Women's Health

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.

Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”

Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
 

Expanding legal immigration

In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.

“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.

A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.

A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
 

Reproductive rights: No easy answers

Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.

At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.

While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”

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

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.

Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”

Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
 

Expanding legal immigration

In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.

“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.

A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.

A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
 

Reproductive rights: No easy answers

Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.

At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.

While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”

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

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.

Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”

Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
 

Expanding legal immigration

In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.

“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.

A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.

A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
 

Reproductive rights: No easy answers

Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.

At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.

While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”

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

A new retrospective study provides more evidence that previous breast cancer diagnoses don’t disrupt the health of mothers and newborns in pregnancy: Women who became pregnant at least 12 months after breast cancer diagnosis weren’t more likely than a control group to have preterm births or suffer maternal/neonatal morbidity – even though they were more likely to undergo cesarean section.

“For patients who are more than 1 year out from the diagnosis of breast cancer, it may be safe and reasonable to consider pregnancy without significantly increased odds of maternal or neonatal complications,” said study lead author Kirsten Jorgensen, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at the University of Texas Houston School of Public Health, in an interview. “This study does not suggest there is no risk, but it does place the risk that exists in context with the risk that is associated with any pregnancy.”

The study appears in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers launched the analysis because “there is relatively little data to help guide patients, their oncologists, and their obstetricians as they navigate the potential for pregnancy after a cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “There have been prior studies looking at birth outcomes, but they often include people who become pregnant very shortly after diagnosis, which may skew results.”

Researchers used databases to track 30,021 women in California aged 18-45 who were diagnosed with breast cancer from 2000 to 2012. Of those, only 553 met the study criteria and conceived at least 1 year after a stage I-III breast cancer diagnosis (median age at delivery = 36; 50.6% non-Hispanic White, 23.9% Hispanic, 6.0% Black; 83.2% private insurance).

Study authors compared these women to a matched control group of 1,659 women without breast cancer.

After adjustment for various factors, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of maternal outcomes – preterm birth at less than 37 weeks of gestation (12.5% in the breast cancer group vs. 10.0% in the control group; odds ratio = 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.74) or preterm birth at less than 32 weeks of gestation (1.3% vs. 1.6%, respectively, OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.79).

Researchers didn’t find a significant difference in neonatal outcomes either – small for gestational age (less than the 5th percentile, 3.1% vs. 5.0%, respectively; OR = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.35-1.03; less than the 10th percentile: 9.4% vs. 10%, respectively; OR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.68-1.30), or neonatal morbidity (8.7% vs. 7.7%, respectively; OR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81-1.62).

“It is possible that breast cancer may have little impact because some breast cancer is treated only with surgery or radiation to the chest,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “These treatments likely do not impact fertility and may not impact a developing pregnancy.”

There were neonatal deaths: one in the breast cancer group and four in the control group. The researchers said the small number of deaths limited their ability to interpret the data.

Researchers found no evidence that treatment with chemotherapy affected outcomes. They did turn up a difference between the groups: those who’d had breast cancer were more likely to undergo cesarean delivery (45.6% in the breast cancer group, and 40.1% in the control group; OR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.03-1.53), However, offspring of women in the cesarean group weren’t more likely to have neonatal morbidity (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.81-1.62).

It’s hard to explain the higher rate of cesarean deliveries in the breast cancer group, Dr. Jorgensen said. “Overall, among our study population and the matched controls there was a high rate of cesarean section. It is possible there was bias on the provider side. Perhaps they intervened with cesarean section earlier among those with a history of breast cancer – a type of bias due to knowing the history of the patient. We attempted to match for other comorbidities that impact obstetric outcomes, but it is possible that we did not account for all of them.”

In an interview, Patricia A. Ganz, MD, director of cancer prevention and control research at University of California, Los Angeles, praised the new research.

It’s “a well-conducted study with state-of-the-art analysis and interpretation,” she said. “Based on my experience with patients I have cared for with breast cancer, there were no surprises here. Most have had uncomplicated pregnancies. This should be reassuring for women who wish to have children after treatment for breast cancer and clinicians should support this decision.”

As for the higher rate of cesarean delivery in breast-cancer survivors, she said “there may be a tendency to think of these as ‘high risk’ pregnancies, and C-sections may be selected at a more frequent rate as a result.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Jorgensen has no disclosures. Other authors disclosed advisory board service (Delfina Care) and payments from the NIH, Guidepoint, the Schlesinger Group, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Ganz has no disclosures.

A new retrospective study provides more evidence that previous breast cancer diagnoses don’t disrupt the health of mothers and newborns in pregnancy: Women who became pregnant at least 12 months after breast cancer diagnosis weren’t more likely than a control group to have preterm births or suffer maternal/neonatal morbidity – even though they were more likely to undergo cesarean section.

“For patients who are more than 1 year out from the diagnosis of breast cancer, it may be safe and reasonable to consider pregnancy without significantly increased odds of maternal or neonatal complications,” said study lead author Kirsten Jorgensen, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at the University of Texas Houston School of Public Health, in an interview. “This study does not suggest there is no risk, but it does place the risk that exists in context with the risk that is associated with any pregnancy.”

The study appears in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers launched the analysis because “there is relatively little data to help guide patients, their oncologists, and their obstetricians as they navigate the potential for pregnancy after a cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “There have been prior studies looking at birth outcomes, but they often include people who become pregnant very shortly after diagnosis, which may skew results.”

Researchers used databases to track 30,021 women in California aged 18-45 who were diagnosed with breast cancer from 2000 to 2012. Of those, only 553 met the study criteria and conceived at least 1 year after a stage I-III breast cancer diagnosis (median age at delivery = 36; 50.6% non-Hispanic White, 23.9% Hispanic, 6.0% Black; 83.2% private insurance).

Study authors compared these women to a matched control group of 1,659 women without breast cancer.

After adjustment for various factors, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of maternal outcomes – preterm birth at less than 37 weeks of gestation (12.5% in the breast cancer group vs. 10.0% in the control group; odds ratio = 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.74) or preterm birth at less than 32 weeks of gestation (1.3% vs. 1.6%, respectively, OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.79).

Researchers didn’t find a significant difference in neonatal outcomes either – small for gestational age (less than the 5th percentile, 3.1% vs. 5.0%, respectively; OR = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.35-1.03; less than the 10th percentile: 9.4% vs. 10%, respectively; OR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.68-1.30), or neonatal morbidity (8.7% vs. 7.7%, respectively; OR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81-1.62).

“It is possible that breast cancer may have little impact because some breast cancer is treated only with surgery or radiation to the chest,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “These treatments likely do not impact fertility and may not impact a developing pregnancy.”

There were neonatal deaths: one in the breast cancer group and four in the control group. The researchers said the small number of deaths limited their ability to interpret the data.

Researchers found no evidence that treatment with chemotherapy affected outcomes. They did turn up a difference between the groups: those who’d had breast cancer were more likely to undergo cesarean delivery (45.6% in the breast cancer group, and 40.1% in the control group; OR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.03-1.53), However, offspring of women in the cesarean group weren’t more likely to have neonatal morbidity (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.81-1.62).

It’s hard to explain the higher rate of cesarean deliveries in the breast cancer group, Dr. Jorgensen said. “Overall, among our study population and the matched controls there was a high rate of cesarean section. It is possible there was bias on the provider side. Perhaps they intervened with cesarean section earlier among those with a history of breast cancer – a type of bias due to knowing the history of the patient. We attempted to match for other comorbidities that impact obstetric outcomes, but it is possible that we did not account for all of them.”

In an interview, Patricia A. Ganz, MD, director of cancer prevention and control research at University of California, Los Angeles, praised the new research.

It’s “a well-conducted study with state-of-the-art analysis and interpretation,” she said. “Based on my experience with patients I have cared for with breast cancer, there were no surprises here. Most have had uncomplicated pregnancies. This should be reassuring for women who wish to have children after treatment for breast cancer and clinicians should support this decision.”

As for the higher rate of cesarean delivery in breast-cancer survivors, she said “there may be a tendency to think of these as ‘high risk’ pregnancies, and C-sections may be selected at a more frequent rate as a result.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Jorgensen has no disclosures. Other authors disclosed advisory board service (Delfina Care) and payments from the NIH, Guidepoint, the Schlesinger Group, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Ganz has no disclosures.

A new retrospective study provides more evidence that previous breast cancer diagnoses don’t disrupt the health of mothers and newborns in pregnancy: Women who became pregnant at least 12 months after breast cancer diagnosis weren’t more likely than a control group to have preterm births or suffer maternal/neonatal morbidity – even though they were more likely to undergo cesarean section.

“For patients who are more than 1 year out from the diagnosis of breast cancer, it may be safe and reasonable to consider pregnancy without significantly increased odds of maternal or neonatal complications,” said study lead author Kirsten Jorgensen, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at the University of Texas Houston School of Public Health, in an interview. “This study does not suggest there is no risk, but it does place the risk that exists in context with the risk that is associated with any pregnancy.”

The study appears in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers launched the analysis because “there is relatively little data to help guide patients, their oncologists, and their obstetricians as they navigate the potential for pregnancy after a cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “There have been prior studies looking at birth outcomes, but they often include people who become pregnant very shortly after diagnosis, which may skew results.”

Researchers used databases to track 30,021 women in California aged 18-45 who were diagnosed with breast cancer from 2000 to 2012. Of those, only 553 met the study criteria and conceived at least 1 year after a stage I-III breast cancer diagnosis (median age at delivery = 36; 50.6% non-Hispanic White, 23.9% Hispanic, 6.0% Black; 83.2% private insurance).

Study authors compared these women to a matched control group of 1,659 women without breast cancer.

After adjustment for various factors, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of maternal outcomes – preterm birth at less than 37 weeks of gestation (12.5% in the breast cancer group vs. 10.0% in the control group; odds ratio = 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.74) or preterm birth at less than 32 weeks of gestation (1.3% vs. 1.6%, respectively, OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.79).

Researchers didn’t find a significant difference in neonatal outcomes either – small for gestational age (less than the 5th percentile, 3.1% vs. 5.0%, respectively; OR = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.35-1.03; less than the 10th percentile: 9.4% vs. 10%, respectively; OR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.68-1.30), or neonatal morbidity (8.7% vs. 7.7%, respectively; OR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81-1.62).

“It is possible that breast cancer may have little impact because some breast cancer is treated only with surgery or radiation to the chest,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “These treatments likely do not impact fertility and may not impact a developing pregnancy.”

There were neonatal deaths: one in the breast cancer group and four in the control group. The researchers said the small number of deaths limited their ability to interpret the data.

Researchers found no evidence that treatment with chemotherapy affected outcomes. They did turn up a difference between the groups: those who’d had breast cancer were more likely to undergo cesarean delivery (45.6% in the breast cancer group, and 40.1% in the control group; OR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.03-1.53), However, offspring of women in the cesarean group weren’t more likely to have neonatal morbidity (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.81-1.62).

It’s hard to explain the higher rate of cesarean deliveries in the breast cancer group, Dr. Jorgensen said. “Overall, among our study population and the matched controls there was a high rate of cesarean section. It is possible there was bias on the provider side. Perhaps they intervened with cesarean section earlier among those with a history of breast cancer – a type of bias due to knowing the history of the patient. We attempted to match for other comorbidities that impact obstetric outcomes, but it is possible that we did not account for all of them.”

In an interview, Patricia A. Ganz, MD, director of cancer prevention and control research at University of California, Los Angeles, praised the new research.

It’s “a well-conducted study with state-of-the-art analysis and interpretation,” she said. “Based on my experience with patients I have cared for with breast cancer, there were no surprises here. Most have had uncomplicated pregnancies. This should be reassuring for women who wish to have children after treatment for breast cancer and clinicians should support this decision.”

