Women's Health

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.

Estimated travel time to abortion facilities in the United States has increased significantly since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to results from an original investigation published online in JAMA.

In the wake of the ruling, many clinics have closed and now 33.3% of females of reproductive age live more than an hour from an abortion facility, more than double the 14.6% who lived that far before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization court ruling, the paper states.

A 2022 study found that when people live 50 miles or more from an abortion facility they “were more likely to still be seeking an abortion on a 4-week follow-up than those who lived closer to an abortion facility,” wrote the authors, led by Benjamin Rader, MPH, from the Computational Epidemiology Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Of 1,134 abortion facilities in the United States, 749 were considered active before the ruling and 671 were considered active in a simulated post-Dobbs period.
 

More than 15 states have total or partial bans

The researchers accounted for the closure of abortion facilities in states with total bans or 6-week abortion bans, compared with the period before the ruling, “during which all facilities providing abortions in 2021 were considered active.” The authors noted that more than 15 states have such bans.

Researchers found median and mean travel times to abortion facilities were estimated to be 10.9 minutes (interquartile ratio, 4.3-32.4) and 27.8 (standard deviation, 42.0) minutes before the ruling and used a paired sample t test (P < .001) to estimate the increase to a median of 17.0 (IQR, 4.9-124.5) minutes and a mean 100.4 (SD, 161.5) minutes after the ruling.

The numbers “highlight the catastrophe in terms of where we are,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, professor, obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Behind those numbers, she said, are brick walls for people who can’t take off work to drive that far or can’t leave their responsibilities of care for dependents or don’t have a car or even a driver’s license. It also calculates only land travel (car or public transportation) and doesn’t capture the financial and logistical burdens for some to fly to other states.

Dr. Cansino serves on the board of the Society of Family Planning, which publishes #WeCount, a national reporting effort that attempts to capture the effect of the Dobbs decision on abortion access. In a report published Oct. 28, #WeCount stated the numbers show that since the decision, there were 5,270 fewer abortions in July and 5,400 fewer in August, for a total of 10,670 fewer people in the United States who had abortions in the 2 months.

For Dr. Cansino, the numbers are only one measure of the wider problem.

“If it affects one person, it’s really the spirit of the consequence,” she said. “It’s difficult to wrap your mind around these numbers but the bottom line is that someone other than the person experiencing this health issue is making a decision for them.

“You will see physicians leaving states,” she said, “because their hands are tied in giving care.”
 

Glimpse of future from Texas example

The experience of abortion restrictions in Texas, described in another original investigation published in JAMA, provides a window into what could happen as access to abortions continues to decrease.

Texas has banned abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity since Sept. 1, 2021. Researchers obtained data on 80,107 abortions performed between September 2020 and February 2022.

In the first month following implementation of the Texas law, SB-8, the number of abortions in Texas dropped by 50%, compared with September 2020, and many pregnant Texas residents traveled out of state for abortion care.

But out-of-state abortions didn’t fully offset the overall drop in facility-based abortions.

“This decrease in facility-based abortion care suggests that many Texas residents continued their pregnancies, traveled beyond a neighboring state, or self-managed their abortion,” the authors wrote.
 

Increased time comes with costs

Sarah W. Prager, MD, professor in obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the family planning division, explained that the travel time has to be seen in addition to the time it takes to complete the procedure.

Depending on state law, an abortion may take more than one visit to a clinic, which may mean adding lodging costs and overnight hours, or taking time off work, or finding childcare.

“A typical time to be at a clinic is upwards of 6 hours,” Dr. Prager explained, including paperwork, counseling, consent, the procedure, and recovery. That time is growing as active clinics overbook with others closing, she noted.

“We already know that 75% of people getting abortions are economically burdened at baseline. Gas is super expensive so the farther they have to drive – if they have their own car – that’s going to be expensive,” she noted.

In Washington, she said, abortion access is centralized in the western part of the state and located primarily between Seattle and Olympia. Though Oregon to the south has some of the nation’s most supportive laws for abortion, the other surrounding states have restrictive laws.

People in Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana all have restrictive access, she noted, so people seeking abortions from those states have long distances to drive to western Washington and Oregon.

“Even for people living in eastern Washington, they are sometimes driving hours to get abortion care,” she said. “We’re really looking at health care that is dictated by geography, not by evidence, medicine, or science.”

The study by Dr. White and colleagues was supported by grants from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and Collaborative for Gender + Reproductive Equity, as well as a center grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the University of Texas at Austin for providing data during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from Merck and Gynuity Health Projects and personal fees from Merck and Organon outside the submitted work; another reported being named plaintiff in the case Planned Parenthood of Montana v State of Montana, a lawsuit challenging abortion restrictions in that state. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager reported no relevant financial relationships.

Estimated travel time to abortion facilities in the United States has increased significantly since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to results from an original investigation published online in JAMA.

In the wake of the ruling, many clinics have closed and now 33.3% of females of reproductive age live more than an hour from an abortion facility, more than double the 14.6% who lived that far before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization court ruling, the paper states.

A 2022 study found that when people live 50 miles or more from an abortion facility they “were more likely to still be seeking an abortion on a 4-week follow-up than those who lived closer to an abortion facility,” wrote the authors, led by Benjamin Rader, MPH, from the Computational Epidemiology Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Of 1,134 abortion facilities in the United States, 749 were considered active before the ruling and 671 were considered active in a simulated post-Dobbs period.
 

More than 15 states have total or partial bans

The researchers accounted for the closure of abortion facilities in states with total bans or 6-week abortion bans, compared with the period before the ruling, “during which all facilities providing abortions in 2021 were considered active.” The authors noted that more than 15 states have such bans.

Researchers found median and mean travel times to abortion facilities were estimated to be 10.9 minutes (interquartile ratio, 4.3-32.4) and 27.8 (standard deviation, 42.0) minutes before the ruling and used a paired sample t test (P < .001) to estimate the increase to a median of 17.0 (IQR, 4.9-124.5) minutes and a mean 100.4 (SD, 161.5) minutes after the ruling.

The numbers “highlight the catastrophe in terms of where we are,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, professor, obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Behind those numbers, she said, are brick walls for people who can’t take off work to drive that far or can’t leave their responsibilities of care for dependents or don’t have a car or even a driver’s license. It also calculates only land travel (car or public transportation) and doesn’t capture the financial and logistical burdens for some to fly to other states.

Dr. Cansino serves on the board of the Society of Family Planning, which publishes #WeCount, a national reporting effort that attempts to capture the effect of the Dobbs decision on abortion access. In a report published Oct. 28, #WeCount stated the numbers show that since the decision, there were 5,270 fewer abortions in July and 5,400 fewer in August, for a total of 10,670 fewer people in the United States who had abortions in the 2 months.

For Dr. Cansino, the numbers are only one measure of the wider problem.

“If it affects one person, it’s really the spirit of the consequence,” she said. “It’s difficult to wrap your mind around these numbers but the bottom line is that someone other than the person experiencing this health issue is making a decision for them.

“You will see physicians leaving states,” she said, “because their hands are tied in giving care.”
 

Glimpse of future from Texas example

The experience of abortion restrictions in Texas, described in another original investigation published in JAMA, provides a window into what could happen as access to abortions continues to decrease.

Texas has banned abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity since Sept. 1, 2021. Researchers obtained data on 80,107 abortions performed between September 2020 and February 2022.

In the first month following implementation of the Texas law, SB-8, the number of abortions in Texas dropped by 50%, compared with September 2020, and many pregnant Texas residents traveled out of state for abortion care.

But out-of-state abortions didn’t fully offset the overall drop in facility-based abortions.

“This decrease in facility-based abortion care suggests that many Texas residents continued their pregnancies, traveled beyond a neighboring state, or self-managed their abortion,” the authors wrote.
 

Increased time comes with costs

Sarah W. Prager, MD, professor in obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the family planning division, explained that the travel time has to be seen in addition to the time it takes to complete the procedure.

Depending on state law, an abortion may take more than one visit to a clinic, which may mean adding lodging costs and overnight hours, or taking time off work, or finding childcare.

“A typical time to be at a clinic is upwards of 6 hours,” Dr. Prager explained, including paperwork, counseling, consent, the procedure, and recovery. That time is growing as active clinics overbook with others closing, she noted.

“We already know that 75% of people getting abortions are economically burdened at baseline. Gas is super expensive so the farther they have to drive – if they have their own car – that’s going to be expensive,” she noted.

In Washington, she said, abortion access is centralized in the western part of the state and located primarily between Seattle and Olympia. Though Oregon to the south has some of the nation’s most supportive laws for abortion, the other surrounding states have restrictive laws.

People in Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana all have restrictive access, she noted, so people seeking abortions from those states have long distances to drive to western Washington and Oregon.

“Even for people living in eastern Washington, they are sometimes driving hours to get abortion care,” she said. “We’re really looking at health care that is dictated by geography, not by evidence, medicine, or science.”

The study by Dr. White and colleagues was supported by grants from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and Collaborative for Gender + Reproductive Equity, as well as a center grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the University of Texas at Austin for providing data during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from Merck and Gynuity Health Projects and personal fees from Merck and Organon outside the submitted work; another reported being named plaintiff in the case Planned Parenthood of Montana v State of Montana, a lawsuit challenging abortion restrictions in that state. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager reported no relevant financial relationships.

Estimated travel time to abortion facilities in the United States has increased significantly since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to results from an original investigation published online in JAMA.

In the wake of the ruling, many clinics have closed and now 33.3% of females of reproductive age live more than an hour from an abortion facility, more than double the 14.6% who lived that far before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization court ruling, the paper states.

A 2022 study found that when people live 50 miles or more from an abortion facility they “were more likely to still be seeking an abortion on a 4-week follow-up than those who lived closer to an abortion facility,” wrote the authors, led by Benjamin Rader, MPH, from the Computational Epidemiology Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Of 1,134 abortion facilities in the United States, 749 were considered active before the ruling and 671 were considered active in a simulated post-Dobbs period.
 

