User login
Misoprostol only for abortion: Viable option but not ‘the best’
With a federal judge’s recent ruling clouding the future availability of mifepristone for terminating pregnancies, attention has shifted to the efficacy of another abortion drug, misoprostol.
A misoprostol-only approach also comes with more pronounced side effects.
“Misoprostol only is a good alternative; it’s not the best alternative,” Beverly Gray, MD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and Gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said during a video conference on April 12. “The best medication would be to use mifepristone and misoprostol together because they’re efficacious with fewer side effects.”
To medically terminate a pregnancy using the two-drug regimen, patients first take the progesterone blocker mifepristone, which ends the pregnancy. That is followed 24-48 hours later with misoprostol, which causes the uterus to expel the pregnancy tissue. Used in combination, the two drugs have an efficacy rate of 98% in terminating a pregnancy.
An alternative approach is a misoprostol-only regimen. Patients take multiple doses of the drug over the course of hours until the pregnancy passes. This method is considered effective and safe, although patients may experience more nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding, and cramping.
“It’s effective, but not as effective as the combination treatment,” said Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at University of California, Davis. “It also requires much higher doses. To get misoprostol by itself to have relatively high efficacy, you have to use multiple doses. It causes significantly more side effects, and it’s less effective.”
Dr. Creinin was part of a team that earlier this year conducted a study of misoprostol-only medical abortions. In that study, which was published in the journal Contraception, the investigators found that the misoprostol-only regimen was 78% effective at aborting completely without a procedure or unplanned additional medications. The investigators concluded that prohibiting the use of mifepristone was “senseless” but that offering misoprostol-only abortions would be a “safe, effective, and patient-centered approach.”
Both drug regimens are intended to be used during the first trimester of pregnancy, and their effectiveness is influenced by the gestation period.
Medical abortions have grown in popularity. They now account for more than half of all abortions. Last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned the court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, leaving it up to states to regulate abortion. Currently, nearly half of states have banned or are considering some sort of ban on the procedure, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health advocacy group.
“Medication abortion is good for privacy in many ways,” Jolynn Dellinger, JD, a visiting lecturer at Duke Law School, said during the conference call with Dr. Gray. “It’s incredibly safe and effective and can be the very best choice for people.”
On April 7, a federal judge in Texas suspended the Food and Drug Administration approval of mifepristone. The drug has been on the market for 23 years. A federal judge in Washington State issued a competing ruling, and the Biden Administration has appealed the Texas decision.
The future of the use of mifepristone is now in the courts, but not that of misoprostol – for now. The latter is used to prevent ulcers; its use in medical abortions is secondary. Dr. Creinin said that that will make it much more difficult for antiabortion advocates to challenge.
While courts, lawmakers, and regulators at the state and federal levels work through what is allowable for medical abortions, the medical community sits and waits.
“We’re working out a variety of scenarios,” Dr. Gray said. “I think right now we’re just hoping that the legislative dust will settle enough so that we’ll have a better understanding. In the meantime, we’re creating protocols and trying to be as prepared as we can.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With a federal judge’s recent ruling clouding the future availability of mifepristone for terminating pregnancies, attention has shifted to the efficacy of another abortion drug, misoprostol.
A misoprostol-only approach also comes with more pronounced side effects.
“Misoprostol only is a good alternative; it’s not the best alternative,” Beverly Gray, MD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and Gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said during a video conference on April 12. “The best medication would be to use mifepristone and misoprostol together because they’re efficacious with fewer side effects.”
To medically terminate a pregnancy using the two-drug regimen, patients first take the progesterone blocker mifepristone, which ends the pregnancy. That is followed 24-48 hours later with misoprostol, which causes the uterus to expel the pregnancy tissue. Used in combination, the two drugs have an efficacy rate of 98% in terminating a pregnancy.
An alternative approach is a misoprostol-only regimen. Patients take multiple doses of the drug over the course of hours until the pregnancy passes. This method is considered effective and safe, although patients may experience more nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding, and cramping.
“It’s effective, but not as effective as the combination treatment,” said Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at University of California, Davis. “It also requires much higher doses. To get misoprostol by itself to have relatively high efficacy, you have to use multiple doses. It causes significantly more side effects, and it’s less effective.”
Dr. Creinin was part of a team that earlier this year conducted a study of misoprostol-only medical abortions. In that study, which was published in the journal Contraception, the investigators found that the misoprostol-only regimen was 78% effective at aborting completely without a procedure or unplanned additional medications. The investigators concluded that prohibiting the use of mifepristone was “senseless” but that offering misoprostol-only abortions would be a “safe, effective, and patient-centered approach.”
Both drug regimens are intended to be used during the first trimester of pregnancy, and their effectiveness is influenced by the gestation period.
Medical abortions have grown in popularity. They now account for more than half of all abortions. Last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned the court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, leaving it up to states to regulate abortion. Currently, nearly half of states have banned or are considering some sort of ban on the procedure, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health advocacy group.
“Medication abortion is good for privacy in many ways,” Jolynn Dellinger, JD, a visiting lecturer at Duke Law School, said during the conference call with Dr. Gray. “It’s incredibly safe and effective and can be the very best choice for people.”
On April 7, a federal judge in Texas suspended the Food and Drug Administration approval of mifepristone. The drug has been on the market for 23 years. A federal judge in Washington State issued a competing ruling, and the Biden Administration has appealed the Texas decision.
The future of the use of mifepristone is now in the courts, but not that of misoprostol – for now. The latter is used to prevent ulcers; its use in medical abortions is secondary. Dr. Creinin said that that will make it much more difficult for antiabortion advocates to challenge.
While courts, lawmakers, and regulators at the state and federal levels work through what is allowable for medical abortions, the medical community sits and waits.
“We’re working out a variety of scenarios,” Dr. Gray said. “I think right now we’re just hoping that the legislative dust will settle enough so that we’ll have a better understanding. In the meantime, we’re creating protocols and trying to be as prepared as we can.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With a federal judge’s recent ruling clouding the future availability of mifepristone for terminating pregnancies, attention has shifted to the efficacy of another abortion drug, misoprostol.
A misoprostol-only approach also comes with more pronounced side effects.
“Misoprostol only is a good alternative; it’s not the best alternative,” Beverly Gray, MD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and Gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said during a video conference on April 12. “The best medication would be to use mifepristone and misoprostol together because they’re efficacious with fewer side effects.”
To medically terminate a pregnancy using the two-drug regimen, patients first take the progesterone blocker mifepristone, which ends the pregnancy. That is followed 24-48 hours later with misoprostol, which causes the uterus to expel the pregnancy tissue. Used in combination, the two drugs have an efficacy rate of 98% in terminating a pregnancy.
An alternative approach is a misoprostol-only regimen. Patients take multiple doses of the drug over the course of hours until the pregnancy passes. This method is considered effective and safe, although patients may experience more nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding, and cramping.
“It’s effective, but not as effective as the combination treatment,” said Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at University of California, Davis. “It also requires much higher doses. To get misoprostol by itself to have relatively high efficacy, you have to use multiple doses. It causes significantly more side effects, and it’s less effective.”
Dr. Creinin was part of a team that earlier this year conducted a study of misoprostol-only medical abortions. In that study, which was published in the journal Contraception, the investigators found that the misoprostol-only regimen was 78% effective at aborting completely without a procedure or unplanned additional medications. The investigators concluded that prohibiting the use of mifepristone was “senseless” but that offering misoprostol-only abortions would be a “safe, effective, and patient-centered approach.”
Both drug regimens are intended to be used during the first trimester of pregnancy, and their effectiveness is influenced by the gestation period.
Medical abortions have grown in popularity. They now account for more than half of all abortions. Last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned the court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, leaving it up to states to regulate abortion. Currently, nearly half of states have banned or are considering some sort of ban on the procedure, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health advocacy group.
“Medication abortion is good for privacy in many ways,” Jolynn Dellinger, JD, a visiting lecturer at Duke Law School, said during the conference call with Dr. Gray. “It’s incredibly safe and effective and can be the very best choice for people.”
On April 7, a federal judge in Texas suspended the Food and Drug Administration approval of mifepristone. The drug has been on the market for 23 years. A federal judge in Washington State issued a competing ruling, and the Biden Administration has appealed the Texas decision.
The future of the use of mifepristone is now in the courts, but not that of misoprostol – for now. The latter is used to prevent ulcers; its use in medical abortions is secondary. Dr. Creinin said that that will make it much more difficult for antiabortion advocates to challenge.
While courts, lawmakers, and regulators at the state and federal levels work through what is allowable for medical abortions, the medical community sits and waits.
“We’re working out a variety of scenarios,” Dr. Gray said. “I think right now we’re just hoping that the legislative dust will settle enough so that we’ll have a better understanding. In the meantime, we’re creating protocols and trying to be as prepared as we can.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaginal microbiome does not affect infant gut microbiome
The findings suggest that practices such as vaginal seeding are ineffective.
A longitudinal, prospective cohort study of more than 600 pregnant Canadian women and their newborns showed significant differences in an infant’s stool composition by delivery mode at 10 days post partum, but the differences could not be explained by the mother’s vaginal microbiome, and they effectively disappeared by 3 months.
The findings were surprising, Scott Dos Santos, a PhD candidate at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, told this news organization. “The bacteria living in the maternal vagina are the first microbes that vaginally delivered infants are exposed to. … so it sounds intuitive that different kinds of vaginal microbiomes could end up influencing the development of a baby’s gut microbiome in different ways. But the maternal vaginal microbiome didn’t seem to have any role in predicting what the infant stool microbiome looked like.”
Therefore, women should not be concerned about cesarean delivery having an adverse effect on their baby’s gut microbiome, said Mr. Dos Santos. Moreover, “vaginal seeding is not safe or advised. Professional bodies, including the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, strongly advise against this practice.”
The study was published online in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology.
Independent communities
The investigators analyzed vaginal and stool microbiome profiles from 442 mother-infant dyads. The mothers were healthy, low-risk women who delivered at term. They were recruited into the Maternal Microbiome LEGACY Project from three hospitals in British Columbia.
The mean age of the mothers at delivery was 34.6 years, which is typical of the study hospitals’ delivery populations. Participants identified themselves as White (54.7%), Asian (21.2%), South Asian (8.3%), and of other ethnicities.
A nurse, midwife, or clinician collected maternal vaginal swabs of the posterior fornix and lateral vaginal wall at first presentation to the labor and delivery area. Neonatal meconium, which was defined as the first stool specimen collected within 72 hours of birth, and two infant stool samples were collected at follow-up visits at 10 days and 3 months post partum.
A principal component analysis of infant stool microbiomes showed no significant clustering of microbiome profiles at 10 days or 3 months by maternal community state types (that is, microbial species).
Correspondence analyses also showed no coclustering of maternal and infant clusters at either time. In addition, there were no differences in the distribution of maternal vaginal microbiome clusters among infant stool microbiome clusters, regardless of delivery mode.
Vaginal microbiome clusters were distributed across infant stool clusters in proportion to their frequency in the overall maternal population, indicating that the two communities were independent of each other.
Intrapartum antibiotic administration was identified as a confounder of infant stool microbiome differences and was associated with lower abundances of Escherichia coli, Bacteroides vulgatus, Bifidobacterium longum, and Parabacteroides distasonis.
“Our findings demonstrate that maternal vaginal microbiome composition at delivery does not affect infant stool microbiome composition and development, suggesting that practices to amend infant stool microbiome composition focus on factors other than maternal vaginal microbes,” the authors conclude.
More evidence needed
Commenting on the study, Emily H. Adhikari, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and medical director of perinatal infectious diseases for the Parkland Health and Hospital System, said, “These findings contribute significantly more data to an understudied area of research into factors that affect the infant gut microbiome from the earliest hours of life. Prior studies have been small and often conflicting, and the authors reference recent larger studies, which corroborate their findings.”
The data regarding whether delivery mode or antibiotic-associated differences in infant microbiomes persist remain controversial, said Dr. Adhikari. “More evidence is needed involving a more ethnically diverse sampling of patients.” In addition, prospectively evaluating vaginal seeding in a rigorously designed clinical trial setting is “imperative to understand any potential benefit and certainly to understand the potential harms of the practice. To date, this does not exist.”
The study was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant. Mr. Dos Santos and Dr. Adhikari have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings suggest that practices such as vaginal seeding are ineffective.
A longitudinal, prospective cohort study of more than 600 pregnant Canadian women and their newborns showed significant differences in an infant’s stool composition by delivery mode at 10 days post partum, but the differences could not be explained by the mother’s vaginal microbiome, and they effectively disappeared by 3 months.
The findings were surprising, Scott Dos Santos, a PhD candidate at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, told this news organization. “The bacteria living in the maternal vagina are the first microbes that vaginally delivered infants are exposed to. … so it sounds intuitive that different kinds of vaginal microbiomes could end up influencing the development of a baby’s gut microbiome in different ways. But the maternal vaginal microbiome didn’t seem to have any role in predicting what the infant stool microbiome looked like.”
Therefore, women should not be concerned about cesarean delivery having an adverse effect on their baby’s gut microbiome, said Mr. Dos Santos. Moreover, “vaginal seeding is not safe or advised. Professional bodies, including the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, strongly advise against this practice.”
The study was published online in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology.
Independent communities
The investigators analyzed vaginal and stool microbiome profiles from 442 mother-infant dyads. The mothers were healthy, low-risk women who delivered at term. They were recruited into the Maternal Microbiome LEGACY Project from three hospitals in British Columbia.
