Women's Health

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].

PHOENIX – While the use of lasers and energy-based devices for genitourinary indications dates back more than 50 years, a large body of scientific evidence has since accumulated for conditions ranging from genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), lichen sclerosus, urinary incontinence, and vulvovaginal laxity.

“Even a cursory review of PubMed today yields over 100,000 results” on this topic, Macrene R. Alexiades, MD, PhD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Add to that radiofrequency and various diagnoses, the number of publications has skyrocketed, particularly over the last 10 years.”

What has been missing from this hot research topic all these years, she continued, is that no one has distilled this pile of data into a practical guide for office-based clinicians who use lasers and energy-based devices for genitourinary conditions – until now. Working with experts in gynecology and urogynecology, Dr. Alexiades spearheaded a 2-year-long effort to assemble a document on optimal protocols and best practices for genitourinary application of lasers and energy-based devices. The document, published soon after the ASLMS meeting in Lasers in Medicine and Surgery, includes a table that lists the current Food and Drug Administration approval status of devices in genitourinary applications, as well as individual sections dedicated to fractional lasers, radiofrequency (RF) devices, and high-intensity focused electromagnetic technology. It concludes with a section on the current status of clearances and future pathways.

“The work we did was exhaustive,” said Dr. Alexiades, who is also founder and director of Dermatology & Laser Surgery Center of New York. “We went through all the clinical trial data and compiled the parameters that, as a consensus, we agree are best practices for each technology for which we had rigorous published data.”

The document contains a brief background on the history of the devices used for genitourinary issues and it addresses core topics for each technology, such as conditions treated, contraindications, preoperative physical assessment and preparation, perioperative protocols, and postoperative care.

Contraindications to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices are numerous and include use of an intrauterine device, active urinary tract or genital infection, vaginal bleeding, current pregnancy, active or recent malignancy, having an electrical implant anywhere in the body, significant concurrent illness, and an anticoagulative or thromboembolic condition or taking anticoagulant medications 1 week prior to the procedure. Another condition to screen for is advanced prolapse, which was considered a contraindication in all clinical trials, she added. “It’s important that you’re able to do the speculum exam and stage the prolapse” so that a patient with this contraindication is not treated.

Dr. Alexiades shared the following highlights from the document’s section related to the use of fractional CO₂ lasers:

Preoperative management. Schedule the treatment one week after the patient’s menstrual period. Patients should avoid blood thinners for 7 days and avoid intercourse the night before the procedure. Reschedule in the case of fever, chills, or vaginal bleeding or discharge.

Preoperative physical exam and testing. A normal speculum exam and a recent negative PAP smear are required. For those of child-bearing potential, a pregnancy test is warranted. Obtain written and verbal consent, including discussion of all treatment options, risks, and benefits. No topical or local anesthesia is necessary internally. “Externally, we sometimes apply topical lidocaine gel, but I have found that’s not necessary in most cases,” Dr. Alexiades said. “The treatment is so quick.”

Peri-operative management. In general, device settings are provided by the manufacturer. “For most of the studies that had successful outcomes and no adverse events, researchers adhered to the mild or moderate settings on the technology,” she said. Energy settings were between 15 and 30 watts, delivered at a laser fluence of about 250-300 mJ/cm² with a spacing of microbeams 1 mm apart. Typically, three treatments are done at 1-month intervals and maintenance treatments are recommended at 6 and 12 months based on duration of the outcomes.

Vulvovaginal postoperative management. A 3-day recovery time is recommended with avoidance of intercourse during this period, because “re-epithelialization is usually complete in 3 days, so we want to give the opportunity for the lining to heal prior to introducing any friction, Dr. Alexiades said.” Rarely, spotting or discharge may occur and there should be no discomfort. “Any severe discomfort or burning may potentially signify infection and should prompt evaluation and possibly vaginal cultures. The patient can shower, but we recommend avoiding seated baths to decrease any introduction of infectious agents.”

Patients should be followed up monthly until three treatments are completed, and a maintenance treatment is considered appropriate between 6 and 12 months. “I do recommend doing a 1-month follow-up following the final treatment, unless it’s a patient who has already had a series of three treatments and is coming in for maintenance,” she said.

In a study from her own practice, Dr. Alexiades evaluated a series of three fractional CO₂ laser treatments to the vulva and vagina with a 1-year follow-up in postmenopausal patients. She used the Vaginal Health Index (VHI) to assess changes in vaginal elasticity, fluid volume, vaginal pH, epithelial integrity, and moisture. She and her colleagues discovered that there was improvement in every VHI category after treatment and during the follow-up interval up to 6 months.

“Between 6 and 12 months, we started to see a return a bit toward baseline on all of these parameters,” she said. “The serendipitous discovery that I made during the course of that study was that early intervention improves outcomes. I observed that the younger, most recently postmenopausal cohort seemed to attain normal or near normal VHI quicker than the more extended postmenopausal cohorts.”

In an editorial published in 2020, Dr. Alexiades reviewed the effects of fractional CO₂ laser treatment of vulvar skin on vaginal pH and referred to a study she conducted that found that the mean baseline pH pretreatment was 6.32 in the cohort of postmenopausal patients, and was reduced after 3 treatments. “Postmenopausally, the normal acidic pH becomes alkaline,” she said. But she did not expect to see an additional reduction in pH following the treatment out to 6 months. “This indicates that, whatever the wound healing and other restorative effects of these devices are, they seem to continue out to 6 months, at which point it turns around and moves toward baseline [levels].”

Dr. Alexiades highlighted two published meta-analyses of studies related to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices. One included 59 studies of 3,609 women treated for vaginal rejuvenation using either radiofrequency or fractional ablative laser therapy. The studies reported improvements in symptoms of GSM/VVA and sexual function, high patient satisfaction, with minor adverse events, including treatment-associated vaginal swelling or vaginal discharge.

“Further research needs to be completed to determine which specific pathologies can be treated, if maintenance treatment is necessary, and long-term safety concerns,” the authors concluded.

In another review, researchers analyzed 64 studies related to vaginal laser therapy for GSM. Of these, 47 were before and after studies without a control group, 10 were controlled intervention studies, and 7 were observational cohort and cross-sectional studies.

Vaginal laser treatment “seems to improve scores on the visual analogue scale, Female Sexual Function Index, and the Vaginal Health Index over the short term,” the authors wrote. “Safety outcomes are underreported and short term. Further well-designed clinical trials with sham-laser control groups and evaluating objective variables are needed to provide the best evidence on efficacy.”

