 trial led by the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG). The DELCaP study was designed to examine lifestyles before diagnosis, during treatment, and at 1 and 2 years after treatment.

Never smoking, physical activity had strongest links

Never smoking and meeting or exceeding PA guidelines had the strongest and most consistent associations with outcomes; each factor was linked with a 44%-45% reduced risk of mortality and a 35% reduced risk of recurrence.

Strongest adherence to the alcohol and body mass index (BMI) recommendations were not significantly associated with improved outcomes.

Partial and full adherence to red and processed meat recommendations were associated with significant reductions in mortality, but not recurrence.

The authors note that, while medications are the foundation for breast cancer treatment, lifestyle interventions could be a safe and inexpensive additional strategy for delaying and preventing recurrence and death.

“Such developments could be especially impactful for patients diagnosed with more aggressive tumors that do not respond well to current therapies,” they write.

Dr. Cannioto says the guidelines around physical activity advise 150 minutes or more of moderate to vigorous intensity a week. But she noted that this research shows that any physical activity can lead to longer survival.

“The greatest benefits from physical activity occur from moving from a sedentary lifestyle to beginning to be active,” she said.

Dr. Cannioto acknowledged the homogeneity of the study population as a limitation and recommended the associations next be tested in a more racially and ethnically diverse population of breast cancer patients.

This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Amgen.

The authors report receiving grants from the Southwest Oncology Group and the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and receiving personal fees, grants, or serving on the boards or independent monitoring committees of many pharmaceutical companies. A full list of disclosures is available with the paper.

Tens of millions of Americans use menstrual products, and while manufacturers contend they are safe, most disclose little about the chemicals they contain. Now, amid calls for more disclosure and research into the health effects of these products, some states require more transparency.

The manufacture and sale of period and related products is a big business, with revenue expected to top $4.5 billion in the United States this year. On average, a person uses up to 17,000 tampons or pads in their lifetime, and they might also use rubber or silicone cups, or absorbent period underwear.

The FDA regulates and classifies menstrual products as medical devices, meaning they are not subject to the same labeling laws as other consumer items. But companies can voluntarily disclose what’s in their products.

Now, some states are stepping into the breach. In 2021, New York became the first state to enact a menstrual product disclosure law requiring companies to list all intentionally added ingredients on packaging. California’s governor signed a similar law that took effect this year, but it gives manufacturers trade secret protections, so not all ingredients are necessarily disclosed. At least six other states have introduced legislation to address safety and disclosure of ingredients in these products.

Advocacy groups studying the effects of the New York law say the new labels have revealed commonly found ingredients in menstrual products that may contain carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, endocrine disruptors, and allergens.

Shruthi Mahalingaiah, an assistant professor of environmental, reproductive, and women’s health at Harvard University, Boston, evaluates endocrine disruptors in personal care products and studies menstrual health. She said the health risk depends on the dose, duration, and sensitivity of a person to the ingredients and their mixtures.

Harmful chemicals could come from manufacturing processes, through materials and shipping, from equipment cleaners, from contact with contaminants, or from companies adding them intentionally, said Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research for Women’s Voices for the Earth, a Montana-based nonprofit focused on eliminating toxic chemicals that affect women’s health.

Vaginal and vulvar tissues are capable of absorbing fluids at a higher rate than skin, which can lead to rapid chemical exposure. Ms. Scranton said scarcity of clinical studies and funding for vaginal health research limits understanding about the long-term effects of the ingredients and additives in period products.

“We think manufacturers should do better and be more careful with the ingredients they choose to use,” Ms. Scranton said. “The presence of toxic and hormone-disrupting chemicals in menstrual products is unsettling. We know that chemicals can cause disease, and exposures do add up over time.”

Ms. Scranton’s organization advocates for labels to include the chemical name of the ingredient, the component in which the ingredient is used, and the function of the ingredient.

K. Malaika Walton, operations director for the Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products, a trade industry group, said in an email, “BAHP supports accurate and transparent information for users of period products and many of our member companies list ingredients on their packages and websites.”

In a written statement, Procter & Gamble, a major manufacturer of menstrual products, said that ingredients it uses go through rigorous safety evaluations and are continuously tested, and that all fragrance components are added at levels the industry considers safe.