The mean age of the mothers at delivery was 34.6 years, which is typical of the study hospitals’ delivery populations. Participants identified themselves as White (54.7%), Asian (21.2%), South Asian (8.3%), and of other ethnicities.
A nurse, midwife, or clinician collected maternal vaginal swabs of the posterior fornix and lateral vaginal wall at first presentation to the labor and delivery area. Neonatal meconium, which was defined as the first stool specimen collected within 72 hours of birth, and two infant stool samples were collected at follow-up visits at 10 days and 3 months post partum.
A principal component analysis of infant stool microbiomes showed no significant clustering of microbiome profiles at 10 days or 3 months by maternal community state types (that is, microbial species).
Correspondence analyses also showed no coclustering of maternal and infant clusters at either time. In addition, there were no differences in the distribution of maternal vaginal microbiome clusters among infant stool microbiome clusters, regardless of delivery mode.
Vaginal microbiome clusters were distributed across infant stool clusters in proportion to their frequency in the overall maternal population, indicating that the two communities were independent of each other.
Intrapartum antibiotic administration was identified as a confounder of infant stool microbiome differences and was associated with lower abundances of Escherichia coli, Bacteroides vulgatus, Bifidobacterium longum, and Parabacteroides distasonis.
“Our findings demonstrate that maternal vaginal microbiome composition at delivery does not affect infant stool microbiome composition and development, suggesting that practices to amend infant stool microbiome composition focus on factors other than maternal vaginal microbes,” the authors conclude.
More evidence needed
Commenting on the study, Emily H. Adhikari, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and medical director of perinatal infectious diseases for the Parkland Health and Hospital System, said, “These findings contribute significantly more data to an understudied area of research into factors that affect the infant gut microbiome from the earliest hours of life. Prior studies have been small and often conflicting, and the authors reference recent larger studies, which corroborate their findings.”
The data regarding whether delivery mode or antibiotic-associated differences in infant microbiomes persist remain controversial, said Dr. Adhikari. “More evidence is needed involving a more ethnically diverse sampling of patients.” In addition, prospectively evaluating vaginal seeding in a rigorously designed clinical trial setting is “imperative to understand any potential benefit and certainly to understand the potential harms of the practice. To date, this does not exist.”
The study was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant. Mr. Dos Santos and Dr. Adhikari have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings suggest that practices such as vaginal seeding are ineffective.
A longitudinal, prospective cohort study of more than 600 pregnant Canadian women and their newborns showed significant differences in an infant’s stool composition by delivery mode at 10 days post partum, but the differences could not be explained by the mother’s vaginal microbiome, and they effectively disappeared by 3 months.
The findings were surprising, Scott Dos Santos, a PhD candidate at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, told this news organization. “The bacteria living in the maternal vagina are the first microbes that vaginally delivered infants are exposed to. … so it sounds intuitive that different kinds of vaginal microbiomes could end up influencing the development of a baby’s gut microbiome in different ways. But the maternal vaginal microbiome didn’t seem to have any role in predicting what the infant stool microbiome looked like.”
Therefore, women should not be concerned about cesarean delivery having an adverse effect on their baby’s gut microbiome, said Mr. Dos Santos. Moreover, “vaginal seeding is not safe or advised. Professional bodies, including the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, strongly advise against this practice.”
The study was published online in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology.
Independent communities
The investigators analyzed vaginal and stool microbiome profiles from 442 mother-infant dyads. The mothers were healthy, low-risk women who delivered at term. They were recruited into the Maternal Microbiome LEGACY Project from three hospitals in British Columbia.
The mean age of the mothers at delivery was 34.6 years, which is typical of the study hospitals’ delivery populations. Participants identified themselves as White (54.7%), Asian (21.2%), South Asian (8.3%), and of other ethnicities.
A nurse, midwife, or clinician collected maternal vaginal swabs of the posterior fornix and lateral vaginal wall at first presentation to the labor and delivery area. Neonatal meconium, which was defined as the first stool specimen collected within 72 hours of birth, and two infant stool samples were collected at follow-up visits at 10 days and 3 months post partum.
A principal component analysis of infant stool microbiomes showed no significant clustering of microbiome profiles at 10 days or 3 months by maternal community state types (that is, microbial species).
Correspondence analyses also showed no coclustering of maternal and infant clusters at either time. In addition, there were no differences in the distribution of maternal vaginal microbiome clusters among infant stool microbiome clusters, regardless of delivery mode.
Vaginal microbiome clusters were distributed across infant stool clusters in proportion to their frequency in the overall maternal population, indicating that the two communities were independent of each other.
Intrapartum antibiotic administration was identified as a confounder of infant stool microbiome differences and was associated with lower abundances of Escherichia coli, Bacteroides vulgatus, Bifidobacterium longum, and Parabacteroides distasonis.
“Our findings demonstrate that maternal vaginal microbiome composition at delivery does not affect infant stool microbiome composition and development, suggesting that practices to amend infant stool microbiome composition focus on factors other than maternal vaginal microbes,” the authors conclude.
More evidence needed
Commenting on the study, Emily H. Adhikari, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and medical director of perinatal infectious diseases for the Parkland Health and Hospital System, said, “These findings contribute significantly more data to an understudied area of research into factors that affect the infant gut microbiome from the earliest hours of life. Prior studies have been small and often conflicting, and the authors reference recent larger studies, which corroborate their findings.”
The data regarding whether delivery mode or antibiotic-associated differences in infant microbiomes persist remain controversial, said Dr. Adhikari. “More evidence is needed involving a more ethnically diverse sampling of patients.” In addition, prospectively evaluating vaginal seeding in a rigorously designed clinical trial setting is “imperative to understand any potential benefit and certainly to understand the potential harms of the practice. To date, this does not exist.”
The study was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant. Mr. Dos Santos and Dr. Adhikari have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM FRONTIERS IN CELLULAR AND INFECTION MICROBIOLOGY
Adherence to oral contraceptive protocols prevents pregnancy
Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) remain a popular method of pregnancy prevention worldwide, but efficacy and failure rates can be difficult to determine, as real-word use does not always mirror clinical trials, wrote Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues. Clinical trials include perfect use or method-failure rates, but data on pregnancy risk based on reported adherence alone are lacking, they said.
To assess the effects of missed pills on COC efficacy, the researchers reviewed data from a pair of parallel phase 3 trials, focusing only on adherence to the pill dosing regimen. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The study population included 1,864 individuals from the United States and Canada, and 1,553 from Europe and Russia.
The participants were healthy, sexually active adults aged 16-50 years in monogamous relationships from 2016 through 2018 who agreed to used estetrol 15 mg and drospirenone 3 mg for up to 13 28-day cycles as their only contraceptive method. Condom use was permitted for protection against sexually transmitted infections if needed. The 28-day COCs included 24 hormonal tablets and 4 placebo tablets. Participants received written instructions for what to do it they missed pills.
The primary outcome was the relationship between missed pills and pregnancies.
A total of 31 pregnancies occurred across both studies; none of these occurred during cycles in which other contraception was used. Of 22 pregnancies in participants who reported taking all pills, 21 reported daily pill use during the cycle in which pregnancy occurred. One participant reported not taking one pill and one participant reported not taking two pills; neither correctly followed the instructions for missed pills.
Pregnancies occurred in .09% of cycles in which participants reported taking all pills, and in 0.25%, 0.83%, and 1.6% of cycles in which participants reported missing one pill, two pills, or more than two pills, respectively.
“Pregnancy rates exceeded 1% only in participants who did not correctly follow missed-pill instructions,” the researchers noted.
Pregnancy rates per cycle ranged from 0% to 0.21%, and 48.4% of the pregnancies occurred during the first four cycles of COC use. Approximately one-third (32.3%) of pregnancies occurred within the first week of a new pill pack.
“Fertilization does not appear to be related to the timing of missed pills within the cycle because pregnancy did not occur more frequently earlier in the cycle (after the placebo pills),” the researchers wrote in their discussion. This finding contradicts previous research suggesting that contraceptive failure rates decrease over the first year of use, they said. In addition, the formulation of the pill used may affect pregnancy rates when pills are missed, as some hormones have longer half-lives, they noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of adjustment for outcomes based on reported sexual activity per cycle, and by the reliance on self-reports.
However, the results were strengthened by the use of the clinical outcomes of pregnancy as the primary outcome, rather than characteristics and predictors of participants who missed pills, the researchers said.
The cycle-based methodology used in the current study may provide insight on the relationship between COC adherence and pregnancy risk that can inform future studies, they concluded.
Findings highlight the importance of options
“With increasing restrictions on abortion care, offering more contraceptive options for people is critical,” Lauren Owens, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “That’s not to say that having another pill option makes up for the harm people are experiencing as they navigate abortion bans and legal interference in their health care, but no one pill works for all people, and having more options is helpful,” she said.
Dr. Owens noted that the rates of pregnancy in the current study were lower than she traditionally associates with COCs, “although I usually discuss annual failure rates with patients, not failure rates per cycle, and the latter will clearly be lower.” In the current study, “The authors hypothesize some of this may be due to the longer half-life that estetrol has compared to ethinyl estradiol, the estrogen form more commonly found in oral contraceptive pills,” she said.
From a clinical standpoint, “I appreciated the linkage between number of missed pills and pregnancies occurring,” Dr. Owens said. “This is a good reminder to clinicians to talk to patients ahead of time about what to do when missed pills occur and to provide resources in advance that patients can reference when needed,” she said.
“The authors published other studies on this pill in the last year and it seems to work well and have a reasonable safety profile,” Dr. Owens told this news organization. However, “We still need to broaden the methods available to patients, particularly methods that people producing sperm can use. In the face of ongoing and escalating attacks on access to contraceptive care and abortion care, it’s more important than ever to do what we can to improve options for patients,” she said.
The study was supported by Estetra SRL, an affiliate company of Mithra Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Creinin disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Gedeon Richter, Mayne, and Organon. He disclosed serving on the advisory boards for Evofem, Fuji Pharma, Gedeon Richter, GlaxoSmithKline, Mayne, Merck, OLIC, Organon, and Searchlight, and serving as a consultant for Estetra SRL (including the current study), Libbs, Mayne, and Medicines360; his university department receives contraceptive research funding from Chemo Research SL, Evofem, HRA Pharma, Medicines360, Merck, and Sebela. Dr. Owens had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) remain a popular method of pregnancy prevention worldwide, but efficacy and failure rates can be difficult to determine, as real-word use does not always mirror clinical trials, wrote Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues. Clinical trials include perfect use or method-failure rates, but data on pregnancy risk based on reported adherence alone are lacking, they said.
To assess the effects of missed pills on COC efficacy, the researchers reviewed data from a pair of parallel phase 3 trials, focusing only on adherence to the pill dosing regimen. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The study population included 1,864 individuals from the United States and Canada, and 1,553 from Europe and Russia.
The participants were healthy, sexually active adults aged 16-50 years in monogamous relationships from 2016 through 2018 who agreed to used estetrol 15 mg and drospirenone 3 mg for up to 13 28-day cycles as their only contraceptive method. Condom use was permitted for protection against sexually transmitted infections if needed. The 28-day COCs included 24 hormonal tablets and 4 placebo tablets. Participants received written instructions for what to do it they missed pills.
The primary outcome was the relationship between missed pills and pregnancies.
A total of 31 pregnancies occurred across both studies; none of these occurred during cycles in which other contraception was used. Of 22 pregnancies in participants who reported taking all pills, 21 reported daily pill use during the cycle in which pregnancy occurred. One participant reported not taking one pill and one participant reported not taking two pills; neither correctly followed the instructions for missed pills.
Pregnancies occurred in .09% of cycles in which participants reported taking all pills, and in 0.25%, 0.83%, and 1.6% of cycles in which participants reported missing one pill, two pills, or more than two pills, respectively.
“Pregnancy rates exceeded 1% only in participants who did not correctly follow missed-pill instructions,” the researchers noted.
Pregnancy rates per cycle ranged from 0% to 0.21%, and 48.4% of the pregnancies occurred during the first four cycles of COC use. Approximately one-third (32.3%) of pregnancies occurred within the first week of a new pill pack.
“Fertilization does not appear to be related to the timing of missed pills within the cycle because pregnancy did not occur more frequently earlier in the cycle (after the placebo pills),” the researchers wrote in their discussion. This finding contradicts previous research suggesting that contraceptive failure rates decrease over the first year of use, they said. In addition, the formulation of the pill used may affect pregnancy rates when pills are missed, as some hormones have longer half-lives, they noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of adjustment for outcomes based on reported sexual activity per cycle, and by the reliance on self-reports.
However, the results were strengthened by the use of the clinical outcomes of pregnancy as the primary outcome, rather than characteristics and predictors of participants who missed pills, the researchers said.
The cycle-based methodology used in the current study may provide insight on the relationship between COC adherence and pregnancy risk that can inform future studies, they concluded.
Findings highlight the importance of options
“With increasing restrictions on abortion care, offering more contraceptive options for people is critical,” Lauren Owens, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “That’s not to say that having another pill option makes up for the harm people are experiencing as they navigate abortion bans and legal interference in their health care, but no one pill works for all people, and having more options is helpful,” she said.
Dr. Owens noted that the rates of pregnancy in the current study were lower than she traditionally associates with COCs, “although I usually discuss annual failure rates with patients, not failure rates per cycle, and the latter will clearly be lower.” In the current study, “The authors hypothesize some of this may be due to the longer half-life that estetrol has compared to ethinyl estradiol, the estrogen form more commonly found in oral contraceptive pills,” she said.