“Lasers and energy-based devices are now considered alternative therapeutic modalities for genitourinary conditions,” Dr. Alexiades concluded. “The shortcomings in the literature with respect to lasers and device treatments demonstrate the need for the consensus on best practices and protocols.”

During a separate presentation at the meeting, Michael Gold, MD, highlighted data from Grand View Research, a market research database, which estimated that the global women’s health and wellness market is valued at more than $31 billion globally and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 4.8% from 2022 to 2030.

“Sales of women’s health energy-based devices continue to grow as new technologies are developed,” said Dr. Gold, a Nashville, Tenn.–based dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon who is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. “Evolving societal norms have made discussions about feminine health issues acceptable. Suffering in silence is no longer necessary or advocated.”

Dr. Alexiades disclosed that she has conducted research for Candela Lasers, Lumenis, Allergan/AbbVie, InMode, and Endymed. She is also the founder and CEO of Macrene Actives. Dr. Gold disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator and a speaker for Joylux, InMode, and Alma Lasers.
 

PHOENIX – While the use of lasers and energy-based devices for genitourinary indications dates back more than 50 years, a large body of scientific evidence has since accumulated for conditions ranging from genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), lichen sclerosus, urinary incontinence, and vulvovaginal laxity.

“Even a cursory review of PubMed today yields over 100,000 results” on this topic, Macrene R. Alexiades, MD, PhD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Add to that radiofrequency and various diagnoses, the number of publications has skyrocketed, particularly over the last 10 years.”

What has been missing from this hot research topic all these years, she continued, is that no one has distilled this pile of data into a practical guide for office-based clinicians who use lasers and energy-based devices for genitourinary conditions – until now. Working with experts in gynecology and urogynecology, Dr. Alexiades spearheaded a 2-year-long effort to assemble a document on optimal protocols and best practices for genitourinary application of lasers and energy-based devices. The document, published soon after the ASLMS meeting in Lasers in Medicine and Surgery, includes a table that lists the current Food and Drug Administration approval status of devices in genitourinary applications, as well as individual sections dedicated to fractional lasers, radiofrequency (RF) devices, and high-intensity focused electromagnetic technology. It concludes with a section on the current status of clearances and future pathways.

“The work we did was exhaustive,” said Dr. Alexiades, who is also founder and director of Dermatology & Laser Surgery Center of New York. “We went through all the clinical trial data and compiled the parameters that, as a consensus, we agree are best practices for each technology for which we had rigorous published data.”

The document contains a brief background on the history of the devices used for genitourinary issues and it addresses core topics for each technology, such as conditions treated, contraindications, preoperative physical assessment and preparation, perioperative protocols, and postoperative care.

Contraindications to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices are numerous and include use of an intrauterine device, active urinary tract or genital infection, vaginal bleeding, current pregnancy, active or recent malignancy, having an electrical implant anywhere in the body, significant concurrent illness, and an anticoagulative or thromboembolic condition or taking anticoagulant medications 1 week prior to the procedure. Another condition to screen for is advanced prolapse, which was considered a contraindication in all clinical trials, she added. “It’s important that you’re able to do the speculum exam and stage the prolapse” so that a patient with this contraindication is not treated.

Dr. Alexiades shared the following highlights from the document’s section related to the use of fractional CO₂ lasers:

Preoperative management. Schedule the treatment one week after the patient’s menstrual period. Patients should avoid blood thinners for 7 days and avoid intercourse the night before the procedure. Reschedule in the case of fever, chills, or vaginal bleeding or discharge.

Preoperative physical exam and testing. A normal speculum exam and a recent negative PAP smear are required. For those of child-bearing potential, a pregnancy test is warranted. Obtain written and verbal consent, including discussion of all treatment options, risks, and benefits. No topical or local anesthesia is necessary internally. “Externally, we sometimes apply topical lidocaine gel, but I have found that’s not necessary in most cases,” Dr. Alexiades said. “The treatment is so quick.”

Peri-operative management. In general, device settings are provided by the manufacturer. “For most of the studies that had successful outcomes and no adverse events, researchers adhered to the mild or moderate settings on the technology,” she said. Energy settings were between 15 and 30 watts, delivered at a laser fluence of about 250-300 mJ/cm² with a spacing of microbeams 1 mm apart. Typically, three treatments are done at 1-month intervals and maintenance treatments are recommended at 6 and 12 months based on duration of the outcomes.

Vulvovaginal postoperative management. A 3-day recovery time is recommended with avoidance of intercourse during this period, because “re-epithelialization is usually complete in 3 days, so we want to give the opportunity for the lining to heal prior to introducing any friction, Dr. Alexiades said.” Rarely, spotting or discharge may occur and there should be no discomfort. “Any severe discomfort or burning may potentially signify infection and should prompt evaluation and possibly vaginal cultures. The patient can shower, but we recommend avoiding seated baths to decrease any introduction of infectious agents.”

Patients should be followed up monthly until three treatments are completed, and a maintenance treatment is considered appropriate between 6 and 12 months. “I do recommend doing a 1-month follow-up following the final treatment, unless it’s a patient who has already had a series of three treatments and is coming in for maintenance,” she said.

In a study from her own practice, Dr. Alexiades evaluated a series of three fractional CO₂ laser treatments to the vulva and vagina with a 1-year follow-up in postmenopausal patients. She used the Vaginal Health Index (VHI) to assess changes in vaginal elasticity, fluid volume, vaginal pH, epithelial integrity, and moisture. She and her colleagues discovered that there was improvement in every VHI category after treatment and during the follow-up interval up to 6 months.

“Between 6 and 12 months, we started to see a return a bit toward baseline on all of these parameters,” she said. “The serendipitous discovery that I made during the course of that study was that early intervention improves outcomes. I observed that the younger, most recently postmenopausal cohort seemed to attain normal or near normal VHI quicker than the more extended postmenopausal cohorts.”

In an editorial published in 2020, Dr. Alexiades reviewed the effects of fractional CO₂ laser treatment of vulvar skin on vaginal pH and referred to a study she conducted that found that the mean baseline pH pretreatment was 6.32 in the cohort of postmenopausal patients, and was reduced after 3 treatments. “Postmenopausally, the normal acidic pH becomes alkaline,” she said. But she did not expect to see an additional reduction in pH following the treatment out to 6 months. “This indicates that, whatever the wound healing and other restorative effects of these devices are, they seem to continue out to 6 months, at which point it turns around and moves toward baseline [levels].”