More than 15 states have total or partial bans

The researchers accounted for the closure of abortion facilities in states with total bans or 6-week abortion bans, compared with the period before the ruling, “during which all facilities providing abortions in 2021 were considered active.” The authors noted that more than 15 states have such bans.

Researchers found median and mean travel times to abortion facilities were estimated to be 10.9 minutes (interquartile ratio, 4.3-32.4) and 27.8 (standard deviation, 42.0) minutes before the ruling and used a paired sample t test (P < .001) to estimate the increase to a median of 17.0 (IQR, 4.9-124.5) minutes and a mean 100.4 (SD, 161.5) minutes after the ruling.

The numbers “highlight the catastrophe in terms of where we are,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, professor, obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Behind those numbers, she said, are brick walls for people who can’t take off work to drive that far or can’t leave their responsibilities of care for dependents or don’t have a car or even a driver’s license. It also calculates only land travel (car or public transportation) and doesn’t capture the financial and logistical burdens for some to fly to other states.

Dr. Cansino serves on the board of the Society of Family Planning, which publishes #WeCount, a national reporting effort that attempts to capture the effect of the Dobbs decision on abortion access. In a report published Oct. 28, #WeCount stated the numbers show that since the decision, there were 5,270 fewer abortions in July and 5,400 fewer in August, for a total of 10,670 fewer people in the United States who had abortions in the 2 months.

For Dr. Cansino, the numbers are only one measure of the wider problem.

“If it affects one person, it’s really the spirit of the consequence,” she said. “It’s difficult to wrap your mind around these numbers but the bottom line is that someone other than the person experiencing this health issue is making a decision for them.

“You will see physicians leaving states,” she said, “because their hands are tied in giving care.”
 

Glimpse of future from Texas example

The experience of abortion restrictions in Texas, described in another original investigation published in JAMA, provides a window into what could happen as access to abortions continues to decrease.

Texas has banned abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity since Sept. 1, 2021. Researchers obtained data on 80,107 abortions performed between September 2020 and February 2022.

In the first month following implementation of the Texas law, SB-8, the number of abortions in Texas dropped by 50%, compared with September 2020, and many pregnant Texas residents traveled out of state for abortion care.

But out-of-state abortions didn’t fully offset the overall drop in facility-based abortions.

“This decrease in facility-based abortion care suggests that many Texas residents continued their pregnancies, traveled beyond a neighboring state, or self-managed their abortion,” the authors wrote.
 

Increased time comes with costs

Sarah W. Prager, MD, professor in obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the family planning division, explained that the travel time has to be seen in addition to the time it takes to complete the procedure.

Depending on state law, an abortion may take more than one visit to a clinic, which may mean adding lodging costs and overnight hours, or taking time off work, or finding childcare.

“A typical time to be at a clinic is upwards of 6 hours,” Dr. Prager explained, including paperwork, counseling, consent, the procedure, and recovery. That time is growing as active clinics overbook with others closing, she noted.

“We already know that 75% of people getting abortions are economically burdened at baseline. Gas is super expensive so the farther they have to drive – if they have their own car – that’s going to be expensive,” she noted.

In Washington, she said, abortion access is centralized in the western part of the state and located primarily between Seattle and Olympia. Though Oregon to the south has some of the nation’s most supportive laws for abortion, the other surrounding states have restrictive laws.

People in Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana all have restrictive access, she noted, so people seeking abortions from those states have long distances to drive to western Washington and Oregon.

“Even for people living in eastern Washington, they are sometimes driving hours to get abortion care,” she said. “We’re really looking at health care that is dictated by geography, not by evidence, medicine, or science.”

The study by Dr. White and colleagues was supported by grants from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and Collaborative for Gender + Reproductive Equity, as well as a center grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the University of Texas at Austin for providing data during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from Merck and Gynuity Health Projects and personal fees from Merck and Organon outside the submitted work; another reported being named plaintiff in the case Planned Parenthood of Montana v State of Montana, a lawsuit challenging abortion restrictions in that state. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager reported no relevant financial relationships.

An analysis of more than 800,000 women in Denmark offers more insight into the murky links between female hormones and midlife mental illness in women: It hints that hormone therapy (HT) may boost the risk of depression, have no effect, or lower it – all depending on how it’s administered and when.

Women who took systemic HT had a higher risk of depression from age 48 to 50 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.81), researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. However, there was no overall link between depression and locally administered HT (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.70-1.87) – except when HT was begun between ages 54 and 60, when there were signs of a protective effect (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.91).

“Women in menopause who initiate systemically administered HT should be aware of depression as a potential adverse effect,” epidemiologist and study corresponding author Merete Osler, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg (Denmark) Hospitals and the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview. ”Further, women and clinicians alike should be aware of any misinterpretation of symptoms of depression as menopausal disturbances.”

Dr. Osler said the researchers launched the study to better understand potential hormone-depression links in light of suspicions that lower levels of estrogen in menopause may contribute to depression.

Several randomized clinical trials and cohort and cross-sectional studies have explored whether systemic HT affects depression during menopause, Dr. Osler said, “but the results from these studies have been inconsistent, and few have explored the role of the route of administration.”

For the new registry-based study, researchers retrospectively tracked all women in Denmark who were aged 45 between 1995 and 2017 without prior oophorectomy, certain kinds of cancer, prior use of HT, or ongoing depression.

During follow-up to a mean age of 56, 23% of the women began HT (at a median age of 55), and 1.6% were hospitalized for depression. Of those on HT, 65.8% received locally administered HT.

Researchers adjusted hazard ratios for a long list of factors such as educational level, marital status, number of still births or live births, prior use of hormonal contraceptives, several medical conditions, and prior depression.

“We were surprised by our findings, which to some degree contradicted our prior hypothesis that systemic HT with estrogen would not be associated with first-time depression diagnosis in women aged 45 and above, while HT with progesterone would be associated with a slightly increased risk,” Dr. Osler said. “In our study, systemically administered HT was associated with an increased risk of depression with no difference between estrogen alone or in combination with progestin. As findings from previous studies have been inconsistent, our findings fit with some but not all previous studies.”

Why might the mode of administration make a difference? It’s possible that local administration may contribute less to the systemic circulation, Dr. Osler said, “or that menopausal symptoms including depression are more likely to be treated with systemic HT.”

As for age differences, Dr. Osler said “it is possible that women are more sensitive to the influence of HT on mood around menopause than at later ages. However, it should be noted that in the present study it was not possible to calculate precise risk estimates for use of systemic HT in menopausal women above age 54 because less than 1% initiated treatment with systemic HT after age 54 years.”

In an interview, psychiatrist Natalie Rasgon, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who’s studied hormones and depression, said the study is “remarkably large and consistently executed.”

She cautioned, however, that the findings don’t prove any causality. “Saying that estrogen therapy or hormone therapy causes depression is patently incorrect.”

How can the findings be useful for medical professionals? “Women and physicians alike need to be very mindful of pre-existing mood disorders,” Dr. Rasgon said. “Women who in the past had anxiety disorders, mood swings, PTSD, or prior episodes of depression might have a differential response to hormone therapy in menopause.”

Also keep in mind, she said, that the transition from menopause to post menopause is “very volatile,” and depression may break through even in women undergoing treatment for the condition.

For her part, Dr. Osler said this study and others “emphasize the need for clinical guidelines to further consider the psychological side effects of systemic HT.”

Funding information was not provided. The study authors and Dr. Rasgon have no disclosures.

An analysis of more than 800,000 women in Denmark offers more insight into the murky links between female hormones and midlife mental illness in women: It hints that hormone therapy (HT) may boost the risk of depression, have no effect, or lower it – all depending on how it’s administered and when.

Women who took systemic HT had a higher risk of depression from age 48 to 50 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.81), researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. However, there was no overall link between depression and locally administered HT (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.70-1.87) – except when HT was begun between ages 54 and 60, when there were signs of a protective effect (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.91).

“Women in menopause who initiate systemically administered HT should be aware of depression as a potential adverse effect,” epidemiologist and study corresponding author Merete Osler, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg (Denmark) Hospitals and the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview. ”Further, women and clinicians alike should be aware of any misinterpretation of symptoms of depression as menopausal disturbances.”

Dr. Osler said the researchers launched the study to better understand potential hormone-depression links in light of suspicions that lower levels of estrogen in menopause may contribute to depression.

Several randomized clinical trials and cohort and cross-sectional studies have explored whether systemic HT affects depression during menopause, Dr. Osler said, “but the results from these studies have been inconsistent, and few have explored the role of the route of administration.”

For the new registry-based study, researchers retrospectively tracked all women in Denmark who were aged 45 between 1995 and 2017 without prior oophorectomy, certain kinds of cancer, prior use of HT, or ongoing depression.

During follow-up to a mean age of 56, 23% of the women began HT (at a median age of 55), and 1.6% were hospitalized for depression. Of those on HT, 65.8% received locally administered HT.

Researchers adjusted hazard ratios for a long list of factors such as educational level, marital status, number of still births or live births, prior use of hormonal contraceptives, several medical conditions, and prior depression.

“We were surprised by our findings, which to some degree contradicted our prior hypothesis that systemic HT with estrogen would not be associated with first-time depression diagnosis in women aged 45 and above, while HT with progesterone would be associated with a slightly increased risk,” Dr. Osler said. “In our study, systemically administered HT was associated with an increased risk of depression with no difference between estrogen alone or in combination with progestin. As findings from previous studies have been inconsistent, our findings fit with some but not all previous studies.”

Why might the mode of administration make a difference? It’s possible that local administration may contribute less to the systemic circulation, Dr. Osler said, “or that menopausal symptoms including depression are more likely to be treated with systemic HT.”

As for age differences, Dr. Osler said “it is possible that women are more sensitive to the influence of HT on mood around menopause than at later ages. However, it should be noted that in the present study it was not possible to calculate precise risk estimates for use of systemic HT in menopausal women above age 54 because less than 1% initiated treatment with systemic HT after age 54 years.”

In an interview, psychiatrist Natalie Rasgon, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who’s studied hormones and depression, said the study is “remarkably large and consistently executed.”