From a clinical standpoint, “I appreciated the linkage between number of missed pills and pregnancies occurring,” Dr. Owens said. “This is a good reminder to clinicians to talk to patients ahead of time about what to do when missed pills occur and to provide resources in advance that patients can reference when needed,” she said.
“The authors published other studies on this pill in the last year and it seems to work well and have a reasonable safety profile,” Dr. Owens told this news organization. However, “We still need to broaden the methods available to patients, particularly methods that people producing sperm can use. In the face of ongoing and escalating attacks on access to contraceptive care and abortion care, it’s more important than ever to do what we can to improve options for patients,” she said.
The study was supported by Estetra SRL, an affiliate company of Mithra Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Creinin disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Gedeon Richter, Mayne, and Organon. He disclosed serving on the advisory boards for Evofem, Fuji Pharma, Gedeon Richter, GlaxoSmithKline, Mayne, Merck, OLIC, Organon, and Searchlight, and serving as a consultant for Estetra SRL (including the current study), Libbs, Mayne, and Medicines360; his university department receives contraceptive research funding from Chemo Research SL, Evofem, HRA Pharma, Medicines360, Merck, and Sebela. Dr. Owens had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) remain a popular method of pregnancy prevention worldwide, but efficacy and failure rates can be difficult to determine, as real-word use does not always mirror clinical trials, wrote Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues. Clinical trials include perfect use or method-failure rates, but data on pregnancy risk based on reported adherence alone are lacking, they said.
To assess the effects of missed pills on COC efficacy, the researchers reviewed data from a pair of parallel phase 3 trials, focusing only on adherence to the pill dosing regimen. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The study population included 1,864 individuals from the United States and Canada, and 1,553 from Europe and Russia.
The participants were healthy, sexually active adults aged 16-50 years in monogamous relationships from 2016 through 2018 who agreed to used estetrol 15 mg and drospirenone 3 mg for up to 13 28-day cycles as their only contraceptive method. Condom use was permitted for protection against sexually transmitted infections if needed. The 28-day COCs included 24 hormonal tablets and 4 placebo tablets. Participants received written instructions for what to do it they missed pills.
The primary outcome was the relationship between missed pills and pregnancies.
A total of 31 pregnancies occurred across both studies; none of these occurred during cycles in which other contraception was used. Of 22 pregnancies in participants who reported taking all pills, 21 reported daily pill use during the cycle in which pregnancy occurred. One participant reported not taking one pill and one participant reported not taking two pills; neither correctly followed the instructions for missed pills.
Pregnancies occurred in .09% of cycles in which participants reported taking all pills, and in 0.25%, 0.83%, and 1.6% of cycles in which participants reported missing one pill, two pills, or more than two pills, respectively.
“Pregnancy rates exceeded 1% only in participants who did not correctly follow missed-pill instructions,” the researchers noted.
Pregnancy rates per cycle ranged from 0% to 0.21%, and 48.4% of the pregnancies occurred during the first four cycles of COC use. Approximately one-third (32.3%) of pregnancies occurred within the first week of a new pill pack.
“Fertilization does not appear to be related to the timing of missed pills within the cycle because pregnancy did not occur more frequently earlier in the cycle (after the placebo pills),” the researchers wrote in their discussion. This finding contradicts previous research suggesting that contraceptive failure rates decrease over the first year of use, they said. In addition, the formulation of the pill used may affect pregnancy rates when pills are missed, as some hormones have longer half-lives, they noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of adjustment for outcomes based on reported sexual activity per cycle, and by the reliance on self-reports.
However, the results were strengthened by the use of the clinical outcomes of pregnancy as the primary outcome, rather than characteristics and predictors of participants who missed pills, the researchers said.
The cycle-based methodology used in the current study may provide insight on the relationship between COC adherence and pregnancy risk that can inform future studies, they concluded.
Findings highlight the importance of options
“With increasing restrictions on abortion care, offering more contraceptive options for people is critical,” Lauren Owens, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “That’s not to say that having another pill option makes up for the harm people are experiencing as they navigate abortion bans and legal interference in their health care, but no one pill works for all people, and having more options is helpful,” she said.
Dr. Owens noted that the rates of pregnancy in the current study were lower than she traditionally associates with COCs, “although I usually discuss annual failure rates with patients, not failure rates per cycle, and the latter will clearly be lower.” In the current study, “The authors hypothesize some of this may be due to the longer half-life that estetrol has compared to ethinyl estradiol, the estrogen form more commonly found in oral contraceptive pills,” she said.
From a clinical standpoint, “I appreciated the linkage between number of missed pills and pregnancies occurring,” Dr. Owens said. “This is a good reminder to clinicians to talk to patients ahead of time about what to do when missed pills occur and to provide resources in advance that patients can reference when needed,” she said.
“The authors published other studies on this pill in the last year and it seems to work well and have a reasonable safety profile,” Dr. Owens told this news organization. However, “We still need to broaden the methods available to patients, particularly methods that people producing sperm can use. In the face of ongoing and escalating attacks on access to contraceptive care and abortion care, it’s more important than ever to do what we can to improve options for patients,” she said.
The study was supported by Estetra SRL, an affiliate company of Mithra Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Creinin disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Gedeon Richter, Mayne, and Organon. He disclosed serving on the advisory boards for Evofem, Fuji Pharma, Gedeon Richter, GlaxoSmithKline, Mayne, Merck, OLIC, Organon, and Searchlight, and serving as a consultant for Estetra SRL (including the current study), Libbs, Mayne, and Medicines360; his university department receives contraceptive research funding from Chemo Research SL, Evofem, HRA Pharma, Medicines360, Merck, and Sebela. Dr. Owens had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
AHA statement targets nuance in CVD risk assessment of women
In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlighted the importance of incorporating nonbiological risk factors and social determinants of health in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment for women, particularly women from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
CVD risk assessment in women is multifaceted and goes well beyond traditional risk factors to include sex-specific biological risk factors, as well as social, behavioral, and environmental factors, the writing group noted.
They said a greater focus on addressing all CVD risk factors among women from underrepresented races and ethnicities is warranted to avert future CVD.
The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
Look beyond traditional risk factors
“Risk assessment is the first step in preventing heart disease, yet there are many limitations to traditional risk factors and their ability to comprehensively estimate a woman’s risk for cardiovascular disease,” Jennifer H. Mieres, MD, vice chair of the writing group and professor of cardiology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in a news release.
“The delivery of equitable cardiovascular health care for women depends on improving the knowledge and awareness of all members of the healthcare team about the full spectrum of cardiovascular risk factors for women, including female-specific and female-predominant risk factors,” Dr. Mieres added.
Female-specific factors that should be included in CVD risk assessment include pregnancy-related conditions such as preeclampsia, preterm delivery, and gestational diabetes, the writing group said.
Other factors include menstrual cycle history; types of birth control and/or hormone replacement therapy used; polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), which affects 10% of women of reproductive age and is associated with increased CVD risk; and autoimmune disorders, depression, and PTSD, all of which are more common in women and are also associated with higher risk for CVD.
The statement also highlights the key role that social determinants of health (SDOH) play in the development of CVD in women, particularly women from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. SDOH include education level, economic stability, neighborhood safety, working conditions, environmental hazards, and access to quality health care.
“It is critical that risk assessment be expanded to include [SDOH] as risk factors if we are to improve health outcomes in all women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, chair of the writing group and director of preventative cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in the news release.
“It is also important for the health care team to consider [SDOH] when working with women on shared decisions about cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Mehta noted.
No one-size-fits-all approach
The statement highlighted significant differences in CVD risk among women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds and provides detailed CV risk factor profiles for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian and American Indian/Alaska Native women.
It noted that language barriers, discrimination, acculturation, and health care access disproportionately affect women of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. These factors result in a higher prevalence of CVD and significant challenges in CVD diagnosis and treatment.
“When customizing CVD prevention and treatment strategies to improve cardiovascular health for women, a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful,” Dr. Mieres said.
“We must be cognizant of the complex interplay of sex, race and ethnicity, as well as social determinants of health, and how they impact the risk of cardiovascular disease and adverse outcomes in order to avert future CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Mieres added.
Looking ahead, the writing group said future CVD prevention guidelines could be strengthened by including culturally-specific lifestyle recommendations.
They also said community-based approaches, faith-based community partnerships, and peer support to encourage a healthy lifestyle could play a key role in preventing CVD among all women.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in Women and Underrepresented Populations Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlighted the importance of incorporating nonbiological risk factors and social determinants of health in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment for women, particularly women from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
CVD risk assessment in women is multifaceted and goes well beyond traditional risk factors to include sex-specific biological risk factors, as well as social, behavioral, and environmental factors, the writing group noted.
They said a greater focus on addressing all CVD risk factors among women from underrepresented races and ethnicities is warranted to avert future CVD.
The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
Look beyond traditional risk factors
“Risk assessment is the first step in preventing heart disease, yet there are many limitations to traditional risk factors and their ability to comprehensively estimate a woman’s risk for cardiovascular disease,” Jennifer H. Mieres, MD, vice chair of the writing group and professor of cardiology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in a news release.
“The delivery of equitable cardiovascular health care for women depends on improving the knowledge and awareness of all members of the healthcare team about the full spectrum of cardiovascular risk factors for women, including female-specific and female-predominant risk factors,” Dr. Mieres added.
Female-specific factors that should be included in CVD risk assessment include pregnancy-related conditions such as preeclampsia, preterm delivery, and gestational diabetes, the writing group said.
Other factors include menstrual cycle history; types of birth control and/or hormone replacement therapy used; polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), which affects 10% of women of reproductive age and is associated with increased CVD risk; and autoimmune disorders, depression, and PTSD, all of which are more common in women and are also associated with higher risk for CVD.
The statement also highlights the key role that social determinants of health (SDOH) play in the development of CVD in women, particularly women from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. SDOH include education level, economic stability, neighborhood safety, working conditions, environmental hazards, and access to quality health care.
“It is critical that risk assessment be expanded to include [SDOH] as risk factors if we are to improve health outcomes in all women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, chair of the writing group and director of preventative cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in the news release.
“It is also important for the health care team to consider [SDOH] when working with women on shared decisions about cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Mehta noted.
No one-size-fits-all approach
The statement highlighted significant differences in CVD risk among women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds and provides detailed CV risk factor profiles for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian and American Indian/Alaska Native women.
It noted that language barriers, discrimination, acculturation, and health care access disproportionately affect women of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. These factors result in a higher prevalence of CVD and significant challenges in CVD diagnosis and treatment.
“When customizing CVD prevention and treatment strategies to improve cardiovascular health for women, a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful,” Dr. Mieres said.
“We must be cognizant of the complex interplay of sex, race and ethnicity, as well as social determinants of health, and how they impact the risk of cardiovascular disease and adverse outcomes in order to avert future CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Mieres added.
Looking ahead, the writing group said future CVD prevention guidelines could be strengthened by including culturally-specific lifestyle recommendations.
They also said community-based approaches, faith-based community partnerships, and peer support to encourage a healthy lifestyle could play a key role in preventing CVD among all women.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in Women and Underrepresented Populations Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlighted the importance of incorporating nonbiological risk factors and social determinants of health in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment for women, particularly women from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
CVD risk assessment in women is multifaceted and goes well beyond traditional risk factors to include sex-specific biological risk factors, as well as social, behavioral, and environmental factors, the writing group noted.
They said a greater focus on addressing all CVD risk factors among women from underrepresented races and ethnicities is warranted to avert future CVD.
The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
Look beyond traditional risk factors
“Risk assessment is the first step in preventing heart disease, yet there are many limitations to traditional risk factors and their ability to comprehensively estimate a woman’s risk for cardiovascular disease,” Jennifer H. Mieres, MD, vice chair of the writing group and professor of cardiology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in a news release.
“The delivery of equitable cardiovascular health care for women depends on improving the knowledge and awareness of all members of the healthcare team about the full spectrum of cardiovascular risk factors for women, including female-specific and female-predominant risk factors,” Dr. Mieres added.
Female-specific factors that should be included in CVD risk assessment include pregnancy-related conditions such as preeclampsia, preterm delivery, and gestational diabetes, the writing group said.
Other factors include menstrual cycle history; types of birth control and/or hormone replacement therapy used; polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), which affects 10% of women of reproductive age and is associated with increased CVD risk; and autoimmune disorders, depression, and PTSD, all of which are more common in women and are also associated with higher risk for CVD.
The statement also highlights the key role that social determinants of health (SDOH) play in the development of CVD in women, particularly women from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. SDOH include education level, economic stability, neighborhood safety, working conditions, environmental hazards, and access to quality health care.
“It is critical that risk assessment be expanded to include [SDOH] as risk factors if we are to improve health outcomes in all women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, chair of the writing group and director of preventative cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in the news release.
“It is also important for the health care team to consider [SDOH] when working with women on shared decisions about cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Mehta noted.
No one-size-fits-all approach
The statement highlighted significant differences in CVD risk among women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds and provides detailed CV risk factor profiles for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian and American Indian/Alaska Native women.
It noted that language barriers, discrimination, acculturation, and health care access disproportionately affect women of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. These factors result in a higher prevalence of CVD and significant challenges in CVD diagnosis and treatment.
“When customizing CVD prevention and treatment strategies to improve cardiovascular health for women, a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful,” Dr. Mieres said.