Dr. Alexiades highlighted two published meta-analyses of studies related to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices. One included 59 studies of 3,609 women treated for vaginal rejuvenation using either radiofrequency or fractional ablative laser therapy. The studies reported improvements in symptoms of GSM/VVA and sexual function, high patient satisfaction, with minor adverse events, including treatment-associated vaginal swelling or vaginal discharge.

“Further research needs to be completed to determine which specific pathologies can be treated, if maintenance treatment is necessary, and long-term safety concerns,” the authors concluded.

In another review, researchers analyzed 64 studies related to vaginal laser therapy for GSM. Of these, 47 were before and after studies without a control group, 10 were controlled intervention studies, and 7 were observational cohort and cross-sectional studies.

Vaginal laser treatment “seems to improve scores on the visual analogue scale, Female Sexual Function Index, and the Vaginal Health Index over the short term,” the authors wrote. “Safety outcomes are underreported and short term. Further well-designed clinical trials with sham-laser control groups and evaluating objective variables are needed to provide the best evidence on efficacy.”

“Lasers and energy-based devices are now considered alternative therapeutic modalities for genitourinary conditions,” Dr. Alexiades concluded. “The shortcomings in the literature with respect to lasers and device treatments demonstrate the need for the consensus on best practices and protocols.”

During a separate presentation at the meeting, Michael Gold, MD, highlighted data from Grand View Research, a market research database, which estimated that the global women’s health and wellness market is valued at more than $31 billion globally and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 4.8% from 2022 to 2030.

“Sales of women’s health energy-based devices continue to grow as new technologies are developed,” said Dr. Gold, a Nashville, Tenn.–based dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon who is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. “Evolving societal norms have made discussions about feminine health issues acceptable. Suffering in silence is no longer necessary or advocated.”

Dr. Alexiades disclosed that she has conducted research for Candela Lasers, Lumenis, Allergan/AbbVie, InMode, and Endymed. She is also the founder and CEO of Macrene Actives. Dr. Gold disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator and a speaker for Joylux, InMode, and Alma Lasers.
 

PHOENIX – While the use of lasers and energy-based devices for genitourinary indications dates back more than 50 years, a large body of scientific evidence has since accumulated for conditions ranging from genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), lichen sclerosus, urinary incontinence, and vulvovaginal laxity.

“Even a cursory review of PubMed today yields over 100,000 results” on this topic, Macrene R. Alexiades, MD, PhD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Add to that radiofrequency and various diagnoses, the number of publications has skyrocketed, particularly over the last 10 years.”

What has been missing from this hot research topic all these years, she continued, is that no one has distilled this pile of data into a practical guide for office-based clinicians who use lasers and energy-based devices for genitourinary conditions – until now. Working with experts in gynecology and urogynecology, Dr. Alexiades spearheaded a 2-year-long effort to assemble a document on optimal protocols and best practices for genitourinary application of lasers and energy-based devices. The document, published soon after the ASLMS meeting in Lasers in Medicine and Surgery, includes a table that lists the current Food and Drug Administration approval status of devices in genitourinary applications, as well as individual sections dedicated to fractional lasers, radiofrequency (RF) devices, and high-intensity focused electromagnetic technology. It concludes with a section on the current status of clearances and future pathways.

“The work we did was exhaustive,” said Dr. Alexiades, who is also founder and director of Dermatology & Laser Surgery Center of New York. “We went through all the clinical trial data and compiled the parameters that, as a consensus, we agree are best practices for each technology for which we had rigorous published data.”

The document contains a brief background on the history of the devices used for genitourinary issues and it addresses core topics for each technology, such as conditions treated, contraindications, preoperative physical assessment and preparation, perioperative protocols, and postoperative care.

Contraindications to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices are numerous and include use of an intrauterine device, active urinary tract or genital infection, vaginal bleeding, current pregnancy, active or recent malignancy, having an electrical implant anywhere in the body, significant concurrent illness, and an anticoagulative or thromboembolic condition or taking anticoagulant medications 1 week prior to the procedure. Another condition to screen for is advanced prolapse, which was considered a contraindication in all clinical trials, she added. “It’s important that you’re able to do the speculum exam and stage the prolapse” so that a patient with this contraindication is not treated.

Dr. Alexiades shared the following highlights from the document’s section related to the use of fractional CO₂ lasers:

Preoperative management. Schedule the treatment one week after the patient’s menstrual period. Patients should avoid blood thinners for 7 days and avoid intercourse the night before the procedure. Reschedule in the case of fever, chills, or vaginal bleeding or discharge.

Preoperative physical exam and testing. A normal speculum exam and a recent negative PAP smear are required. For those of child-bearing potential, a pregnancy test is warranted. Obtain written and verbal consent, including discussion of all treatment options, risks, and benefits. No topical or local anesthesia is necessary internally. “Externally, we sometimes apply topical lidocaine gel, but I have found that’s not necessary in most cases,” Dr. Alexiades said. “The treatment is so quick.”

Peri-operative management. In general, device settings are provided by the manufacturer. “For most of the studies that had successful outcomes and no adverse events, researchers adhered to the mild or moderate settings on the technology,” she said. Energy settings were between 15 and 30 watts, delivered at a laser fluence of about 250-300 mJ/cm² with a spacing of microbeams 1 mm apart. Typically, three treatments are done at 1-month intervals and maintenance treatments are recommended at 6 and 12 months based on duration of the outcomes.

Vulvovaginal postoperative management. A 3-day recovery time is recommended with avoidance of intercourse during this period, because “re-epithelialization is usually complete in 3 days, so we want to give the opportunity for the lining to heal prior to introducing any friction, Dr. Alexiades said.” Rarely, spotting or discharge may occur and there should be no discomfort. “Any severe discomfort or burning may potentially signify infection and should prompt evaluation and possibly vaginal cultures. The patient can shower, but we recommend avoiding seated baths to decrease any introduction of infectious agents.”

Patients should be followed up monthly until three treatments are completed, and a maintenance treatment is considered appropriate between 6 and 12 months. “I do recommend doing a 1-month follow-up following the final treatment, unless it’s a patient who has already had a series of three treatments and is coming in for maintenance,” she said.