Even though manufacturing of scented tampons for the U.S. market has mostly stopped, companies still use fragrances in other menstrual products. Laws protecting trade secrets keep details about fragrances in pads and tampons confidential so competitors can’t copy the formulas. The Children’s Environmental Health Network lists phthalates, a group of chemicals commonly called plasticizers, that are suspected hormone disruptors, as an ingredient found in fragrances.

Manufacturers follow regulatory guidance issued in 2005 by registering with the Food and Drug Administration and submitting a detailed risk assessment of their products’ components and design, and a safety profile, before being cleared to sell in the United States.

Pads and menstrual cups are considered exempt from regulatory guidance and do not require premarket review, according to FDA spokesperson Carly Kempler. While tampons do require review, the FDA “does not clear or approve individual materials that are used in the fabrication of medical devices.”

“There’s an understanding that the FDA is regulating these products, and they are; it’s just not very adequate,” said Laura Strausfeld, an attorney and a cofounder of Period Law, an organization working to advance state and federal period-equity policies that would stop taxation of products and make them freely available in places like schools and prisons. “The consumer is supposed to trust that when these products are put on shelves they’ve been vetted by the government. But it’s basically a rubber stamp.”

In a 2022 report, a congressional committee directed the FDA to update its guidance for menstrual products to recommend that labels disclose intentionally added ingredients, such as fragrances, and test for contaminants. The FDA is reviewing the directives outlined by the House Appropriations Committee and will update the 2005 guidance as soon as possible, Ms. Kempler said. “We will share additional details when we are able to.”

At least one period product company makes disclosure of its ingredients a selling point. Alex Friedman, cofounder of Lola, said a lack of knowledge is a problem, and more action and awareness are needed to keep people safe.

“The hardest part to swallow is why this is even up for debate. We should all know what’s in these products,” Ms. Friedman said.

New York’s law requires companies to disclose all intentionally added ingredients no matter how much is used, with no trade secret protections for fragrances. Though it applies only to products sold in that state, similar detailed labeling is appearing elsewhere, advocates said.

“We’re also seeing similar or identical disclosure on packaging in other states outside of New York, which is a testament to the power of the law,” said Jamie McConnell, deputy director of Women’s Voices for the Earth.

Manufacturers have 18 months from the passage of the New York law to comply, and some products on shelves in New York still list few ingredients other than “absorbent material,” “surfactant,” “ink,” and “adhesive.”

“We’re like, ‘OK, what is that exactly?’ ” Ms. McConnell said.

Her organization is calling for a federal law at least as strong as New York’s. Previous federal legislation failed to advance, including the most recent, the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act, introduced in 2022.

BAHP, the trade group, supported the federal legislation and the California law. Ms. McConnell said she opposed both bills because they didn’t require companies to list all fragrance ingredients.

“I think what it boiled down to at the federal level was the support of corporate interests over public health,” she said.
 

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.

Tens of millions of Americans use menstrual products, and while manufacturers contend they are safe, most disclose little about the chemicals they contain. Now, amid calls for more disclosure and research into the health effects of these products, some states require more transparency.

The manufacture and sale of period and related products is a big business, with revenue expected to top $4.5 billion in the United States this year. On average, a person uses up to 17,000 tampons or pads in their lifetime, and they might also use rubber or silicone cups, or absorbent period underwear.

The FDA regulates and classifies menstrual products as medical devices, meaning they are not subject to the same labeling laws as other consumer items. But companies can voluntarily disclose what’s in their products.

Now, some states are stepping into the breach. In 2021, New York became the first state to enact a menstrual product disclosure law requiring companies to list all intentionally added ingredients on packaging. California’s governor signed a similar law that took effect this year, but it gives manufacturers trade secret protections, so not all ingredients are necessarily disclosed. At least six other states have introduced legislation to address safety and disclosure of ingredients in these products.

Advocacy groups studying the effects of the New York law say the new labels have revealed commonly found ingredients in menstrual products that may contain carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, endocrine disruptors, and allergens.

Shruthi Mahalingaiah, an assistant professor of environmental, reproductive, and women’s health at Harvard University, Boston, evaluates endocrine disruptors in personal care products and studies menstrual health. She said the health risk depends on the dose, duration, and sensitivity of a person to the ingredients and their mixtures.

Harmful chemicals could come from manufacturing processes, through materials and shipping, from equipment cleaners, from contact with contaminants, or from companies adding them intentionally, said Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research for Women’s Voices for the Earth, a Montana-based nonprofit focused on eliminating toxic chemicals that affect women’s health.