She cautioned, however, that the findings don’t prove any causality. “Saying that estrogen therapy or hormone therapy causes depression is patently incorrect.”

How can the findings be useful for medical professionals? “Women and physicians alike need to be very mindful of pre-existing mood disorders,” Dr. Rasgon said. “Women who in the past had anxiety disorders, mood swings, PTSD, or prior episodes of depression might have a differential response to hormone therapy in menopause.”

Also keep in mind, she said, that the transition from menopause to post menopause is “very volatile,” and depression may break through even in women undergoing treatment for the condition.

For her part, Dr. Osler said this study and others “emphasize the need for clinical guidelines to further consider the psychological side effects of systemic HT.”

Funding information was not provided. The study authors and Dr. Rasgon have no disclosures.

An analysis of more than 800,000 women in Denmark offers more insight into the murky links between female hormones and midlife mental illness in women: It hints that hormone therapy (HT) may boost the risk of depression, have no effect, or lower it – all depending on how it’s administered and when.

Women who took systemic HT had a higher risk of depression from age 48 to 50 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.81), researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. However, there was no overall link between depression and locally administered HT (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.70-1.87) – except when HT was begun between ages 54 and 60, when there were signs of a protective effect (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.91).

“Women in menopause who initiate systemically administered HT should be aware of depression as a potential adverse effect,” epidemiologist and study corresponding author Merete Osler, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg (Denmark) Hospitals and the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview. ”Further, women and clinicians alike should be aware of any misinterpretation of symptoms of depression as menopausal disturbances.”

Dr. Osler said the researchers launched the study to better understand potential hormone-depression links in light of suspicions that lower levels of estrogen in menopause may contribute to depression.

Several randomized clinical trials and cohort and cross-sectional studies have explored whether systemic HT affects depression during menopause, Dr. Osler said, “but the results from these studies have been inconsistent, and few have explored the role of the route of administration.”

For the new registry-based study, researchers retrospectively tracked all women in Denmark who were aged 45 between 1995 and 2017 without prior oophorectomy, certain kinds of cancer, prior use of HT, or ongoing depression.

During follow-up to a mean age of 56, 23% of the women began HT (at a median age of 55), and 1.6% were hospitalized for depression. Of those on HT, 65.8% received locally administered HT.

Researchers adjusted hazard ratios for a long list of factors such as educational level, marital status, number of still births or live births, prior use of hormonal contraceptives, several medical conditions, and prior depression.

“We were surprised by our findings, which to some degree contradicted our prior hypothesis that systemic HT with estrogen would not be associated with first-time depression diagnosis in women aged 45 and above, while HT with progesterone would be associated with a slightly increased risk,” Dr. Osler said. “In our study, systemically administered HT was associated with an increased risk of depression with no difference between estrogen alone or in combination with progestin. As findings from previous studies have been inconsistent, our findings fit with some but not all previous studies.”

Why might the mode of administration make a difference? It’s possible that local administration may contribute less to the systemic circulation, Dr. Osler said, “or that menopausal symptoms including depression are more likely to be treated with systemic HT.”

As for age differences, Dr. Osler said “it is possible that women are more sensitive to the influence of HT on mood around menopause than at later ages. However, it should be noted that in the present study it was not possible to calculate precise risk estimates for use of systemic HT in menopausal women above age 54 because less than 1% initiated treatment with systemic HT after age 54 years.”

In an interview, psychiatrist Natalie Rasgon, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who’s studied hormones and depression, said the study is “remarkably large and consistently executed.”

She cautioned, however, that the findings don’t prove any causality. “Saying that estrogen therapy or hormone therapy causes depression is patently incorrect.”

How can the findings be useful for medical professionals? “Women and physicians alike need to be very mindful of pre-existing mood disorders,” Dr. Rasgon said. “Women who in the past had anxiety disorders, mood swings, PTSD, or prior episodes of depression might have a differential response to hormone therapy in menopause.”

Also keep in mind, she said, that the transition from menopause to post menopause is “very volatile,” and depression may break through even in women undergoing treatment for the condition.

For her part, Dr. Osler said this study and others “emphasize the need for clinical guidelines to further consider the psychological side effects of systemic HT.”

Funding information was not provided. The study authors and Dr. Rasgon have no disclosures.

Up to 10 different menopausal symptoms were linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease when they were moderate to severe in women who initially had no evidence of cardiovascular disease, according to research presented at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

“The take-home message is that severe menopausal symptoms may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” Matthew Nudy, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Institute at Penn State University, Hershey, said in an interview about his findings. “Physicians and patients should be aware of this association. Women with severe symptoms may be more likely to see their physician, and this would be an ideal time to have their cardiovascular risk assessed.”

Margaret Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University and at NYU Langone Health, noted that these findings lined up with other studies showing an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in patients who have more symptoms, especially hot flashes.

“Other recent studies showed that an increase in severity of hot flush is associated with worse blood vessel function, leading to heart disease,” Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “The next step that makes sense is to try to eliminate these symptoms and hope that, in turn, would lower cardiovascular disease and improve survival.”

The researchers compared menopausal symptoms with cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in an observational cohort of 80,278 postmenopausal women for a median 8.2 years of follow-up. None of the women, all enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative, had known cardiovascular disease at baseline. They had an average age of 63 years and average body mass index (BMI) of 25.9 at baseline. Most participants were White (86.7%), with 7% being Black and 4.1% Hispanic. Cardiovascular disease was a composite outcome that included hospitalized myocardial infarction, definite silent myocardial infarction, coronary death, stroke, congestive heart failure, angina, peripheral vascular disease, carotid artery disease, and coronary revascularization.

The researchers used a four-item Likert scale (0-3) to assess the severity of 15 symptoms experienced within the past 4 weeks at baseline: “night sweats, hot flashes, waking up several times at night, joint pain or stiffness, headaches or migraines, vaginal or genital dryness, heart racing or skipping beats, breast tenderness, dizziness, tremors (shakes), feeling tired, forgetfulness, mood swings, [feeling] restless or fidgety, and difficulty concentrating.”

The associations were adjusted for the following covariates: race/ethnicity, blood pressure, education, smoking status, bilateral oophorectomy, menopausal hormone therapy use (never/past/current), sleep duration, statin use, history of high cholesterol, aspirin use, use of antihypertensives, treated diabetes, and family history of heart attack. Continuous variables included age, age at menopause, BMI, blood pressure, and physical activity levels. Because of the high number of multiple comparisons, the researchers also used a Bonferroni correction to reduce the risk of spurious statistical significance.

The researchers found some clustering of symptoms. Among women who had at least two moderate or severe menopausal symptoms, more than half frequently woke up at night, had joint pain, or felt tired, the researchers reported. Those symptoms were also the most commonly reported ones overall. Younger women, between ages 50 and 59, were more likely than older women (60-79 years old) to experience vasomotor symptoms and all cognitive affective symptoms except forgetfulness.

The researchers identified 10 symptoms whose severity was significantly associated with cardiovascular disease. Compared to having no symptoms at all, the following moderate or severe symptoms were associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event after adjustment for covariates and corrected for multiple comparisons: night sweats – a 19% increased risk (P = .03), waking up several times at night – 11% increased risk (P = .05), joint pain or stiffness – 27% increased risk (P < .001), heart racing or skipping beats – 55% increased risk (P < .001), dizziness – 34% increased risk (P < .001), feeling tired – 35% increased risk (P < .001), forgetfulness – 25% increased risk (P < .001), mood swings – 21% increased risk (P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety – 29% increased risk (P < .001), and difficulty concentrating – 31% increased risk (P < .001)

In addition, all-cause mortality was associated with these symptoms when they were moderate or severe: heart racing or skipping beats (32% increased risk of all-cause mortality; hazard ratio, 1.32; P =.006), dizziness (HR, 1.58; P < .001), tremors (HR, 1.44; P < .001), feeling tired (HR, 1.26; P < .001), forgetfulness (HR, 1.29; P = .01), mood swings (HR, 1.35; P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety (HR, 1.35; P < .001), and difficulty concentrating (HR, 1.47; P < .001).

The symptom with the greatest association with all-cause mortality was dizziness, which was associated with an increased risk of 58% when rated moderate or severe. Any dizziness at all was linked to a 12% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with no dizziness. Machine learning with the LASSO method determined that the symptoms most predictive of cardiovascular disease were dizziness, heart racing, feeling tired, and joint pain. The symptoms most associated with all-cause mortality, based on the machine learning algorithm, were dizziness, tremors, and feeling tired.

Dr. Nudy said that their study did not look at mitigation strategies. “Women should discuss with their physician the best methods for cardiovascular risk reduction,” he said. He also cautioned that severe menopausal symptoms can also indicate other health conditions that may require investigation.

“It is certainly possible some symptoms may represent other medical conditions we were unable to control for and may not be directly related to menopause,” such as autoimmune diseases, endocrine abnormalities, or subclinical cardiovascular disease, he said. Additional limitations of the study included an older cohort and retrospective assessment of menopausal symptoms only at baseline. In addition, ”we did not assess the cardiovascular risk among women whose symptoms persisted versus resolved during the study period,” Dr. Nudy said.

Dr. Nachtigall said a key message is that people who are experiencing these symptoms should try to get treatment for them and attempt to alleviate them, hopefully reducing the risk of heart disease and death.

”Estrogen treatment is one excellent option for some individuals and should be considered in the appropriate person,” Dr. Nachtigall said. “If estrogen treatment is to be considered, it should be given closer to menopause, within the first 10 years after menopause and in younger individuals (under 59) at start.”

Dr. Nachtigall referred to the NAMS 2022 position statement concluding that, for healthy women within 10 years of menopause who have bothersome menopause symptoms, “the benefits of hormone therapy outweigh its risks, with fewer cardiovascular events in younger versus older women.”

”Menopause and having menopausal symptoms is an opportunity for clinicians and patients to have a conversation about appropriate individualized management options,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

Women may also be able to mitigate their cardiovascular risk with regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, not smoking, and getting adequate sleep, Dr. Nachtigall said. But these healthy behaviors may not adequately treat moderate or severe menopausal symptoms.