As for the higher rate of cesarean delivery in breast-cancer survivors, she said “there may be a tendency to think of these as ‘high risk’ pregnancies, and C-sections may be selected at a more frequent rate as a result.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Jorgensen has no disclosures. Other authors disclosed advisory board service (Delfina Care) and payments from the NIH, Guidepoint, the Schlesinger Group, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Ganz has no disclosures.

Motherhood can create changes in the body down to the bone, a new study shows.

Female primates who had been pregnant showed lower levels of calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous in their bones, revealing for the first time new ways that females are changed by pregnancy and breastfeeding, according to a study published by PLOS One.

“Our findings provide additional evidence of the profound impact that reproduction has on the female organism, further demonstrating that the skeleton is not a static organ but a dynamic one that changes with life events,” said lead author and New York University doctoral student Paola Cerrito in a news release.

The study evaluated the bones of rhesus macaques, also known as rhesus monkeys, which share 93% of genes with humans, according to the National Primate Research Centers. They have been used in research that paved the way for many medical breakthroughs such as treatments for HIV/AIDS; they’re also used in Alzheimer’s research.

Menopause has long been known to impact bone health, which is tied to calcium and phosphorous levels. This latest research does not address how bone health is affected by pregnancy and lactation but further points to the everchanging state of bones based on life events.

“Our research shows that even before the cessation of fertility, the skeleton responds dynamically to changes in reproductive status,” Ms. Cerrito said. “Moreover, these findings reaffirm the significant impact giving birth has on a female organism – quite simply, evidence of reproduction is ‘written in the bones’ for life.”

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

Motherhood can create changes in the body down to the bone, a new study shows.

Female primates who had been pregnant showed lower levels of calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous in their bones, revealing for the first time new ways that females are changed by pregnancy and breastfeeding, according to a study published by PLOS One.

“Our findings provide additional evidence of the profound impact that reproduction has on the female organism, further demonstrating that the skeleton is not a static organ but a dynamic one that changes with life events,” said lead author and New York University doctoral student Paola Cerrito in a news release.

The study evaluated the bones of rhesus macaques, also known as rhesus monkeys, which share 93% of genes with humans, according to the National Primate Research Centers. They have been used in research that paved the way for many medical breakthroughs such as treatments for HIV/AIDS; they’re also used in Alzheimer’s research.

Menopause has long been known to impact bone health, which is tied to calcium and phosphorous levels. This latest research does not address how bone health is affected by pregnancy and lactation but further points to the everchanging state of bones based on life events.

“Our research shows that even before the cessation of fertility, the skeleton responds dynamically to changes in reproductive status,” Ms. Cerrito said. “Moreover, these findings reaffirm the significant impact giving birth has on a female organism – quite simply, evidence of reproduction is ‘written in the bones’ for life.”

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

Motherhood can create changes in the body down to the bone, a new study shows.

Female primates who had been pregnant showed lower levels of calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous in their bones, revealing for the first time new ways that females are changed by pregnancy and breastfeeding, according to a study published by PLOS One.

“Our findings provide additional evidence of the profound impact that reproduction has on the female organism, further demonstrating that the skeleton is not a static organ but a dynamic one that changes with life events,” said lead author and New York University doctoral student Paola Cerrito in a news release.

The study evaluated the bones of rhesus macaques, also known as rhesus monkeys, which share 93% of genes with humans, according to the National Primate Research Centers. They have been used in research that paved the way for many medical breakthroughs such as treatments for HIV/AIDS; they’re also used in Alzheimer’s research.

Menopause has long been known to impact bone health, which is tied to calcium and phosphorous levels. This latest research does not address how bone health is affected by pregnancy and lactation but further points to the everchanging state of bones based on life events.

“Our research shows that even before the cessation of fertility, the skeleton responds dynamically to changes in reproductive status,” Ms. Cerrito said. “Moreover, these findings reaffirm the significant impact giving birth has on a female organism – quite simply, evidence of reproduction is ‘written in the bones’ for life.”

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

Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is a therapeutic procedure that could be used to help women with sexual dysfunction. However, the benefits of this method in this indication should still be reviewed in high-quality studies with sexual function as the primary endpoint, Erik Allemeyer, MD, PhD, a proctologist at the Niels Stensen Clinics in Georgsmarienhütte, Germany, and colleagues wrote in a recent journal article.

The World Health Organization defines sexual health as physical, emotional, mental, and social well-being in relation to sexuality. There are extensive investigations that verify the considerable importance of sexual function on a person’s quality of life. It therefore follows that therapy may be required if an individual is experiencing sexual dysfunction.

According to the authors, there are diverse data on the frequency of sexual dysfunction in women, in part because of heterogeneous definitions. The prevalence ranges between 26% and 91%. The estimated prevalence of orgasm difficulties in particular ranges from 16% to 25%. Sexual dysfunction can therefore be said to be a clinically significant problem.

It was recently discovered that SNS, which has only been used for other conditions so far, could also be an option for women with sexual dysfunction. According to Dr. Allemeyer and coauthors, SNS was first described in 1988 as a therapeutic alternative for patients with neurogenic bladder and has been approved in Europe since 1994. As a minimally invasive therapy for urge incontinence, idiopathic pelvic pain, and for nonobstructive urinary retention, SNS can now be used to treat a wide spectrum of conditions in urology and urogynecology. After the successful stimulation treatment of fecal incontinence was first described in 1995, the procedure has also been used in coloproctology.
 

Tested before implantation

In SNS, sacral nerve roots (S3 and S4) are permanently stimulated via a percutaneously implanted electrode. At first, the effect is reviewed using a test electrode and an external impulse generator over a period of a few weeks. Only if the test stimulation significantly alleviates symptoms can the indication for full implantation be issued, wrote the authors.

The positive effects on sexual function could be seen, even in the early years of stimulation therapy, when it was used for urinary and fecal incontinence as well as for idiopathic pelvic pain, they added. They have now summarized and discussed the current state of research on the potential effects of SNS on women’s sexual function in a literature review.
 

Systematic study analysis

To do this, they analyzed 16 studies, which included a total of 662 women, that reviewed the effect of SNS on sexual function when the treatment was being used in other indications. The overwhelming majority of data relates to urologic indications for SNS (such as overactive bladder, chronic retention, and idiopathic pelvic pain). In contrast, the SNS indication was rarely issued for fecal incontinence (9.1% of SNS indications or 61 patients). The most often used tool to assess the effect is the validated Female Sexual Function Index. The indicators covered in this index are “desire,” “arousal,” “lubrication,” “orgasm,” and “satisfaction.”

According to Dr. Allemeyer and coauthors, the analysis revealed evidence of significantly improved sexual function. It was unclear, however, whether this improvement was a primary or secondary effect of the SNS. All the original works and reviews expressly indicated that there was no proof of a primary effect of SNS on sexual function.

The mode of action of SNS and the immediate anatomic and physiologic link between the functions of urination, urinary incontinence, pelvic pain, fecal incontinence, and sexual function suggest a possible primary effect of SNS on sexual function, wrote the authors. However, no investigations use sexual function as the primary outcome parameter of SNS. This outcome should be reviewed in high-quality studies with sexual function as the primary endpoint.
 

An experimental therapy

According to Dr. Allemeyer and colleagues, two practical conclusions can be drawn from the study data available to date:

A possible primary effect of SNS on sexual function should be reviewed in high-quality, prospective studies that include detailed analyses of the different aspects of sexual dysfunction in both sexes.

An offer for trial-based SNS for sexual dysfunction should be made only at experienced sites with a multidisciplinary team of sex therapists and medical specialists and only after available therapy options have been exhausted and initially only within systematic studies.

This article was translated from Univadis Germany and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is a therapeutic procedure that could be used to help women with sexual dysfunction. However, the benefits of this method in this indication should still be reviewed in high-quality studies with sexual function as the primary endpoint, Erik Allemeyer, MD, PhD, a proctologist at the Niels Stensen Clinics in Georgsmarienhütte, Germany, and colleagues wrote in a recent journal article.

The World Health Organization defines sexual health as physical, emotional, mental, and social well-being in relation to sexuality. There are extensive investigations that verify the considerable importance of sexual function on a person’s quality of life. It therefore follows that therapy may be required if an individual is experiencing sexual dysfunction.

According to the authors, there are diverse data on the frequency of sexual dysfunction in women, in part because of heterogeneous definitions. The prevalence ranges between 26% and 91%. The estimated prevalence of orgasm difficulties in particular ranges from 16% to 25%. Sexual dysfunction can therefore be said to be a clinically significant problem.

It was recently discovered that SNS, which has only been used for other conditions so far, could also be an option for women with sexual dysfunction. According to Dr. Allemeyer and coauthors, SNS was first described in 1988 as a therapeutic alternative for patients with neurogenic bladder and has been approved in Europe since 1994. As a minimally invasive therapy for urge incontinence, idiopathic pelvic pain, and for nonobstructive urinary retention, SNS can now be used to treat a wide spectrum of conditions in urology and urogynecology. After the successful stimulation treatment of fecal incontinence was first described in 1995, the procedure has also been used in coloproctology.
 

Tested before implantation

In SNS, sacral nerve roots (S3 and S4) are permanently stimulated via a percutaneously implanted electrode. At first, the effect is reviewed using a test electrode and an external impulse generator over a period of a few weeks. Only if the test stimulation significantly alleviates symptoms can the indication for full implantation be issued, wrote the authors.

The positive effects on sexual function could be seen, even in the early years of stimulation therapy, when it was used for urinary and fecal incontinence as well as for idiopathic pelvic pain, they added. They have now summarized and discussed the current state of research on the potential effects of SNS on women’s sexual function in a literature review.
 

Systematic study analysis

To do this, they analyzed 16 studies, which included a total of 662 women, that reviewed the effect of SNS on sexual function when the treatment was being used in other indications. The overwhelming majority of data relates to urologic indications for SNS (such as overactive bladder, chronic retention, and idiopathic pelvic pain). In contrast, the SNS indication was rarely issued for fecal incontinence (9.1% of SNS indications or 61 patients). The most often used tool to assess the effect is the validated Female Sexual Function Index. The indicators covered in this index are “desire,” “arousal,” “lubrication,” “orgasm,” and “satisfaction.”

According to Dr. Allemeyer and coauthors, the analysis revealed evidence of significantly improved sexual function. It was unclear, however, whether this improvement was a primary or secondary effect of the SNS. All the original works and reviews expressly indicated that there was no proof of a primary effect of SNS on sexual function.

The mode of action of SNS and the immediate anatomic and physiologic link between the functions of urination, urinary incontinence, pelvic pain, fecal incontinence, and sexual function suggest a possible primary effect of SNS on sexual function, wrote the authors. However, no investigations use sexual function as the primary outcome parameter of SNS. This outcome should be reviewed in high-quality studies with sexual function as the primary endpoint.
 

An experimental therapy

According to Dr. Allemeyer and colleagues, two practical conclusions can be drawn from the study data available to date:

A possible primary effect of SNS on sexual function should be reviewed in high-quality, prospective studies that include detailed analyses of the different aspects of sexual dysfunction in both sexes.

An offer for trial-based SNS for sexual dysfunction should be made only at experienced sites with a multidisciplinary team of sex therapists and medical specialists and only after available therapy options have been exhausted and initially only within systematic studies.

This article was translated from Univadis Germany and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is a therapeutic procedure that could be used to help women with sexual dysfunction. However, the benefits of this method in this indication should still be reviewed in high-quality studies with sexual function as the primary endpoint, Erik Allemeyer, MD, PhD, a proctologist at the Niels Stensen Clinics in Georgsmarienhütte, Germany, and colleagues wrote in a recent journal article.