“We must be cognizant of the complex interplay of sex, race and ethnicity, as well as social determinants of health, and how they impact the risk of cardiovascular disease and adverse outcomes in order to avert future CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Mieres added.
Looking ahead, the writing group said future CVD prevention guidelines could be strengthened by including culturally-specific lifestyle recommendations.
They also said community-based approaches, faith-based community partnerships, and peer support to encourage a healthy lifestyle could play a key role in preventing CVD among all women.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in Women and Underrepresented Populations Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CIRCULATION
Study: Prenatal supplements fail to meet nutrient needs
Although drugstore shelves might suggest otherwise,
In a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, investigators observed what many physicians have long suspected: Most prenatal vitamins and other supplements do not adequately make up the difference of what food-based intake of nutrients leave lacking. Despite patients believing they are getting everything they need with their product purchase, they fall short of guideline-recommended requirements.
“There is no magic pill,” said Katherine A. Sauder, PhD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, and lead author of the study. “There is no easy answer here.”
The researchers analyzed 24-hour dietary intake data from 2,450 study participants across five states from 2007 to 2019. Dr. Sauder and colleagues focused on six of the more than 20 key nutrients recommended for pregnant people and determined the target dose for vitamin A, vitamin D, folate, calcium, iron, and omega-3 fatty acids.
The researchers tested more than 20,500 dietary supplements, of which 421 were prenatal products. Only 69 products – three prenatal – included all six nutrients. Just seven products – two prenatal – contained target doses for five nutrients. Only one product, which was not marketed as prenatal, contained target doses for all six nutrients but required seven tablets a serving and cost patients approximately $200 a month.
For many years, Dr. Sauder and her colleagues have struggled to identify the gold standard of vitamins for pregnant patients.
More than half of pregnant people in the United States are at risk of inadequate intake of vitamin D, folate, and iron from their diet alone, and one-third are at risk for insufficient intake of vitamin A and calcium.
Although more than 70% of pregnant women take dietary supplements, the products do not eliminate the risks for deficiencies.
The effects of inadequate nutrition during pregnancy may include neural tube defects, alterations in cardiovascular structure, and impaired neurocognitive development.
The researchers also looked at the challenges within the dietary supplement industry. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates dietary supplements as foods rather than drugs and therefore does not require third-party verification that would ensure product ingredients match labels.
The researchers acknowledged the challenges in creating a one-size-fits-all nutritional supplement.
“The supplement industry is difficult, because you’re trying to create a product that works for a large, diverse group of people, but nutrition is very personal,” Dr. Sauder said.
Kendra Segura, MD, an ob.gyn. at the To Help Everyone Health and Wellness Center, Los Angeles, said she was unsurprised by the results.
“There’s no good prenatal vitamin out there,” Dr. Segura said. “There’s no ‘best.’ ”
Dr. Segura said she advises her patients to focus on increased nutritional intake with foods but added that that the lack of nutrients in diets and the need for supplements reflects the lack of availability of healthy food in some communities (known as “food deserts”), as well as poor dietary choices.
Diana Racusin, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive services at the University of Texas Health Science Center’s McGovern Medical School, Houston, also “wasn’t terribly surprised” by the findings. She stresses the importance of what patients eat more than the availability of supplements.
“What this is really showing us is we have work to do with our nutrition,” Dr. Racusin said.
Dr. Sauder’s biggest takeaway from her study is the need for more patient guidance for their nutrition beyond advising a supplement.
“We need better support for women to help them improve their diet during pregnancy so that they’re getting the nutrients they need from food,” she said, “and not having to rely on supplements as much.”
The study was supported by the Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes Program of the National Institutes of Health and by the nonprofit organization Autism Speaks. Dr. Sauder reports no relevant financial relationships. Two coauthors reported various conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although drugstore shelves might suggest otherwise,
In a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, investigators observed what many physicians have long suspected: Most prenatal vitamins and other supplements do not adequately make up the difference of what food-based intake of nutrients leave lacking. Despite patients believing they are getting everything they need with their product purchase, they fall short of guideline-recommended requirements.
“There is no magic pill,” said Katherine A. Sauder, PhD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, and lead author of the study. “There is no easy answer here.”
The researchers analyzed 24-hour dietary intake data from 2,450 study participants across five states from 2007 to 2019. Dr. Sauder and colleagues focused on six of the more than 20 key nutrients recommended for pregnant people and determined the target dose for vitamin A, vitamin D, folate, calcium, iron, and omega-3 fatty acids.
The researchers tested more than 20,500 dietary supplements, of which 421 were prenatal products. Only 69 products – three prenatal – included all six nutrients. Just seven products – two prenatal – contained target doses for five nutrients. Only one product, which was not marketed as prenatal, contained target doses for all six nutrients but required seven tablets a serving and cost patients approximately $200 a month.
For many years, Dr. Sauder and her colleagues have struggled to identify the gold standard of vitamins for pregnant patients.
More than half of pregnant people in the United States are at risk of inadequate intake of vitamin D, folate, and iron from their diet alone, and one-third are at risk for insufficient intake of vitamin A and calcium.
Although more than 70% of pregnant women take dietary supplements, the products do not eliminate the risks for deficiencies.
The effects of inadequate nutrition during pregnancy may include neural tube defects, alterations in cardiovascular structure, and impaired neurocognitive development.
The researchers also looked at the challenges within the dietary supplement industry. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates dietary supplements as foods rather than drugs and therefore does not require third-party verification that would ensure product ingredients match labels.
The researchers acknowledged the challenges in creating a one-size-fits-all nutritional supplement.
“The supplement industry is difficult, because you’re trying to create a product that works for a large, diverse group of people, but nutrition is very personal,” Dr. Sauder said.
Kendra Segura, MD, an ob.gyn. at the To Help Everyone Health and Wellness Center, Los Angeles, said she was unsurprised by the results.
“There’s no good prenatal vitamin out there,” Dr. Segura said. “There’s no ‘best.’ ”
Dr. Segura said she advises her patients to focus on increased nutritional intake with foods but added that that the lack of nutrients in diets and the need for supplements reflects the lack of availability of healthy food in some communities (known as “food deserts”), as well as poor dietary choices.
Diana Racusin, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive services at the University of Texas Health Science Center’s McGovern Medical School, Houston, also “wasn’t terribly surprised” by the findings. She stresses the importance of what patients eat more than the availability of supplements.
“What this is really showing us is we have work to do with our nutrition,” Dr. Racusin said.
Dr. Sauder’s biggest takeaway from her study is the need for more patient guidance for their nutrition beyond advising a supplement.
“We need better support for women to help them improve their diet during pregnancy so that they’re getting the nutrients they need from food,” she said, “and not having to rely on supplements as much.”
The study was supported by the Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes Program of the National Institutes of Health and by the nonprofit organization Autism Speaks. Dr. Sauder reports no relevant financial relationships. Two coauthors reported various conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although drugstore shelves might suggest otherwise,
In a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, investigators observed what many physicians have long suspected: Most prenatal vitamins and other supplements do not adequately make up the difference of what food-based intake of nutrients leave lacking. Despite patients believing they are getting everything they need with their product purchase, they fall short of guideline-recommended requirements.
“There is no magic pill,” said Katherine A. Sauder, PhD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, and lead author of the study. “There is no easy answer here.”
The researchers analyzed 24-hour dietary intake data from 2,450 study participants across five states from 2007 to 2019. Dr. Sauder and colleagues focused on six of the more than 20 key nutrients recommended for pregnant people and determined the target dose for vitamin A, vitamin D, folate, calcium, iron, and omega-3 fatty acids.
The researchers tested more than 20,500 dietary supplements, of which 421 were prenatal products. Only 69 products – three prenatal – included all six nutrients. Just seven products – two prenatal – contained target doses for five nutrients. Only one product, which was not marketed as prenatal, contained target doses for all six nutrients but required seven tablets a serving and cost patients approximately $200 a month.
For many years, Dr. Sauder and her colleagues have struggled to identify the gold standard of vitamins for pregnant patients.
More than half of pregnant people in the United States are at risk of inadequate intake of vitamin D, folate, and iron from their diet alone, and one-third are at risk for insufficient intake of vitamin A and calcium.
Although more than 70% of pregnant women take dietary supplements, the products do not eliminate the risks for deficiencies.
The effects of inadequate nutrition during pregnancy may include neural tube defects, alterations in cardiovascular structure, and impaired neurocognitive development.
The researchers also looked at the challenges within the dietary supplement industry. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates dietary supplements as foods rather than drugs and therefore does not require third-party verification that would ensure product ingredients match labels.
The researchers acknowledged the challenges in creating a one-size-fits-all nutritional supplement.
“The supplement industry is difficult, because you’re trying to create a product that works for a large, diverse group of people, but nutrition is very personal,” Dr. Sauder said.
Kendra Segura, MD, an ob.gyn. at the To Help Everyone Health and Wellness Center, Los Angeles, said she was unsurprised by the results.
“There’s no good prenatal vitamin out there,” Dr. Segura said. “There’s no ‘best.’ ”
Dr. Segura said she advises her patients to focus on increased nutritional intake with foods but added that that the lack of nutrients in diets and the need for supplements reflects the lack of availability of healthy food in some communities (known as “food deserts”), as well as poor dietary choices.
Diana Racusin, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive services at the University of Texas Health Science Center’s McGovern Medical School, Houston, also “wasn’t terribly surprised” by the findings. She stresses the importance of what patients eat more than the availability of supplements.
“What this is really showing us is we have work to do with our nutrition,” Dr. Racusin said.
Dr. Sauder’s biggest takeaway from her study is the need for more patient guidance for their nutrition beyond advising a supplement.
“We need better support for women to help them improve their diet during pregnancy so that they’re getting the nutrients they need from food,” she said, “and not having to rely on supplements as much.”
The study was supported by the Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes Program of the National Institutes of Health and by the nonprofit organization Autism Speaks. Dr. Sauder reports no relevant financial relationships. Two coauthors reported various conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
Oophorectomies continue to dominate torsion treatment
Prompt surgical management is essential in cases of ovarian torsion in order to salvage ovarian function, and recent studies have shown that conservative management with detorsion does not increase postoperative complications, compared with oophorectomy, wrote Hannah Ryles, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued practice guidelines in November 2016 that recommended ovarian conservation rather than oophorectomy to manage adnexal torsion in women wishing to preserve fertility. However, the impact of this guideline on clinical practice and surgical patterns remains unclear, the researchers said.
In a study published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 402 patients who underwent surgeries before the updated ACOG guidelines (2008-2016) and 1,389 who underwent surgeries after the guidelines (2017-2020). Surgery data came from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. The study population included women aged 18-50 years who underwent adnexal torsion surgery and were identified as having either oophorectomy or ovarian conservation surgery.
A total of 1,791 surgeries performed for adnexal torsion were included in the study; 542 (30.3%) involved ovarian conservation and 1,249 (69.7%) involved oophorectomy.
The proportion of oophorectomies was similar during the periods before and after the guidelines (71.9% vs. 69.1%; P = .16). However, the proportion of oophorectomies changed significantly across the entire study period, by approximately –1.6% each year.
Factors significantly associated with oophorectomy compared with ovarian conservation included older age (35 years vs. 28 years), higher body mass index (29.2 kg/m2 vs. 27.5 kg/m2), anemia (12.2% vs. 7.2%), hypertension (10.4% vs. 3.1%), and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification.
“There remains no defined acceptable rate of oophorectomy; this decision involves multiple factors, such as fertility and other patient desires after a risk and benefit discussion, menopausal status, concern for malignancy, and safety and feasibility of conservative procedures,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, in emergency situations, it may be difficult to determine a patient’s preferences, and a lack of desire for future fertility may be presumed, which may contribute to the relatively high oophorectomy rates over time, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and lack of data on surgical history, histopathology, and intraoperative appearance of the ovary, as well as lack of clinical data including the time from presentation to diagnosis or surgery, the researchers noted. “Although we were also unable to determine obstetric history and fertility desires, our median age of 32 years reflects a young cohort that was limited to women of reproductive age,” they added.
However, the results reflect studies suggesting that clinical practice often lags behind updated guidelines, and the findings were strengthened by the use of the NSQIP database and reflect a need for greater efforts to promote ovarian conservation in accordance with the current guidelines, the researchers concluded.
Consider unilateral oophorectomy
The current study highlights the discrepancy between the ACOG guidelines and clinical practice, with “disappointingly low” rates of ovarian preservation in the adult population, wrote Riley J. Young, MD, and Kimberly A. Kho, MD, both of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, in an accompanying editorial. The reasons for the discrepancy include clinical concerns for conserving a torsed ovary and the difficulty of assessing fertility desires in an emergency situation, they said.
However, consideration of unilateral oophorectomy as an option should be part of clinical decision-making, according to the editorialists. Previous studies suggest that retention of a single ovarian may still allow for a successful pregnancy, and the effects of unilateral oophorectomy have been studied in infertility and assisted reproductive technology settings.
Women with a single ovary have fewer eggs and require higher amounts of gonadotropins, but pregnancy is possible, the editorialists said. However, the long-term effects of unilateral oophorectomy are uncertain, and potential detrimental outcomes include increased mortality and cognitive impairment; therefore “we aim for premenopausal ovaries simply to be conserved, whether fertility is the stated goal or not,” they noted. This may include consideration of unilateral oophorectomy. “Each ovary conserved at midnight moves us closer to a more acceptable ovarian conservation rate,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kho disclosed funding to her institution from Hologic for being on an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Young had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Prompt surgical management is essential in cases of ovarian torsion in order to salvage ovarian function, and recent studies have shown that conservative management with detorsion does not increase postoperative complications, compared with oophorectomy, wrote Hannah Ryles, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued practice guidelines in November 2016 that recommended ovarian conservation rather than oophorectomy to manage adnexal torsion in women wishing to preserve fertility. However, the impact of this guideline on clinical practice and surgical patterns remains unclear, the researchers said.