Vaginal and vulvar tissues are capable of absorbing fluids at a higher rate than skin, which can lead to rapid chemical exposure. Ms. Scranton said scarcity of clinical studies and funding for vaginal health research limits understanding about the long-term effects of the ingredients and additives in period products.

“We think manufacturers should do better and be more careful with the ingredients they choose to use,” Ms. Scranton said. “The presence of toxic and hormone-disrupting chemicals in menstrual products is unsettling. We know that chemicals can cause disease, and exposures do add up over time.”

Ms. Scranton’s organization advocates for labels to include the chemical name of the ingredient, the component in which the ingredient is used, and the function of the ingredient.

K. Malaika Walton, operations director for the Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products, a trade industry group, said in an email, “BAHP supports accurate and transparent information for users of period products and many of our member companies list ingredients on their packages and websites.”

In a written statement, Procter & Gamble, a major manufacturer of menstrual products, said that ingredients it uses go through rigorous safety evaluations and are continuously tested, and that all fragrance components are added at levels the industry considers safe.

Even though manufacturing of scented tampons for the U.S. market has mostly stopped, companies still use fragrances in other menstrual products. Laws protecting trade secrets keep details about fragrances in pads and tampons confidential so competitors can’t copy the formulas. The Children’s Environmental Health Network lists phthalates, a group of chemicals commonly called plasticizers, that are suspected hormone disruptors, as an ingredient found in fragrances.

Manufacturers follow regulatory guidance issued in 2005 by registering with the Food and Drug Administration and submitting a detailed risk assessment of their products’ components and design, and a safety profile, before being cleared to sell in the United States.

Pads and menstrual cups are considered exempt from regulatory guidance and do not require premarket review, according to FDA spokesperson Carly Kempler. While tampons do require review, the FDA “does not clear or approve individual materials that are used in the fabrication of medical devices.”

“There’s an understanding that the FDA is regulating these products, and they are; it’s just not very adequate,” said Laura Strausfeld, an attorney and a cofounder of Period Law, an organization working to advance state and federal period-equity policies that would stop taxation of products and make them freely available in places like schools and prisons. “The consumer is supposed to trust that when these products are put on shelves they’ve been vetted by the government. But it’s basically a rubber stamp.”

In a 2022 report, a congressional committee directed the FDA to update its guidance for menstrual products to recommend that labels disclose intentionally added ingredients, such as fragrances, and test for contaminants. The FDA is reviewing the directives outlined by the House Appropriations Committee and will update the 2005 guidance as soon as possible, Ms. Kempler said. “We will share additional details when we are able to.”

At least one period product company makes disclosure of its ingredients a selling point. Alex Friedman, cofounder of Lola, said a lack of knowledge is a problem, and more action and awareness are needed to keep people safe.

“The hardest part to swallow is why this is even up for debate. We should all know what’s in these products,” Ms. Friedman said.

New York’s law requires companies to disclose all intentionally added ingredients no matter how much is used, with no trade secret protections for fragrances. Though it applies only to products sold in that state, similar detailed labeling is appearing elsewhere, advocates said.

“We’re also seeing similar or identical disclosure on packaging in other states outside of New York, which is a testament to the power of the law,” said Jamie McConnell, deputy director of Women’s Voices for the Earth.

Manufacturers have 18 months from the passage of the New York law to comply, and some products on shelves in New York still list few ingredients other than “absorbent material,” “surfactant,” “ink,” and “adhesive.”

“We’re like, ‘OK, what is that exactly?’ ” Ms. McConnell said.

Her organization is calling for a federal law at least as strong as New York’s. Previous federal legislation failed to advance, including the most recent, the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act, introduced in 2022.

BAHP, the trade group, supported the federal legislation and the California law. Ms. McConnell said she opposed both bills because they didn’t require companies to list all fragrance ingredients.

“I think what it boiled down to at the federal level was the support of corporate interests over public health,” she said.
 

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.

Tens of millions of Americans use menstrual products, and while manufacturers contend they are safe, most disclose little about the chemicals they contain. Now, amid calls for more disclosure and research into the health effects of these products, some states require more transparency.

The manufacture and sale of period and related products is a big business, with revenue expected to top $4.5 billion in the United States this year. On average, a person uses up to 17,000 tampons or pads in their lifetime, and they might also use rubber or silicone cups, or absorbent period underwear.