The World Health Organization defines sexual health as physical, emotional, mental, and social well-being in relation to sexuality. There are extensive investigations that verify the considerable importance of sexual function on a person’s quality of life. It therefore follows that therapy may be required if an individual is experiencing sexual dysfunction.

According to the authors, there are diverse data on the frequency of sexual dysfunction in women, in part because of heterogeneous definitions. The prevalence ranges between 26% and 91%. The estimated prevalence of orgasm difficulties in particular ranges from 16% to 25%. Sexual dysfunction can therefore be said to be a clinically significant problem.

It was recently discovered that SNS, which has only been used for other conditions so far, could also be an option for women with sexual dysfunction. According to Dr. Allemeyer and coauthors, SNS was first described in 1988 as a therapeutic alternative for patients with neurogenic bladder and has been approved in Europe since 1994. As a minimally invasive therapy for urge incontinence, idiopathic pelvic pain, and for nonobstructive urinary retention, SNS can now be used to treat a wide spectrum of conditions in urology and urogynecology. After the successful stimulation treatment of fecal incontinence was first described in 1995, the procedure has also been used in coloproctology.
 

Tested before implantation

In SNS, sacral nerve roots (S3 and S4) are permanently stimulated via a percutaneously implanted electrode. At first, the effect is reviewed using a test electrode and an external impulse generator over a period of a few weeks. Only if the test stimulation significantly alleviates symptoms can the indication for full implantation be issued, wrote the authors.

The positive effects on sexual function could be seen, even in the early years of stimulation therapy, when it was used for urinary and fecal incontinence as well as for idiopathic pelvic pain, they added. They have now summarized and discussed the current state of research on the potential effects of SNS on women’s sexual function in a literature review.
 

Systematic study analysis

To do this, they analyzed 16 studies, which included a total of 662 women, that reviewed the effect of SNS on sexual function when the treatment was being used in other indications. The overwhelming majority of data relates to urologic indications for SNS (such as overactive bladder, chronic retention, and idiopathic pelvic pain). In contrast, the SNS indication was rarely issued for fecal incontinence (9.1% of SNS indications or 61 patients). The most often used tool to assess the effect is the validated Female Sexual Function Index. The indicators covered in this index are “desire,” “arousal,” “lubrication,” “orgasm,” and “satisfaction.”

According to Dr. Allemeyer and coauthors, the analysis revealed evidence of significantly improved sexual function. It was unclear, however, whether this improvement was a primary or secondary effect of the SNS. All the original works and reviews expressly indicated that there was no proof of a primary effect of SNS on sexual function.

The mode of action of SNS and the immediate anatomic and physiologic link between the functions of urination, urinary incontinence, pelvic pain, fecal incontinence, and sexual function suggest a possible primary effect of SNS on sexual function, wrote the authors. However, no investigations use sexual function as the primary outcome parameter of SNS. This outcome should be reviewed in high-quality studies with sexual function as the primary endpoint.
 

An experimental therapy

According to Dr. Allemeyer and colleagues, two practical conclusions can be drawn from the study data available to date:

A possible primary effect of SNS on sexual function should be reviewed in high-quality, prospective studies that include detailed analyses of the different aspects of sexual dysfunction in both sexes.

An offer for trial-based SNS for sexual dysfunction should be made only at experienced sites with a multidisciplinary team of sex therapists and medical specialists and only after available therapy options have been exhausted and initially only within systematic studies.

This article was translated from Univadis Germany and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

A new antibiotic for urinary tract infections is heading toward government approval.

It would be the first new treatment in 20 years for UTIs, which affect more than half of women at least sometime in their lives, according to data compiled by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Called Gepotidacin, the antibiotic’s trial has halted enrollment early due to excellent effectiveness and safety results thus far, drugmaker GSK announced in a press release Nov. 3. GSK will seek approval and peer-reviewed publication early next year.

There is a need for new antibiotics such as this because of increasing antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance to bacteria has become so prevalent that the World Health Organization recently began publishing a list of bacteria that pose the greatest public health threats.

“It’s definitely a big deal,” Cindy Liu, MD, MPH, PhD, of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University, told CNN.

However, antibiotics are not a particularly profitable type of drug, The Wall Street Journal reported. The newspaper noted that they need to be used sparingly to limit resistance, and the cheapest option is usually prescribed. Some small companies that make antibiotics have even gone bankrupt recently, the Journal noted.

The U.S. government has invested in GSK’s development of Gepotidacin. The company predicts the drug could be a “blockbuster” and earn more than $1 billion due to UTI resistance to other drugs, the Journal reported.

“I think it will be really interesting and important to the field to see both how the drug companies sort of market this product and sort of how it does,” Dr. Liu said.

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

A new antibiotic for urinary tract infections is heading toward government approval.

It would be the first new treatment in 20 years for UTIs, which affect more than half of women at least sometime in their lives, according to data compiled by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Called Gepotidacin, the antibiotic’s trial has halted enrollment early due to excellent effectiveness and safety results thus far, drugmaker GSK announced in a press release Nov. 3. GSK will seek approval and peer-reviewed publication early next year.

There is a need for new antibiotics such as this because of increasing antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance to bacteria has become so prevalent that the World Health Organization recently began publishing a list of bacteria that pose the greatest public health threats.

“It’s definitely a big deal,” Cindy Liu, MD, MPH, PhD, of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University, told CNN.

However, antibiotics are not a particularly profitable type of drug, The Wall Street Journal reported. The newspaper noted that they need to be used sparingly to limit resistance, and the cheapest option is usually prescribed. Some small companies that make antibiotics have even gone bankrupt recently, the Journal noted.

The U.S. government has invested in GSK’s development of Gepotidacin. The company predicts the drug could be a “blockbuster” and earn more than $1 billion due to UTI resistance to other drugs, the Journal reported.

“I think it will be really interesting and important to the field to see both how the drug companies sort of market this product and sort of how it does,” Dr. Liu said.

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

A new antibiotic for urinary tract infections is heading toward government approval.

It would be the first new treatment in 20 years for UTIs, which affect more than half of women at least sometime in their lives, according to data compiled by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Called Gepotidacin, the antibiotic’s trial has halted enrollment early due to excellent effectiveness and safety results thus far, drugmaker GSK announced in a press release Nov. 3. GSK will seek approval and peer-reviewed publication early next year.

There is a need for new antibiotics such as this because of increasing antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance to bacteria has become so prevalent that the World Health Organization recently began publishing a list of bacteria that pose the greatest public health threats.

“It’s definitely a big deal,” Cindy Liu, MD, MPH, PhD, of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University, told CNN.

However, antibiotics are not a particularly profitable type of drug, The Wall Street Journal reported. The newspaper noted that they need to be used sparingly to limit resistance, and the cheapest option is usually prescribed. Some small companies that make antibiotics have even gone bankrupt recently, the Journal noted.

The U.S. government has invested in GSK’s development of Gepotidacin. The company predicts the drug could be a “blockbuster” and earn more than $1 billion due to UTI resistance to other drugs, the Journal reported.

“I think it will be really interesting and important to the field to see both how the drug companies sort of market this product and sort of how it does,” Dr. Liu said.

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

The effectiveness of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18 is highly dependent on the age at which it is given. Prevalence rates have been shown to be significantly lower among girls who are vaccinated at the recommended ages of 9-12 years, compared with those who are vaccinated after their sexual debut, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate.

“HPV vaccination does not have any therapeutic effect on HPV infections already acquired, which is more likely to explain the difference in prevalence between predebut versus postdebut recipients than a lower immune response [among older recipients],” lead study author Didem Egemen, PhD, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., told this news organization in an email.

“Still, among older females, the immune response of the vaccine is likely to still be quite strong, and we would encourage vaccination [of female patients] if unvaccinated, as our paper showed that vaccination post debut will still reduce HPV 16/18 prevalence by half,” she added.

The research letter was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

National sample evaluated

Using data from NHANES, a biennial, cross-sectional sample (cycles 2011 through 2018), the researchers identified female persons who were aged 26 years or younger in 2006, when HPV vaccination was introduced, and who were eligible for routine vaccination or “catch-up” vaccination (given between the ages of 13 and 26 years), as per recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The investigators then compared the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 among unvaccinated female patients, female patients who had been vaccinated prior to their sexual debut (predebut group), and those who had been vaccinated after their sexual debut (postdebut group).

They also estimated vaccine uptake among those who were eligible for routine vaccination, as well as the proportion of vaccinated female patients with respect to racial and ethnic subgroups.

In the overall cohort, the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 decreased by 6% (95% confidence interval, 4%-7%) in the unvaccinated group to 3% (95% CI, 1%-6%) in the postdebut group and to less than 1% (95% CI, <1%-1%) in the predebut group, Dr. Egemen and colleagues report.

In real percentages, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was 89% lower in the predebut group (P < .001) but only 41% lower in the postdebut group (P = .29) compared with unvaccinated female patients. And compared with female patients who were vaccinated after their sexual debut, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was reduced by 82% among those who had received the vaccine at the recommended ages of 9-12 years (P = .08).

In the current study, Dr. Egeman acknowledged that only 38% of ever-eligible female patients received the vaccine, although the prevalence increased to 56% when only female patients who were eligible for routine vaccination were taken into account. On the other hand, only 21% (95% CI, 14%-28%) of female patients eligible for routine vaccination received their first dose by age 12 years.

Indeed, the mean age on receipt of the first vaccination dose was 14.5 years (95% CI, 14.1-14.8 years), the authors note, and only 59% of girls received their first dose prior to their sexual debut. Additionally, among routine vaccination–eligible girls aged 12 years or younger in 2006, 33% were vaccinated before and 23% after their sexual debut, and the rest were not vaccinated.

Interestingly, differences in the age at which the HPV vaccine was received by race and ethnicity were negligible, the investigators point out.
 

Vaccination rates increasing

Asked to comment on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University, Boston Medical Center, pointed out that the investigators evaluated data from 2011 to 2018. “We know that HPV vaccination rates have increased over that period and continue to increase,” she emphasized in an email to this news organization.

Physicians also know that more persons are being vaccinated between the ages of 9 and 12 than was the case at the beginning of this study. “This is good news,” she said, “as it means that more adolescents now in 2022 are benefiting fully from vaccination than they were in 2011,” she added.

At the same time, Dr. Perkins acknowledged that many persons are still missing out on the chance to receive the vaccine on time – which means they are missing out on the chance to prevent cancer.

“Making sure that all adolescents receive vaccination between the ages of 9 to 12 has the potential to prevent up to 40,000 cancers every year in the U.S., [including] the most common HPV-related cancers, such as cervical cancer in women and tongue and tonsillar cancer in men,” Dr. Perkins noted.

“Thus, it’s critical that doctors and parents get the message that you can’t vaccinate too early, only too late,” she emphasized.

Dr. Edgman and Dr. Perkins report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The effectiveness of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18 is highly dependent on the age at which it is given. Prevalence rates have been shown to be significantly lower among girls who are vaccinated at the recommended ages of 9-12 years, compared with those who are vaccinated after their sexual debut, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate.

“HPV vaccination does not have any therapeutic effect on HPV infections already acquired, which is more likely to explain the difference in prevalence between predebut versus postdebut recipients than a lower immune response [among older recipients],” lead study author Didem Egemen, PhD, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., told this news organization in an email.

“Still, among older females, the immune response of the vaccine is likely to still be quite strong, and we would encourage vaccination [of female patients] if unvaccinated, as our paper showed that vaccination post debut will still reduce HPV 16/18 prevalence by half,” she added.

