Tara Haelle

The number of Americans seeking permanent forms of contraception has surged in the nearly 2 years since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision that overturned a federal right to abortion, according to a study presented on May 5 at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA) (abstract PD40-03). Several other studies at the conference reported similar findings.

Rates of vasectomy and tubal ligation have increased in states where abortion became illegal after the court’s June 2022 ruling, researchers found. Rates of tubal sterilization had already been higher in states where abortion was illegal compared with those where access to the procedure remained available and was expected to remain so, but the difference widened after the decision. 

“Our study showed trends of increasing utilization of permanent contraception post-Dobbs, with a significant increase in patients less than 30 years old pursuing any type of permanent contraception post-Dobbs,” Jessica N. Schardein, MD, MS, of University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, told attendees. “Reproductive autonomy is important for people of all genders and may be influenced by legal climate. Understanding the relationship between state-level abortion laws and trends in permanent contraception is crucial for us to determine how to best allocate resources for education and services to ensure reproductive rights for all patients.”

Dr. Schardein told this news organization the increase in vasectomies post-Dobbs was consistent across most states regardless of legal climate, showing that “reproductive health matters to all people,” both women and men.

“We should continue to offer permanent contraception to patients who are not interested in future fertility, regardless of their age or marital status, to ensure reproductive autonomy for those patients,” Dr. Schardein said. “Patients may need increased access to these procedures if the increased rates continue over time.”

Dr. Schardein’s study investigated national trends in the use of permanent contraception before and after the Dobbs ruling. She and her colleagues analyzed data from the Epic Cosmos database of more than 217 million patients from an estimated 27,000 clinics and 1260 hospitals nationwide. The researchers identified all adults who underwent a vasectomy or tubal ligation from July to December 2021 and then from July to December 2022, in the 5 months following the decision.

Among adults aged 18-30 years, rates of vasectomy were 1.59 times higher and rates of tubal ligation were 1.29 times higher after the Dobbs ruling than before it (P < .001). Although overall rates of tubal ligation among single women did not change after Dobbs, rates of vasectomy in single men were 1.13 times higher (P < .001).

States were categorized as not hostile to abortion access (abortion access remained available), hostile (access was restricted or might become illegal), or illegal on the basis of information from the Center for Reproductive Rights. Vasectomies increased in most states, with the biggest gain in Tennessee, where abortions are illegal. 

The increase in vasectomy rates was similar across nonhostile (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.43), hostile (IRR, 1.46), and illegal (IRR, 1.41) states (P < .001). Although the rate of increase was similar regardless of legal climate, the rate of vasectomies was higher in hostile and illegal states than in nonhostile states both before and after the Dobbs ruling, according to the researchers.

Rates of tubal ligation did not change as substantially across the United States after Dobbs, remaining unchanged in states hostile to abortion access and rising slightly in nonhostile states (IRR, 1.06) and in states where abortion is now illegal (IRR, 1.12; P < .001 for both).

However, when the researchers looked at tubal ligation in nonhostile states and hostile or illegal states, they found that rates of the procedure were nearly double in the hostile or illegal states both before and after Dobbs, with a bigger increase after Dobbs in illegal states. Tubal ligation rates were 1.85 times higher in illegal states than in nonhostile states after Dobbs, compared with being 1.76 times higher than in nonhostile states before Dobbs.
 

Other Studies Support the Findings 

Another study assessed the change in the volume of vasectomy consultations at six US academic medical centers in the 17 months before and 5 months after Dobbs (abstract PD40-02). The researchers reported that the rate was roughly 7% higher after the ruling than before (143 vs 134 cases per month, respectively). Again, the men seeking vasectomies after Dobbs were younger than those who sought the procedure before Dobbs (median age, 38 vs 39 years; P < .001). Post-Dobbs patients were also significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic White, English-speaking, and privately insured. 

“Younger, childless people are choosing vasectomies as permanent method of birth control,” lead author Kara L. Watts, MD, associate professor of urology at Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, New York, told attendees. “The impact of this decision is likely to be long-lasting, requiring urologists and medical centers to adjust practice patterns to account for the increased demand.”