The FDA regulates and classifies menstrual products as medical devices, meaning they are not subject to the same labeling laws as other consumer items. But companies can voluntarily disclose what’s in their products.

Now, some states are stepping into the breach. In 2021, New York became the first state to enact a menstrual product disclosure law requiring companies to list all intentionally added ingredients on packaging. California’s governor signed a similar law that took effect this year, but it gives manufacturers trade secret protections, so not all ingredients are necessarily disclosed. At least six other states have introduced legislation to address safety and disclosure of ingredients in these products.

Advocacy groups studying the effects of the New York law say the new labels have revealed commonly found ingredients in menstrual products that may contain carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, endocrine disruptors, and allergens.

Shruthi Mahalingaiah, an assistant professor of environmental, reproductive, and women’s health at Harvard University, Boston, evaluates endocrine disruptors in personal care products and studies menstrual health. She said the health risk depends on the dose, duration, and sensitivity of a person to the ingredients and their mixtures.

Harmful chemicals could come from manufacturing processes, through materials and shipping, from equipment cleaners, from contact with contaminants, or from companies adding them intentionally, said Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research for Women’s Voices for the Earth, a Montana-based nonprofit focused on eliminating toxic chemicals that affect women’s health.

Vaginal and vulvar tissues are capable of absorbing fluids at a higher rate than skin, which can lead to rapid chemical exposure. Ms. Scranton said scarcity of clinical studies and funding for vaginal health research limits understanding about the long-term effects of the ingredients and additives in period products.

“We think manufacturers should do better and be more careful with the ingredients they choose to use,” Ms. Scranton said. “The presence of toxic and hormone-disrupting chemicals in menstrual products is unsettling. We know that chemicals can cause disease, and exposures do add up over time.”

Ms. Scranton’s organization advocates for labels to include the chemical name of the ingredient, the component in which the ingredient is used, and the function of the ingredient.

K. Malaika Walton, operations director for the Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products, a trade industry group, said in an email, “BAHP supports accurate and transparent information for users of period products and many of our member companies list ingredients on their packages and websites.”

In a written statement, Procter & Gamble, a major manufacturer of menstrual products, said that ingredients it uses go through rigorous safety evaluations and are continuously tested, and that all fragrance components are added at levels the industry considers safe.

Even though manufacturing of scented tampons for the U.S. market has mostly stopped, companies still use fragrances in other menstrual products. Laws protecting trade secrets keep details about fragrances in pads and tampons confidential so competitors can’t copy the formulas. The Children’s Environmental Health Network lists phthalates, a group of chemicals commonly called plasticizers, that are suspected hormone disruptors, as an ingredient found in fragrances.

Manufacturers follow regulatory guidance issued in 2005 by registering with the Food and Drug Administration and submitting a detailed risk assessment of their products’ components and design, and a safety profile, before being cleared to sell in the United States.

Pads and menstrual cups are considered exempt from regulatory guidance and do not require premarket review, according to FDA spokesperson Carly Kempler. While tampons do require review, the FDA “does not clear or approve individual materials that are used in the fabrication of medical devices.”

“There’s an understanding that the FDA is regulating these products, and they are; it’s just not very adequate,” said Laura Strausfeld, an attorney and a cofounder of Period Law, an organization working to advance state and federal period-equity policies that would stop taxation of products and make them freely available in places like schools and prisons. “The consumer is supposed to trust that when these products are put on shelves they’ve been vetted by the government. But it’s basically a rubber stamp.”

In a 2022 report, a congressional committee directed the FDA to update its guidance for menstrual products to recommend that labels disclose intentionally added ingredients, such as fragrances, and test for contaminants. The FDA is reviewing the directives outlined by the House Appropriations Committee and will update the 2005 guidance as soon as possible, Ms. Kempler said. “We will share additional details when we are able to.”

At least one period product company makes disclosure of its ingredients a selling point. Alex Friedman, cofounder of Lola, said a lack of knowledge is a problem, and more action and awareness are needed to keep people safe.

“The hardest part to swallow is why this is even up for debate. We should all know what’s in these products,” Ms. Friedman said.

New York’s law requires companies to disclose all intentionally added ingredients no matter how much is used, with no trade secret protections for fragrances. Though it applies only to products sold in that state, similar detailed labeling is appearing elsewhere, advocates said.