The research letter was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

National sample evaluated

Using data from NHANES, a biennial, cross-sectional sample (cycles 2011 through 2018), the researchers identified female persons who were aged 26 years or younger in 2006, when HPV vaccination was introduced, and who were eligible for routine vaccination or “catch-up” vaccination (given between the ages of 13 and 26 years), as per recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The investigators then compared the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 among unvaccinated female patients, female patients who had been vaccinated prior to their sexual debut (predebut group), and those who had been vaccinated after their sexual debut (postdebut group).

They also estimated vaccine uptake among those who were eligible for routine vaccination, as well as the proportion of vaccinated female patients with respect to racial and ethnic subgroups.

In the overall cohort, the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 decreased by 6% (95% confidence interval, 4%-7%) in the unvaccinated group to 3% (95% CI, 1%-6%) in the postdebut group and to less than 1% (95% CI, <1%-1%) in the predebut group, Dr. Egemen and colleagues report.

In real percentages, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was 89% lower in the predebut group (P < .001) but only 41% lower in the postdebut group (P = .29) compared with unvaccinated female patients. And compared with female patients who were vaccinated after their sexual debut, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was reduced by 82% among those who had received the vaccine at the recommended ages of 9-12 years (P = .08).

In the current study, Dr. Egeman acknowledged that only 38% of ever-eligible female patients received the vaccine, although the prevalence increased to 56% when only female patients who were eligible for routine vaccination were taken into account. On the other hand, only 21% (95% CI, 14%-28%) of female patients eligible for routine vaccination received their first dose by age 12 years.

Indeed, the mean age on receipt of the first vaccination dose was 14.5 years (95% CI, 14.1-14.8 years), the authors note, and only 59% of girls received their first dose prior to their sexual debut. Additionally, among routine vaccination–eligible girls aged 12 years or younger in 2006, 33% were vaccinated before and 23% after their sexual debut, and the rest were not vaccinated.

Interestingly, differences in the age at which the HPV vaccine was received by race and ethnicity were negligible, the investigators point out.
 

Vaccination rates increasing

Asked to comment on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University, Boston Medical Center, pointed out that the investigators evaluated data from 2011 to 2018. “We know that HPV vaccination rates have increased over that period and continue to increase,” she emphasized in an email to this news organization.

Physicians also know that more persons are being vaccinated between the ages of 9 and 12 than was the case at the beginning of this study. “This is good news,” she said, “as it means that more adolescents now in 2022 are benefiting fully from vaccination than they were in 2011,” she added.

At the same time, Dr. Perkins acknowledged that many persons are still missing out on the chance to receive the vaccine on time – which means they are missing out on the chance to prevent cancer.

“Making sure that all adolescents receive vaccination between the ages of 9 to 12 has the potential to prevent up to 40,000 cancers every year in the U.S., [including] the most common HPV-related cancers, such as cervical cancer in women and tongue and tonsillar cancer in men,” Dr. Perkins noted.

“Thus, it’s critical that doctors and parents get the message that you can’t vaccinate too early, only too late,” she emphasized.

Dr. Edgman and Dr. Perkins report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The effectiveness of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18 is highly dependent on the age at which it is given. Prevalence rates have been shown to be significantly lower among girls who are vaccinated at the recommended ages of 9-12 years, compared with those who are vaccinated after their sexual debut, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate.

“HPV vaccination does not have any therapeutic effect on HPV infections already acquired, which is more likely to explain the difference in prevalence between predebut versus postdebut recipients than a lower immune response [among older recipients],” lead study author Didem Egemen, PhD, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., told this news organization in an email.

“Still, among older females, the immune response of the vaccine is likely to still be quite strong, and we would encourage vaccination [of female patients] if unvaccinated, as our paper showed that vaccination post debut will still reduce HPV 16/18 prevalence by half,” she added.

The research letter was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

National sample evaluated

Using data from NHANES, a biennial, cross-sectional sample (cycles 2011 through 2018), the researchers identified female persons who were aged 26 years or younger in 2006, when HPV vaccination was introduced, and who were eligible for routine vaccination or “catch-up” vaccination (given between the ages of 13 and 26 years), as per recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The investigators then compared the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 among unvaccinated female patients, female patients who had been vaccinated prior to their sexual debut (predebut group), and those who had been vaccinated after their sexual debut (postdebut group).

They also estimated vaccine uptake among those who were eligible for routine vaccination, as well as the proportion of vaccinated female patients with respect to racial and ethnic subgroups.

In the overall cohort, the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 decreased by 6% (95% confidence interval, 4%-7%) in the unvaccinated group to 3% (95% CI, 1%-6%) in the postdebut group and to less than 1% (95% CI, <1%-1%) in the predebut group, Dr. Egemen and colleagues report.

In real percentages, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was 89% lower in the predebut group (P < .001) but only 41% lower in the postdebut group (P = .29) compared with unvaccinated female patients. And compared with female patients who were vaccinated after their sexual debut, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was reduced by 82% among those who had received the vaccine at the recommended ages of 9-12 years (P = .08).

In the current study, Dr. Egeman acknowledged that only 38% of ever-eligible female patients received the vaccine, although the prevalence increased to 56% when only female patients who were eligible for routine vaccination were taken into account. On the other hand, only 21% (95% CI, 14%-28%) of female patients eligible for routine vaccination received their first dose by age 12 years.

Indeed, the mean age on receipt of the first vaccination dose was 14.5 years (95% CI, 14.1-14.8 years), the authors note, and only 59% of girls received their first dose prior to their sexual debut. Additionally, among routine vaccination–eligible girls aged 12 years or younger in 2006, 33% were vaccinated before and 23% after their sexual debut, and the rest were not vaccinated.

Interestingly, differences in the age at which the HPV vaccine was received by race and ethnicity were negligible, the investigators point out.
 

Vaccination rates increasing

Asked to comment on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University, Boston Medical Center, pointed out that the investigators evaluated data from 2011 to 2018. “We know that HPV vaccination rates have increased over that period and continue to increase,” she emphasized in an email to this news organization.

Physicians also know that more persons are being vaccinated between the ages of 9 and 12 than was the case at the beginning of this study. “This is good news,” she said, “as it means that more adolescents now in 2022 are benefiting fully from vaccination than they were in 2011,” she added.

At the same time, Dr. Perkins acknowledged that many persons are still missing out on the chance to receive the vaccine on time – which means they are missing out on the chance to prevent cancer.

“Making sure that all adolescents receive vaccination between the ages of 9 to 12 has the potential to prevent up to 40,000 cancers every year in the U.S., [including] the most common HPV-related cancers, such as cervical cancer in women and tongue and tonsillar cancer in men,” Dr. Perkins noted.

“Thus, it’s critical that doctors and parents get the message that you can’t vaccinate too early, only too late,” she emphasized.

Dr. Edgman and Dr. Perkins report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Birth control options have improved over the decades. Oral contraceptives are now safer, with fewer side effects. Intrauterine devices can prevent pregnancy 99.6% of the time. But no prescription drug or medical device works flawlessly, and people’s use of contraception is inexact.

“No one walks into my office and says, ‘I plan on missing a pill,’ ” said obstetrician-gynecologist Mitchell Creinin, MD.

“There is no such thing as perfect use; we are all real-life users,” said Dr. Creinin, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who wrote a widely used textbook that details contraceptive failure rates.

Even when the odds of contraception failure are small, the number of incidents can add up quickly. More than 47 million women of reproductive age in the United States use contraception, and, depending on the birth control method, hundreds of thousands of unplanned pregnancies can occur each year. With most abortions outlawed in at least 13 states and legal battles underway in others, contraceptive failures now carry bigger stakes for tens of millions of Americans.

Researchers distinguish between the perfect use of birth control, when a method is used consistently and correctly every time, and typical use, when a method is used in real-life circumstances. No birth control, short of a complete female sterilization, has a 0.00% failure rate.

The failure rate for typical use of birth control pills is 7%. For every million women taking pills, 70,000 unplanned pregnancies could occur in a year. According to the most recent data available, more than 6.5 million women ages 15 to 49 use oral contraceptives, leading to about 460,000 unplanned pregnancies.

Even seemingly minuscule failure rates of IUDs and birth control implants can lead to surprises.

An intrauterine device releases a hormone that thickens the mucus on the cervix. Sperm hit the brick wall of mucus and are unable to pass through the barrier. Implants are matchstick-sized plastic rods placed under the skin, which send a steady, low dose of hormone into the body that also thickens the cervical mucus and prevents the ovaries from releasing an egg. But not always. The hormonal IUD and implants fail to prevent pregnancy 0.1%-0.4% of the time.

Some 4.8 million women use IUDs or implants in the U.S., leading to as many as 5,000 to 20,000 unplanned pregnancies a year.

“We’ve had women come through here for abortions who had an IUD, and they were the one in a thousand,” said Gordon Low, a nurse practitioner at the Planned Parenthood in Little Rock.

Abortion has been outlawed in Arkansas since the Supreme Court’s ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in late June. The only exception is when a patient’s death is considered imminent.

Those stakes are the new backdrop for couples making decisions about which form of contraception to choose or calculating the chances of pregnancy.

Another complication is the belief among many that contraceptives should work all the time, every time.

“In medicine, there is never anything that is 100%,” said Régine Sitruk-Ware, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist at the Population Council, a nonprofit research organization.

All sorts of factors interfere with contraceptive efficacy, said Dr. Sitruk-Ware. Certain medications for HIV and tuberculosis and the herbal supplement St. John’s wort can disrupt the liver’s processing of birth control pills. A medical provider might insert an IUD imprecisely into the uterus. Emergency contraception, including Plan B, is less effective in women weighing more than 165 pounds because the hormone in the medication is weight-dependent.

And life is hectic.

“You may have a delay in taking your next pill,” said Dr. Sitruk-Ware, or getting to the doctor to insert “your next vaginal ring.”

Using contraception consistently and correctly lessens the chance for a failure but Alina Salganicoff, KFF’s director of women’s health policy, said that for many people access to birth control is anything but dependable. Birth control pills are needed month after month, year after year, but “the vast majority of women can only get a one- to two-month supply,” she said.

Even vasectomies can fail.

During a vasectomy, the surgeon cuts the tube that carries sperm to the semen.

The procedure is one of the most effective methods of birth control – the failure rate is 0.15% – and avoids the side effects of hormonal birth control. But even after the vas deferens is cut, cells in the body can heal themselves, including after a vasectomy.

“If you get a cut on your finger, the skin covers it back up,” said Dr. Creinin. “Depending on how big the gap is and how the procedure is done, that tube may grow back together, and that’s one of the ways in which it fails.”

Researchers are testing reversible birth control methods for men, including a hormonal gel applied to the shoulders that suppresses sperm production. Among the 350 participants in the trial and their partners, so far zero pregnancies have occurred. It’s expected to take years for the new methods to reach the market and be available to consumers. Meanwhile, vasectomies and condoms remain the only contraception available for men, who remain fertile for much of their lives.

At 13%, the typical-use failure rate of condoms is among the highest of birth control methods. Condoms play a vital role in stopping the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, but they are often misused or tear. The typical-use failure rate means that for 1 million couples using condoms, 130,000 unplanned pregnancies could occur in one year.

Navigating the failure rates of birth control medicines and medical devices is just one aspect of preventing pregnancy. Ensuring a male sexual partner uses a condom can require negotiation or persuasion skills that can be difficult to navigate, said Jennifer Evans, an assistant teaching professor and health education specialist at Northeastern University.

Historically, women have had little to no say in whether to engage in sexual intercourse and limited autonomy over their bodies, complicating sexual-negotiation skills today, said Ms. Evans.