“Some health care providers have said that because menopause happens naturally, individuals should just accept the symptoms and try to wait it out and not get treatment, but this study, as well as others, makes it clear that it actually may be beneficial to treat the symptoms,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

The research used no external funding. Dr. Nudy and Dr. Nachtigall had no disclosures.

Up to 10 different menopausal symptoms were linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease when they were moderate to severe in women who initially had no evidence of cardiovascular disease, according to research presented at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

“The take-home message is that severe menopausal symptoms may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” Matthew Nudy, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Institute at Penn State University, Hershey, said in an interview about his findings. “Physicians and patients should be aware of this association. Women with severe symptoms may be more likely to see their physician, and this would be an ideal time to have their cardiovascular risk assessed.”

Margaret Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University and at NYU Langone Health, noted that these findings lined up with other studies showing an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in patients who have more symptoms, especially hot flashes.

“Other recent studies showed that an increase in severity of hot flush is associated with worse blood vessel function, leading to heart disease,” Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “The next step that makes sense is to try to eliminate these symptoms and hope that, in turn, would lower cardiovascular disease and improve survival.”

The researchers compared menopausal symptoms with cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in an observational cohort of 80,278 postmenopausal women for a median 8.2 years of follow-up. None of the women, all enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative, had known cardiovascular disease at baseline. They had an average age of 63 years and average body mass index (BMI) of 25.9 at baseline. Most participants were White (86.7%), with 7% being Black and 4.1% Hispanic. Cardiovascular disease was a composite outcome that included hospitalized myocardial infarction, definite silent myocardial infarction, coronary death, stroke, congestive heart failure, angina, peripheral vascular disease, carotid artery disease, and coronary revascularization.

The researchers used a four-item Likert scale (0-3) to assess the severity of 15 symptoms experienced within the past 4 weeks at baseline: “night sweats, hot flashes, waking up several times at night, joint pain or stiffness, headaches or migraines, vaginal or genital dryness, heart racing or skipping beats, breast tenderness, dizziness, tremors (shakes), feeling tired, forgetfulness, mood swings, [feeling] restless or fidgety, and difficulty concentrating.”

The associations were adjusted for the following covariates: race/ethnicity, blood pressure, education, smoking status, bilateral oophorectomy, menopausal hormone therapy use (never/past/current), sleep duration, statin use, history of high cholesterol, aspirin use, use of antihypertensives, treated diabetes, and family history of heart attack. Continuous variables included age, age at menopause, BMI, blood pressure, and physical activity levels. Because of the high number of multiple comparisons, the researchers also used a Bonferroni correction to reduce the risk of spurious statistical significance.

The researchers found some clustering of symptoms. Among women who had at least two moderate or severe menopausal symptoms, more than half frequently woke up at night, had joint pain, or felt tired, the researchers reported. Those symptoms were also the most commonly reported ones overall. Younger women, between ages 50 and 59, were more likely than older women (60-79 years old) to experience vasomotor symptoms and all cognitive affective symptoms except forgetfulness.

The researchers identified 10 symptoms whose severity was significantly associated with cardiovascular disease. Compared to having no symptoms at all, the following moderate or severe symptoms were associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event after adjustment for covariates and corrected for multiple comparisons: night sweats – a 19% increased risk (P = .03), waking up several times at night – 11% increased risk (P = .05), joint pain or stiffness – 27% increased risk (P < .001), heart racing or skipping beats – 55% increased risk (P < .001), dizziness – 34% increased risk (P < .001), feeling tired – 35% increased risk (P < .001), forgetfulness – 25% increased risk (P < .001), mood swings – 21% increased risk (P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety – 29% increased risk (P < .001), and difficulty concentrating – 31% increased risk (P < .001)

In addition, all-cause mortality was associated with these symptoms when they were moderate or severe: heart racing or skipping beats (32% increased risk of all-cause mortality; hazard ratio, 1.32; P =.006), dizziness (HR, 1.58; P < .001), tremors (HR, 1.44; P < .001), feeling tired (HR, 1.26; P < .001), forgetfulness (HR, 1.29; P = .01), mood swings (HR, 1.35; P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety (HR, 1.35; P < .001), and difficulty concentrating (HR, 1.47; P < .001).

The symptom with the greatest association with all-cause mortality was dizziness, which was associated with an increased risk of 58% when rated moderate or severe. Any dizziness at all was linked to a 12% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with no dizziness. Machine learning with the LASSO method determined that the symptoms most predictive of cardiovascular disease were dizziness, heart racing, feeling tired, and joint pain. The symptoms most associated with all-cause mortality, based on the machine learning algorithm, were dizziness, tremors, and feeling tired.

Dr. Nudy said that their study did not look at mitigation strategies. “Women should discuss with their physician the best methods for cardiovascular risk reduction,” he said. He also cautioned that severe menopausal symptoms can also indicate other health conditions that may require investigation.

“It is certainly possible some symptoms may represent other medical conditions we were unable to control for and may not be directly related to menopause,” such as autoimmune diseases, endocrine abnormalities, or subclinical cardiovascular disease, he said. Additional limitations of the study included an older cohort and retrospective assessment of menopausal symptoms only at baseline. In addition, ”we did not assess the cardiovascular risk among women whose symptoms persisted versus resolved during the study period,” Dr. Nudy said.

Dr. Nachtigall said a key message is that people who are experiencing these symptoms should try to get treatment for them and attempt to alleviate them, hopefully reducing the risk of heart disease and death.

”Estrogen treatment is one excellent option for some individuals and should be considered in the appropriate person,” Dr. Nachtigall said. “If estrogen treatment is to be considered, it should be given closer to menopause, within the first 10 years after menopause and in younger individuals (under 59) at start.”

Dr. Nachtigall referred to the NAMS 2022 position statement concluding that, for healthy women within 10 years of menopause who have bothersome menopause symptoms, “the benefits of hormone therapy outweigh its risks, with fewer cardiovascular events in younger versus older women.”

”Menopause and having menopausal symptoms is an opportunity for clinicians and patients to have a conversation about appropriate individualized management options,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

Women may also be able to mitigate their cardiovascular risk with regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, not smoking, and getting adequate sleep, Dr. Nachtigall said. But these healthy behaviors may not adequately treat moderate or severe menopausal symptoms.

“Some health care providers have said that because menopause happens naturally, individuals should just accept the symptoms and try to wait it out and not get treatment, but this study, as well as others, makes it clear that it actually may be beneficial to treat the symptoms,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

The research used no external funding. Dr. Nudy and Dr. Nachtigall had no disclosures.

Up to 10 different menopausal symptoms were linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease when they were moderate to severe in women who initially had no evidence of cardiovascular disease, according to research presented at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

“The take-home message is that severe menopausal symptoms may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” Matthew Nudy, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Institute at Penn State University, Hershey, said in an interview about his findings. “Physicians and patients should be aware of this association. Women with severe symptoms may be more likely to see their physician, and this would be an ideal time to have their cardiovascular risk assessed.”

Margaret Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University and at NYU Langone Health, noted that these findings lined up with other studies showing an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in patients who have more symptoms, especially hot flashes.

“Other recent studies showed that an increase in severity of hot flush is associated with worse blood vessel function, leading to heart disease,” Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “The next step that makes sense is to try to eliminate these symptoms and hope that, in turn, would lower cardiovascular disease and improve survival.”

The researchers compared menopausal symptoms with cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in an observational cohort of 80,278 postmenopausal women for a median 8.2 years of follow-up. None of the women, all enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative, had known cardiovascular disease at baseline. They had an average age of 63 years and average body mass index (BMI) of 25.9 at baseline. Most participants were White (86.7%), with 7% being Black and 4.1% Hispanic. Cardiovascular disease was a composite outcome that included hospitalized myocardial infarction, definite silent myocardial infarction, coronary death, stroke, congestive heart failure, angina, peripheral vascular disease, carotid artery disease, and coronary revascularization.

The researchers used a four-item Likert scale (0-3) to assess the severity of 15 symptoms experienced within the past 4 weeks at baseline: “night sweats, hot flashes, waking up several times at night, joint pain or stiffness, headaches or migraines, vaginal or genital dryness, heart racing or skipping beats, breast tenderness, dizziness, tremors (shakes), feeling tired, forgetfulness, mood swings, [feeling] restless or fidgety, and difficulty concentrating.”

The associations were adjusted for the following covariates: race/ethnicity, blood pressure, education, smoking status, bilateral oophorectomy, menopausal hormone therapy use (never/past/current), sleep duration, statin use, history of high cholesterol, aspirin use, use of antihypertensives, treated diabetes, and family history of heart attack. Continuous variables included age, age at menopause, BMI, blood pressure, and physical activity levels. Because of the high number of multiple comparisons, the researchers also used a Bonferroni correction to reduce the risk of spurious statistical significance.

The researchers found some clustering of symptoms. Among women who had at least two moderate or severe menopausal symptoms, more than half frequently woke up at night, had joint pain, or felt tired, the researchers reported. Those symptoms were also the most commonly reported ones overall. Younger women, between ages 50 and 59, were more likely than older women (60-79 years old) to experience vasomotor symptoms and all cognitive affective symptoms except forgetfulness.

The researchers identified 10 symptoms whose severity was significantly associated with cardiovascular disease. Compared to having no symptoms at all, the following moderate or severe symptoms were associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event after adjustment for covariates and corrected for multiple comparisons: night sweats – a 19% increased risk (P = .03), waking up several times at night – 11% increased risk (P = .05), joint pain or stiffness – 27% increased risk (P < .001), heart racing or skipping beats – 55% increased risk (P < .001), dizziness – 34% increased risk (P < .001), feeling tired – 35% increased risk (P < .001), forgetfulness – 25% increased risk (P < .001), mood swings – 21% increased risk (P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety – 29% increased risk (P < .001), and difficulty concentrating – 31% increased risk (P < .001)

In addition, all-cause mortality was associated with these symptoms when they were moderate or severe: heart racing or skipping beats (32% increased risk of all-cause mortality; hazard ratio, 1.32; P =.006), dizziness (HR, 1.58; P < .001), tremors (HR, 1.44; P < .001), feeling tired (HR, 1.26; P < .001), forgetfulness (HR, 1.29; P = .01), mood swings (HR, 1.35; P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety (HR, 1.35; P < .001), and difficulty concentrating (HR, 1.47; P < .001).