Twice as many childless married men underwent vasectomies after Dobbs than before the ruling (11% vs 5%, respectively; P = .001), but substantially more childless single men had the procedure after Dobbs than before it (36% vs 21%; P = .003). Those seeking vasectomies after Dobbs had to wait a median of 8 days longer between consult and procedure (59 vs 51 days pre-Dobbs; P < .001). Several of the same researchers had identified an increase in online searches about vasectomies in the months just after the Dobbs decision.

“We’ve been trying to get men to take more responsibility” for their role in unplanned pregnancies, Ajay K. Nangia, MD, MBBS, professor and vice chair of urology at University of Kansas Medical Center in Overland Park, told this news organization. Dr. Nangia, who helped conduct the study of vasectomy consultations and has spent years on research related to pharmaceutical contraception options for men, said the sudden increase in interest in vasectomies can be ethically fraught. Only 25% of vasectomies can be reversed, and some patients who seek the surgery may not have permanently ruled out having children.

“They’re going into this with their eyes wide open, knowing that it’s not 100% going to be reversible with a vasectomy,” he said. But fear of not having abortion access for their partners is part of their motivation, which creates tension for providers in balancing ethical counseling with the potential paternalism of advising against a vasectomy if they’re not certain that they don’t want children. 

“What happens in that situation, when it’s a political decision making you change your medical decision?” Dr. Nangia said. “I worry about that ethically.”

Dr. Nangia noted that the findings of his study cannot show that the Dobbs decision was the cause of the increase in vasectomies. However, in another abstract from the same session (PD40-01), researchers at The Ohio State University College of Medicine in Columbus presented findings from a survey of 57 men who underwent vasectomies in the preceding 2 years. Those results revealed that abortion access had been a factor among some of the 47% of patients whose procedures were performed after Dobbs. Post-Dobbs patients were significantly more likely to say they sought a vasectomy because of concerns about not being able to get abortion (P = .026) and because they didn’t want “to bring children into the current political climate” (P = .002). 

A study presented on May 6 (abstract MP76-06) involved a retrospective review of all 631 patients who underwent a vasectomy consult at UC San Diego Medical Center from June 2021 to June 2023. More vasectomy consults occurred after the Dobbs decision than before it (56% vs 44%). The gap for vasectomy consults was slightly wider for partnerless patients after vs before Dobbs (58% vs 42%) and substantially larger for childless patients post-Dobbs compared with pre-Dobbs (63% vs 37%). The childless men undergoing vasectomies after Dobbs also were significantly younger than those who had had this procedure before the ruling (mean, 36.4 vs 39.8 years; P <.001). 

“Patients should be counseled on the permanent nature of this procedure, underscoring need for effective and reversible male contraception,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Schardein and Dr. Watts reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Nangia is conducting an idiopathic infertility study with funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. None of the studies reported external funding.

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

The number of Americans seeking permanent forms of contraception has surged in the nearly 2 years since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision that overturned a federal right to abortion, according to a study presented on May 5 at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA) (abstract PD40-03). Several other studies at the conference reported similar findings.

Rates of vasectomy and tubal ligation have increased in states where abortion became illegal after the court’s June 2022 ruling, researchers found. Rates of tubal sterilization had already been higher in states where abortion was illegal compared with those where access to the procedure remained available and was expected to remain so, but the difference widened after the decision. 

“Our study showed trends of increasing utilization of permanent contraception post-Dobbs, with a significant increase in patients less than 30 years old pursuing any type of permanent contraception post-Dobbs,” Jessica N. Schardein, MD, MS, of University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, told attendees. “Reproductive autonomy is important for people of all genders and may be influenced by legal climate. Understanding the relationship between state-level abortion laws and trends in permanent contraception is crucial for us to determine how to best allocate resources for education and services to ensure reproductive rights for all patients.”