Part of Ms. Evans’ research focuses on men who coerce women into sex without a condom. One tactic, known as “stealthing,” is when a man puts on a condom but then removes it either before or during sexual intercourse without the other person’s knowledge or consent.

“In a lot of these stealthing cases women don’t necessarily know the condom has been used improperly,” said Ms. Evans. “It means they can’t engage in any kind of preventative behaviors like taking a Plan B or even going and getting an abortion in a timely manner.”

Ms. Evans has found that heterosexual men who engage in stealthing often have hostile attitudes toward women. They report that sex without a condom feels better or say they do it “for the thrill of engaging in a behavior they know is not OK,” she said. Ms. Evans cautions women who suspect a sexual partner will not use a condom correctly to not have sex with that person.

“The consequences were already severe before,” said Ms. Evans, “but now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, they’re even more right now.”

This story is a collaboration between KHN and Science Friday. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Birth control options have improved over the decades. Oral contraceptives are now safer, with fewer side effects. Intrauterine devices can prevent pregnancy 99.6% of the time. But no prescription drug or medical device works flawlessly, and people’s use of contraception is inexact.

“No one walks into my office and says, ‘I plan on missing a pill,’ ” said obstetrician-gynecologist Mitchell Creinin, MD.

“There is no such thing as perfect use; we are all real-life users,” said Dr. Creinin, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who wrote a widely used textbook that details contraceptive failure rates.

Even when the odds of contraception failure are small, the number of incidents can add up quickly. More than 47 million women of reproductive age in the United States use contraception, and, depending on the birth control method, hundreds of thousands of unplanned pregnancies can occur each year. With most abortions outlawed in at least 13 states and legal battles underway in others, contraceptive failures now carry bigger stakes for tens of millions of Americans.

Researchers distinguish between the perfect use of birth control, when a method is used consistently and correctly every time, and typical use, when a method is used in real-life circumstances. No birth control, short of a complete female sterilization, has a 0.00% failure rate.

The failure rate for typical use of birth control pills is 7%. For every million women taking pills, 70,000 unplanned pregnancies could occur in a year. According to the most recent data available, more than 6.5 million women ages 15 to 49 use oral contraceptives, leading to about 460,000 unplanned pregnancies.

Even seemingly minuscule failure rates of IUDs and birth control implants can lead to surprises.

An intrauterine device releases a hormone that thickens the mucus on the cervix. Sperm hit the brick wall of mucus and are unable to pass through the barrier. Implants are matchstick-sized plastic rods placed under the skin, which send a steady, low dose of hormone into the body that also thickens the cervical mucus and prevents the ovaries from releasing an egg. But not always. The hormonal IUD and implants fail to prevent pregnancy 0.1%-0.4% of the time.

Some 4.8 million women use IUDs or implants in the U.S., leading to as many as 5,000 to 20,000 unplanned pregnancies a year.

“We’ve had women come through here for abortions who had an IUD, and they were the one in a thousand,” said Gordon Low, a nurse practitioner at the Planned Parenthood in Little Rock.

Abortion has been outlawed in Arkansas since the Supreme Court’s ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in late June. The only exception is when a patient’s death is considered imminent.

Those stakes are the new backdrop for couples making decisions about which form of contraception to choose or calculating the chances of pregnancy.

Another complication is the belief among many that contraceptives should work all the time, every time.

“In medicine, there is never anything that is 100%,” said Régine Sitruk-Ware, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist at the Population Council, a nonprofit research organization.

All sorts of factors interfere with contraceptive efficacy, said Dr. Sitruk-Ware. Certain medications for HIV and tuberculosis and the herbal supplement St. John’s wort can disrupt the liver’s processing of birth control pills. A medical provider might insert an IUD imprecisely into the uterus. Emergency contraception, including Plan B, is less effective in women weighing more than 165 pounds because the hormone in the medication is weight-dependent.

And life is hectic.

“You may have a delay in taking your next pill,” said Dr. Sitruk-Ware, or getting to the doctor to insert “your next vaginal ring.”

Using contraception consistently and correctly lessens the chance for a failure but Alina Salganicoff, KFF’s director of women’s health policy, said that for many people access to birth control is anything but dependable. Birth control pills are needed month after month, year after year, but “the vast majority of women can only get a one- to two-month supply,” she said.

Even vasectomies can fail.

During a vasectomy, the surgeon cuts the tube that carries sperm to the semen.

The procedure is one of the most effective methods of birth control – the failure rate is 0.15% – and avoids the side effects of hormonal birth control. But even after the vas deferens is cut, cells in the body can heal themselves, including after a vasectomy.

“If you get a cut on your finger, the skin covers it back up,” said Dr. Creinin. “Depending on how big the gap is and how the procedure is done, that tube may grow back together, and that’s one of the ways in which it fails.”

Researchers are testing reversible birth control methods for men, including a hormonal gel applied to the shoulders that suppresses sperm production. Among the 350 participants in the trial and their partners, so far zero pregnancies have occurred. It’s expected to take years for the new methods to reach the market and be available to consumers. Meanwhile, vasectomies and condoms remain the only contraception available for men, who remain fertile for much of their lives.

At 13%, the typical-use failure rate of condoms is among the highest of birth control methods. Condoms play a vital role in stopping the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, but they are often misused or tear. The typical-use failure rate means that for 1 million couples using condoms, 130,000 unplanned pregnancies could occur in one year.

Navigating the failure rates of birth control medicines and medical devices is just one aspect of preventing pregnancy. Ensuring a male sexual partner uses a condom can require negotiation or persuasion skills that can be difficult to navigate, said Jennifer Evans, an assistant teaching professor and health education specialist at Northeastern University.

Historically, women have had little to no say in whether to engage in sexual intercourse and limited autonomy over their bodies, complicating sexual-negotiation skills today, said Ms. Evans.

Part of Ms. Evans’ research focuses on men who coerce women into sex without a condom. One tactic, known as “stealthing,” is when a man puts on a condom but then removes it either before or during sexual intercourse without the other person’s knowledge or consent.

“In a lot of these stealthing cases women don’t necessarily know the condom has been used improperly,” said Ms. Evans. “It means they can’t engage in any kind of preventative behaviors like taking a Plan B or even going and getting an abortion in a timely manner.”

Ms. Evans has found that heterosexual men who engage in stealthing often have hostile attitudes toward women. They report that sex without a condom feels better or say they do it “for the thrill of engaging in a behavior they know is not OK,” she said. Ms. Evans cautions women who suspect a sexual partner will not use a condom correctly to not have sex with that person.

“The consequences were already severe before,” said Ms. Evans, “but now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, they’re even more right now.”

This story is a collaboration between KHN and Science Friday. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Birth control options have improved over the decades. Oral contraceptives are now safer, with fewer side effects. Intrauterine devices can prevent pregnancy 99.6% of the time. But no prescription drug or medical device works flawlessly, and people’s use of contraception is inexact.

“No one walks into my office and says, ‘I plan on missing a pill,’ ” said obstetrician-gynecologist Mitchell Creinin, MD.

“There is no such thing as perfect use; we are all real-life users,” said Dr. Creinin, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who wrote a widely used textbook that details contraceptive failure rates.

Even when the odds of contraception failure are small, the number of incidents can add up quickly. More than 47 million women of reproductive age in the United States use contraception, and, depending on the birth control method, hundreds of thousands of unplanned pregnancies can occur each year. With most abortions outlawed in at least 13 states and legal battles underway in others, contraceptive failures now carry bigger stakes for tens of millions of Americans.

Researchers distinguish between the perfect use of birth control, when a method is used consistently and correctly every time, and typical use, when a method is used in real-life circumstances. No birth control, short of a complete female sterilization, has a 0.00% failure rate.

The failure rate for typical use of birth control pills is 7%. For every million women taking pills, 70,000 unplanned pregnancies could occur in a year. According to the most recent data available, more than 6.5 million women ages 15 to 49 use oral contraceptives, leading to about 460,000 unplanned pregnancies.

Even seemingly minuscule failure rates of IUDs and birth control implants can lead to surprises.

An intrauterine device releases a hormone that thickens the mucus on the cervix. Sperm hit the brick wall of mucus and are unable to pass through the barrier. Implants are matchstick-sized plastic rods placed under the skin, which send a steady, low dose of hormone into the body that also thickens the cervical mucus and prevents the ovaries from releasing an egg. But not always. The hormonal IUD and implants fail to prevent pregnancy 0.1%-0.4% of the time.

Some 4.8 million women use IUDs or implants in the U.S., leading to as many as 5,000 to 20,000 unplanned pregnancies a year.

“We’ve had women come through here for abortions who had an IUD, and they were the one in a thousand,” said Gordon Low, a nurse practitioner at the Planned Parenthood in Little Rock.

Abortion has been outlawed in Arkansas since the Supreme Court’s ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in late June. The only exception is when a patient’s death is considered imminent.

Those stakes are the new backdrop for couples making decisions about which form of contraception to choose or calculating the chances of pregnancy.

Another complication is the belief among many that contraceptives should work all the time, every time.

“In medicine, there is never anything that is 100%,” said Régine Sitruk-Ware, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist at the Population Council, a nonprofit research organization.

All sorts of factors interfere with contraceptive efficacy, said Dr. Sitruk-Ware. Certain medications for HIV and tuberculosis and the herbal supplement St. John’s wort can disrupt the liver’s processing of birth control pills. A medical provider might insert an IUD imprecisely into the uterus. Emergency contraception, including Plan B, is less effective in women weighing more than 165 pounds because the hormone in the medication is weight-dependent.

And life is hectic.

“You may have a delay in taking your next pill,” said Dr. Sitruk-Ware, or getting to the doctor to insert “your next vaginal ring.”

Using contraception consistently and correctly lessens the chance for a failure but Alina Salganicoff, KFF’s director of women’s health policy, said that for many people access to birth control is anything but dependable. Birth control pills are needed month after month, year after year, but “the vast majority of women can only get a one- to two-month supply,” she said.

Even vasectomies can fail.

During a vasectomy, the surgeon cuts the tube that carries sperm to the semen.

The procedure is one of the most effective methods of birth control – the failure rate is 0.15% – and avoids the side effects of hormonal birth control. But even after the vas deferens is cut, cells in the body can heal themselves, including after a vasectomy.

“If you get a cut on your finger, the skin covers it back up,” said Dr. Creinin. “Depending on how big the gap is and how the procedure is done, that tube may grow back together, and that’s one of the ways in which it fails.”

Researchers are testing reversible birth control methods for men, including a hormonal gel applied to the shoulders that suppresses sperm production. Among the 350 participants in the trial and their partners, so far zero pregnancies have occurred. It’s expected to take years for the new methods to reach the market and be available to consumers. Meanwhile, vasectomies and condoms remain the only contraception available for men, who remain fertile for much of their lives.

At 13%, the typical-use failure rate of condoms is among the highest of birth control methods. Condoms play a vital role in stopping the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, but they are often misused or tear. The typical-use failure rate means that for 1 million couples using condoms, 130,000 unplanned pregnancies could occur in one year.

Navigating the failure rates of birth control medicines and medical devices is just one aspect of preventing pregnancy. Ensuring a male sexual partner uses a condom can require negotiation or persuasion skills that can be difficult to navigate, said Jennifer Evans, an assistant teaching professor and health education specialist at Northeastern University.

Historically, women have had little to no say in whether to engage in sexual intercourse and limited autonomy over their bodies, complicating sexual-negotiation skills today, said Ms. Evans.

Part of Ms. Evans’ research focuses on men who coerce women into sex without a condom. One tactic, known as “stealthing,” is when a man puts on a condom but then removes it either before or during sexual intercourse without the other person’s knowledge or consent.