The symptom with the greatest association with all-cause mortality was dizziness, which was associated with an increased risk of 58% when rated moderate or severe. Any dizziness at all was linked to a 12% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with no dizziness. Machine learning with the LASSO method determined that the symptoms most predictive of cardiovascular disease were dizziness, heart racing, feeling tired, and joint pain. The symptoms most associated with all-cause mortality, based on the machine learning algorithm, were dizziness, tremors, and feeling tired.

Dr. Nudy said that their study did not look at mitigation strategies. “Women should discuss with their physician the best methods for cardiovascular risk reduction,” he said. He also cautioned that severe menopausal symptoms can also indicate other health conditions that may require investigation.

“It is certainly possible some symptoms may represent other medical conditions we were unable to control for and may not be directly related to menopause,” such as autoimmune diseases, endocrine abnormalities, or subclinical cardiovascular disease, he said. Additional limitations of the study included an older cohort and retrospective assessment of menopausal symptoms only at baseline. In addition, ”we did not assess the cardiovascular risk among women whose symptoms persisted versus resolved during the study period,” Dr. Nudy said.

Dr. Nachtigall said a key message is that people who are experiencing these symptoms should try to get treatment for them and attempt to alleviate them, hopefully reducing the risk of heart disease and death.

”Estrogen treatment is one excellent option for some individuals and should be considered in the appropriate person,” Dr. Nachtigall said. “If estrogen treatment is to be considered, it should be given closer to menopause, within the first 10 years after menopause and in younger individuals (under 59) at start.”

Dr. Nachtigall referred to the NAMS 2022 position statement concluding that, for healthy women within 10 years of menopause who have bothersome menopause symptoms, “the benefits of hormone therapy outweigh its risks, with fewer cardiovascular events in younger versus older women.”

”Menopause and having menopausal symptoms is an opportunity for clinicians and patients to have a conversation about appropriate individualized management options,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

Women may also be able to mitigate their cardiovascular risk with regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, not smoking, and getting adequate sleep, Dr. Nachtigall said. But these healthy behaviors may not adequately treat moderate or severe menopausal symptoms.

“Some health care providers have said that because menopause happens naturally, individuals should just accept the symptoms and try to wait it out and not get treatment, but this study, as well as others, makes it clear that it actually may be beneficial to treat the symptoms,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

The research used no external funding. Dr. Nudy and Dr. Nachtigall had no disclosures.

VIENNA – The production of estrogen in the thalamus appears to be curtailed by just one dose of nicotine, equivalent to that in a cigarette, reveals a whole brain analysis of healthy women in the first study of its kind.

The findings were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.

The researchers performed both MRI and positron emission tomography (PET) scans in 10 healthy women using a tracer that binds to aromatase, also known as estrogen synthase.

They found that, following an intranasal spray delivering 1 mg of nicotine, there was a significant reduction in estrogen synthase in both the right and left thalamus.

“For the first time, we can see that nicotine works to shut down the estrogen production mechanism in the brains of women,” said lead researcher Erika Comasco, PhD, department of neuroscience, Uppsala University, Sweden, in a release.

“We were surprised to see that this effect could be seen even with a single dose of nicotine, equivalent to just one cigarette, showing how powerful the effects of smoking are on a woman’s brain.”

Emphasizing the preliminary nature of the study and the need for a larger sample, she added: “We’re still not sure what the behavioral or cognitive outcomes are, only that nicotine acts on this area of the brain.

“However, we note that the affected brain system is a target for addictive drugs, such as nicotine.”

Previous research has revealed that women are less successful at quitting smoking than men, and appear to be more resistant to nicotine replacement therapy, and experience more relapses.

There is evidence to suggest that there is a complex interaction between sex and steroid hormones and the reward effect of nicotine, modulated by the dopaminergic system.

Moreover, women who smoke enter menopause earlier than nonsmokers, and have lower plasma estrogen levels, Dr. Camasco told this news organization.

Dr. Comasco explained that “besides its role in reproductive function and sexual behavior, estrogen has an impact on the brain wherever there are receptors, which is basically regions that are related to emotional regulation, cognitive function, and so on.”

Estrogen, she continued, has two main mechanisms of action, via dopaminergic and serotonergic signaling. However, levels of the hormone cannot be measured directly in the brain.

The researchers therefore turned to estrogen synthase, which regulates the synthesis of estrogen, and is highly expressed in the limbic system, a brain region associated with addiction.

Moreover, estrogen synthase levels can be measured in vivo, and previous animal studies have indicated that nicotine inhibits estrogen synthase.

To investigate its impact in humans, the researchers performed structural MRI and two ¹¹C-cetrozole PET scans in 10 healthy women.

The assessments were performed before and after the nasal administration of 1 mg of nicotine, the dose contained in one cigarette, via two sprays of a nasal spray each containing 0.5 mg of nicotine.

A whole brain analysis was then used to determine changes in nondisplaceable binding potential of ¹¹C-cetrozole to estrogen synthase between the two scans to indicate the availability of the enzyme at the two time points.

The results showed that, at baseline, high availability of estrogen synthase was observed in the thalamus, hypothalamus, and amygdala, with the highest levels in the right and left thalamus.

However, nicotine exposure was associated with a significant reduction in estrogen binding bilaterally in the thalamus when averaged across the participants (P < .01).

Region-of-interest analysis using within-individual voxel-wise comparison confirmed reduced estrogen synthase levels in both the right and left thalamus (P < .05), as well as in the subthalamic area.

Next, Dr. Comasco would like to test the impact of nicotine on estrogen synthase in men.

While men have lower levels of estrogen then women, “the reaction will take place anyway,” she said, although the “impact would be different.”

She would also like to look at the behavioral effects of reductions in estrogen synthase, and look at the effect of nicotine from a functional point of view.

Wim van den Brink, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and addiction at the Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, commented that this is an “important first finding.”

“Smoking has many adverse effects in men and in women, but this particular effect of nicotine on the reduction of estrogen production in women was not known before,” he added in the release.

However, he underlined that tobacco addition is a “complex disorder” and it is “unlikely that this specific effect of nicotine on the thalamus explains all the observed differences in the development, treatment, and outcomes between male and female smokers.”

“It is still a long way from a nicotine-induced reduction in estrogen production to a reduced risk of nicotine addiction and negative effects of treatment and relapse in female cigarette smokers, but this work merits further investigation,” Dr. van den Brink said.

The study was funded by the Science for Life Laboratory/Uppsala University.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

VIENNA – The production of estrogen in the thalamus appears to be curtailed by just one dose of nicotine, equivalent to that in a cigarette, reveals a whole brain analysis of healthy women in the first study of its kind.

The findings were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.

The researchers performed both MRI and positron emission tomography (PET) scans in 10 healthy women using a tracer that binds to aromatase, also known as estrogen synthase.

They found that, following an intranasal spray delivering 1 mg of nicotine, there was a significant reduction in estrogen synthase in both the right and left thalamus.

“For the first time, we can see that nicotine works to shut down the estrogen production mechanism in the brains of women,” said lead researcher Erika Comasco, PhD, department of neuroscience, Uppsala University, Sweden, in a release.

“We were surprised to see that this effect could be seen even with a single dose of nicotine, equivalent to just one cigarette, showing how powerful the effects of smoking are on a woman’s brain.”

Emphasizing the preliminary nature of the study and the need for a larger sample, she added: “We’re still not sure what the behavioral or cognitive outcomes are, only that nicotine acts on this area of the brain.

“However, we note that the affected brain system is a target for addictive drugs, such as nicotine.”

Previous research has revealed that women are less successful at quitting smoking than men, and appear to be more resistant to nicotine replacement therapy, and experience more relapses.

There is evidence to suggest that there is a complex interaction between sex and steroid hormones and the reward effect of nicotine, modulated by the dopaminergic system.

Moreover, women who smoke enter menopause earlier than nonsmokers, and have lower plasma estrogen levels, Dr. Camasco told this news organization.

Dr. Comasco explained that “besides its role in reproductive function and sexual behavior, estrogen has an impact on the brain wherever there are receptors, which is basically regions that are related to emotional regulation, cognitive function, and so on.”

Estrogen, she continued, has two main mechanisms of action, via dopaminergic and serotonergic signaling. However, levels of the hormone cannot be measured directly in the brain.

The researchers therefore turned to estrogen synthase, which regulates the synthesis of estrogen, and is highly expressed in the limbic system, a brain region associated with addiction.

Moreover, estrogen synthase levels can be measured in vivo, and previous animal studies have indicated that nicotine inhibits estrogen synthase.

To investigate its impact in humans, the researchers performed structural MRI and two ¹¹C-cetrozole PET scans in 10 healthy women.

The assessments were performed before and after the nasal administration of 1 mg of nicotine, the dose contained in one cigarette, via two sprays of a nasal spray each containing 0.5 mg of nicotine.

A whole brain analysis was then used to determine changes in nondisplaceable binding potential of ¹¹C-cetrozole to estrogen synthase between the two scans to indicate the availability of the enzyme at the two time points.

The results showed that, at baseline, high availability of estrogen synthase was observed in the thalamus, hypothalamus, and amygdala, with the highest levels in the right and left thalamus.

However, nicotine exposure was associated with a significant reduction in estrogen binding bilaterally in the thalamus when averaged across the participants (P < .01).

Region-of-interest analysis using within-individual voxel-wise comparison confirmed reduced estrogen synthase levels in both the right and left thalamus (P < .05), as well as in the subthalamic area.

Next, Dr. Comasco would like to test the impact of nicotine on estrogen synthase in men.

While men have lower levels of estrogen then women, “the reaction will take place anyway,” she said, although the “impact would be different.”

She would also like to look at the behavioral effects of reductions in estrogen synthase, and look at the effect of nicotine from a functional point of view.