In a study from her own practice, Dr. Alexiades evaluated a series of three fractional CO₂ laser treatments to the vulva and vagina with a 1-year follow-up in postmenopausal patients. She used the Vaginal Health Index (VHI) to assess changes in vaginal elasticity, fluid volume, vaginal pH, epithelial integrity, and moisture. She and her colleagues discovered that there was improvement in every VHI category after treatment and during the follow-up interval up to 6 months.

“Between 6 and 12 months, we started to see a return a bit toward baseline on all of these parameters,” she said. “The serendipitous discovery that I made during the course of that study was that early intervention improves outcomes. I observed that the younger, most recently postmenopausal cohort seemed to attain normal or near normal VHI quicker than the more extended postmenopausal cohorts.”

In an editorial published in 2020, Dr. Alexiades reviewed the effects of fractional CO₂ laser treatment of vulvar skin on vaginal pH and referred to a study she conducted that found that the mean baseline pH pretreatment was 6.32 in the cohort of postmenopausal patients, and was reduced after 3 treatments. “Postmenopausally, the normal acidic pH becomes alkaline,” she said. But she did not expect to see an additional reduction in pH following the treatment out to 6 months. “This indicates that, whatever the wound healing and other restorative effects of these devices are, they seem to continue out to 6 months, at which point it turns around and moves toward baseline [levels].”

Dr. Alexiades highlighted two published meta-analyses of studies related to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices. One included 59 studies of 3,609 women treated for vaginal rejuvenation using either radiofrequency or fractional ablative laser therapy. The studies reported improvements in symptoms of GSM/VVA and sexual function, high patient satisfaction, with minor adverse events, including treatment-associated vaginal swelling or vaginal discharge.

“Further research needs to be completed to determine which specific pathologies can be treated, if maintenance treatment is necessary, and long-term safety concerns,” the authors concluded.

In another review, researchers analyzed 64 studies related to vaginal laser therapy for GSM. Of these, 47 were before and after studies without a control group, 10 were controlled intervention studies, and 7 were observational cohort and cross-sectional studies.

Vaginal laser treatment “seems to improve scores on the visual analogue scale, Female Sexual Function Index, and the Vaginal Health Index over the short term,” the authors wrote. “Safety outcomes are underreported and short term. Further well-designed clinical trials with sham-laser control groups and evaluating objective variables are needed to provide the best evidence on efficacy.”

“Lasers and energy-based devices are now considered alternative therapeutic modalities for genitourinary conditions,” Dr. Alexiades concluded. “The shortcomings in the literature with respect to lasers and device treatments demonstrate the need for the consensus on best practices and protocols.”

During a separate presentation at the meeting, Michael Gold, MD, highlighted data from Grand View Research, a market research database, which estimated that the global women’s health and wellness market is valued at more than $31 billion globally and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 4.8% from 2022 to 2030.

“Sales of women’s health energy-based devices continue to grow as new technologies are developed,” said Dr. Gold, a Nashville, Tenn.–based dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon who is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. “Evolving societal norms have made discussions about feminine health issues acceptable. Suffering in silence is no longer necessary or advocated.”

Dr. Alexiades disclosed that she has conducted research for Candela Lasers, Lumenis, Allergan/AbbVie, InMode, and Endymed. She is also the founder and CEO of Macrene Actives. Dr. Gold disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator and a speaker for Joylux, InMode, and Alma Lasers.
 

Carolina Reyes, a Harvard-trained physician who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, got into medicine to help women obtain health care, especially underserved or marginalized people who face systemic racism. She’s seen progress, albeit slow, over three decades, yet the number of maternal deaths each year continues to rise.

Luckily, she’s got the ear of President Joe Biden’s health secretary.

Dr. Reyes, 64, is married to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, who is championing the administration’s initiative to require all states to provide Medicaid coverage to mothers for a year after giving birth. In March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data showing a 40% increase in U.S. maternal deaths from 2020 to 2021. The mortality rate among Black women was 2.6 times that of white women, no matter their economic status.

Over the years, Mr. Becerra has spoken highly of his wife’s expertise, but she downplays her influence, saying her husband of nearly 35 years “had it in him to begin with” to improve health care for women and to demand fewer pregnancy-related deaths. She, too, describes the nation’s high maternal mortality rate as unacceptable and preventable.

Dr. Reyes, a Latina who grew up as one of eight children in California’s agricultural heartland, now practices perinatology at the University of California, Davis. She is a member of a California Department of Public Health panel that reviews cases of maternal deaths and recommends improvements. And she chairs the board of the California Health Care Foundation, a nonprofit that works to increase health care access. (California Healthline is an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.)

Her work has been a blend of medicine and advocacy, and she worries recent federal court rulings will erode hard-fought victories regarding the safety of pregnant women and their babies. She discussed the nation’s maternal health crisis and health care disparities in an interview, which has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: When did you first realize there are disparities in the health care system?

Answer: When I was in high school in the Fresno Unified School District, we were under a consent decree to desegregate. And I was, at the time, student body president at Roosevelt High School. I was asked to be on this unified school district desegregation task force, where the district had to come up with a plan.

It was a time when I really had incredible exposure to how policies are made at a larger level, societal level, that really determine where people live, where they can seek health care, where they go to school. That experience had a tremendous impact on my life in terms of what I wanted to do in a career and how to give back.
 

Q: The U.S. has one of the best health care systems in the world, yet the maternal mortality rate is high compared with other developed countries. Why do think that is?

A. What we know by the CDC and maternal mortality review committees is that about 60% of maternal deaths are considered preventable. And that’s really been a lot of what I’ve tried to focus on: What can we do to reduce the severity of disease? Or what can we do within the role that we play in maternal health that can reduce that?

We know that there are societal issues absolutely that increase women’s risks and there are public health issues. But there’s a role that hospitals play in helping reduce that risk. Ten years ago, I was on the maternal mortality review committee for the state of California when we started reviewing cases of women who died within hospital systems to see, “Is there a role that we can play in a hospital system to reduce that risk?”

We recognized that sometimes there were conditions that were not recognized early enough so that there was a delay in the care. Sometimes there was a misdiagnosis. Or in some hospital systems, especially rural systems where there aren’t as many resources, sometimes there was the lack of specialists available. So, we’ve identified these risks and said, “We can do something about them.”
 

Q: You served on a federal panel 20 years ago that published a groundbreaking report identifying racism in health care. It seems as if we could be much further along.