“We’re also seeing similar or identical disclosure on packaging in other states outside of New York, which is a testament to the power of the law,” said Jamie McConnell, deputy director of Women’s Voices for the Earth.

Manufacturers have 18 months from the passage of the New York law to comply, and some products on shelves in New York still list few ingredients other than “absorbent material,” “surfactant,” “ink,” and “adhesive.”

“We’re like, ‘OK, what is that exactly?’ ” Ms. McConnell said.

Her organization is calling for a federal law at least as strong as New York’s. Previous federal legislation failed to advance, including the most recent, the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act, introduced in 2022.

BAHP, the trade group, supported the federal legislation and the California law. Ms. McConnell said she opposed both bills because they didn’t require companies to list all fragrance ingredients.

“I think what it boiled down to at the federal level was the support of corporate interests over public health,” she said.
 

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.

A growing number of women ask about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy.

The last several decades have brought an increasing level of comfort with respect to antidepressant use during pregnancy, which derives from several factors.

First, it’s been well described that there’s an increased risk of relapse and morbidity associated with discontinuation of antidepressants proximate to pregnancy, particularly in women with histories of recurrent disease (JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80[5]:441-50 and JAMA. 2006;295[5]:499-507).

Second, there’s an obvious increased confidence about using antidepressants during pregnancy given the robust reproductive safety data about antidepressants with respect to both teratogenesis and risk for organ malformation. Other studies also fail to demonstrate a relationship between fetal exposure to antidepressants and risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. These latter studies have been reviewed extensively in systematic reviews of meta-analyses addressing this question.

However, there are women who, as they approach the question of antidepressant use during pregnancy, would prefer a nonpharmacologic approach to managing depression in the setting of either a planned pregnancy, or sometimes in the setting of acute onset of depressive symptoms during pregnancy. Other women are more comfortable with the data in hand regarding the reproductive safety of antidepressants and continue antidepressants that have afforded emotional well-being, particularly if the road to well-being or euthymia has been a long one.

Still, we at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Women’s Mental Health along with multidisciplinary colleagues with whom we engage during our weekly Virtual Rounds community have observed a growing number of women asking about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy. They ask about these options for personal reasons, regardless of what we may know (and what we may not know) about existing pharmacologic interventions. In these scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that it is not about what we as clinicians necessarily know about these medicines per se that drives treatment, but rather about the private calculus that women and their partners apply about risk and benefit of pharmacologic treatment during pregnancy.
 

Nonpharmacologic treatment options

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and behavioral activation are therapies all of which have an evidence base with respect to their effectiveness for either the acute treatment of both depression (and perinatal depression specifically) or for mitigating risk for depressive relapse (MBCT). Several investigations are underway evaluating digital apps that utilize MBCT and CBT in these patient populations as well.

New treatments for which we have none or exceedingly sparse data to support use during pregnancy are neurosteroids. We are asked all the time about the use of neurosteroids such as brexanolone or zuranolone during pregnancy. Given the data on effectiveness of these agents for treatment of postpartum depression, the question about use during pregnancy is intuitive. But at this point in time, absent data, their use during pregnancy cannot be recommended.

With respect to newer nonpharmacologic approaches that have been looked at for treatment of major depressive disorder, the Food and Drug Administration has approved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a noninvasive form of neuromodulating therapy that use magnetic pulses to stimulate specific regions of the brain that have been implicated in psychiatric illness.

While there are no safety concerns that have been noted about use of TMS, the data regarding its use during pregnancy are still relatively limited, but it has been used to treat certain neurologic conditions during pregnancy. We now have a small randomized controlled study using TMS during pregnancy and multiple small case series suggesting a signal of efficacy in women with perinatal major depressive disorder. Side effects of TMS use during pregnancy have included hypotension, which has sometimes required repositioning of subjects, particularly later in pregnancy. Unlike electroconvulsive therapy, (ECT), often used when clinicians have exhausted other treatment options, TMS has no risk of seizure associated with its use.

TMS is now entering into the clinical arena in a more robust way. In certain settings, insurance companies are reimbursing for TMS treatment more often than was the case previously, making it a more viable option for a larger number of patients. There are also several exciting newer protocols, including theta burst stimulation, a new form of TMS treatment with less of a time commitment, and which may be more cost effective. However, data on this modality of treatment remain limited.
 