Wim van den Brink, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and addiction at the Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, commented that this is an “important first finding.”

“Smoking has many adverse effects in men and in women, but this particular effect of nicotine on the reduction of estrogen production in women was not known before,” he added in the release.

However, he underlined that tobacco addition is a “complex disorder” and it is “unlikely that this specific effect of nicotine on the thalamus explains all the observed differences in the development, treatment, and outcomes between male and female smokers.”

“It is still a long way from a nicotine-induced reduction in estrogen production to a reduced risk of nicotine addiction and negative effects of treatment and relapse in female cigarette smokers, but this work merits further investigation,” Dr. van den Brink said.

The study was funded by the Science for Life Laboratory/Uppsala University.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

VIENNA – The production of estrogen in the thalamus appears to be curtailed by just one dose of nicotine, equivalent to that in a cigarette, reveals a whole brain analysis of healthy women in the first study of its kind.

The findings were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.

The researchers performed both MRI and positron emission tomography (PET) scans in 10 healthy women using a tracer that binds to aromatase, also known as estrogen synthase.

They found that, following an intranasal spray delivering 1 mg of nicotine, there was a significant reduction in estrogen synthase in both the right and left thalamus.

“For the first time, we can see that nicotine works to shut down the estrogen production mechanism in the brains of women,” said lead researcher Erika Comasco, PhD, department of neuroscience, Uppsala University, Sweden, in a release.

“We were surprised to see that this effect could be seen even with a single dose of nicotine, equivalent to just one cigarette, showing how powerful the effects of smoking are on a woman’s brain.”

Emphasizing the preliminary nature of the study and the need for a larger sample, she added: “We’re still not sure what the behavioral or cognitive outcomes are, only that nicotine acts on this area of the brain.

“However, we note that the affected brain system is a target for addictive drugs, such as nicotine.”

Previous research has revealed that women are less successful at quitting smoking than men, and appear to be more resistant to nicotine replacement therapy, and experience more relapses.

There is evidence to suggest that there is a complex interaction between sex and steroid hormones and the reward effect of nicotine, modulated by the dopaminergic system.

Moreover, women who smoke enter menopause earlier than nonsmokers, and have lower plasma estrogen levels, Dr. Camasco told this news organization.

Dr. Comasco explained that “besides its role in reproductive function and sexual behavior, estrogen has an impact on the brain wherever there are receptors, which is basically regions that are related to emotional regulation, cognitive function, and so on.”

Estrogen, she continued, has two main mechanisms of action, via dopaminergic and serotonergic signaling. However, levels of the hormone cannot be measured directly in the brain.

The researchers therefore turned to estrogen synthase, which regulates the synthesis of estrogen, and is highly expressed in the limbic system, a brain region associated with addiction.

Moreover, estrogen synthase levels can be measured in vivo, and previous animal studies have indicated that nicotine inhibits estrogen synthase.

To investigate its impact in humans, the researchers performed structural MRI and two ¹¹C-cetrozole PET scans in 10 healthy women.

The assessments were performed before and after the nasal administration of 1 mg of nicotine, the dose contained in one cigarette, via two sprays of a nasal spray each containing 0.5 mg of nicotine.

A whole brain analysis was then used to determine changes in nondisplaceable binding potential of ¹¹C-cetrozole to estrogen synthase between the two scans to indicate the availability of the enzyme at the two time points.

The results showed that, at baseline, high availability of estrogen synthase was observed in the thalamus, hypothalamus, and amygdala, with the highest levels in the right and left thalamus.

However, nicotine exposure was associated with a significant reduction in estrogen binding bilaterally in the thalamus when averaged across the participants (P < .01).

Region-of-interest analysis using within-individual voxel-wise comparison confirmed reduced estrogen synthase levels in both the right and left thalamus (P < .05), as well as in the subthalamic area.

Next, Dr. Comasco would like to test the impact of nicotine on estrogen synthase in men.

While men have lower levels of estrogen then women, “the reaction will take place anyway,” she said, although the “impact would be different.”

She would also like to look at the behavioral effects of reductions in estrogen synthase, and look at the effect of nicotine from a functional point of view.

Wim van den Brink, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and addiction at the Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, commented that this is an “important first finding.”

“Smoking has many adverse effects in men and in women, but this particular effect of nicotine on the reduction of estrogen production in women was not known before,” he added in the release.

However, he underlined that tobacco addition is a “complex disorder” and it is “unlikely that this specific effect of nicotine on the thalamus explains all the observed differences in the development, treatment, and outcomes between male and female smokers.”

“It is still a long way from a nicotine-induced reduction in estrogen production to a reduced risk of nicotine addiction and negative effects of treatment and relapse in female cigarette smokers, but this work merits further investigation,” Dr. van den Brink said.

The study was funded by the Science for Life Laboratory/Uppsala University.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Although the nausea and vomiting associated with pregnancy are usually mild, they are more severe (hyperemesis gravidarum) in around one-third of women and require hospitalization in the first trimester for 0.3%-3.6% of these women in France. Given the diversity of practical care, a working group from the National College of French Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) has established a consensus on the definition and management of these symptoms.

Definition and severity

Nausea and vomiting during pregnancy are defined as those emerging in the first trimester of pregnancy and for which there is no other etiology.

The severity of these symptoms should be assessed through weight loss from the beginning of the pregnancy, clinical signs of dehydration (thirst, skin turgor, hypotension, oliguria, etc.), and modified PUQE (Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea) score. This is a three-question score rated from 0 to 15, available in the full text of the expert consensus.

Severe nausea and vomiting are not considered complicated when weight loss is < 5%, with no clinical signs of dehydration, and combined with a PUQE score of ≤ 6. In contrast, hyperemesis gravidarum is distinguished from nausea and vomiting during pregnancy by weight loss of ≥ 5 % or signs of dehydration or a PUQE score of ≥ 7.
 

Treating hyperemesis gravidarum

A laboratory workup should be ordered, along with an assay of blood potassium, blood sodium ions, and creatinine levels, as well as a complete dipstick urinalysis.

If symptoms persist or worsen despite well-managed treatment, an additional assessment is recommended, including an abdominal ultrasound and laboratory workup (white blood cell count, transaminases, lipase, CRP, TSH, T4).

Hospitalization is proposed when at least one of the following criteria is met: weight loss ≥ 10%, one or more clinical signs of dehydration, PUQE score of ≥ 13, hypokalemia < 3.0 mmol/L, hyponatremia < 120 mmol/L, elevated serum creatinine > 100 micromol/L, or resistance to treatment.
 

Which treatment?

Prenatal vitamins and iron supplementation should be stopped, as the latter seems to make symptoms worse. This step should be taken without stopping folic acid supplementation.

Women are free to adapt their diets and lifestyles according to their symptoms, since no such changes have been reported to improve symptoms.

If the PUQE score is < 6, even in the absence of proof of their benefit, ginger or B6 vitamin can be used. The same applies to acupressure, acupuncture, and electrical stimulation, which should only be considered in women without complications. Aromatherapy is not to be used, because of the potential risks associated with essential oils, and as no efficacy has been demonstrated.

It is proposed that drugs or combinations of drugs associated with the least severe and least frequent side effects should always be chosen in the absence of superiority of one class over another.

To prevent Gayet Wernicke encephalopathy, vitamin B1 must be administered systematically for hyperemesis gravidarum needing parenteral rehydration. Psychological support should be offered to all patients with hyperemesis gravidarum because of the negative impact of this pathology on mental well-being. Patients should be informed that there are patient associations involved in supporting these women and their families.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com and was translated from Univadis France.

Although the nausea and vomiting associated with pregnancy are usually mild, they are more severe (hyperemesis gravidarum) in around one-third of women and require hospitalization in the first trimester for 0.3%-3.6% of these women in France. Given the diversity of practical care, a working group from the National College of French Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) has established a consensus on the definition and management of these symptoms.

Definition and severity

Nausea and vomiting during pregnancy are defined as those emerging in the first trimester of pregnancy and for which there is no other etiology.

The severity of these symptoms should be assessed through weight loss from the beginning of the pregnancy, clinical signs of dehydration (thirst, skin turgor, hypotension, oliguria, etc.), and modified PUQE (Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea) score. This is a three-question score rated from 0 to 15, available in the full text of the expert consensus.

Severe nausea and vomiting are not considered complicated when weight loss is < 5%, with no clinical signs of dehydration, and combined with a PUQE score of ≤ 6. In contrast, hyperemesis gravidarum is distinguished from nausea and vomiting during pregnancy by weight loss of ≥ 5 % or signs of dehydration or a PUQE score of ≥ 7.
 

Treating hyperemesis gravidarum

A laboratory workup should be ordered, along with an assay of blood potassium, blood sodium ions, and creatinine levels, as well as a complete dipstick urinalysis.

If symptoms persist or worsen despite well-managed treatment, an additional assessment is recommended, including an abdominal ultrasound and laboratory workup (white blood cell count, transaminases, lipase, CRP, TSH, T4).

Hospitalization is proposed when at least one of the following criteria is met: weight loss ≥ 10%, one or more clinical signs of dehydration, PUQE score of ≥ 13, hypokalemia < 3.0 mmol/L, hyponatremia < 120 mmol/L, elevated serum creatinine > 100 micromol/L, or resistance to treatment.
 

Which treatment?

Prenatal vitamins and iron supplementation should be stopped, as the latter seems to make symptoms worse. This step should be taken without stopping folic acid supplementation.

Women are free to adapt their diets and lifestyles according to their symptoms, since no such changes have been reported to improve symptoms.

If the PUQE score is < 6, even in the absence of proof of their benefit, ginger or B6 vitamin can be used. The same applies to acupressure, acupuncture, and electrical stimulation, which should only be considered in women without complications. Aromatherapy is not to be used, because of the potential risks associated with essential oils, and as no efficacy has been demonstrated.

It is proposed that drugs or combinations of drugs associated with the least severe and least frequent side effects should always be chosen in the absence of superiority of one class over another.