A. The purpose of that committee was to really answer the question: Do patients receive a different level of care based on race? Looking back, we knew there was something there, but we really didn’t know. And it took months for the committee to come to that agreement, that there was a difference. I mean, that was honestly monumental, because we just didn’t have that level of consensus before. And so just to say “That treatment is unequal and it’s unacceptable” was really profound.

We thought that the 700-page report was going to be a time period where there was going to be tremendous movement, and I think I’ve learned over 20 years that change doesn’t happen quickly, especially when providers and health systems don’t see that they play a role. It’s like … “OK, so maybe it exists, but not for me.”

We all saw George Floyd and how he was treated. And during COVID we saw a tremendous difference in who was dying, right? Underrepresented minorities – certainly much higher. It was that culmination that made us realize the elephant in the room. We can’t ignore that this does exist, that there is a difference in how people are treated, even in our health care system.
 

Q: When addressing racism in health care, you talk about diversifying not just the health care workforce, but also the boardrooms of hospitals and health systems. Why is that important?

A. At the board level, change is hard. But we all play a role because leadership really helps determine much of what’s carried out. So, to have a leadership that is understanding and representative of the communities they serve, I think it has been demonstrated that we do make a difference.

Q: As a health care provider, do you have a wish list of policies you’d like the government to take up?

A. There was tremendous effort around offering preventive health services as a part of what was covered under the Affordable Care Act. And individuals exhaled, finally thinking this is a tremendous win, especially for women in pregnancy. Because we fought for preventive health services to help them have access so they can prepare for their pregnancy. So, for women, this was huge. But now with the Texas federal court ruling that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force didn’t have any authority, it is a tremendous step backward.

We have culturally, linguistically appropriate standards in place, but it’s a matter in terms of how they’re carried out by state and by individual hospital systems. My wish list is that we really do listen to our patients, speak to them in a language of their choice, and provide them written materials in the language of their choice. We don’t fully do that.
 

Q: You mentioned one Texas ruling on the ACA. What’s your take on the ruling by another Texas judge suspending the abortion pill? And the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade?A. As a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who tries to help women plan for pregnancies, those rulings are a tremendous setback.

Q: And what about women of color? Will they find access to abortion services more difficult?

A. Oh, absolutely. When we speak of underrepresented minorities or those with less resources, they have less resources to then seek the appropriate care. Some women may have the opportunity to go to a different state or seek care elsewhere if their state doesn’t provide it. Many women just don’t have those resources to devote to them and don’t have a choice. So, we will see that disparity widen.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Carolina Reyes, a Harvard-trained physician who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, got into medicine to help women obtain health care, especially underserved or marginalized people who face systemic racism. She’s seen progress, albeit slow, over three decades, yet the number of maternal deaths each year continues to rise.

Luckily, she’s got the ear of President Joe Biden’s health secretary.

Dr. Reyes, 64, is married to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, who is championing the administration’s initiative to require all states to provide Medicaid coverage to mothers for a year after giving birth. In March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data showing a 40% increase in U.S. maternal deaths from 2020 to 2021. The mortality rate among Black women was 2.6 times that of white women, no matter their economic status.

Over the years, Mr. Becerra has spoken highly of his wife’s expertise, but she downplays her influence, saying her husband of nearly 35 years “had it in him to begin with” to improve health care for women and to demand fewer pregnancy-related deaths. She, too, describes the nation’s high maternal mortality rate as unacceptable and preventable.

Dr. Reyes, a Latina who grew up as one of eight children in California’s agricultural heartland, now practices perinatology at the University of California, Davis. She is a member of a California Department of Public Health panel that reviews cases of maternal deaths and recommends improvements. And she chairs the board of the California Health Care Foundation, a nonprofit that works to increase health care access. (California Healthline is an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.)

Her work has been a blend of medicine and advocacy, and she worries recent federal court rulings will erode hard-fought victories regarding the safety of pregnant women and their babies. She discussed the nation’s maternal health crisis and health care disparities in an interview, which has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: When did you first realize there are disparities in the health care system?

Answer: When I was in high school in the Fresno Unified School District, we were under a consent decree to desegregate. And I was, at the time, student body president at Roosevelt High School. I was asked to be on this unified school district desegregation task force, where the district had to come up with a plan.

It was a time when I really had incredible exposure to how policies are made at a larger level, societal level, that really determine where people live, where they can seek health care, where they go to school. That experience had a tremendous impact on my life in terms of what I wanted to do in a career and how to give back.
 

Q: The U.S. has one of the best health care systems in the world, yet the maternal mortality rate is high compared with other developed countries. Why do think that is?

A. What we know by the CDC and maternal mortality review committees is that about 60% of maternal deaths are considered preventable. And that’s really been a lot of what I’ve tried to focus on: What can we do to reduce the severity of disease? Or what can we do within the role that we play in maternal health that can reduce that?

We know that there are societal issues absolutely that increase women’s risks and there are public health issues. But there’s a role that hospitals play in helping reduce that risk. Ten years ago, I was on the maternal mortality review committee for the state of California when we started reviewing cases of women who died within hospital systems to see, “Is there a role that we can play in a hospital system to reduce that risk?”

We recognized that sometimes there were conditions that were not recognized early enough so that there was a delay in the care. Sometimes there was a misdiagnosis. Or in some hospital systems, especially rural systems where there aren’t as many resources, sometimes there was the lack of specialists available. So, we’ve identified these risks and said, “We can do something about them.”
 

Q: You served on a federal panel 20 years ago that published a groundbreaking report identifying racism in health care. It seems as if we could be much further along.

A. The purpose of that committee was to really answer the question: Do patients receive a different level of care based on race? Looking back, we knew there was something there, but we really didn’t know. And it took months for the committee to come to that agreement, that there was a difference. I mean, that was honestly monumental, because we just didn’t have that level of consensus before. And so just to say “That treatment is unequal and it’s unacceptable” was really profound.

We thought that the 700-page report was going to be a time period where there was going to be tremendous movement, and I think I’ve learned over 20 years that change doesn’t happen quickly, especially when providers and health systems don’t see that they play a role. It’s like … “OK, so maybe it exists, but not for me.”

We all saw George Floyd and how he was treated. And during COVID we saw a tremendous difference in who was dying, right? Underrepresented minorities – certainly much higher. It was that culmination that made us realize the elephant in the room. We can’t ignore that this does exist, that there is a difference in how people are treated, even in our health care system.
 

Q: When addressing racism in health care, you talk about diversifying not just the health care workforce, but also the boardrooms of hospitals and health systems. Why is that important?