Where TMS fits in treating depression during pregnancy

The real question we are getting asked in clinic, both in person and during virtual rounds with multidisciplinary colleagues from across the world, is where TMS might fit into the algorithm for treating of depression during pregnancy. Where is it appropriate to be thinking about TMS in pregnancy, and where should it perhaps be deferred at this moment (and where is it not appropriate)?

It is probably of limited value (and possibly of potential harm) to switch to TMS in patients who have severe recurrent major depression and who are on maintenance antidepressant, and who believe that a switch to TMS will be effective for relapse prevention; there are simply no data currently suggesting that TMS can be used as a relapse prevention tool, unlike certain other nonpharmacologic interventions.

What about managing relapse of major depressive disorder during pregnancy in a patient who had responded to an antidepressant? We have seen patients with histories of severe recurrent disease who are managed well on antidepressants during pregnancy who then have breakthrough symptoms and inquire about using TMS as an augmentation strategy. Although we don’t have clear data supporting the use of TMS as an adjunct in that setting, in those patients, one could argue that a trial of TMS may be appropriate – as opposed to introducing multiple medicines to recapture euthymia during pregnancy where the benefit is unclear and where more exposure is implied by having to do potentially multiple trials.

Other patients with new onset of depression during pregnancy who, for personal reasons, will not take an antidepressant or pursue other nonpharmacologic interventions will frequently ask about TMS. It’s important to at least have a potential referral source in mind given the increased popularity of TMS and the increased availability of TMS in the community in various centers – as opposed to previously where it was more restricted to large academic medical centers.

I think it is a time of excitement in reproductive psychiatry where we have a growing number of tools to treat perinatal depression – from medications to digital tools. These tools – either alone or in combination with medicines that we’ve been using for years – are able to afford women a greater number of choices with respect to the treatment of perinatal depression than was available even 5 years ago. That takes us closer to an ability to use interventions that truly combine patient wishes and “precision perinatal psychiatry,” where we can match effective therapies with the individual clinical presentations and wishes with which patients come to us.

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

A growing number of women ask about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy.

The last several decades have brought an increasing level of comfort with respect to antidepressant use during pregnancy, which derives from several factors.

First, it’s been well described that there’s an increased risk of relapse and morbidity associated with discontinuation of antidepressants proximate to pregnancy, particularly in women with histories of recurrent disease (JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80[5]:441-50 and JAMA. 2006;295[5]:499-507).

Second, there’s an obvious increased confidence about using antidepressants during pregnancy given the robust reproductive safety data about antidepressants with respect to both teratogenesis and risk for organ malformation. Other studies also fail to demonstrate a relationship between fetal exposure to antidepressants and risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. These latter studies have been reviewed extensively in systematic reviews of meta-analyses addressing this question.

However, there are women who, as they approach the question of antidepressant use during pregnancy, would prefer a nonpharmacologic approach to managing depression in the setting of either a planned pregnancy, or sometimes in the setting of acute onset of depressive symptoms during pregnancy. Other women are more comfortable with the data in hand regarding the reproductive safety of antidepressants and continue antidepressants that have afforded emotional well-being, particularly if the road to well-being or euthymia has been a long one.

Still, we at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Women’s Mental Health along with multidisciplinary colleagues with whom we engage during our weekly Virtual Rounds community have observed a growing number of women asking about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy. They ask about these options for personal reasons, regardless of what we may know (and what we may not know) about existing pharmacologic interventions. In these scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that it is not about what we as clinicians necessarily know about these medicines per se that drives treatment, but rather about the private calculus that women and their partners apply about risk and benefit of pharmacologic treatment during pregnancy.
 

Nonpharmacologic treatment options

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and behavioral activation are therapies all of which have an evidence base with respect to their effectiveness for either the acute treatment of both depression (and perinatal depression specifically) or for mitigating risk for depressive relapse (MBCT). Several investigations are underway evaluating digital apps that utilize MBCT and CBT in these patient populations as well.

New treatments for which we have none or exceedingly sparse data to support use during pregnancy are neurosteroids. We are asked all the time about the use of neurosteroids such as brexanolone or zuranolone during pregnancy. Given the data on effectiveness of these agents for treatment of postpartum depression, the question about use during pregnancy is intuitive. But at this point in time, absent data, their use during pregnancy cannot be recommended.