To prevent Gayet Wernicke encephalopathy, vitamin B1 must be administered systematically for hyperemesis gravidarum needing parenteral rehydration. Psychological support should be offered to all patients with hyperemesis gravidarum because of the negative impact of this pathology on mental well-being. Patients should be informed that there are patient associations involved in supporting these women and their families.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com and was translated from Univadis France.

Although the nausea and vomiting associated with pregnancy are usually mild, they are more severe (hyperemesis gravidarum) in around one-third of women and require hospitalization in the first trimester for 0.3%-3.6% of these women in France. Given the diversity of practical care, a working group from the National College of French Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) has established a consensus on the definition and management of these symptoms.

Definition and severity

Nausea and vomiting during pregnancy are defined as those emerging in the first trimester of pregnancy and for which there is no other etiology.

The severity of these symptoms should be assessed through weight loss from the beginning of the pregnancy, clinical signs of dehydration (thirst, skin turgor, hypotension, oliguria, etc.), and modified PUQE (Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea) score. This is a three-question score rated from 0 to 15, available in the full text of the expert consensus.

Severe nausea and vomiting are not considered complicated when weight loss is < 5%, with no clinical signs of dehydration, and combined with a PUQE score of ≤ 6. In contrast, hyperemesis gravidarum is distinguished from nausea and vomiting during pregnancy by weight loss of ≥ 5 % or signs of dehydration or a PUQE score of ≥ 7.
 

Treating hyperemesis gravidarum

A laboratory workup should be ordered, along with an assay of blood potassium, blood sodium ions, and creatinine levels, as well as a complete dipstick urinalysis.

If symptoms persist or worsen despite well-managed treatment, an additional assessment is recommended, including an abdominal ultrasound and laboratory workup (white blood cell count, transaminases, lipase, CRP, TSH, T4).

Hospitalization is proposed when at least one of the following criteria is met: weight loss ≥ 10%, one or more clinical signs of dehydration, PUQE score of ≥ 13, hypokalemia < 3.0 mmol/L, hyponatremia < 120 mmol/L, elevated serum creatinine > 100 micromol/L, or resistance to treatment.
 

Which treatment?

Prenatal vitamins and iron supplementation should be stopped, as the latter seems to make symptoms worse. This step should be taken without stopping folic acid supplementation.

Women are free to adapt their diets and lifestyles according to their symptoms, since no such changes have been reported to improve symptoms.

If the PUQE score is < 6, even in the absence of proof of their benefit, ginger or B6 vitamin can be used. The same applies to acupressure, acupuncture, and electrical stimulation, which should only be considered in women without complications. Aromatherapy is not to be used, because of the potential risks associated with essential oils, and as no efficacy has been demonstrated.

It is proposed that drugs or combinations of drugs associated with the least severe and least frequent side effects should always be chosen in the absence of superiority of one class over another.

To prevent Gayet Wernicke encephalopathy, vitamin B1 must be administered systematically for hyperemesis gravidarum needing parenteral rehydration. Psychological support should be offered to all patients with hyperemesis gravidarum because of the negative impact of this pathology on mental well-being. Patients should be informed that there are patient associations involved in supporting these women and their families.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com and was translated from Univadis France.

Menopause appears to be an independent risk factor for relapse in women with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs), new research suggests.
 

Investigators studied a cohort of close to 62,000 people with SSDs, stratifying individuals by sex and age, and found that starting between the ages of 45 and 50 years – when the menopausal transition is underway – women were more frequently hospitalized for psychosis, compared with men and women younger than 45 years.

In addition, the protective effect of antipsychotic medication was highest in women younger than 45 years and lowest in women aged 45 years or older, even at higher doses.

“Women with schizophrenia who are older than 45 are a vulnerable group for relapse, and higher doses of antipsychotics are not the answer,” lead author Iris Sommer, MD, PhD, professor, department of neuroscience, University Medical Center of Groningen, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

The study was published online in Schizophrenia Bulletin.
 

Vulnerable period

There is an association between estrogen levels and disease severity throughout the life stages of women with SSDs, with lower estrogen levels associated with psychosis, for example, during low estrogenic phases of the menstrual cycle, the investigators note.

“After menopause, estrogen levels remain low, which is associated with a deterioration in the clinical course; therefore, women with SSD have sex-specific psychiatric needs that differ according to their life stage,” they add.

“Estrogens inhibit an important liver enzyme (cytochrome P-450 [CYP1A2]), which leads to higher blood levels of several antipsychotics like olanzapine and clozapine,” said Dr. Sommer. In addition, estrogens make the stomach less acidic, “leading to easier resorption of medication.”

As a clinician, Dr. Sommer said that she has “often witnessed a worsening of symptoms [of psychosis] after menopause.” As a researcher, she “knew that estrogens can have ameliorating effects on brain health, especially in schizophrenia.”

She and her colleagues were motivated to research the issue because there is a “remarkable paucity” of quantitative data on a “vulnerable period that all women with schizophrenia will experience.”
 

Detailed, quantitative data

The researchers sought to provide “detailed, quantitative data on life-stage dependent clinical changes occurring in women with SSD, using an intra-individual design to prevent confounding.”

They drew on data from a nationwide, register-based cohort study of all hospitalized patients with SSD between 1972 and 2014 in Finland (n = 61,889), with follow-up from Jan. 1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2017.

People were stratified according to age (younger than 45 years and 45 years or older), with the same person contributing person-time to both age groups. The cohort was also subdivided into 5-year age groups, starting at age 20 years and ending at age 69 years.

The primary outcome measure was relapse (that is, inpatient hospitalization because of psychosis).

The researchers focused specifically on monotherapies, excluding time periods when two or more antipsychotics were used concomitantly. They also looked at antipsychotic nonuse periods.

Antipsychotic monotherapies were categorized into defined daily doses per day (DDDs/d):

• less than 0.4
• 0.4 to 0.6
• 0.6 to 0.9
• 0.9 to less than 1.1
• 1.1 to less than 1.4
• 1.4 to less than 1.6
• 1.6 or more

The researchers restricted the main analyses to the four most frequently used oral antipsychotic monotherapies: clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone.
 

The turning tide

The cohort consisted of more men than women (31,104 vs. 30,785, respectively), with a mean (standard deviation) age of 49.8 (16.6) years in women vs. 43.6 (14.8) in men.

Among both sexes, olanzapine was the most prescribed antipsychotic (roughly one-quarter of patients). In women, the next most common antipsychotic was risperidone, followed by quetiapine and clozapine, whereas in men, the second most common antipsychotic was clozapine, followed by risperidone and quetiapine.

When the researchers compared men and women younger than 45 years, there were “few consistent differences” in proportions hospitalized for psychosis.

Starting at age 45 years and continuing through the oldest age group (65-69 years), higher proportions of women were hospitalized for psychosis, compared with their male peers (all Ps < .00001). 

Women 45 or older had significantly higher risk for relapse associated with standard dose use, compared with the other groups.

When the researchers compared men and women older and younger than 45 years, women younger than 45 years showed lower adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) at doses between of 0.6-0.9 DDDs/d, whereas for doses over 1.1 DDDs/d, women aged 45 years or older showed “remarkably higher” aHRs, compared with women younger than 45 years and men aged 45 years or older, with a difference that increased with increasing dose.

In women, the efficacy of the antipsychotics was decreased at these DDDs/d.

“We ... showed that antipsychotic monotherapy is most effective in preventing relapse in women below 45, as compared to women above that age, and also as compared to men of all ages,” the authors summarize. But after age 45 years, “the tide seems to turn for women,” compared with younger women and with men of the same age group.

One of several study limitations was the use of age as an estimation of menopausal status, they note.
 

Don’t just raise the dose

Commenting on the research, Mary Seeman, MD, professor emerita, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, noted the study corroborates her group’s findings regarding the effect of menopause on antipsychotic response.

“When the efficacy of previously effective antipsychotic doses wanes at menopause, raising the dose is not the treatment of choice because it increases the risk of weight gain, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular events,” said Dr. Seeman, who was not involved with the current research.

“Changing to an antipsychotic that is less affected by estrogen loss may work better,” she continued, noting that amisulpride and aripiprazole “work well post menopause.”

Additional interventions may include changing to a depot or skin-patch antipsychotic that “obviates first-pass metabolism,” adding hormone replacement or a selective estrogen receptor modulator or including phytoestrogens (bioidenticals) in the diet.

The study yields research recommendations, including comparing the effectiveness of different antipsychotics in postmenopausal women with SSDs, recruiting pre- and postmenopausal women in trials of antipsychotic drugs, and stratifying by hormonal status when analyzing results of antipsychotic trials, Dr. Seeman said.

This work was supported by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital and the Academy of Finland. The Dutch Medical Research Association supported Dr. Sommer. Dr. Sommer declares no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Seeman declares no relevant financial relationships.

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

Menopause appears to be an independent risk factor for relapse in women with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs), new research suggests.
 

Investigators studied a cohort of close to 62,000 people with SSDs, stratifying individuals by sex and age, and found that starting between the ages of 45 and 50 years – when the menopausal transition is underway – women were more frequently hospitalized for psychosis, compared with men and women younger than 45 years.

In addition, the protective effect of antipsychotic medication was highest in women younger than 45 years and lowest in women aged 45 years or older, even at higher doses.

“Women with schizophrenia who are older than 45 are a vulnerable group for relapse, and higher doses of antipsychotics are not the answer,” lead author Iris Sommer, MD, PhD, professor, department of neuroscience, University Medical Center of Groningen, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

The study was published online in Schizophrenia Bulletin.
 

Vulnerable period

There is an association between estrogen levels and disease severity throughout the life stages of women with SSDs, with lower estrogen levels associated with psychosis, for example, during low estrogenic phases of the menstrual cycle, the investigators note.

“After menopause, estrogen levels remain low, which is associated with a deterioration in the clinical course; therefore, women with SSD have sex-specific psychiatric needs that differ according to their life stage,” they add.

“Estrogens inhibit an important liver enzyme (cytochrome P-450 [CYP1A2]), which leads to higher blood levels of several antipsychotics like olanzapine and clozapine,” said Dr. Sommer. In addition, estrogens make the stomach less acidic, “leading to easier resorption of medication.”