In a study published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 402 patients who underwent surgeries before the updated ACOG guidelines (2008-2016) and 1,389 who underwent surgeries after the guidelines (2017-2020). Surgery data came from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. The study population included women aged 18-50 years who underwent adnexal torsion surgery and were identified as having either oophorectomy or ovarian conservation surgery.
A total of 1,791 surgeries performed for adnexal torsion were included in the study; 542 (30.3%) involved ovarian conservation and 1,249 (69.7%) involved oophorectomy.
The proportion of oophorectomies was similar during the periods before and after the guidelines (71.9% vs. 69.1%; P = .16). However, the proportion of oophorectomies changed significantly across the entire study period, by approximately –1.6% each year.
Factors significantly associated with oophorectomy compared with ovarian conservation included older age (35 years vs. 28 years), higher body mass index (29.2 kg/m2 vs. 27.5 kg/m2), anemia (12.2% vs. 7.2%), hypertension (10.4% vs. 3.1%), and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification.
“There remains no defined acceptable rate of oophorectomy; this decision involves multiple factors, such as fertility and other patient desires after a risk and benefit discussion, menopausal status, concern for malignancy, and safety and feasibility of conservative procedures,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, in emergency situations, it may be difficult to determine a patient’s preferences, and a lack of desire for future fertility may be presumed, which may contribute to the relatively high oophorectomy rates over time, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and lack of data on surgical history, histopathology, and intraoperative appearance of the ovary, as well as lack of clinical data including the time from presentation to diagnosis or surgery, the researchers noted. “Although we were also unable to determine obstetric history and fertility desires, our median age of 32 years reflects a young cohort that was limited to women of reproductive age,” they added.
However, the results reflect studies suggesting that clinical practice often lags behind updated guidelines, and the findings were strengthened by the use of the NSQIP database and reflect a need for greater efforts to promote ovarian conservation in accordance with the current guidelines, the researchers concluded.
Consider unilateral oophorectomy
The current study highlights the discrepancy between the ACOG guidelines and clinical practice, with “disappointingly low” rates of ovarian preservation in the adult population, wrote Riley J. Young, MD, and Kimberly A. Kho, MD, both of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, in an accompanying editorial. The reasons for the discrepancy include clinical concerns for conserving a torsed ovary and the difficulty of assessing fertility desires in an emergency situation, they said.
However, consideration of unilateral oophorectomy as an option should be part of clinical decision-making, according to the editorialists. Previous studies suggest that retention of a single ovarian may still allow for a successful pregnancy, and the effects of unilateral oophorectomy have been studied in infertility and assisted reproductive technology settings.
Women with a single ovary have fewer eggs and require higher amounts of gonadotropins, but pregnancy is possible, the editorialists said. However, the long-term effects of unilateral oophorectomy are uncertain, and potential detrimental outcomes include increased mortality and cognitive impairment; therefore “we aim for premenopausal ovaries simply to be conserved, whether fertility is the stated goal or not,” they noted. This may include consideration of unilateral oophorectomy. “Each ovary conserved at midnight moves us closer to a more acceptable ovarian conservation rate,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kho disclosed funding to her institution from Hologic for being on an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Young had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Prompt surgical management is essential in cases of ovarian torsion in order to salvage ovarian function, and recent studies have shown that conservative management with detorsion does not increase postoperative complications, compared with oophorectomy, wrote Hannah Ryles, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued practice guidelines in November 2016 that recommended ovarian conservation rather than oophorectomy to manage adnexal torsion in women wishing to preserve fertility. However, the impact of this guideline on clinical practice and surgical patterns remains unclear, the researchers said.
In a study published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 402 patients who underwent surgeries before the updated ACOG guidelines (2008-2016) and 1,389 who underwent surgeries after the guidelines (2017-2020). Surgery data came from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. The study population included women aged 18-50 years who underwent adnexal torsion surgery and were identified as having either oophorectomy or ovarian conservation surgery.
A total of 1,791 surgeries performed for adnexal torsion were included in the study; 542 (30.3%) involved ovarian conservation and 1,249 (69.7%) involved oophorectomy.
The proportion of oophorectomies was similar during the periods before and after the guidelines (71.9% vs. 69.1%; P = .16). However, the proportion of oophorectomies changed significantly across the entire study period, by approximately –1.6% each year.
Factors significantly associated with oophorectomy compared with ovarian conservation included older age (35 years vs. 28 years), higher body mass index (29.2 kg/m2 vs. 27.5 kg/m2), anemia (12.2% vs. 7.2%), hypertension (10.4% vs. 3.1%), and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification.
“There remains no defined acceptable rate of oophorectomy; this decision involves multiple factors, such as fertility and other patient desires after a risk and benefit discussion, menopausal status, concern for malignancy, and safety and feasibility of conservative procedures,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, in emergency situations, it may be difficult to determine a patient’s preferences, and a lack of desire for future fertility may be presumed, which may contribute to the relatively high oophorectomy rates over time, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and lack of data on surgical history, histopathology, and intraoperative appearance of the ovary, as well as lack of clinical data including the time from presentation to diagnosis or surgery, the researchers noted. “Although we were also unable to determine obstetric history and fertility desires, our median age of 32 years reflects a young cohort that was limited to women of reproductive age,” they added.
However, the results reflect studies suggesting that clinical practice often lags behind updated guidelines, and the findings were strengthened by the use of the NSQIP database and reflect a need for greater efforts to promote ovarian conservation in accordance with the current guidelines, the researchers concluded.
Consider unilateral oophorectomy
The current study highlights the discrepancy between the ACOG guidelines and clinical practice, with “disappointingly low” rates of ovarian preservation in the adult population, wrote Riley J. Young, MD, and Kimberly A. Kho, MD, both of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, in an accompanying editorial. The reasons for the discrepancy include clinical concerns for conserving a torsed ovary and the difficulty of assessing fertility desires in an emergency situation, they said.
However, consideration of unilateral oophorectomy as an option should be part of clinical decision-making, according to the editorialists. Previous studies suggest that retention of a single ovarian may still allow for a successful pregnancy, and the effects of unilateral oophorectomy have been studied in infertility and assisted reproductive technology settings.
Women with a single ovary have fewer eggs and require higher amounts of gonadotropins, but pregnancy is possible, the editorialists said. However, the long-term effects of unilateral oophorectomy are uncertain, and potential detrimental outcomes include increased mortality and cognitive impairment; therefore “we aim for premenopausal ovaries simply to be conserved, whether fertility is the stated goal or not,” they noted. This may include consideration of unilateral oophorectomy. “Each ovary conserved at midnight moves us closer to a more acceptable ovarian conservation rate,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kho disclosed funding to her institution from Hologic for being on an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Young had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Glutathione a potential biomarker for postpartum suicide
Approximately 10,000 suicide deaths are recorded in Brazil every year. The suicide risk is highest among patients with depressive disorders, particularly women (> 18% vs. 11% for men).
There are countless people who work to prevent suicide, and the challenges they face are many. But now, on the horizon, there are new tools that could prove invaluable to their efforts – tools such as biomarkers. In a study recently published in the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry, researchers from the Catholic University of Pelotas (UCPel), Brazil, reported an association of glutathione (GSH) with the degree of suicide risk in women at 18 months postpartum. Specifically, they found that reduced serum GSH levels were significantly lower for those with moderate to high suicide risk than for those without suicide risk. Their findings suggest that GSH may be a potential biomarker or etiologic factor among women at risk for suicide, with therapeutic implications.
This was a case-control study nested within a cohort study. From this cohort, 45 women were selected at 18 months postpartum. Thirty of them had mood disorders, such as major depression and bipolar disorder. The other 15 participants, none of whom had a mood disorder, made up the control group.
Depression and the risk for suicide were assessed using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Plus (MINI-Plus 5.0.0 Brazilian version), module A and module C, respectively. Blood samples were collected to evaluate serum levels of the following oxidative stress biomarkers: reactive oxygen species, superoxide dismutase, and GSH.
The prevalence of suicide risk observed in the women at 18 months postpartum was 24.4%. The prevalence of suicide risk in the mood disorder group was 36.7%.
In addition, the statistical analysis found that women with moderate to high suicide risk had cerebral redox imbalance, resulting in a decrease in blood GSH levels.
The study team was led by neuroscientist Adriano Martimbianco de Assis, PhD, the coordinator of UCPel’s postgraduate program in health and behavior. He said that the correlation identified between GSH serum levels and suicide risk gives rise to two possible applications: using GSH as a biomarker for suicide risk and using GSH therapeutically.
Regarding the former application, Dr. Martimbianco de Assis explained that additional studies are needed to take a step forward. “Although we believe that most of the GSH came from the brain – given that it’s the brain’s main antioxidant – as we analyze blood samples, we’re not yet able to rule out the possibility that it came from other organs,” he said in an interview. So, confirming that hypothesis will require studies that involve imaging brain tissue. According to Dr. Martimbianco de Assis, once there is confirmation, it will be possible to move to using the antioxidant as a biomarker for suicide risk.
He also shared his views about the second application: using GSH therapeutically. “We already know that there are very simple alternatives that can influence GSH levels, [and they] mostly have to do with exercise and [improving the quality of] the food one eats. But there are also drugs: for example, N-acetyl cysteine, which is a precursor of GSH.” Adopting strategies to increase the levels of this antioxidant in the body should reverse the imbalance identified in the study and, as a result, may lead to lowering the risk for suicide. But, he reiterated, “getting to a place where GSH [can be used] in clinical practice hinges on getting that confirmation that it did, in fact, come from the brain. Recall that our study found lower levels of GSH in women at risk for suicide.”
Even though the study evaluated postpartum women, it’s possible that the results can be extrapolated to other populations, said Dr. Martimbianco de Assis. This is because when the data were collected, 18 months had already passed since giving birth. The participants’ physiological condition at that point was more similar to the one prior to becoming pregnant.
The UCPel researchers continue to follow the cohort. “We intend to continue monitoring GSH levels at other times. Forty-eight months have now passed since the women gave birth, and the idea is to continue studying [the patients involved in the study],” said Dr. Martimbianco de Assis, adding that the team also intends to analyze brain tissue from in vitro studies using cell cultures.
This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
Approximately 10,000 suicide deaths are recorded in Brazil every year. The suicide risk is highest among patients with depressive disorders, particularly women (> 18% vs. 11% for men).
There are countless people who work to prevent suicide, and the challenges they face are many. But now, on the horizon, there are new tools that could prove invaluable to their efforts – tools such as biomarkers. In a study recently published in the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry, researchers from the Catholic University of Pelotas (UCPel), Brazil, reported an association of glutathione (GSH) with the degree of suicide risk in women at 18 months postpartum. Specifically, they found that reduced serum GSH levels were significantly lower for those with moderate to high suicide risk than for those without suicide risk. Their findings suggest that GSH may be a potential biomarker or etiologic factor among women at risk for suicide, with therapeutic implications.
This was a case-control study nested within a cohort study. From this cohort, 45 women were selected at 18 months postpartum. Thirty of them had mood disorders, such as major depression and bipolar disorder. The other 15 participants, none of whom had a mood disorder, made up the control group.
Depression and the risk for suicide were assessed using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Plus (MINI-Plus 5.0.0 Brazilian version), module A and module C, respectively. Blood samples were collected to evaluate serum levels of the following oxidative stress biomarkers: reactive oxygen species, superoxide dismutase, and GSH.
The prevalence of suicide risk observed in the women at 18 months postpartum was 24.4%. The prevalence of suicide risk in the mood disorder group was 36.7%.
In addition, the statistical analysis found that women with moderate to high suicide risk had cerebral redox imbalance, resulting in a decrease in blood GSH levels.
The study team was led by neuroscientist Adriano Martimbianco de Assis, PhD, the coordinator of UCPel’s postgraduate program in health and behavior. He said that the correlation identified between GSH serum levels and suicide risk gives rise to two possible applications: using GSH as a biomarker for suicide risk and using GSH therapeutically.
Regarding the former application, Dr. Martimbianco de Assis explained that additional studies are needed to take a step forward. “Although we believe that most of the GSH came from the brain – given that it’s the brain’s main antioxidant – as we analyze blood samples, we’re not yet able to rule out the possibility that it came from other organs,” he said in an interview. So, confirming that hypothesis will require studies that involve imaging brain tissue. According to Dr. Martimbianco de Assis, once there is confirmation, it will be possible to move to using the antioxidant as a biomarker for suicide risk.
He also shared his views about the second application: using GSH therapeutically. “We already know that there are very simple alternatives that can influence GSH levels, [and they] mostly have to do with exercise and [improving the quality of] the food one eats. But there are also drugs: for example, N-acetyl cysteine, which is a precursor of GSH.” Adopting strategies to increase the levels of this antioxidant in the body should reverse the imbalance identified in the study and, as a result, may lead to lowering the risk for suicide. But, he reiterated, “getting to a place where GSH [can be used] in clinical practice hinges on getting that confirmation that it did, in fact, come from the brain. Recall that our study found lower levels of GSH in women at risk for suicide.”