A. At the board level, change is hard. But we all play a role because leadership really helps determine much of what’s carried out. So, to have a leadership that is understanding and representative of the communities they serve, I think it has been demonstrated that we do make a difference.

Q: As a health care provider, do you have a wish list of policies you’d like the government to take up?

A. There was tremendous effort around offering preventive health services as a part of what was covered under the Affordable Care Act. And individuals exhaled, finally thinking this is a tremendous win, especially for women in pregnancy. Because we fought for preventive health services to help them have access so they can prepare for their pregnancy. So, for women, this was huge. But now with the Texas federal court ruling that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force didn’t have any authority, it is a tremendous step backward.

We have culturally, linguistically appropriate standards in place, but it’s a matter in terms of how they’re carried out by state and by individual hospital systems. My wish list is that we really do listen to our patients, speak to them in a language of their choice, and provide them written materials in the language of their choice. We don’t fully do that.
 

Q: You mentioned one Texas ruling on the ACA. What’s your take on the ruling by another Texas judge suspending the abortion pill? And the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade?A. As a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who tries to help women plan for pregnancies, those rulings are a tremendous setback.

Q: And what about women of color? Will they find access to abortion services more difficult?

A. Oh, absolutely. When we speak of underrepresented minorities or those with less resources, they have less resources to then seek the appropriate care. Some women may have the opportunity to go to a different state or seek care elsewhere if their state doesn’t provide it. Many women just don’t have those resources to devote to them and don’t have a choice. So, we will see that disparity widen.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Carolina Reyes, a Harvard-trained physician who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, got into medicine to help women obtain health care, especially underserved or marginalized people who face systemic racism. She’s seen progress, albeit slow, over three decades, yet the number of maternal deaths each year continues to rise.

Luckily, she’s got the ear of President Joe Biden’s health secretary.

Dr. Reyes, 64, is married to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, who is championing the administration’s initiative to require all states to provide Medicaid coverage to mothers for a year after giving birth. In March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data showing a 40% increase in U.S. maternal deaths from 2020 to 2021. The mortality rate among Black women was 2.6 times that of white women, no matter their economic status.

Over the years, Mr. Becerra has spoken highly of his wife’s expertise, but she downplays her influence, saying her husband of nearly 35 years “had it in him to begin with” to improve health care for women and to demand fewer pregnancy-related deaths. She, too, describes the nation’s high maternal mortality rate as unacceptable and preventable.

Dr. Reyes, a Latina who grew up as one of eight children in California’s agricultural heartland, now practices perinatology at the University of California, Davis. She is a member of a California Department of Public Health panel that reviews cases of maternal deaths and recommends improvements. And she chairs the board of the California Health Care Foundation, a nonprofit that works to increase health care access. (California Healthline is an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.)

Her work has been a blend of medicine and advocacy, and she worries recent federal court rulings will erode hard-fought victories regarding the safety of pregnant women and their babies. She discussed the nation’s maternal health crisis and health care disparities in an interview, which has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: When did you first realize there are disparities in the health care system?

Answer: When I was in high school in the Fresno Unified School District, we were under a consent decree to desegregate. And I was, at the time, student body president at Roosevelt High School. I was asked to be on this unified school district desegregation task force, where the district had to come up with a plan.

It was a time when I really had incredible exposure to how policies are made at a larger level, societal level, that really determine where people live, where they can seek health care, where they go to school. That experience had a tremendous impact on my life in terms of what I wanted to do in a career and how to give back.
 

Q: The U.S. has one of the best health care systems in the world, yet the maternal mortality rate is high compared with other developed countries. Why do think that is?

A. What we know by the CDC and maternal mortality review committees is that about 60% of maternal deaths are considered preventable. And that’s really been a lot of what I’ve tried to focus on: What can we do to reduce the severity of disease? Or what can we do within the role that we play in maternal health that can reduce that?

We know that there are societal issues absolutely that increase women’s risks and there are public health issues. But there’s a role that hospitals play in helping reduce that risk. Ten years ago, I was on the maternal mortality review committee for the state of California when we started reviewing cases of women who died within hospital systems to see, “Is there a role that we can play in a hospital system to reduce that risk?”

We recognized that sometimes there were conditions that were not recognized early enough so that there was a delay in the care. Sometimes there was a misdiagnosis. Or in some hospital systems, especially rural systems where there aren’t as many resources, sometimes there was the lack of specialists available. So, we’ve identified these risks and said, “We can do something about them.”
 

Q: You served on a federal panel 20 years ago that published a groundbreaking report identifying racism in health care. It seems as if we could be much further along.

A. The purpose of that committee was to really answer the question: Do patients receive a different level of care based on race? Looking back, we knew there was something there, but we really didn’t know. And it took months for the committee to come to that agreement, that there was a difference. I mean, that was honestly monumental, because we just didn’t have that level of consensus before. And so just to say “That treatment is unequal and it’s unacceptable” was really profound.

We thought that the 700-page report was going to be a time period where there was going to be tremendous movement, and I think I’ve learned over 20 years that change doesn’t happen quickly, especially when providers and health systems don’t see that they play a role. It’s like … “OK, so maybe it exists, but not for me.”

We all saw George Floyd and how he was treated. And during COVID we saw a tremendous difference in who was dying, right? Underrepresented minorities – certainly much higher. It was that culmination that made us realize the elephant in the room. We can’t ignore that this does exist, that there is a difference in how people are treated, even in our health care system.
 

Q: When addressing racism in health care, you talk about diversifying not just the health care workforce, but also the boardrooms of hospitals and health systems. Why is that important?

A. At the board level, change is hard. But we all play a role because leadership really helps determine much of what’s carried out. So, to have a leadership that is understanding and representative of the communities they serve, I think it has been demonstrated that we do make a difference.

Q: As a health care provider, do you have a wish list of policies you’d like the government to take up?

A. There was tremendous effort around offering preventive health services as a part of what was covered under the Affordable Care Act. And individuals exhaled, finally thinking this is a tremendous win, especially for women in pregnancy. Because we fought for preventive health services to help them have access so they can prepare for their pregnancy. So, for women, this was huge. But now with the Texas federal court ruling that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force didn’t have any authority, it is a tremendous step backward.

We have culturally, linguistically appropriate standards in place, but it’s a matter in terms of how they’re carried out by state and by individual hospital systems. My wish list is that we really do listen to our patients, speak to them in a language of their choice, and provide them written materials in the language of their choice. We don’t fully do that.
 