With respect to newer nonpharmacologic approaches that have been looked at for treatment of major depressive disorder, the Food and Drug Administration has approved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a noninvasive form of neuromodulating therapy that use magnetic pulses to stimulate specific regions of the brain that have been implicated in psychiatric illness.

While there are no safety concerns that have been noted about use of TMS, the data regarding its use during pregnancy are still relatively limited, but it has been used to treat certain neurologic conditions during pregnancy. We now have a small randomized controlled study using TMS during pregnancy and multiple small case series suggesting a signal of efficacy in women with perinatal major depressive disorder. Side effects of TMS use during pregnancy have included hypotension, which has sometimes required repositioning of subjects, particularly later in pregnancy. Unlike electroconvulsive therapy, (ECT), often used when clinicians have exhausted other treatment options, TMS has no risk of seizure associated with its use.

TMS is now entering into the clinical arena in a more robust way. In certain settings, insurance companies are reimbursing for TMS treatment more often than was the case previously, making it a more viable option for a larger number of patients. There are also several exciting newer protocols, including theta burst stimulation, a new form of TMS treatment with less of a time commitment, and which may be more cost effective. However, data on this modality of treatment remain limited.
 

Where TMS fits in treating depression during pregnancy

The real question we are getting asked in clinic, both in person and during virtual rounds with multidisciplinary colleagues from across the world, is where TMS might fit into the algorithm for treating of depression during pregnancy. Where is it appropriate to be thinking about TMS in pregnancy, and where should it perhaps be deferred at this moment (and where is it not appropriate)?

It is probably of limited value (and possibly of potential harm) to switch to TMS in patients who have severe recurrent major depression and who are on maintenance antidepressant, and who believe that a switch to TMS will be effective for relapse prevention; there are simply no data currently suggesting that TMS can be used as a relapse prevention tool, unlike certain other nonpharmacologic interventions.

What about managing relapse of major depressive disorder during pregnancy in a patient who had responded to an antidepressant? We have seen patients with histories of severe recurrent disease who are managed well on antidepressants during pregnancy who then have breakthrough symptoms and inquire about using TMS as an augmentation strategy. Although we don’t have clear data supporting the use of TMS as an adjunct in that setting, in those patients, one could argue that a trial of TMS may be appropriate – as opposed to introducing multiple medicines to recapture euthymia during pregnancy where the benefit is unclear and where more exposure is implied by having to do potentially multiple trials.

Other patients with new onset of depression during pregnancy who, for personal reasons, will not take an antidepressant or pursue other nonpharmacologic interventions will frequently ask about TMS. It’s important to at least have a potential referral source in mind given the increased popularity of TMS and the increased availability of TMS in the community in various centers – as opposed to previously where it was more restricted to large academic medical centers.

I think it is a time of excitement in reproductive psychiatry where we have a growing number of tools to treat perinatal depression – from medications to digital tools. These tools – either alone or in combination with medicines that we’ve been using for years – are able to afford women a greater number of choices with respect to the treatment of perinatal depression than was available even 5 years ago. That takes us closer to an ability to use interventions that truly combine patient wishes and “precision perinatal psychiatry,” where we can match effective therapies with the individual clinical presentations and wishes with which patients come to us.

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

A growing number of women ask about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy.

The last several decades have brought an increasing level of comfort with respect to antidepressant use during pregnancy, which derives from several factors.

First, it’s been well described that there’s an increased risk of relapse and morbidity associated with discontinuation of antidepressants proximate to pregnancy, particularly in women with histories of recurrent disease (JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80[5]:441-50 and JAMA. 2006;295[5]:499-507).

Second, there’s an obvious increased confidence about using antidepressants during pregnancy given the robust reproductive safety data about antidepressants with respect to both teratogenesis and risk for organ malformation. Other studies also fail to demonstrate a relationship between fetal exposure to antidepressants and risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. These latter studies have been reviewed extensively in systematic reviews of meta-analyses addressing this question.

However, there are women who, as they approach the question of antidepressant use during pregnancy, would prefer a nonpharmacologic approach to managing depression in the setting of either a planned pregnancy, or sometimes in the setting of acute onset of depressive symptoms during pregnancy. Other women are more comfortable with the data in hand regarding the reproductive safety of antidepressants and continue antidepressants that have afforded emotional well-being, particularly if the road to well-being or euthymia has been a long one.