Even though the study evaluated postpartum women, it’s possible that the results can be extrapolated to other populations, said Dr. Martimbianco de Assis. This is because when the data were collected, 18 months had already passed since giving birth. The participants’ physiological condition at that point was more similar to the one prior to becoming pregnant.
The UCPel researchers continue to follow the cohort. “We intend to continue monitoring GSH levels at other times. Forty-eight months have now passed since the women gave birth, and the idea is to continue studying [the patients involved in the study],” said Dr. Martimbianco de Assis, adding that the team also intends to analyze brain tissue from in vitro studies using cell cultures.
This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
Approximately 10,000 suicide deaths are recorded in Brazil every year. The suicide risk is highest among patients with depressive disorders, particularly women (> 18% vs. 11% for men).
There are countless people who work to prevent suicide, and the challenges they face are many. But now, on the horizon, there are new tools that could prove invaluable to their efforts – tools such as biomarkers. In a study recently published in the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry, researchers from the Catholic University of Pelotas (UCPel), Brazil, reported an association of glutathione (GSH) with the degree of suicide risk in women at 18 months postpartum. Specifically, they found that reduced serum GSH levels were significantly lower for those with moderate to high suicide risk than for those without suicide risk. Their findings suggest that GSH may be a potential biomarker or etiologic factor among women at risk for suicide, with therapeutic implications.
This was a case-control study nested within a cohort study. From this cohort, 45 women were selected at 18 months postpartum. Thirty of them had mood disorders, such as major depression and bipolar disorder. The other 15 participants, none of whom had a mood disorder, made up the control group.
Depression and the risk for suicide were assessed using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Plus (MINI-Plus 5.0.0 Brazilian version), module A and module C, respectively. Blood samples were collected to evaluate serum levels of the following oxidative stress biomarkers: reactive oxygen species, superoxide dismutase, and GSH.
The prevalence of suicide risk observed in the women at 18 months postpartum was 24.4%. The prevalence of suicide risk in the mood disorder group was 36.7%.
In addition, the statistical analysis found that women with moderate to high suicide risk had cerebral redox imbalance, resulting in a decrease in blood GSH levels.
The study team was led by neuroscientist Adriano Martimbianco de Assis, PhD, the coordinator of UCPel’s postgraduate program in health and behavior. He said that the correlation identified between GSH serum levels and suicide risk gives rise to two possible applications: using GSH as a biomarker for suicide risk and using GSH therapeutically.
Regarding the former application, Dr. Martimbianco de Assis explained that additional studies are needed to take a step forward. “Although we believe that most of the GSH came from the brain – given that it’s the brain’s main antioxidant – as we analyze blood samples, we’re not yet able to rule out the possibility that it came from other organs,” he said in an interview. So, confirming that hypothesis will require studies that involve imaging brain tissue. According to Dr. Martimbianco de Assis, once there is confirmation, it will be possible to move to using the antioxidant as a biomarker for suicide risk.
He also shared his views about the second application: using GSH therapeutically. “We already know that there are very simple alternatives that can influence GSH levels, [and they] mostly have to do with exercise and [improving the quality of] the food one eats. But there are also drugs: for example, N-acetyl cysteine, which is a precursor of GSH.” Adopting strategies to increase the levels of this antioxidant in the body should reverse the imbalance identified in the study and, as a result, may lead to lowering the risk for suicide. But, he reiterated, “getting to a place where GSH [can be used] in clinical practice hinges on getting that confirmation that it did, in fact, come from the brain. Recall that our study found lower levels of GSH in women at risk for suicide.”
Even though the study evaluated postpartum women, it’s possible that the results can be extrapolated to other populations, said Dr. Martimbianco de Assis. This is because when the data were collected, 18 months had already passed since giving birth. The participants’ physiological condition at that point was more similar to the one prior to becoming pregnant.
The UCPel researchers continue to follow the cohort. “We intend to continue monitoring GSH levels at other times. Forty-eight months have now passed since the women gave birth, and the idea is to continue studying [the patients involved in the study],” said Dr. Martimbianco de Assis, adding that the team also intends to analyze brain tissue from in vitro studies using cell cultures.
This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
IUD-released levonorgestrel eases heavy menstrual periods
Median blood loss decreased by more than 90% in the first three cycles. Overall, treatment was successful in 81.8% of 99 patients (95% confidence interval, 74.2%-89.4%), according to findings published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
Already approved for contraception, the IUD (Liletta) had substantial benefits for quality of life in measures such as sleep, pain/cramping, and daily functioning, wrote a group led by Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at University of California, Davis.
“This study provides evidence of high efficacy, as expected, for the Liletta levonorgestrel 52 mg IUD for heavy menstrual bleeding treatment,” Dr. Creinin said in an interview.
Racially diverse cohort
Conducted at 29 U.S. sites prior to seeking FDA registration for this new use, the phase 3 open-label trial of the 52 mg progestin-releasing IUD enrolled 105 participants with a mean age of 35.4 years. Unlike previous trials, this one included obese or severely obese women (44.8%), with 42 participants having a body mass index (BMI) of more than 35 kg/m2, and also 28 nulliparous women (27.6%).
Those with abnormalities such as fibroids or coagulopathies were excluded. Although most of the cohort was White (n = 68), the study included Black (n = 25), Asian (n = 4), and Hispanic (n = 10) women, plus 7 from other minorities, suggesting the results would be widely applicable.
Mean baseline blood loss in the cohort ranged from 73 mL to 520 mL (median, 143 mL). Of 89 treated women with follow-up, participants had a median absolute blood-loss decreases of 93.3% (86.1%-97.8%) at cycle three and 97.6% (90.4%-100%) at cycle six. Median bleeding reductions at cycle six were similar between women with and without obesity at 97.6% and 97.5%, respectively, and between nulliparous and parous women at 97.0% and 98.1%, respectively (P = .43). The study, however, was not sufficiently powered to fully analyze these subgroups, the authors acknowledged.
Although results were overall comparable with those of a previous study on a different IUD, the expulsion rate was somewhat higher, at 9%, than the 6% reported in the earlier study.
“Although this strategy for reducing blood loss is not new, this study is notable because it looked at high-BMI women and nulliparous women,” said Kathryn J. Gray, MD, PhD, an attending physician in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the research.“No prior trials have included patients with BMIs exceeding 35 kg/m2 or nulliparous patients, while this study enrolled a full array of patients, which allowed exploratory analyses of these subpopulations,” Dr. Creinin confirmed.
According to Dr. Gray, the IUD approach has advantages over systemic treatment with oral medication. “First, treatment is not user-dependent so the user doesn’t have to remember to take it. In addition, because the medication is locally targeted in the uterus, it is more effective and there is less fluctuation and variability in drug levels than when taken orally.”
As to treatment durability, Dr. Creinin said, “Long-term studies in a population being treated for heavy menstrual bleeding would be helpful to have an idea of how long this effect lasts. Still, there is no reason to expect that the effect will not last for many years.”
And with this treatment, he added, both patient and clinician can readily detect its effect. “If bleeding begins to increase, they will know!”
Would there be a lingering residual effect even after removal of the IUD? “That is an excellent question that remains to be answered,” Dr. Creinin said. “There are no data on when the heavy bleeding returns, but it would be expected to do so.”
This study was funded, designed, and supervised by Medicines360, which also provided the study treatment. Dr. Creinin disclosed financial relationships with various private-sector companies, including Medicines360, Organon, Fuji Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck & Co. Multiple study coauthors disclosed similar financial ties to industry partners, including Medicines360. Dr. Gray had no potential conflicts of interest with regard to her comments.
Median blood loss decreased by more than 90% in the first three cycles. Overall, treatment was successful in 81.8% of 99 patients (95% confidence interval, 74.2%-89.4%), according to findings published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
Already approved for contraception, the IUD (Liletta) had substantial benefits for quality of life in measures such as sleep, pain/cramping, and daily functioning, wrote a group led by Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at University of California, Davis.
“This study provides evidence of high efficacy, as expected, for the Liletta levonorgestrel 52 mg IUD for heavy menstrual bleeding treatment,” Dr. Creinin said in an interview.
Racially diverse cohort
Conducted at 29 U.S. sites prior to seeking FDA registration for this new use, the phase 3 open-label trial of the 52 mg progestin-releasing IUD enrolled 105 participants with a mean age of 35.4 years. Unlike previous trials, this one included obese or severely obese women (44.8%), with 42 participants having a body mass index (BMI) of more than 35 kg/m2, and also 28 nulliparous women (27.6%).
Those with abnormalities such as fibroids or coagulopathies were excluded. Although most of the cohort was White (n = 68), the study included Black (n = 25), Asian (n = 4), and Hispanic (n = 10) women, plus 7 from other minorities, suggesting the results would be widely applicable.
Mean baseline blood loss in the cohort ranged from 73 mL to 520 mL (median, 143 mL). Of 89 treated women with follow-up, participants had a median absolute blood-loss decreases of 93.3% (86.1%-97.8%) at cycle three and 97.6% (90.4%-100%) at cycle six. Median bleeding reductions at cycle six were similar between women with and without obesity at 97.6% and 97.5%, respectively, and between nulliparous and parous women at 97.0% and 98.1%, respectively (P = .43). The study, however, was not sufficiently powered to fully analyze these subgroups, the authors acknowledged.
Although results were overall comparable with those of a previous study on a different IUD, the expulsion rate was somewhat higher, at 9%, than the 6% reported in the earlier study.
“Although this strategy for reducing blood loss is not new, this study is notable because it looked at high-BMI women and nulliparous women,” said Kathryn J. Gray, MD, PhD, an attending physician in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the research.“No prior trials have included patients with BMIs exceeding 35 kg/m2 or nulliparous patients, while this study enrolled a full array of patients, which allowed exploratory analyses of these subpopulations,” Dr. Creinin confirmed.
According to Dr. Gray, the IUD approach has advantages over systemic treatment with oral medication. “First, treatment is not user-dependent so the user doesn’t have to remember to take it. In addition, because the medication is locally targeted in the uterus, it is more effective and there is less fluctuation and variability in drug levels than when taken orally.”
As to treatment durability, Dr. Creinin said, “Long-term studies in a population being treated for heavy menstrual bleeding would be helpful to have an idea of how long this effect lasts. Still, there is no reason to expect that the effect will not last for many years.”
And with this treatment, he added, both patient and clinician can readily detect its effect. “If bleeding begins to increase, they will know!”
Would there be a lingering residual effect even after removal of the IUD? “That is an excellent question that remains to be answered,” Dr. Creinin said. “There are no data on when the heavy bleeding returns, but it would be expected to do so.”
This study was funded, designed, and supervised by Medicines360, which also provided the study treatment. Dr. Creinin disclosed financial relationships with various private-sector companies, including Medicines360, Organon, Fuji Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck & Co. Multiple study coauthors disclosed similar financial ties to industry partners, including Medicines360. Dr. Gray had no potential conflicts of interest with regard to her comments.
Median blood loss decreased by more than 90% in the first three cycles. Overall, treatment was successful in 81.8% of 99 patients (95% confidence interval, 74.2%-89.4%), according to findings published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
Already approved for contraception, the IUD (Liletta) had substantial benefits for quality of life in measures such as sleep, pain/cramping, and daily functioning, wrote a group led by Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at University of California, Davis.
“This study provides evidence of high efficacy, as expected, for the Liletta levonorgestrel 52 mg IUD for heavy menstrual bleeding treatment,” Dr. Creinin said in an interview.
Racially diverse cohort
Conducted at 29 U.S. sites prior to seeking FDA registration for this new use, the phase 3 open-label trial of the 52 mg progestin-releasing IUD enrolled 105 participants with a mean age of 35.4 years. Unlike previous trials, this one included obese or severely obese women (44.8%), with 42 participants having a body mass index (BMI) of more than 35 kg/m2, and also 28 nulliparous women (27.6%).
Those with abnormalities such as fibroids or coagulopathies were excluded. Although most of the cohort was White (n = 68), the study included Black (n = 25), Asian (n = 4), and Hispanic (n = 10) women, plus 7 from other minorities, suggesting the results would be widely applicable.
Mean baseline blood loss in the cohort ranged from 73 mL to 520 mL (median, 143 mL). Of 89 treated women with follow-up, participants had a median absolute blood-loss decreases of 93.3% (86.1%-97.8%) at cycle three and 97.6% (90.4%-100%) at cycle six. Median bleeding reductions at cycle six were similar between women with and without obesity at 97.6% and 97.5%, respectively, and between nulliparous and parous women at 97.0% and 98.1%, respectively (P = .43). The study, however, was not sufficiently powered to fully analyze these subgroups, the authors acknowledged.
Although results were overall comparable with those of a previous study on a different IUD, the expulsion rate was somewhat higher, at 9%, than the 6% reported in the earlier study.
“Although this strategy for reducing blood loss is not new, this study is notable because it looked at high-BMI women and nulliparous women,” said Kathryn J. Gray, MD, PhD, an attending physician in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the research.“No prior trials have included patients with BMIs exceeding 35 kg/m2 or nulliparous patients, while this study enrolled a full array of patients, which allowed exploratory analyses of these subpopulations,” Dr. Creinin confirmed.
According to Dr. Gray, the IUD approach has advantages over systemic treatment with oral medication. “First, treatment is not user-dependent so the user doesn’t have to remember to take it. In addition, because the medication is locally targeted in the uterus, it is more effective and there is less fluctuation and variability in drug levels than when taken orally.”