Dr. Schardein told this news organization the increase in vasectomies post-Dobbs was consistent across most states regardless of legal climate, showing that “reproductive health matters to all people,” both women and men.

“We should continue to offer permanent contraception to patients who are not interested in future fertility, regardless of their age or marital status, to ensure reproductive autonomy for those patients,” Dr. Schardein said. “Patients may need increased access to these procedures if the increased rates continue over time.”

Dr. Schardein’s study investigated national trends in the use of permanent contraception before and after the Dobbs ruling. She and her colleagues analyzed data from the Epic Cosmos database of more than 217 million patients from an estimated 27,000 clinics and 1260 hospitals nationwide. The researchers identified all adults who underwent a vasectomy or tubal ligation from July to December 2021 and then from July to December 2022, in the 5 months following the decision.

Among adults aged 18-30 years, rates of vasectomy were 1.59 times higher and rates of tubal ligation were 1.29 times higher after the Dobbs ruling than before it (P < .001). Although overall rates of tubal ligation among single women did not change after Dobbs, rates of vasectomy in single men were 1.13 times higher (P < .001).

States were categorized as not hostile to abortion access (abortion access remained available), hostile (access was restricted or might become illegal), or illegal on the basis of information from the Center for Reproductive Rights. Vasectomies increased in most states, with the biggest gain in Tennessee, where abortions are illegal. 

The increase in vasectomy rates was similar across nonhostile (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.43), hostile (IRR, 1.46), and illegal (IRR, 1.41) states (P < .001). Although the rate of increase was similar regardless of legal climate, the rate of vasectomies was higher in hostile and illegal states than in nonhostile states both before and after the Dobbs ruling, according to the researchers.

Rates of tubal ligation did not change as substantially across the United States after Dobbs, remaining unchanged in states hostile to abortion access and rising slightly in nonhostile states (IRR, 1.06) and in states where abortion is now illegal (IRR, 1.12; P < .001 for both).

However, when the researchers looked at tubal ligation in nonhostile states and hostile or illegal states, they found that rates of the procedure were nearly double in the hostile or illegal states both before and after Dobbs, with a bigger increase after Dobbs in illegal states. Tubal ligation rates were 1.85 times higher in illegal states than in nonhostile states after Dobbs, compared with being 1.76 times higher than in nonhostile states before Dobbs.
 

Other Studies Support the Findings 

Another study assessed the change in the volume of vasectomy consultations at six US academic medical centers in the 17 months before and 5 months after Dobbs (abstract PD40-02). The researchers reported that the rate was roughly 7% higher after the ruling than before (143 vs 134 cases per month, respectively). Again, the men seeking vasectomies after Dobbs were younger than those who sought the procedure before Dobbs (median age, 38 vs 39 years; P < .001). Post-Dobbs patients were also significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic White, English-speaking, and privately insured. 

“Younger, childless people are choosing vasectomies as permanent method of birth control,” lead author Kara L. Watts, MD, associate professor of urology at Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, New York, told attendees. “The impact of this decision is likely to be long-lasting, requiring urologists and medical centers to adjust practice patterns to account for the increased demand.”

Twice as many childless married men underwent vasectomies after Dobbs than before the ruling (11% vs 5%, respectively; P = .001), but substantially more childless single men had the procedure after Dobbs than before it (36% vs 21%; P = .003). Those seeking vasectomies after Dobbs had to wait a median of 8 days longer between consult and procedure (59 vs 51 days pre-Dobbs; P < .001). Several of the same researchers had identified an increase in online searches about vasectomies in the months just after the Dobbs decision.

“We’ve been trying to get men to take more responsibility” for their role in unplanned pregnancies, Ajay K. Nangia, MD, MBBS, professor and vice chair of urology at University of Kansas Medical Center in Overland Park, told this news organization. Dr. Nangia, who helped conduct the study of vasectomy consultations and has spent years on research related to pharmaceutical contraception options for men, said the sudden increase in interest in vasectomies can be ethically fraught. Only 25% of vasectomies can be reversed, and some patients who seek the surgery may not have permanently ruled out having children.