Q: You mentioned one Texas ruling on the ACA. What’s your take on the ruling by another Texas judge suspending the abortion pill? And the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade?A. As a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who tries to help women plan for pregnancies, those rulings are a tremendous setback.

Q: And what about women of color? Will they find access to abortion services more difficult?

A. Oh, absolutely. When we speak of underrepresented minorities or those with less resources, they have less resources to then seek the appropriate care. Some women may have the opportunity to go to a different state or seek care elsewhere if their state doesn’t provide it. Many women just don’t have those resources to devote to them and don’t have a choice. So, we will see that disparity widen.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

CHICAGO – Wireless tibial neurostimulation devices that are implanted to treat urinary incontinence appear to be effective at reducing the urge to void, according to new findings presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

As many as half of women in the United States aged 60 and older will experience urinary incontinence. Of those, roughly one in four experience urge urinary incontinence, marked by a sudden need to void that cannot be fully suppressed.

Researchers studied the benefits of the RENOVA iStim (BlueWind Medical) implantable tibial neuromodulation system for the treatment of overactive bladder in the OASIS trial.

Study investigator Roger R. Dmochowski, MD, MMHC, professor of urology and surgery and associate surgeon-in-chief at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said the first-line treatment of urinary incontinence is lifestyle changes to retrain the bladder or physical therapy, including pelvic floor and Kegel exercises, per AUA guidelines. He said the success rate is about 30% and is not sustained. Second-line treatments include medications, which most (60%) patients stop taking by 6 months.

More than three-quarters of the 151 women who received the device responded to therapy at 1 year, and 84.6% of the patients showed improvement, according to Dr. Dmochowski.

The participants (mean age, 58.8) demonstrated a mean baseline of 4.8 urge incidents per day (standard deviation, 2.9) and 10 voids/day (SD, 3.3). No device or procedure-related serious adverse events were reported at 12 months. Half of the women no longer had symptoms on three consecutive days, Dr. Dmochowski said.

Because urge urinary incontinence is a chronic condition, “treatment with the BlueWind System will be ongoing, with frequency determined based on the patient’s response,” Dr. Dmochowski said. “The patient is then empowered to control when and where they perform therapy.”

“The device is activated by the external wearable. It’s like an on-off switch. It has a receiver within it that basically has the capacity to be turned on and off by the wearable, which is the control device. The device is in an off-position until the wearable is applied,” he said.

He said the device should be worn twice a day for about 20 minutes, with many patients using it less.

Only one implanted tibial neuromodulation device has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration – eCOIN (Valencia Technologies). The RENOVA iStim is an investigational device under review by the FDA, Dr. Dmochowski said.

In installing the device, Dr. Dmochowski said urologists use a subfascial technique to enable direct visualization of the tibial nerve and suture fixation that increases the possibility of a predictable placement. Patients use an external wearable, which activates the implant, without concern for battery longevity or replacement.

“This therapy is not associated with any adverse effects and may be beneficial for patients who do not respond to other treatments for OAB such as medications or Botox,” said Carol E. Bretschneider, MD, a urogynecologic and pelvic surgeon at Northwestern Medicine Central DuPage Hospital, outside Chicago. “Neurostimulators can be a great advanced therapy option for patients who do not respond to more conservative treatments or cannot take or tolerate a medication.”

The devices do not stimulate or strengthen muscles but act by modulating the reflexes that influence the bladder, sphincter, and pelvic floor, added Dr. Bretschneider, who was not involved in the study.

Other treatments for urge incontinence can include acupuncture, or percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, to target the posterior tibial nerve in the ankle, which shares the same nerve root that controls the bladder, according to Aron Liaw, MD, a reconstructive urologist and assistant professor of urology at Wayne State University in Detroit. This treatment has been shown to be at least as effective as available medications, but with fewer side effects, he said.

But regular stimulation is necessary to achieve and preserve efficacy, he said.

Dr. Liaw, who was not involved in the neuromodulation study, said the benefits of a device like Renova iStim are that implantation is relatively easy and can be performed in office settings, and patients can then treat themselves at home. However, because the new study did not compare the device to other treatments or a placebo device, its relative benefits are unclear, he said,

Other treatments for urge urinary incontinence, such as bladder Botox and sacral neuromodulation, also are minimally invasive and have proven benefit, “so a device like this could well be less effective with little other advantage,” he said.

“Lifestyle changes can make a big difference, but making big lifestyle changes is not always easy,” added Dr. Liaw. “I have found neuromodulation [to be] very effective, especially in conjunction with lifestyle changes.”

BlueWind Medical funds the OASIS trial. Dr. Dmochowski reported he received no grants nor has any relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bretschneider and Dr. Liaw report no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CHICAGO – Wireless tibial neurostimulation devices that are implanted to treat urinary incontinence appear to be effective at reducing the urge to void, according to new findings presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

As many as half of women in the United States aged 60 and older will experience urinary incontinence. Of those, roughly one in four experience urge urinary incontinence, marked by a sudden need to void that cannot be fully suppressed.

Researchers studied the benefits of the RENOVA iStim (BlueWind Medical) implantable tibial neuromodulation system for the treatment of overactive bladder in the OASIS trial.

Study investigator Roger R. Dmochowski, MD, MMHC, professor of urology and surgery and associate surgeon-in-chief at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said the first-line treatment of urinary incontinence is lifestyle changes to retrain the bladder or physical therapy, including pelvic floor and Kegel exercises, per AUA guidelines. He said the success rate is about 30% and is not sustained. Second-line treatments include medications, which most (60%) patients stop taking by 6 months.

More than three-quarters of the 151 women who received the device responded to therapy at 1 year, and 84.6% of the patients showed improvement, according to Dr. Dmochowski.

The participants (mean age, 58.8) demonstrated a mean baseline of 4.8 urge incidents per day (standard deviation, 2.9) and 10 voids/day (SD, 3.3). No device or procedure-related serious adverse events were reported at 12 months. Half of the women no longer had symptoms on three consecutive days, Dr. Dmochowski said.

Because urge urinary incontinence is a chronic condition, “treatment with the BlueWind System will be ongoing, with frequency determined based on the patient’s response,” Dr. Dmochowski said. “The patient is then empowered to control when and where they perform therapy.”

“The device is activated by the external wearable. It’s like an on-off switch. It has a receiver within it that basically has the capacity to be turned on and off by the wearable, which is the control device. The device is in an off-position until the wearable is applied,” he said.