As a clinician, Dr. Sommer said that she has “often witnessed a worsening of symptoms [of psychosis] after menopause.” As a researcher, she “knew that estrogens can have ameliorating effects on brain health, especially in schizophrenia.”

She and her colleagues were motivated to research the issue because there is a “remarkable paucity” of quantitative data on a “vulnerable period that all women with schizophrenia will experience.”
 

Detailed, quantitative data

The researchers sought to provide “detailed, quantitative data on life-stage dependent clinical changes occurring in women with SSD, using an intra-individual design to prevent confounding.”

They drew on data from a nationwide, register-based cohort study of all hospitalized patients with SSD between 1972 and 2014 in Finland (n = 61,889), with follow-up from Jan. 1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2017.

People were stratified according to age (younger than 45 years and 45 years or older), with the same person contributing person-time to both age groups. The cohort was also subdivided into 5-year age groups, starting at age 20 years and ending at age 69 years.

The primary outcome measure was relapse (that is, inpatient hospitalization because of psychosis).

The researchers focused specifically on monotherapies, excluding time periods when two or more antipsychotics were used concomitantly. They also looked at antipsychotic nonuse periods.

Antipsychotic monotherapies were categorized into defined daily doses per day (DDDs/d):

• less than 0.4
• 0.4 to 0.6
• 0.6 to 0.9
• 0.9 to less than 1.1
• 1.1 to less than 1.4
• 1.4 to less than 1.6
• 1.6 or more

The researchers restricted the main analyses to the four most frequently used oral antipsychotic monotherapies: clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone.
 

The turning tide

The cohort consisted of more men than women (31,104 vs. 30,785, respectively), with a mean (standard deviation) age of 49.8 (16.6) years in women vs. 43.6 (14.8) in men.

Among both sexes, olanzapine was the most prescribed antipsychotic (roughly one-quarter of patients). In women, the next most common antipsychotic was risperidone, followed by quetiapine and clozapine, whereas in men, the second most common antipsychotic was clozapine, followed by risperidone and quetiapine.

When the researchers compared men and women younger than 45 years, there were “few consistent differences” in proportions hospitalized for psychosis.

Starting at age 45 years and continuing through the oldest age group (65-69 years), higher proportions of women were hospitalized for psychosis, compared with their male peers (all Ps < .00001). 

Women 45 or older had significantly higher risk for relapse associated with standard dose use, compared with the other groups.

When the researchers compared men and women older and younger than 45 years, women younger than 45 years showed lower adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) at doses between of 0.6-0.9 DDDs/d, whereas for doses over 1.1 DDDs/d, women aged 45 years or older showed “remarkably higher” aHRs, compared with women younger than 45 years and men aged 45 years or older, with a difference that increased with increasing dose.

In women, the efficacy of the antipsychotics was decreased at these DDDs/d.

“We ... showed that antipsychotic monotherapy is most effective in preventing relapse in women below 45, as compared to women above that age, and also as compared to men of all ages,” the authors summarize. But after age 45 years, “the tide seems to turn for women,” compared with younger women and with men of the same age group.

One of several study limitations was the use of age as an estimation of menopausal status, they note.
 

Don’t just raise the dose

Commenting on the research, Mary Seeman, MD, professor emerita, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, noted the study corroborates her group’s findings regarding the effect of menopause on antipsychotic response.

“When the efficacy of previously effective antipsychotic doses wanes at menopause, raising the dose is not the treatment of choice because it increases the risk of weight gain, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular events,” said Dr. Seeman, who was not involved with the current research.

“Changing to an antipsychotic that is less affected by estrogen loss may work better,” she continued, noting that amisulpride and aripiprazole “work well post menopause.”

Additional interventions may include changing to a depot or skin-patch antipsychotic that “obviates first-pass metabolism,” adding hormone replacement or a selective estrogen receptor modulator or including phytoestrogens (bioidenticals) in the diet.

The study yields research recommendations, including comparing the effectiveness of different antipsychotics in postmenopausal women with SSDs, recruiting pre- and postmenopausal women in trials of antipsychotic drugs, and stratifying by hormonal status when analyzing results of antipsychotic trials, Dr. Seeman said.

This work was supported by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital and the Academy of Finland. The Dutch Medical Research Association supported Dr. Sommer. Dr. Sommer declares no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Seeman declares no relevant financial relationships.

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

Menopause appears to be an independent risk factor for relapse in women with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs), new research suggests.
 

Investigators studied a cohort of close to 62,000 people with SSDs, stratifying individuals by sex and age, and found that starting between the ages of 45 and 50 years – when the menopausal transition is underway – women were more frequently hospitalized for psychosis, compared with men and women younger than 45 years.

In addition, the protective effect of antipsychotic medication was highest in women younger than 45 years and lowest in women aged 45 years or older, even at higher doses.

“Women with schizophrenia who are older than 45 are a vulnerable group for relapse, and higher doses of antipsychotics are not the answer,” lead author Iris Sommer, MD, PhD, professor, department of neuroscience, University Medical Center of Groningen, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

The study was published online in Schizophrenia Bulletin.
 

Vulnerable period

There is an association between estrogen levels and disease severity throughout the life stages of women with SSDs, with lower estrogen levels associated with psychosis, for example, during low estrogenic phases of the menstrual cycle, the investigators note.

“After menopause, estrogen levels remain low, which is associated with a deterioration in the clinical course; therefore, women with SSD have sex-specific psychiatric needs that differ according to their life stage,” they add.

“Estrogens inhibit an important liver enzyme (cytochrome P-450 [CYP1A2]), which leads to higher blood levels of several antipsychotics like olanzapine and clozapine,” said Dr. Sommer. In addition, estrogens make the stomach less acidic, “leading to easier resorption of medication.”

As a clinician, Dr. Sommer said that she has “often witnessed a worsening of symptoms [of psychosis] after menopause.” As a researcher, she “knew that estrogens can have ameliorating effects on brain health, especially in schizophrenia.”

She and her colleagues were motivated to research the issue because there is a “remarkable paucity” of quantitative data on a “vulnerable period that all women with schizophrenia will experience.”
 

Detailed, quantitative data

The researchers sought to provide “detailed, quantitative data on life-stage dependent clinical changes occurring in women with SSD, using an intra-individual design to prevent confounding.”

They drew on data from a nationwide, register-based cohort study of all hospitalized patients with SSD between 1972 and 2014 in Finland (n = 61,889), with follow-up from Jan. 1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2017.

People were stratified according to age (younger than 45 years and 45 years or older), with the same person contributing person-time to both age groups. The cohort was also subdivided into 5-year age groups, starting at age 20 years and ending at age 69 years.

The primary outcome measure was relapse (that is, inpatient hospitalization because of psychosis).

The researchers focused specifically on monotherapies, excluding time periods when two or more antipsychotics were used concomitantly. They also looked at antipsychotic nonuse periods.

Antipsychotic monotherapies were categorized into defined daily doses per day (DDDs/d):

• less than 0.4
• 0.4 to 0.6
• 0.6 to 0.9
• 0.9 to less than 1.1
• 1.1 to less than 1.4
• 1.4 to less than 1.6
• 1.6 or more

The researchers restricted the main analyses to the four most frequently used oral antipsychotic monotherapies: clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone.
 

The turning tide

The cohort consisted of more men than women (31,104 vs. 30,785, respectively), with a mean (standard deviation) age of 49.8 (16.6) years in women vs. 43.6 (14.8) in men.

Among both sexes, olanzapine was the most prescribed antipsychotic (roughly one-quarter of patients). In women, the next most common antipsychotic was risperidone, followed by quetiapine and clozapine, whereas in men, the second most common antipsychotic was clozapine, followed by risperidone and quetiapine.

When the researchers compared men and women younger than 45 years, there were “few consistent differences” in proportions hospitalized for psychosis.

Starting at age 45 years and continuing through the oldest age group (65-69 years), higher proportions of women were hospitalized for psychosis, compared with their male peers (all Ps < .00001). 

Women 45 or older had significantly higher risk for relapse associated with standard dose use, compared with the other groups.

When the researchers compared men and women older and younger than 45 years, women younger than 45 years showed lower adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) at doses between of 0.6-0.9 DDDs/d, whereas for doses over 1.1 DDDs/d, women aged 45 years or older showed “remarkably higher” aHRs, compared with women younger than 45 years and men aged 45 years or older, with a difference that increased with increasing dose.

In women, the efficacy of the antipsychotics was decreased at these DDDs/d.

“We ... showed that antipsychotic monotherapy is most effective in preventing relapse in women below 45, as compared to women above that age, and also as compared to men of all ages,” the authors summarize. But after age 45 years, “the tide seems to turn for women,” compared with younger women and with men of the same age group.

One of several study limitations was the use of age as an estimation of menopausal status, they note.
 

Don’t just raise the dose

Commenting on the research, Mary Seeman, MD, professor emerita, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, noted the study corroborates her group’s findings regarding the effect of menopause on antipsychotic response.

“When the efficacy of previously effective antipsychotic doses wanes at menopause, raising the dose is not the treatment of choice because it increases the risk of weight gain, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular events,” said Dr. Seeman, who was not involved with the current research.

“Changing to an antipsychotic that is less affected by estrogen loss may work better,” she continued, noting that amisulpride and aripiprazole “work well post menopause.”

Additional interventions may include changing to a depot or skin-patch antipsychotic that “obviates first-pass metabolism,” adding hormone replacement or a selective estrogen receptor modulator or including phytoestrogens (bioidenticals) in the diet.

The study yields research recommendations, including comparing the effectiveness of different antipsychotics in postmenopausal women with SSDs, recruiting pre- and postmenopausal women in trials of antipsychotic drugs, and stratifying by hormonal status when analyzing results of antipsychotic trials, Dr. Seeman said.

This work was supported by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital and the Academy of Finland. The Dutch Medical Research Association supported Dr. Sommer. Dr. Sommer declares no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Seeman declares no relevant financial relationships.

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