“They’re going into this with their eyes wide open, knowing that it’s not 100% going to be reversible with a vasectomy,” he said. But fear of not having abortion access for their partners is part of their motivation, which creates tension for providers in balancing ethical counseling with the potential paternalism of advising against a vasectomy if they’re not certain that they don’t want children. 

“What happens in that situation, when it’s a political decision making you change your medical decision?” Dr. Nangia said. “I worry about that ethically.”

Dr. Nangia noted that the findings of his study cannot show that the Dobbs decision was the cause of the increase in vasectomies. However, in another abstract from the same session (PD40-01), researchers at The Ohio State University College of Medicine in Columbus presented findings from a survey of 57 men who underwent vasectomies in the preceding 2 years. Those results revealed that abortion access had been a factor among some of the 47% of patients whose procedures were performed after Dobbs. Post-Dobbs patients were significantly more likely to say they sought a vasectomy because of concerns about not being able to get abortion (P = .026) and because they didn’t want “to bring children into the current political climate” (P = .002). 

A study presented on May 6 (abstract MP76-06) involved a retrospective review of all 631 patients who underwent a vasectomy consult at UC San Diego Medical Center from June 2021 to June 2023. More vasectomy consults occurred after the Dobbs decision than before it (56% vs 44%). The gap for vasectomy consults was slightly wider for partnerless patients after vs before Dobbs (58% vs 42%) and substantially larger for childless patients post-Dobbs compared with pre-Dobbs (63% vs 37%). The childless men undergoing vasectomies after Dobbs also were significantly younger than those who had had this procedure before the ruling (mean, 36.4 vs 39.8 years; P <.001). 

“Patients should be counseled on the permanent nature of this procedure, underscoring need for effective and reversible male contraception,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Schardein and Dr. Watts reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Nangia is conducting an idiopathic infertility study with funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. None of the studies reported external funding.

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

The number of Americans seeking permanent forms of contraception has surged in the nearly 2 years since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision that overturned a federal right to abortion, according to a study presented on May 5 at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA) (abstract PD40-03). Several other studies at the conference reported similar findings.

Rates of vasectomy and tubal ligation have increased in states where abortion became illegal after the court’s June 2022 ruling, researchers found. Rates of tubal sterilization had already been higher in states where abortion was illegal compared with those where access to the procedure remained available and was expected to remain so, but the difference widened after the decision. 

“Our study showed trends of increasing utilization of permanent contraception post-Dobbs, with a significant increase in patients less than 30 years old pursuing any type of permanent contraception post-Dobbs,” Jessica N. Schardein, MD, MS, of University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, told attendees. “Reproductive autonomy is important for people of all genders and may be influenced by legal climate. Understanding the relationship between state-level abortion laws and trends in permanent contraception is crucial for us to determine how to best allocate resources for education and services to ensure reproductive rights for all patients.”

Dr. Schardein told this news organization the increase in vasectomies post-Dobbs was consistent across most states regardless of legal climate, showing that “reproductive health matters to all people,” both women and men.

“We should continue to offer permanent contraception to patients who are not interested in future fertility, regardless of their age or marital status, to ensure reproductive autonomy for those patients,” Dr. Schardein said. “Patients may need increased access to these procedures if the increased rates continue over time.”

Dr. Schardein’s study investigated national trends in the use of permanent contraception before and after the Dobbs ruling. She and her colleagues analyzed data from the Epic Cosmos database of more than 217 million patients from an estimated 27,000 clinics and 1260 hospitals nationwide. The researchers identified all adults who underwent a vasectomy or tubal ligation from July to December 2021 and then from July to December 2022, in the 5 months following the decision.

Among adults aged 18-30 years, rates of vasectomy were 1.59 times higher and rates of tubal ligation were 1.29 times higher after the Dobbs ruling than before it (P < .001). Although overall rates of tubal ligation among single women did not change after Dobbs, rates of vasectomy in single men were 1.13 times higher (P < .001).