“In a lot of these stealthing cases women don’t necessarily know the condom has been used improperly,” said Ms. Evans. “It means they can’t engage in any kind of preventative behaviors like taking a Plan B or even going and getting an abortion in a timely manner.”

Ms. Evans has found that heterosexual men who engage in stealthing often have hostile attitudes toward women. They report that sex without a condom feels better or say they do it “for the thrill of engaging in a behavior they know is not OK,” she said. Ms. Evans cautions women who suspect a sexual partner will not use a condom correctly to not have sex with that person.

“The consequences were already severe before,” said Ms. Evans, “but now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, they’re even more right now.”

This story is a collaboration between KHN and Science Friday. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) may be at a higher risk of developing pancreatic cancer, say researchers reporting a single-center case-control study.

A diagnosis of PCOS was associated with a 1.9-fold higher risk of pancreatic cancer after adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, estrogen level, and diabetes.

This is the second study to find such an association.

“Our study findings combined with those from the 2019 Swedish Registry study offer compelling evidence that PCOS may be a novel risk factor for pancreatic cancer,” said corresponding author Mengmeng Du, ScD, department of epidemiology and biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

“These data suggest some individuals may have unknown metabolic derangements that may underlie the development of both conditions,” the team concluded.

The findings were published in JAMA Oncology.

Approached for comment, Srinivas Gaddam, MD, MPH, associate director of pancreatic biliary research medicine, Cedars-Sinai, suggested that the findings may pave the way for a better understanding of the two diseases, but he emphasized that more research is needed.

“I think there’s more research to be done because now we’re seeing more younger women get pancreatic cancer,” Dr. Gaddam said. “So that makes it interesting whether PCOS itself contributes to pancreatic cancer. I still think the jury is out there.”

Dr. Gaddam drew attention to the confidence interval for the finding – the adjusted odds ratio was 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-3.46). “Because their odds ratio includes 1, I’m left with the question as to whether or not this is truly associated. I’m not certain that we can draw any conclusions based on this,” he commented.

The investigators acknowledge that they did “not observe statistically significant interactions” and comment that “prospective studies are needed to examine underlying biologic mechanisms and confirm our findings.”

For the study, the team used data from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Pancreatic Tumor Registry. They identified patients with pancreatic cancer who also self-reported a diagnosis of PCOS.

The investigators compared data from 446 women with pathologically or cytologically confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma with 209 women who had no history of cancer. The mean age at cancer diagnosis or enrollment was 63.8 years among patients with pancreatic cancer and 57.7 years in the control group.

The study found that having PCOS nearly doubled a person’s risk of developing pancreatic cancer.

When adjusted for type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the odds ratio fell slightly to 1.78 (95% CI, 0.95-3.34).

Dr. Du, along with lead author Noah Peeri, PhD, were surprised that even after adjusting for body mass index and the presence of type 2 diabetes, PCOS remained strongly associated with pancreatic cancer risk.

“We originally thought type 2 diabetes may drive this association, given more than half of those with PCOS develop type 2 diabetes by age 40, according to the CDC, and type 2 diabetes has also been linked with increased pancreatic cancer risk,” said Dr. Du.

“While the association was slightly weaker and no longer statistically significant after we controlled for type 2 diabetes, the magnitude of the association remained largely unchanged,” he said.

Dr. Peeri believes that some of the factors that have been causally related to PCOS may increase an individual’s pancreatic cancer risk.

“PCOS itself does not likely cause pancreatic cancer, but metabolic problems (for example, improper breakdown of insulin) and chronic inflammation can contribute to both PCOS and pancreatic cancer risk,” Dr. Peeri said.

He concluded that the study results “suggest other underlying metabolic dysfunction may increase an individual’s pancreatic cancer risk.”

An important limitation of this study was that women in the study self-reported PCOS and may have incorrectly recalled their diagnosis. However, the authors believe it is unlikely that that had a bearing on the study findings.

The study was supported by National Cancer Institute grants, the Geoffrey Beene Foundation, and the Arnold and Arlene Goldstein Family Foundation.

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

Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) may be at a higher risk of developing pancreatic cancer, say researchers reporting a single-center case-control study.

A diagnosis of PCOS was associated with a 1.9-fold higher risk of pancreatic cancer after adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, estrogen level, and diabetes.

This is the second study to find such an association.

“Our study findings combined with those from the 2019 Swedish Registry study offer compelling evidence that PCOS may be a novel risk factor for pancreatic cancer,” said corresponding author Mengmeng Du, ScD, department of epidemiology and biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

“These data suggest some individuals may have unknown metabolic derangements that may underlie the development of both conditions,” the team concluded.

The findings were published in JAMA Oncology.

Approached for comment, Srinivas Gaddam, MD, MPH, associate director of pancreatic biliary research medicine, Cedars-Sinai, suggested that the findings may pave the way for a better understanding of the two diseases, but he emphasized that more research is needed.

“I think there’s more research to be done because now we’re seeing more younger women get pancreatic cancer,” Dr. Gaddam said. “So that makes it interesting whether PCOS itself contributes to pancreatic cancer. I still think the jury is out there.”

Dr. Gaddam drew attention to the confidence interval for the finding – the adjusted odds ratio was 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-3.46). “Because their odds ratio includes 1, I’m left with the question as to whether or not this is truly associated. I’m not certain that we can draw any conclusions based on this,” he commented.

The investigators acknowledge that they did “not observe statistically significant interactions” and comment that “prospective studies are needed to examine underlying biologic mechanisms and confirm our findings.”

For the study, the team used data from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Pancreatic Tumor Registry. They identified patients with pancreatic cancer who also self-reported a diagnosis of PCOS.

The investigators compared data from 446 women with pathologically or cytologically confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma with 209 women who had no history of cancer. The mean age at cancer diagnosis or enrollment was 63.8 years among patients with pancreatic cancer and 57.7 years in the control group.

The study found that having PCOS nearly doubled a person’s risk of developing pancreatic cancer.

When adjusted for type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the odds ratio fell slightly to 1.78 (95% CI, 0.95-3.34).

Dr. Du, along with lead author Noah Peeri, PhD, were surprised that even after adjusting for body mass index and the presence of type 2 diabetes, PCOS remained strongly associated with pancreatic cancer risk.

“We originally thought type 2 diabetes may drive this association, given more than half of those with PCOS develop type 2 diabetes by age 40, according to the CDC, and type 2 diabetes has also been linked with increased pancreatic cancer risk,” said Dr. Du.

“While the association was slightly weaker and no longer statistically significant after we controlled for type 2 diabetes, the magnitude of the association remained largely unchanged,” he said.

Dr. Peeri believes that some of the factors that have been causally related to PCOS may increase an individual’s pancreatic cancer risk.

“PCOS itself does not likely cause pancreatic cancer, but metabolic problems (for example, improper breakdown of insulin) and chronic inflammation can contribute to both PCOS and pancreatic cancer risk,” Dr. Peeri said.

He concluded that the study results “suggest other underlying metabolic dysfunction may increase an individual’s pancreatic cancer risk.”

An important limitation of this study was that women in the study self-reported PCOS and may have incorrectly recalled their diagnosis. However, the authors believe it is unlikely that that had a bearing on the study findings.

The study was supported by National Cancer Institute grants, the Geoffrey Beene Foundation, and the Arnold and Arlene Goldstein Family Foundation.

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

Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) may be at a higher risk of developing pancreatic cancer, say researchers reporting a single-center case-control study.

A diagnosis of PCOS was associated with a 1.9-fold higher risk of pancreatic cancer after adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, estrogen level, and diabetes.

This is the second study to find such an association.

“Our study findings combined with those from the 2019 Swedish Registry study offer compelling evidence that PCOS may be a novel risk factor for pancreatic cancer,” said corresponding author Mengmeng Du, ScD, department of epidemiology and biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

“These data suggest some individuals may have unknown metabolic derangements that may underlie the development of both conditions,” the team concluded.

The findings were published in JAMA Oncology.

Approached for comment, Srinivas Gaddam, MD, MPH, associate director of pancreatic biliary research medicine, Cedars-Sinai, suggested that the findings may pave the way for a better understanding of the two diseases, but he emphasized that more research is needed.

“I think there’s more research to be done because now we’re seeing more younger women get pancreatic cancer,” Dr. Gaddam said. “So that makes it interesting whether PCOS itself contributes to pancreatic cancer. I still think the jury is out there.”

Dr. Gaddam drew attention to the confidence interval for the finding – the adjusted odds ratio was 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-3.46). “Because their odds ratio includes 1, I’m left with the question as to whether or not this is truly associated. I’m not certain that we can draw any conclusions based on this,” he commented.

The investigators acknowledge that they did “not observe statistically significant interactions” and comment that “prospective studies are needed to examine underlying biologic mechanisms and confirm our findings.”

For the study, the team used data from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Pancreatic Tumor Registry. They identified patients with pancreatic cancer who also self-reported a diagnosis of PCOS.

The investigators compared data from 446 women with pathologically or cytologically confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma with 209 women who had no history of cancer. The mean age at cancer diagnosis or enrollment was 63.8 years among patients with pancreatic cancer and 57.7 years in the control group.

The study found that having PCOS nearly doubled a person’s risk of developing pancreatic cancer.

When adjusted for type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the odds ratio fell slightly to 1.78 (95% CI, 0.95-3.34).

Dr. Du, along with lead author Noah Peeri, PhD, were surprised that even after adjusting for body mass index and the presence of type 2 diabetes, PCOS remained strongly associated with pancreatic cancer risk.

“We originally thought type 2 diabetes may drive this association, given more than half of those with PCOS develop type 2 diabetes by age 40, according to the CDC, and type 2 diabetes has also been linked with increased pancreatic cancer risk,” said Dr. Du.

“While the association was slightly weaker and no longer statistically significant after we controlled for type 2 diabetes, the magnitude of the association remained largely unchanged,” he said.

Dr. Peeri believes that some of the factors that have been causally related to PCOS may increase an individual’s pancreatic cancer risk.

“PCOS itself does not likely cause pancreatic cancer, but metabolic problems (for example, improper breakdown of insulin) and chronic inflammation can contribute to both PCOS and pancreatic cancer risk,” Dr. Peeri said.

He concluded that the study results “suggest other underlying metabolic dysfunction may increase an individual’s pancreatic cancer risk.”

An important limitation of this study was that women in the study self-reported PCOS and may have incorrectly recalled their diagnosis. However, the authors believe it is unlikely that that had a bearing on the study findings.

The study was supported by National Cancer Institute grants, the Geoffrey Beene Foundation, and the Arnold and Arlene Goldstein Family Foundation.

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

Katrina Ubell, MD, listened with growing skepticism as the dietician outlined her weight-loss plan. “You’re going to have to eat a snack in the afternoon,” she instructed.

Dr. Ubell refrained from rolling her eyes. The afternoon was in the middle of clinic. “I’m not ever going to do that,” she tried to explain. “I can’t.”

“Of course, you can,” the dietician insisted. “You shouldn’t think that way. You get to decide.”

“She wasn’t wrong about that,” Dr. Ubell conceded years later. But the well-meaning dietician couldn’t understand the reality of life as a physician. As a pediatrician, Dr. Ubell could visualize how her afternoon would play out. “You’re already 40 minutes behind. This mom needs to get home to get her kid off the bus. This mom, her toddler is losing his mind because he needs a nap. You’re not going to say: ‘Sorry, I need to eat some carrots and hummus.’ ”

Most of what the dieting realm recommends for weight loss, Dr. Ubell discovered, seems only relevant to people with a consistent 9 to 5 schedule. That was not her life. Neither was she looking for one of the many diet plans based on self-denial and will power. Having already lost and gained back 40 pounds several times, she knew these methods were not effective long term.