As to treatment durability, Dr. Creinin said, “Long-term studies in a population being treated for heavy menstrual bleeding would be helpful to have an idea of how long this effect lasts. Still, there is no reason to expect that the effect will not last for many years.”
And with this treatment, he added, both patient and clinician can readily detect its effect. “If bleeding begins to increase, they will know!”
Would there be a lingering residual effect even after removal of the IUD? “That is an excellent question that remains to be answered,” Dr. Creinin said. “There are no data on when the heavy bleeding returns, but it would be expected to do so.”
This study was funded, designed, and supervised by Medicines360, which also provided the study treatment. Dr. Creinin disclosed financial relationships with various private-sector companies, including Medicines360, Organon, Fuji Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck & Co. Multiple study coauthors disclosed similar financial ties to industry partners, including Medicines360. Dr. Gray had no potential conflicts of interest with regard to her comments.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Outpatient costs top drug costs in some insured, working women with breast cancer
Among a sample of younger women with invasive breast cancer and employer-sponsored insurance, outpatient-related out-of-pocket (OOP) costs were greater than drug costs.
For these same patients, prescriptions were largely for nonproprietary anticancer drugs and entailed limited OOP costs. For women with high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and commercially driven health plans (CDHPs), OOP costs were higher, compared with coverage by more generous plans, according to the Research Letter published in JAMA Network Open.
“You would expect that people undergoing cancer treatment should not have to face very high out-of-pocket costs associated with care regardless of treatment modality because their treatment is largely guideline-indicated, and they have no choices,” stated corresponding author Rena Conti, PhD, associate professor with the school of business, Boston University, in an interview. “If you are diagnosed with cancer and undergoing treatment, you’re following the recommendation of your doctor, and your doctor is following standard protocols for treatment. In that scenario, Economics 101 suggests that people should not have to pay anything or [should pay] very little, especially for things that are cheap and are known to be effective, because there’s no overuse. Where normally we think that out-of-pocket costs are meant to control overuse, people with breast cancer are not opting to get more than indicated chemotherapy or radiation.”
The analysis of 25,224 women with invasive breast cancer diagnosis and claims for 1 or more of 14 oral anticancer drugs revealed that OOP costs for nondrug outpatient claims represented 79.0% of total costs. OOP drug costs were modest, with a 30-day supply ranging from $0.57-$0.60 for tamoxifen to $134.08-$141.07 for palbociclib.
“We were interested in understanding to what extent women who are insured with private insurance are exposed to out-of-pocket costs for standard breast cancer treatment, both in looking at drugs, but also the other aspects of the treatments they undergo.”
High OOP costs for the oral anticancer prescription drugs that are central to breast cancer treatment are associated with treatment nonadherence and discontinuation. Little has been known, however, about OOP costs of treatment associated with invasive breast cancer among employer-insured women younger than 65 years, the paper says.
“This population may face significant financial burdens related to long-term hormonal-based prevention and enrollment in high-deductible health plans and consumer-driven health plans,” the authors state in their paper.
In the cross-sectional study, which used the national 2018 Marative MarketScan database, 23.1% were HDHP- or CDHP-insured. Fifty-one percent had no OOP costs for drugs. The total mean estimated OOP cost, however, was $1,502.23 per patient, with inpatient costs representing only $112.41 (95% confidence interval, $112.40-$112.42); outpatient costs were $1,186.27 (95% CI, $1,185.67-$1,188.16). Pharmaceutical costs were $203.55 (95% CI, $203.34-$203.78).“We were surprised to find that the vast majority were getting breast cancer treatment with older, very effective, very safe, relatively inexpensive drugs and had limited out-of-pocket costs with some variation – higher costs for the few receiving newer, expensive drugs. The backbone of treatment is the older, generic drugs, which are cheap for both the insurers and the patients. But we found also that women are facing high out-of-pocket costs for nondrug-based therapy – specifically for doctor visits, getting check-ups, diagnostic scans, and maybe other types of treatment, as well. ... It’s a very different story than the one typically being told about the preponderance of out-of-pocket costs being drug-related,” Dr. Conti said.
The explanation may be that progress in breast cancer treatment over the last decades has led to effective treatments that are largely now inexpensive. The situation is different with ovarian cancer and many blood cancers such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia and multiple myeloma. For them, the new, innovative, safe, and effective drugs are very expensive, she noted.
“I think that insurers can modulate the out-of-pocket costs associated with drug treatment through formulary design and other tools they have. It’s less easy for them to modulate out-of-pocket costs associated with other modalties of care. Still, for medical care that is obviously necessary, there needs to be a cap on what women should have to pay,” Dr. Conti said.
A further concern raised by Dr. Conti is shrinking Medicaid coverage with the expiration of COVID-specific expanded Medicaid eligibility.
“Policy folks are closely watching the size of uninsured populations and also the growing importance of the high deductible and consumer-driven plans in which patients face high out-of-pocket first dollar coverage for care. With Medicaid rolls shrinking, we’ll see more people in low-premium, not well-insured plans. Americans’ exposure to higher costs for guideline-recommended care might grow, especially as more of them are independent contractors in the gig economy and not working for big corporations.”
“We worry that if and when they get a diagnosis of breast cancer, which is common among younger women, they are going to be faced with costs associated with their care that are going to have to be paid out-of-pocket – and it’s not going to be for the drug, it’s the other types of care. Doctors should know that the younger patient population that they are serving might be facing burdens associated with their care.”
Dr. Conti added, “Among women who are underinsured, there is a clear burden associated with cancer treatment. Reform efforts have largely focused on reducing out-of-pocket costs for seniors and have not focused much on guideline-consistent care for those under 65 who are working. Their burden can be quite onerous and cause financial harm for them and their families, resulting in worse health,” she continued, “Policy attention should go to unburdening people who have a serious diagnosis and who really have to be treated. There’s very good evidence that imposing additional out-of-pocket costs for guideline-consistent care causes people to make really hard decisions about paying rent versus paying for meds, about splitting pills and not doing all the things their physician is recommending, and about staying in jobs they don’t love but are locked into [because of health coverage].”
Dr. Conti concluded, “The good news is that, in breast cancer, the drugs work and are cheap. But the bad news is that there are many people who are underinsured and therefore, their care still has a high out-of-pocket burden. ACA radically changed working age people’s ability to qualify for insurance and be insured, but that didn’t mean that they are really well-covered when they become sick. They are still in peril over high out-of-pocket costs because of the proliferation of plans that are very skimpy. Women think they are insured until they get a diagnosis.”
Noting study limitations, Dr. Conti said that OOP costs cited are an underestimate, because many patients will also be treated for other comorbidities and complications related to treatment.
The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the American Cancer Society.
Among a sample of younger women with invasive breast cancer and employer-sponsored insurance, outpatient-related out-of-pocket (OOP) costs were greater than drug costs.
For these same patients, prescriptions were largely for nonproprietary anticancer drugs and entailed limited OOP costs. For women with high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and commercially driven health plans (CDHPs), OOP costs were higher, compared with coverage by more generous plans, according to the Research Letter published in JAMA Network Open.
“You would expect that people undergoing cancer treatment should not have to face very high out-of-pocket costs associated with care regardless of treatment modality because their treatment is largely guideline-indicated, and they have no choices,” stated corresponding author Rena Conti, PhD, associate professor with the school of business, Boston University, in an interview. “If you are diagnosed with cancer and undergoing treatment, you’re following the recommendation of your doctor, and your doctor is following standard protocols for treatment. In that scenario, Economics 101 suggests that people should not have to pay anything or [should pay] very little, especially for things that are cheap and are known to be effective, because there’s no overuse. Where normally we think that out-of-pocket costs are meant to control overuse, people with breast cancer are not opting to get more than indicated chemotherapy or radiation.”
The analysis of 25,224 women with invasive breast cancer diagnosis and claims for 1 or more of 14 oral anticancer drugs revealed that OOP costs for nondrug outpatient claims represented 79.0% of total costs. OOP drug costs were modest, with a 30-day supply ranging from $0.57-$0.60 for tamoxifen to $134.08-$141.07 for palbociclib.
“We were interested in understanding to what extent women who are insured with private insurance are exposed to out-of-pocket costs for standard breast cancer treatment, both in looking at drugs, but also the other aspects of the treatments they undergo.”
High OOP costs for the oral anticancer prescription drugs that are central to breast cancer treatment are associated with treatment nonadherence and discontinuation. Little has been known, however, about OOP costs of treatment associated with invasive breast cancer among employer-insured women younger than 65 years, the paper says.
“This population may face significant financial burdens related to long-term hormonal-based prevention and enrollment in high-deductible health plans and consumer-driven health plans,” the authors state in their paper.
In the cross-sectional study, which used the national 2018 Marative MarketScan database, 23.1% were HDHP- or CDHP-insured. Fifty-one percent had no OOP costs for drugs. The total mean estimated OOP cost, however, was $1,502.23 per patient, with inpatient costs representing only $112.41 (95% confidence interval, $112.40-$112.42); outpatient costs were $1,186.27 (95% CI, $1,185.67-$1,188.16). Pharmaceutical costs were $203.55 (95% CI, $203.34-$203.78).“We were surprised to find that the vast majority were getting breast cancer treatment with older, very effective, very safe, relatively inexpensive drugs and had limited out-of-pocket costs with some variation – higher costs for the few receiving newer, expensive drugs. The backbone of treatment is the older, generic drugs, which are cheap for both the insurers and the patients. But we found also that women are facing high out-of-pocket costs for nondrug-based therapy – specifically for doctor visits, getting check-ups, diagnostic scans, and maybe other types of treatment, as well. ... It’s a very different story than the one typically being told about the preponderance of out-of-pocket costs being drug-related,” Dr. Conti said.
The explanation may be that progress in breast cancer treatment over the last decades has led to effective treatments that are largely now inexpensive. The situation is different with ovarian cancer and many blood cancers such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia and multiple myeloma. For them, the new, innovative, safe, and effective drugs are very expensive, she noted.
“I think that insurers can modulate the out-of-pocket costs associated with drug treatment through formulary design and other tools they have. It’s less easy for them to modulate out-of-pocket costs associated with other modalties of care. Still, for medical care that is obviously necessary, there needs to be a cap on what women should have to pay,” Dr. Conti said.
A further concern raised by Dr. Conti is shrinking Medicaid coverage with the expiration of COVID-specific expanded Medicaid eligibility.
“Policy folks are closely watching the size of uninsured populations and also the growing importance of the high deductible and consumer-driven plans in which patients face high out-of-pocket first dollar coverage for care. With Medicaid rolls shrinking, we’ll see more people in low-premium, not well-insured plans. Americans’ exposure to higher costs for guideline-recommended care might grow, especially as more of them are independent contractors in the gig economy and not working for big corporations.”
“We worry that if and when they get a diagnosis of breast cancer, which is common among younger women, they are going to be faced with costs associated with their care that are going to have to be paid out-of-pocket – and it’s not going to be for the drug, it’s the other types of care. Doctors should know that the younger patient population that they are serving might be facing burdens associated with their care.”
Dr. Conti added, “Among women who are underinsured, there is a clear burden associated with cancer treatment. Reform efforts have largely focused on reducing out-of-pocket costs for seniors and have not focused much on guideline-consistent care for those under 65 who are working. Their burden can be quite onerous and cause financial harm for them and their families, resulting in worse health,” she continued, “Policy attention should go to unburdening people who have a serious diagnosis and who really have to be treated. There’s very good evidence that imposing additional out-of-pocket costs for guideline-consistent care causes people to make really hard decisions about paying rent versus paying for meds, about splitting pills and not doing all the things their physician is recommending, and about staying in jobs they don’t love but are locked into [because of health coverage].”
Dr. Conti concluded, “The good news is that, in breast cancer, the drugs work and are cheap. But the bad news is that there are many people who are underinsured and therefore, their care still has a high out-of-pocket burden. ACA radically changed working age people’s ability to qualify for insurance and be insured, but that didn’t mean that they are really well-covered when they become sick. They are still in peril over high out-of-pocket costs because of the proliferation of plans that are very skimpy. Women think they are insured until they get a diagnosis.”
Noting study limitations, Dr. Conti said that OOP costs cited are an underestimate, because many patients will also be treated for other comorbidities and complications related to treatment.
The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the American Cancer Society.
Among a sample of younger women with invasive breast cancer and employer-sponsored insurance, outpatient-related out-of-pocket (OOP) costs were greater than drug costs.
For these same patients, prescriptions were largely for nonproprietary anticancer drugs and entailed limited OOP costs. For women with high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and commercially driven health plans (CDHPs), OOP costs were higher, compared with coverage by more generous plans, according to the Research Letter published in JAMA Network Open.
“You would expect that people undergoing cancer treatment should not have to face very high out-of-pocket costs associated with care regardless of treatment modality because their treatment is largely guideline-indicated, and they have no choices,” stated corresponding author Rena Conti, PhD, associate professor with the school of business, Boston University, in an interview. “If you are diagnosed with cancer and undergoing treatment, you’re following the recommendation of your doctor, and your doctor is following standard protocols for treatment. In that scenario, Economics 101 suggests that people should not have to pay anything or [should pay] very little, especially for things that are cheap and are known to be effective, because there’s no overuse. Where normally we think that out-of-pocket costs are meant to control overuse, people with breast cancer are not opting to get more than indicated chemotherapy or radiation.”