Still, we at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Women’s Mental Health along with multidisciplinary colleagues with whom we engage during our weekly Virtual Rounds community have observed a growing number of women asking about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy. They ask about these options for personal reasons, regardless of what we may know (and what we may not know) about existing pharmacologic interventions. In these scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that it is not about what we as clinicians necessarily know about these medicines per se that drives treatment, but rather about the private calculus that women and their partners apply about risk and benefit of pharmacologic treatment during pregnancy.
 

Nonpharmacologic treatment options

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and behavioral activation are therapies all of which have an evidence base with respect to their effectiveness for either the acute treatment of both depression (and perinatal depression specifically) or for mitigating risk for depressive relapse (MBCT). Several investigations are underway evaluating digital apps that utilize MBCT and CBT in these patient populations as well.

New treatments for which we have none or exceedingly sparse data to support use during pregnancy are neurosteroids. We are asked all the time about the use of neurosteroids such as brexanolone or zuranolone during pregnancy. Given the data on effectiveness of these agents for treatment of postpartum depression, the question about use during pregnancy is intuitive. But at this point in time, absent data, their use during pregnancy cannot be recommended.

With respect to newer nonpharmacologic approaches that have been looked at for treatment of major depressive disorder, the Food and Drug Administration has approved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a noninvasive form of neuromodulating therapy that use magnetic pulses to stimulate specific regions of the brain that have been implicated in psychiatric illness.

While there are no safety concerns that have been noted about use of TMS, the data regarding its use during pregnancy are still relatively limited, but it has been used to treat certain neurologic conditions during pregnancy. We now have a small randomized controlled study using TMS during pregnancy and multiple small case series suggesting a signal of efficacy in women with perinatal major depressive disorder. Side effects of TMS use during pregnancy have included hypotension, which has sometimes required repositioning of subjects, particularly later in pregnancy. Unlike electroconvulsive therapy, (ECT), often used when clinicians have exhausted other treatment options, TMS has no risk of seizure associated with its use.

TMS is now entering into the clinical arena in a more robust way. In certain settings, insurance companies are reimbursing for TMS treatment more often than was the case previously, making it a more viable option for a larger number of patients. There are also several exciting newer protocols, including theta burst stimulation, a new form of TMS treatment with less of a time commitment, and which may be more cost effective. However, data on this modality of treatment remain limited.
 

Where TMS fits in treating depression during pregnancy

The real question we are getting asked in clinic, both in person and during virtual rounds with multidisciplinary colleagues from across the world, is where TMS might fit into the algorithm for treating of depression during pregnancy. Where is it appropriate to be thinking about TMS in pregnancy, and where should it perhaps be deferred at this moment (and where is it not appropriate)?

It is probably of limited value (and possibly of potential harm) to switch to TMS in patients who have severe recurrent major depression and who are on maintenance antidepressant, and who believe that a switch to TMS will be effective for relapse prevention; there are simply no data currently suggesting that TMS can be used as a relapse prevention tool, unlike certain other nonpharmacologic interventions.

What about managing relapse of major depressive disorder during pregnancy in a patient who had responded to an antidepressant? We have seen patients with histories of severe recurrent disease who are managed well on antidepressants during pregnancy who then have breakthrough symptoms and inquire about using TMS as an augmentation strategy. Although we don’t have clear data supporting the use of TMS as an adjunct in that setting, in those patients, one could argue that a trial of TMS may be appropriate – as opposed to introducing multiple medicines to recapture euthymia during pregnancy where the benefit is unclear and where more exposure is implied by having to do potentially multiple trials.

Other patients with new onset of depression during pregnancy who, for personal reasons, will not take an antidepressant or pursue other nonpharmacologic interventions will frequently ask about TMS. It’s important to at least have a potential referral source in mind given the increased popularity of TMS and the increased availability of TMS in the community in various centers – as opposed to previously where it was more restricted to large academic medical centers.

I think it is a time of excitement in reproductive psychiatry where we have a growing number of tools to treat perinatal depression – from medications to digital tools. These tools – either alone or in combination with medicines that we’ve been using for years – are able to afford women a greater number of choices with respect to the treatment of perinatal depression than was available even 5 years ago. That takes us closer to an ability to use interventions that truly combine patient wishes and “precision perinatal psychiatry,” where we can match effective therapies with the individual clinical presentations and wishes with which patients come to us.

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