What were other overweight doctors doing? she wondered. Someone must know how to help doctors lose weight. But her Google searches revealed ... nothing. No one was offering a useful diet or exercise plan specifically for physicians.

Dr. Ubell’s search for answers led to the world of life coaching, and eventually she became a master-certified life and weight-loss coach, working exclusively with women-identifying physicians.

The field is small. Very few weight-loss programs are solely for physicians, whose stress levels, unpredictable schedules, and high-achieving mindset pose unique challenges. Among the constantly changing diet fads, few would likely work for the surgeon confined to an operating room for 9 hours at a time or the anesthesiologist who can’t even manage to drink water during the workday.

Dr. Ubell set out to create a weight-loss program rooted in the physical and mental demands of medical practice. In the process, she lost 45 pounds.
 

Step 1: Acknowledge that doctors are, unfortunately, human

Dr. Ubell’s approach to food combines concepts from cognitive-behavioral therapy with personalized eating plans, coaching, and support from a community of doctors.

All of this stems from her own experience with emotional eating, which she said many doctors use to process their stress and exhaustion. This is a direct result of needing to repress emotions while caring for patients but lacking guidance on how to manage those feelings outside of work.

“That kind of behavior, being what we call ‘professional,’ but really emotionally shut down, is prized and valued in medicine,” Dr. Ubell said. “I’m not saying we should be open all the time. But we’re not given any tools for what to do at the end of the day. In my case, it was eating. For other people, it’s drinking more than they would like, spending money, gambling, basically just numbing behavior.”

Dr. Ubell said only 20% of her work with clients revolves around what to eat. The other 80% is about managing the thoughts, beliefs, and emotions that negatively affect their lives, teaching them how to cope “without food as the crutch.” Once the problems regarding eating are resolved, clients can begin to address all the problems they were using food to obscure.

“A lot of my clients really have to work on self-love, self-acceptance, self-compassion,” Dr. Ubell said. “They’re such high achievers, and often many of them think that they’ve achieved so much by being harsh with themselves and driving themselves hard. They think it’s causal, but it’s not. They have to learn, How can I be accomplished while being nice to myself?”
 

Step 2: Reassess your mindset

Ali Novitsky, MD, an obesity medicine physician and now full-time life coach, calls this attitude the “heaven’s reward fallacy.” Observed by renowned psychiatrist Aaron Beck, MD, this cognitive distortion involves imagining that hard work, struggle, and self-sacrifice must ultimately pay off, as if suffering entitles us to compensation in the future. For physicians, who are embedded in a culture of selflessness and dedication to the health of others, this often means forfeiting their own health and well-being.

For many, there is also a sense of secrecy and shame regarding health and fitness problems. As doctors, they are experts in the human body. They should already know how to lose weight. Right? And so not knowing or being unable to muster the will power for a diet plan while on call overnight or working 12-hour shifts feels like a professional failure as well as a personal one.

“As physicians, we’re so afraid to fail,” Dr. Novitsky explained. “It’s more comfortable just to not know. Maybe we’ve failed before, or maybe we didn’t get the result that we wanted, so now we can’t bear to have that happen again. It’s just way too painful.”

Dr. Novitsky – who has herself lost 50 pounds and have kept it off for 20 years – provides weight loss, intuitive eating, and fitness programs for female physicians. Her evidence-based approach aims to optimize body composition rather than hitting a number on a scale. Conscious of the physician lifestyle, she offers night and weekend meetings, sessions that can be replayed, and even an “on-call workout” series designed for being in the call room.

Dr. Novitsky notices that many of her clients are stuck in an “all-or-none” mindset. If they can’t do something perfectly with total commitment, they would rather not do it at all. With so many demands on their time and energy, something has to give, and putting their health first begins to seem selfish or hopeless. “I can speak to this,” Dr. Novitsky admitted, “because I did it to myself”

Like Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky said that “most of the stuff we’re coaching on is not about their food. It’s about how they feel undervalued at work, how their relationships are suffering, how they feel super guilty as a parent. They feel like they look good on paper, but this is not the life they signed up for.”
 

Step 3: Life change equals physical change

Siobhan Key, MD, an obesity medicine and family physician, sees her own weight loss struggle as a symptom of a former lifestyle that, frankly, “sucked.”

Her grueling schedule and lack of self-care left her feeling stuck on a “hamster wheel” of work and family responsibilities. There was no space for herself. She craved the dopamine burst from junk food and felt powerless to stop reaching for Wendy’s French fries as a frequent reward. It took realizing that she was on track to develop type 2 diabetes to motivate her to change.

Where she lived also affected her struggle. Living in the small community of Prince George, B.C., local weight-loss programs were difficult for Dr. Key. It was likely that she would encounter some of her patients, which would not be a safe space to reveal her personal challenges. Searching for an expert who could explain how to eat healthy meals while on call and then working a full day afterward also yielded no solutions.

Unlike Dr. Ubell and Dr. Novitsky, Dr. Key still practices medicine. But she is also a weight-loss coach. She takes an unconventional approach by not proposing any specific diet rules or plans. Dictating which foods you can or cannot eat is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, Dr. Key said. It will never work long term. Instead, she wants to help her clients use both their medical knowledge and life experience to make healthy eating fit into their lives.

“Let’s stop doing things that makes our lives worse just to lose weight, because it will never be sustainable,” said Dr. Key. “Rather, let’s choose paths of losing weight and managing our eating that actually make our lives better. And those exist. They’re just not the classic diet paths that we’ve been taught before.”

Dr. Key’s program also includes advice from other physician coaches on professional struggles. For example, charting is a big one, Dr. Key said. The pressure of completing patient notes, often outside of working hours, is a major source of stress that triggers a lot of eating.

Weight loss doesn’t happen in a vacuum, Dr. Key pointed out. It isn’t the simple “eat less, exercise more” equation that physicians learned in medical school. “The reality is, weight loss and eating happen in conjunction with the rest of your life,” she said.

Find ways to make your life easier and the benefits will follow, she said. “As your life gets better, you feel more empowered. You feel less stressed. Your eating choices start to be simpler, and the cravings start to go down. You can’t have one without the other.”
 

Weight is just a symptom of a bigger problem

Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky, and Dr. Key all say they have seen dramatic transformations among their clients. They don’t mean just physical ones. Dr. Ubell remembered an emergency medicine physician so miserable at work that she considered defaulting on her student loans. Dr. Novitsky recalled an anesthesiologist so insecure that she nearly passed up a scholarship to a fitness program. Dr. Key has seen clients so obsessed with what they should and shouldn’t eat that food dominated their thoughts every free minute of the day.

All these doctors, the coaches said, have been able to regain a sense of control over their lives, rethink how they show up at work and at home, and even rediscover their joy in medicine.

These changes are less about body mass index and more about confidence and self-love. For weight loss to last, according to Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky, and Dr. Key, there must be permanent mental shifts that redefine one’s relationship with food.

“There’s no finish line when we’re talking about long-term weight maintenance,” Dr. Key tells physicians. “You have to be able to do it for the rest of your life.”

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

Katrina Ubell, MD, listened with growing skepticism as the dietician outlined her weight-loss plan. “You’re going to have to eat a snack in the afternoon,” she instructed.

Dr. Ubell refrained from rolling her eyes. The afternoon was in the middle of clinic. “I’m not ever going to do that,” she tried to explain. “I can’t.”

“Of course, you can,” the dietician insisted. “You shouldn’t think that way. You get to decide.”

“She wasn’t wrong about that,” Dr. Ubell conceded years later. But the well-meaning dietician couldn’t understand the reality of life as a physician. As a pediatrician, Dr. Ubell could visualize how her afternoon would play out. “You’re already 40 minutes behind. This mom needs to get home to get her kid off the bus. This mom, her toddler is losing his mind because he needs a nap. You’re not going to say: ‘Sorry, I need to eat some carrots and hummus.’ ”

Most of what the dieting realm recommends for weight loss, Dr. Ubell discovered, seems only relevant to people with a consistent 9 to 5 schedule. That was not her life. Neither was she looking for one of the many diet plans based on self-denial and will power. Having already lost and gained back 40 pounds several times, she knew these methods were not effective long term.

What were other overweight doctors doing? she wondered. Someone must know how to help doctors lose weight. But her Google searches revealed ... nothing. No one was offering a useful diet or exercise plan specifically for physicians.

Dr. Ubell’s search for answers led to the world of life coaching, and eventually she became a master-certified life and weight-loss coach, working exclusively with women-identifying physicians.

The field is small. Very few weight-loss programs are solely for physicians, whose stress levels, unpredictable schedules, and high-achieving mindset pose unique challenges. Among the constantly changing diet fads, few would likely work for the surgeon confined to an operating room for 9 hours at a time or the anesthesiologist who can’t even manage to drink water during the workday.

Dr. Ubell set out to create a weight-loss program rooted in the physical and mental demands of medical practice. In the process, she lost 45 pounds.
 

Step 1: Acknowledge that doctors are, unfortunately, human

Dr. Ubell’s approach to food combines concepts from cognitive-behavioral therapy with personalized eating plans, coaching, and support from a community of doctors.

All of this stems from her own experience with emotional eating, which she said many doctors use to process their stress and exhaustion. This is a direct result of needing to repress emotions while caring for patients but lacking guidance on how to manage those feelings outside of work.

“That kind of behavior, being what we call ‘professional,’ but really emotionally shut down, is prized and valued in medicine,” Dr. Ubell said. “I’m not saying we should be open all the time. But we’re not given any tools for what to do at the end of the day. In my case, it was eating. For other people, it’s drinking more than they would like, spending money, gambling, basically just numbing behavior.”

Dr. Ubell said only 20% of her work with clients revolves around what to eat. The other 80% is about managing the thoughts, beliefs, and emotions that negatively affect their lives, teaching them how to cope “without food as the crutch.” Once the problems regarding eating are resolved, clients can begin to address all the problems they were using food to obscure.

“A lot of my clients really have to work on self-love, self-acceptance, self-compassion,” Dr. Ubell said. “They’re such high achievers, and often many of them think that they’ve achieved so much by being harsh with themselves and driving themselves hard. They think it’s causal, but it’s not. They have to learn, How can I be accomplished while being nice to myself?”
 

Step 2: Reassess your mindset

Ali Novitsky, MD, an obesity medicine physician and now full-time life coach, calls this attitude the “heaven’s reward fallacy.” Observed by renowned psychiatrist Aaron Beck, MD, this cognitive distortion involves imagining that hard work, struggle, and self-sacrifice must ultimately pay off, as if suffering entitles us to compensation in the future. For physicians, who are embedded in a culture of selflessness and dedication to the health of others, this often means forfeiting their own health and well-being.

For many, there is also a sense of secrecy and shame regarding health and fitness problems. As doctors, they are experts in the human body. They should already know how to lose weight. Right? And so not knowing or being unable to muster the will power for a diet plan while on call overnight or working 12-hour shifts feels like a professional failure as well as a personal one.

“As physicians, we’re so afraid to fail,” Dr. Novitsky explained. “It’s more comfortable just to not know. Maybe we’ve failed before, or maybe we didn’t get the result that we wanted, so now we can’t bear to have that happen again. It’s just way too painful.”

Dr. Novitsky – who has herself lost 50 pounds and have kept it off for 20 years – provides weight loss, intuitive eating, and fitness programs for female physicians. Her evidence-based approach aims to optimize body composition rather than hitting a number on a scale. Conscious of the physician lifestyle, she offers night and weekend meetings, sessions that can be replayed, and even an “on-call workout” series designed for being in the call room.