The analysis of 25,224 women with invasive breast cancer diagnosis and claims for 1 or more of 14 oral anticancer drugs revealed that OOP costs for nondrug outpatient claims represented 79.0% of total costs. OOP drug costs were modest, with a 30-day supply ranging from $0.57-$0.60 for tamoxifen to $134.08-$141.07 for palbociclib.
“We were interested in understanding to what extent women who are insured with private insurance are exposed to out-of-pocket costs for standard breast cancer treatment, both in looking at drugs, but also the other aspects of the treatments they undergo.”
High OOP costs for the oral anticancer prescription drugs that are central to breast cancer treatment are associated with treatment nonadherence and discontinuation. Little has been known, however, about OOP costs of treatment associated with invasive breast cancer among employer-insured women younger than 65 years, the paper says.
“This population may face significant financial burdens related to long-term hormonal-based prevention and enrollment in high-deductible health plans and consumer-driven health plans,” the authors state in their paper.
In the cross-sectional study, which used the national 2018 Marative MarketScan database, 23.1% were HDHP- or CDHP-insured. Fifty-one percent had no OOP costs for drugs. The total mean estimated OOP cost, however, was $1,502.23 per patient, with inpatient costs representing only $112.41 (95% confidence interval, $112.40-$112.42); outpatient costs were $1,186.27 (95% CI, $1,185.67-$1,188.16). Pharmaceutical costs were $203.55 (95% CI, $203.34-$203.78).“We were surprised to find that the vast majority were getting breast cancer treatment with older, very effective, very safe, relatively inexpensive drugs and had limited out-of-pocket costs with some variation – higher costs for the few receiving newer, expensive drugs. The backbone of treatment is the older, generic drugs, which are cheap for both the insurers and the patients. But we found also that women are facing high out-of-pocket costs for nondrug-based therapy – specifically for doctor visits, getting check-ups, diagnostic scans, and maybe other types of treatment, as well. ... It’s a very different story than the one typically being told about the preponderance of out-of-pocket costs being drug-related,” Dr. Conti said.
The explanation may be that progress in breast cancer treatment over the last decades has led to effective treatments that are largely now inexpensive. The situation is different with ovarian cancer and many blood cancers such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia and multiple myeloma. For them, the new, innovative, safe, and effective drugs are very expensive, she noted.
“I think that insurers can modulate the out-of-pocket costs associated with drug treatment through formulary design and other tools they have. It’s less easy for them to modulate out-of-pocket costs associated with other modalties of care. Still, for medical care that is obviously necessary, there needs to be a cap on what women should have to pay,” Dr. Conti said.
A further concern raised by Dr. Conti is shrinking Medicaid coverage with the expiration of COVID-specific expanded Medicaid eligibility.
“Policy folks are closely watching the size of uninsured populations and also the growing importance of the high deductible and consumer-driven plans in which patients face high out-of-pocket first dollar coverage for care. With Medicaid rolls shrinking, we’ll see more people in low-premium, not well-insured plans. Americans’ exposure to higher costs for guideline-recommended care might grow, especially as more of them are independent contractors in the gig economy and not working for big corporations.”
“We worry that if and when they get a diagnosis of breast cancer, which is common among younger women, they are going to be faced with costs associated with their care that are going to have to be paid out-of-pocket – and it’s not going to be for the drug, it’s the other types of care. Doctors should know that the younger patient population that they are serving might be facing burdens associated with their care.”
Dr. Conti added, “Among women who are underinsured, there is a clear burden associated with cancer treatment. Reform efforts have largely focused on reducing out-of-pocket costs for seniors and have not focused much on guideline-consistent care for those under 65 who are working. Their burden can be quite onerous and cause financial harm for them and their families, resulting in worse health,” she continued, “Policy attention should go to unburdening people who have a serious diagnosis and who really have to be treated. There’s very good evidence that imposing additional out-of-pocket costs for guideline-consistent care causes people to make really hard decisions about paying rent versus paying for meds, about splitting pills and not doing all the things their physician is recommending, and about staying in jobs they don’t love but are locked into [because of health coverage].”
Dr. Conti concluded, “The good news is that, in breast cancer, the drugs work and are cheap. But the bad news is that there are many people who are underinsured and therefore, their care still has a high out-of-pocket burden. ACA radically changed working age people’s ability to qualify for insurance and be insured, but that didn’t mean that they are really well-covered when they become sick. They are still in peril over high out-of-pocket costs because of the proliferation of plans that are very skimpy. Women think they are insured until they get a diagnosis.”
Noting study limitations, Dr. Conti said that OOP costs cited are an underestimate, because many patients will also be treated for other comorbidities and complications related to treatment.
The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the American Cancer Society.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Routine third-trimester ultrasounds can detect likely breech births
Implementing universal ultrasound during the third trimester of pregnancy significantly reduced the number of undiagnosed breech presentations, according to a study published in PLOS Medicine. The effects held if sonographers used a traditional ultrasound machine or if midwives used a handheld ultrasound tool to perform what is known as a point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) procedure.
“Giving pregnant women a third-trimester scan reduces the rate of undetected breech in labor by over two-thirds, which reduces the chances of harm to the baby,” said Asma Khalil, MBBCh, MD, professor of obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine at the University of London’s St. George’s Hospital, and a coauthor of the new study.
Routine ultrasounds typically are performed from the 10th to the 13th week of pregnancy, not during the third trimester, when the risk for a breech birth would be most apparent. Breech births occur in 3%-4% of pregnancies, raising the risk that babies will experience broken bones or hemorrhage. Knowing that breech is possible before birth enables physicians to discuss options with the pregnant woman in advance, Dr. Khalil said. These steps include rotating the baby in the uterus or conducting a cesarean delivery. Such counseling is not possible if breech is undetected until spontaneous or induced labor.
“Breech presentation at term is not very common, but diagnosing it prior to the onset of labor or induction of labor offers patients much more flexibility in terms of options and planning,” said Cecilia B. Leggett, MD, a resident in obstetrics and gynecology at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles. Dr. Leggett, who was not involved in the study, has shown that handheld devices are as accurate at assessing fetal weight as are standard ultrasound machines.
Two tools, same result
Dr. Khalil and her colleagues compared the rates of undiagnosed breech presentations before and after implementing universal third-semester ultrasound at two hospitals in the United Kingdom. The requirement began in 2020; the study compared the rate of undiagnosed breeches from the period of 2016-2020 with that of 2020-2021.
St. George’s Hospital in London used a traditional ultrasound machine that is read by a sonographer, whereas the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, in Norwich, England, employed midwives to use a handheld ultrasound device.
The rate of undiagnosed breech cases declined from 14.2% at St. George’s before the universal ultrasound requirement (82 missed cases of 578 breech births) to 2.8% after the requirement began (7 missed cases of 251 breech births). The story was similar at Norfolk and Norwich, where 16.2% missed breech cases occurred before the requirement (27 of 167) and 3.5% missed cases were reported after it (5 of 142).
The increased accuracy of breech diagnosis before labor probably led to fewer cases of impaired blood flow to a baby’s brain at birth, Dr. Khalil’s group reported, as well as a probable reduction in the number of stillborn babies or those who die extremely young.
Traditional ultrasound scans read by sonographers are expensive, Dr. Khalil noted, whereas the portable handheld devices are much cheaper and could be used widely to improve detection of breech births. That step would require robust training about how to properly use these devices, Dr. Leggett said.
“As we see more and more studies come out about technology for POCUS, I think it’s important to keep in mind that we need the education about the tools to be as accessible as the tools themselves,” she said.
Dr. Leggett had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Khalil is a vice president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, is a trustee and the treasurer of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and has lectured at and consulted in several ultrasound-based projects, webinars, and educational events.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Implementing universal ultrasound during the third trimester of pregnancy significantly reduced the number of undiagnosed breech presentations, according to a study published in PLOS Medicine. The effects held if sonographers used a traditional ultrasound machine or if midwives used a handheld ultrasound tool to perform what is known as a point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) procedure.
“Giving pregnant women a third-trimester scan reduces the rate of undetected breech in labor by over two-thirds, which reduces the chances of harm to the baby,” said Asma Khalil, MBBCh, MD, professor of obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine at the University of London’s St. George’s Hospital, and a coauthor of the new study.
Routine ultrasounds typically are performed from the 10th to the 13th week of pregnancy, not during the third trimester, when the risk for a breech birth would be most apparent. Breech births occur in 3%-4% of pregnancies, raising the risk that babies will experience broken bones or hemorrhage. Knowing that breech is possible before birth enables physicians to discuss options with the pregnant woman in advance, Dr. Khalil said. These steps include rotating the baby in the uterus or conducting a cesarean delivery. Such counseling is not possible if breech is undetected until spontaneous or induced labor.
“Breech presentation at term is not very common, but diagnosing it prior to the onset of labor or induction of labor offers patients much more flexibility in terms of options and planning,” said Cecilia B. Leggett, MD, a resident in obstetrics and gynecology at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles. Dr. Leggett, who was not involved in the study, has shown that handheld devices are as accurate at assessing fetal weight as are standard ultrasound machines.
Two tools, same result
Dr. Khalil and her colleagues compared the rates of undiagnosed breech presentations before and after implementing universal third-semester ultrasound at two hospitals in the United Kingdom. The requirement began in 2020; the study compared the rate of undiagnosed breeches from the period of 2016-2020 with that of 2020-2021.
St. George’s Hospital in London used a traditional ultrasound machine that is read by a sonographer, whereas the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, in Norwich, England, employed midwives to use a handheld ultrasound device.
The rate of undiagnosed breech cases declined from 14.2% at St. George’s before the universal ultrasound requirement (82 missed cases of 578 breech births) to 2.8% after the requirement began (7 missed cases of 251 breech births). The story was similar at Norfolk and Norwich, where 16.2% missed breech cases occurred before the requirement (27 of 167) and 3.5% missed cases were reported after it (5 of 142).
The increased accuracy of breech diagnosis before labor probably led to fewer cases of impaired blood flow to a baby’s brain at birth, Dr. Khalil’s group reported, as well as a probable reduction in the number of stillborn babies or those who die extremely young.
Traditional ultrasound scans read by sonographers are expensive, Dr. Khalil noted, whereas the portable handheld devices are much cheaper and could be used widely to improve detection of breech births. That step would require robust training about how to properly use these devices, Dr. Leggett said.
“As we see more and more studies come out about technology for POCUS, I think it’s important to keep in mind that we need the education about the tools to be as accessible as the tools themselves,” she said.
Dr. Leggett had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Khalil is a vice president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, is a trustee and the treasurer of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and has lectured at and consulted in several ultrasound-based projects, webinars, and educational events.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Implementing universal ultrasound during the third trimester of pregnancy significantly reduced the number of undiagnosed breech presentations, according to a study published in PLOS Medicine. The effects held if sonographers used a traditional ultrasound machine or if midwives used a handheld ultrasound tool to perform what is known as a point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) procedure.
“Giving pregnant women a third-trimester scan reduces the rate of undetected breech in labor by over two-thirds, which reduces the chances of harm to the baby,” said Asma Khalil, MBBCh, MD, professor of obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine at the University of London’s St. George’s Hospital, and a coauthor of the new study.
Routine ultrasounds typically are performed from the 10th to the 13th week of pregnancy, not during the third trimester, when the risk for a breech birth would be most apparent. Breech births occur in 3%-4% of pregnancies, raising the risk that babies will experience broken bones or hemorrhage. Knowing that breech is possible before birth enables physicians to discuss options with the pregnant woman in advance, Dr. Khalil said. These steps include rotating the baby in the uterus or conducting a cesarean delivery. Such counseling is not possible if breech is undetected until spontaneous or induced labor.
“Breech presentation at term is not very common, but diagnosing it prior to the onset of labor or induction of labor offers patients much more flexibility in terms of options and planning,” said Cecilia B. Leggett, MD, a resident in obstetrics and gynecology at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles. Dr. Leggett, who was not involved in the study, has shown that handheld devices are as accurate at assessing fetal weight as are standard ultrasound machines.
Two tools, same result
Dr. Khalil and her colleagues compared the rates of undiagnosed breech presentations before and after implementing universal third-semester ultrasound at two hospitals in the United Kingdom. The requirement began in 2020; the study compared the rate of undiagnosed breeches from the period of 2016-2020 with that of 2020-2021.
St. George’s Hospital in London used a traditional ultrasound machine that is read by a sonographer, whereas the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, in Norwich, England, employed midwives to use a handheld ultrasound device.
The rate of undiagnosed breech cases declined from 14.2% at St. George’s before the universal ultrasound requirement (82 missed cases of 578 breech births) to 2.8% after the requirement began (7 missed cases of 251 breech births). The story was similar at Norfolk and Norwich, where 16.2% missed breech cases occurred before the requirement (27 of 167) and 3.5% missed cases were reported after it (5 of 142).
The increased accuracy of breech diagnosis before labor probably led to fewer cases of impaired blood flow to a baby’s brain at birth, Dr. Khalil’s group reported, as well as a probable reduction in the number of stillborn babies or those who die extremely young.
Traditional ultrasound scans read by sonographers are expensive, Dr. Khalil noted, whereas the portable handheld devices are much cheaper and could be used widely to improve detection of breech births. That step would require robust training about how to properly use these devices, Dr. Leggett said.
“As we see more and more studies come out about technology for POCUS, I think it’s important to keep in mind that we need the education about the tools to be as accessible as the tools themselves,” she said.
Dr. Leggett had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Khalil is a vice president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, is a trustee and the treasurer of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and has lectured at and consulted in several ultrasound-based projects, webinars, and educational events.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM PLOS MEDICINE