He said the device should be worn twice a day for about 20 minutes, with many patients using it less.

Only one implanted tibial neuromodulation device has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration – eCOIN (Valencia Technologies). The RENOVA iStim is an investigational device under review by the FDA, Dr. Dmochowski said.

In installing the device, Dr. Dmochowski said urologists use a subfascial technique to enable direct visualization of the tibial nerve and suture fixation that increases the possibility of a predictable placement. Patients use an external wearable, which activates the implant, without concern for battery longevity or replacement.

“This therapy is not associated with any adverse effects and may be beneficial for patients who do not respond to other treatments for OAB such as medications or Botox,” said Carol E. Bretschneider, MD, a urogynecologic and pelvic surgeon at Northwestern Medicine Central DuPage Hospital, outside Chicago. “Neurostimulators can be a great advanced therapy option for patients who do not respond to more conservative treatments or cannot take or tolerate a medication.”

The devices do not stimulate or strengthen muscles but act by modulating the reflexes that influence the bladder, sphincter, and pelvic floor, added Dr. Bretschneider, who was not involved in the study.

Other treatments for urge incontinence can include acupuncture, or percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, to target the posterior tibial nerve in the ankle, which shares the same nerve root that controls the bladder, according to Aron Liaw, MD, a reconstructive urologist and assistant professor of urology at Wayne State University in Detroit. This treatment has been shown to be at least as effective as available medications, but with fewer side effects, he said.

But regular stimulation is necessary to achieve and preserve efficacy, he said.

Dr. Liaw, who was not involved in the neuromodulation study, said the benefits of a device like Renova iStim are that implantation is relatively easy and can be performed in office settings, and patients can then treat themselves at home. However, because the new study did not compare the device to other treatments or a placebo device, its relative benefits are unclear, he said,

Other treatments for urge urinary incontinence, such as bladder Botox and sacral neuromodulation, also are minimally invasive and have proven benefit, “so a device like this could well be less effective with little other advantage,” he said.

“Lifestyle changes can make a big difference, but making big lifestyle changes is not always easy,” added Dr. Liaw. “I have found neuromodulation [to be] very effective, especially in conjunction with lifestyle changes.”

BlueWind Medical funds the OASIS trial. Dr. Dmochowski reported he received no grants nor has any relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bretschneider and Dr. Liaw report no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CHICAGO – Wireless tibial neurostimulation devices that are implanted to treat urinary incontinence appear to be effective at reducing the urge to void, according to new findings presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

As many as half of women in the United States aged 60 and older will experience urinary incontinence. Of those, roughly one in four experience urge urinary incontinence, marked by a sudden need to void that cannot be fully suppressed.

Researchers studied the benefits of the RENOVA iStim (BlueWind Medical) implantable tibial neuromodulation system for the treatment of overactive bladder in the OASIS trial.

Study investigator Roger R. Dmochowski, MD, MMHC, professor of urology and surgery and associate surgeon-in-chief at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said the first-line treatment of urinary incontinence is lifestyle changes to retrain the bladder or physical therapy, including pelvic floor and Kegel exercises, per AUA guidelines. He said the success rate is about 30% and is not sustained. Second-line treatments include medications, which most (60%) patients stop taking by 6 months.

More than three-quarters of the 151 women who received the device responded to therapy at 1 year, and 84.6% of the patients showed improvement, according to Dr. Dmochowski.

The participants (mean age, 58.8) demonstrated a mean baseline of 4.8 urge incidents per day (standard deviation, 2.9) and 10 voids/day (SD, 3.3). No device or procedure-related serious adverse events were reported at 12 months. Half of the women no longer had symptoms on three consecutive days, Dr. Dmochowski said.

Because urge urinary incontinence is a chronic condition, “treatment with the BlueWind System will be ongoing, with frequency determined based on the patient’s response,” Dr. Dmochowski said. “The patient is then empowered to control when and where they perform therapy.”

“The device is activated by the external wearable. It’s like an on-off switch. It has a receiver within it that basically has the capacity to be turned on and off by the wearable, which is the control device. The device is in an off-position until the wearable is applied,” he said.

He said the device should be worn twice a day for about 20 minutes, with many patients using it less.

Only one implanted tibial neuromodulation device has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration – eCOIN (Valencia Technologies). The RENOVA iStim is an investigational device under review by the FDA, Dr. Dmochowski said.

In installing the device, Dr. Dmochowski said urologists use a subfascial technique to enable direct visualization of the tibial nerve and suture fixation that increases the possibility of a predictable placement. Patients use an external wearable, which activates the implant, without concern for battery longevity or replacement.

“This therapy is not associated with any adverse effects and may be beneficial for patients who do not respond to other treatments for OAB such as medications or Botox,” said Carol E. Bretschneider, MD, a urogynecologic and pelvic surgeon at Northwestern Medicine Central DuPage Hospital, outside Chicago. “Neurostimulators can be a great advanced therapy option for patients who do not respond to more conservative treatments or cannot take or tolerate a medication.”

The devices do not stimulate or strengthen muscles but act by modulating the reflexes that influence the bladder, sphincter, and pelvic floor, added Dr. Bretschneider, who was not involved in the study.

Other treatments for urge incontinence can include acupuncture, or percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, to target the posterior tibial nerve in the ankle, which shares the same nerve root that controls the bladder, according to Aron Liaw, MD, a reconstructive urologist and assistant professor of urology at Wayne State University in Detroit. This treatment has been shown to be at least as effective as available medications, but with fewer side effects, he said.

But regular stimulation is necessary to achieve and preserve efficacy, he said.

Dr. Liaw, who was not involved in the neuromodulation study, said the benefits of a device like Renova iStim are that implantation is relatively easy and can be performed in office settings, and patients can then treat themselves at home. However, because the new study did not compare the device to other treatments or a placebo device, its relative benefits are unclear, he said,

Other treatments for urge urinary incontinence, such as bladder Botox and sacral neuromodulation, also are minimally invasive and have proven benefit, “so a device like this could well be less effective with little other advantage,” he said.

“Lifestyle changes can make a big difference, but making big lifestyle changes is not always easy,” added Dr. Liaw. “I have found neuromodulation [to be] very effective, especially in conjunction with lifestyle changes.”

BlueWind Medical funds the OASIS trial. Dr. Dmochowski reported he received no grants nor has any relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bretschneider and Dr. Liaw report no relevant financial relationships.
 

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