Dr. Novitsky notices that many of her clients are stuck in an “all-or-none” mindset. If they can’t do something perfectly with total commitment, they would rather not do it at all. With so many demands on their time and energy, something has to give, and putting their health first begins to seem selfish or hopeless. “I can speak to this,” Dr. Novitsky admitted, “because I did it to myself”

Like Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky said that “most of the stuff we’re coaching on is not about their food. It’s about how they feel undervalued at work, how their relationships are suffering, how they feel super guilty as a parent. They feel like they look good on paper, but this is not the life they signed up for.”
 

Step 3: Life change equals physical change

Siobhan Key, MD, an obesity medicine and family physician, sees her own weight loss struggle as a symptom of a former lifestyle that, frankly, “sucked.”

Her grueling schedule and lack of self-care left her feeling stuck on a “hamster wheel” of work and family responsibilities. There was no space for herself. She craved the dopamine burst from junk food and felt powerless to stop reaching for Wendy’s French fries as a frequent reward. It took realizing that she was on track to develop type 2 diabetes to motivate her to change.

Where she lived also affected her struggle. Living in the small community of Prince George, B.C., local weight-loss programs were difficult for Dr. Key. It was likely that she would encounter some of her patients, which would not be a safe space to reveal her personal challenges. Searching for an expert who could explain how to eat healthy meals while on call and then working a full day afterward also yielded no solutions.

Unlike Dr. Ubell and Dr. Novitsky, Dr. Key still practices medicine. But she is also a weight-loss coach. She takes an unconventional approach by not proposing any specific diet rules or plans. Dictating which foods you can or cannot eat is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, Dr. Key said. It will never work long term. Instead, she wants to help her clients use both their medical knowledge and life experience to make healthy eating fit into their lives.

“Let’s stop doing things that makes our lives worse just to lose weight, because it will never be sustainable,” said Dr. Key. “Rather, let’s choose paths of losing weight and managing our eating that actually make our lives better. And those exist. They’re just not the classic diet paths that we’ve been taught before.”

Dr. Key’s program also includes advice from other physician coaches on professional struggles. For example, charting is a big one, Dr. Key said. The pressure of completing patient notes, often outside of working hours, is a major source of stress that triggers a lot of eating.

Weight loss doesn’t happen in a vacuum, Dr. Key pointed out. It isn’t the simple “eat less, exercise more” equation that physicians learned in medical school. “The reality is, weight loss and eating happen in conjunction with the rest of your life,” she said.

Find ways to make your life easier and the benefits will follow, she said. “As your life gets better, you feel more empowered. You feel less stressed. Your eating choices start to be simpler, and the cravings start to go down. You can’t have one without the other.”
 

Weight is just a symptom of a bigger problem

Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky, and Dr. Key all say they have seen dramatic transformations among their clients. They don’t mean just physical ones. Dr. Ubell remembered an emergency medicine physician so miserable at work that she considered defaulting on her student loans. Dr. Novitsky recalled an anesthesiologist so insecure that she nearly passed up a scholarship to a fitness program. Dr. Key has seen clients so obsessed with what they should and shouldn’t eat that food dominated their thoughts every free minute of the day.

All these doctors, the coaches said, have been able to regain a sense of control over their lives, rethink how they show up at work and at home, and even rediscover their joy in medicine.

These changes are less about body mass index and more about confidence and self-love. For weight loss to last, according to Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky, and Dr. Key, there must be permanent mental shifts that redefine one’s relationship with food.

“There’s no finish line when we’re talking about long-term weight maintenance,” Dr. Key tells physicians. “You have to be able to do it for the rest of your life.”

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

Katrina Ubell, MD, listened with growing skepticism as the dietician outlined her weight-loss plan. “You’re going to have to eat a snack in the afternoon,” she instructed.

Dr. Ubell refrained from rolling her eyes. The afternoon was in the middle of clinic. “I’m not ever going to do that,” she tried to explain. “I can’t.”

“Of course, you can,” the dietician insisted. “You shouldn’t think that way. You get to decide.”

“She wasn’t wrong about that,” Dr. Ubell conceded years later. But the well-meaning dietician couldn’t understand the reality of life as a physician. As a pediatrician, Dr. Ubell could visualize how her afternoon would play out. “You’re already 40 minutes behind. This mom needs to get home to get her kid off the bus. This mom, her toddler is losing his mind because he needs a nap. You’re not going to say: ‘Sorry, I need to eat some carrots and hummus.’ ”

Most of what the dieting realm recommends for weight loss, Dr. Ubell discovered, seems only relevant to people with a consistent 9 to 5 schedule. That was not her life. Neither was she looking for one of the many diet plans based on self-denial and will power. Having already lost and gained back 40 pounds several times, she knew these methods were not effective long term.

What were other overweight doctors doing? she wondered. Someone must know how to help doctors lose weight. But her Google searches revealed ... nothing. No one was offering a useful diet or exercise plan specifically for physicians.

Dr. Ubell’s search for answers led to the world of life coaching, and eventually she became a master-certified life and weight-loss coach, working exclusively with women-identifying physicians.

The field is small. Very few weight-loss programs are solely for physicians, whose stress levels, unpredictable schedules, and high-achieving mindset pose unique challenges. Among the constantly changing diet fads, few would likely work for the surgeon confined to an operating room for 9 hours at a time or the anesthesiologist who can’t even manage to drink water during the workday.

Dr. Ubell set out to create a weight-loss program rooted in the physical and mental demands of medical practice. In the process, she lost 45 pounds.
 

Step 1: Acknowledge that doctors are, unfortunately, human

Dr. Ubell’s approach to food combines concepts from cognitive-behavioral therapy with personalized eating plans, coaching, and support from a community of doctors.

All of this stems from her own experience with emotional eating, which she said many doctors use to process their stress and exhaustion. This is a direct result of needing to repress emotions while caring for patients but lacking guidance on how to manage those feelings outside of work.

“That kind of behavior, being what we call ‘professional,’ but really emotionally shut down, is prized and valued in medicine,” Dr. Ubell said. “I’m not saying we should be open all the time. But we’re not given any tools for what to do at the end of the day. In my case, it was eating. For other people, it’s drinking more than they would like, spending money, gambling, basically just numbing behavior.”

Dr. Ubell said only 20% of her work with clients revolves around what to eat. The other 80% is about managing the thoughts, beliefs, and emotions that negatively affect their lives, teaching them how to cope “without food as the crutch.” Once the problems regarding eating are resolved, clients can begin to address all the problems they were using food to obscure.

“A lot of my clients really have to work on self-love, self-acceptance, self-compassion,” Dr. Ubell said. “They’re such high achievers, and often many of them think that they’ve achieved so much by being harsh with themselves and driving themselves hard. They think it’s causal, but it’s not. They have to learn, How can I be accomplished while being nice to myself?”
 

Step 2: Reassess your mindset

Ali Novitsky, MD, an obesity medicine physician and now full-time life coach, calls this attitude the “heaven’s reward fallacy.” Observed by renowned psychiatrist Aaron Beck, MD, this cognitive distortion involves imagining that hard work, struggle, and self-sacrifice must ultimately pay off, as if suffering entitles us to compensation in the future. For physicians, who are embedded in a culture of selflessness and dedication to the health of others, this often means forfeiting their own health and well-being.

For many, there is also a sense of secrecy and shame regarding health and fitness problems. As doctors, they are experts in the human body. They should already know how to lose weight. Right? And so not knowing or being unable to muster the will power for a diet plan while on call overnight or working 12-hour shifts feels like a professional failure as well as a personal one.

“As physicians, we’re so afraid to fail,” Dr. Novitsky explained. “It’s more comfortable just to not know. Maybe we’ve failed before, or maybe we didn’t get the result that we wanted, so now we can’t bear to have that happen again. It’s just way too painful.”

Dr. Novitsky – who has herself lost 50 pounds and have kept it off for 20 years – provides weight loss, intuitive eating, and fitness programs for female physicians. Her evidence-based approach aims to optimize body composition rather than hitting a number on a scale. Conscious of the physician lifestyle, she offers night and weekend meetings, sessions that can be replayed, and even an “on-call workout” series designed for being in the call room.

Dr. Novitsky notices that many of her clients are stuck in an “all-or-none” mindset. If they can’t do something perfectly with total commitment, they would rather not do it at all. With so many demands on their time and energy, something has to give, and putting their health first begins to seem selfish or hopeless. “I can speak to this,” Dr. Novitsky admitted, “because I did it to myself”

Like Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky said that “most of the stuff we’re coaching on is not about their food. It’s about how they feel undervalued at work, how their relationships are suffering, how they feel super guilty as a parent. They feel like they look good on paper, but this is not the life they signed up for.”
 

Step 3: Life change equals physical change

Siobhan Key, MD, an obesity medicine and family physician, sees her own weight loss struggle as a symptom of a former lifestyle that, frankly, “sucked.”

Her grueling schedule and lack of self-care left her feeling stuck on a “hamster wheel” of work and family responsibilities. There was no space for herself. She craved the dopamine burst from junk food and felt powerless to stop reaching for Wendy’s French fries as a frequent reward. It took realizing that she was on track to develop type 2 diabetes to motivate her to change.

Where she lived also affected her struggle. Living in the small community of Prince George, B.C., local weight-loss programs were difficult for Dr. Key. It was likely that she would encounter some of her patients, which would not be a safe space to reveal her personal challenges. Searching for an expert who could explain how to eat healthy meals while on call and then working a full day afterward also yielded no solutions.

Unlike Dr. Ubell and Dr. Novitsky, Dr. Key still practices medicine. But she is also a weight-loss coach. She takes an unconventional approach by not proposing any specific diet rules or plans. Dictating which foods you can or cannot eat is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, Dr. Key said. It will never work long term. Instead, she wants to help her clients use both their medical knowledge and life experience to make healthy eating fit into their lives.

“Let’s stop doing things that makes our lives worse just to lose weight, because it will never be sustainable,” said Dr. Key. “Rather, let’s choose paths of losing weight and managing our eating that actually make our lives better. And those exist. They’re just not the classic diet paths that we’ve been taught before.”

Dr. Key’s program also includes advice from other physician coaches on professional struggles. For example, charting is a big one, Dr. Key said. The pressure of completing patient notes, often outside of working hours, is a major source of stress that triggers a lot of eating.

Weight loss doesn’t happen in a vacuum, Dr. Key pointed out. It isn’t the simple “eat less, exercise more” equation that physicians learned in medical school. “The reality is, weight loss and eating happen in conjunction with the rest of your life,” she said.

Find ways to make your life easier and the benefits will follow, she said. “As your life gets better, you feel more empowered. You feel less stressed. Your eating choices start to be simpler, and the cravings start to go down. You can’t have one without the other.”
 

Weight is just a symptom of a bigger problem

Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky, and Dr. Key all say they have seen dramatic transformations among their clients. They don’t mean just physical ones. Dr. Ubell remembered an emergency medicine physician so miserable at work that she considered defaulting on her student loans. Dr. Novitsky recalled an anesthesiologist so insecure that she nearly passed up a scholarship to a fitness program. Dr. Key has seen clients so obsessed with what they should and shouldn’t eat that food dominated their thoughts every free minute of the day.

All these doctors, the coaches said, have been able to regain a sense of control over their lives, rethink how they show up at work and at home, and even rediscover their joy in medicine.

These changes are less about body mass index and more about confidence and self-love. For weight loss to last, according to Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky, and Dr. Key, there must be permanent mental shifts that redefine one’s relationship with food.

“There’s no finish line when we’re talking about long-term weight maintenance,” Dr. Key tells physicians. “You have to be able to do it for the rest of your life.”

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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