States were categorized as not hostile to abortion access (abortion access remained available), hostile (access was restricted or might become illegal), or illegal on the basis of information from the Center for Reproductive Rights. Vasectomies increased in most states, with the biggest gain in Tennessee, where abortions are illegal. 

The increase in vasectomy rates was similar across nonhostile (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.43), hostile (IRR, 1.46), and illegal (IRR, 1.41) states (P < .001). Although the rate of increase was similar regardless of legal climate, the rate of vasectomies was higher in hostile and illegal states than in nonhostile states both before and after the Dobbs ruling, according to the researchers.

Rates of tubal ligation did not change as substantially across the United States after Dobbs, remaining unchanged in states hostile to abortion access and rising slightly in nonhostile states (IRR, 1.06) and in states where abortion is now illegal (IRR, 1.12; P < .001 for both).

However, when the researchers looked at tubal ligation in nonhostile states and hostile or illegal states, they found that rates of the procedure were nearly double in the hostile or illegal states both before and after Dobbs, with a bigger increase after Dobbs in illegal states. Tubal ligation rates were 1.85 times higher in illegal states than in nonhostile states after Dobbs, compared with being 1.76 times higher than in nonhostile states before Dobbs.
 

Other Studies Support the Findings 

Another study assessed the change in the volume of vasectomy consultations at six US academic medical centers in the 17 months before and 5 months after Dobbs (abstract PD40-02). The researchers reported that the rate was roughly 7% higher after the ruling than before (143 vs 134 cases per month, respectively). Again, the men seeking vasectomies after Dobbs were younger than those who sought the procedure before Dobbs (median age, 38 vs 39 years; P < .001). Post-Dobbs patients were also significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic White, English-speaking, and privately insured. 

“Younger, childless people are choosing vasectomies as permanent method of birth control,” lead author Kara L. Watts, MD, associate professor of urology at Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, New York, told attendees. “The impact of this decision is likely to be long-lasting, requiring urologists and medical centers to adjust practice patterns to account for the increased demand.”

Twice as many childless married men underwent vasectomies after Dobbs than before the ruling (11% vs 5%, respectively; P = .001), but substantially more childless single men had the procedure after Dobbs than before it (36% vs 21%; P = .003). Those seeking vasectomies after Dobbs had to wait a median of 8 days longer between consult and procedure (59 vs 51 days pre-Dobbs; P < .001). Several of the same researchers had identified an increase in online searches about vasectomies in the months just after the Dobbs decision.

“We’ve been trying to get men to take more responsibility” for their role in unplanned pregnancies, Ajay K. Nangia, MD, MBBS, professor and vice chair of urology at University of Kansas Medical Center in Overland Park, told this news organization. Dr. Nangia, who helped conduct the study of vasectomy consultations and has spent years on research related to pharmaceutical contraception options for men, said the sudden increase in interest in vasectomies can be ethically fraught. Only 25% of vasectomies can be reversed, and some patients who seek the surgery may not have permanently ruled out having children.

“They’re going into this with their eyes wide open, knowing that it’s not 100% going to be reversible with a vasectomy,” he said. But fear of not having abortion access for their partners is part of their motivation, which creates tension for providers in balancing ethical counseling with the potential paternalism of advising against a vasectomy if they’re not certain that they don’t want children. 

“What happens in that situation, when it’s a political decision making you change your medical decision?” Dr. Nangia said. “I worry about that ethically.”

Dr. Nangia noted that the findings of his study cannot show that the Dobbs decision was the cause of the increase in vasectomies. However, in another abstract from the same session (PD40-01), researchers at The Ohio State University College of Medicine in Columbus presented findings from a survey of 57 men who underwent vasectomies in the preceding 2 years. Those results revealed that abortion access had been a factor among some of the 47% of patients whose procedures were performed after Dobbs. Post-Dobbs patients were significantly more likely to say they sought a vasectomy because of concerns about not being able to get abortion (P = .026) and because they didn’t want “to bring children into the current political climate” (P = .002). 

A study presented on May 6 (abstract MP76-06) involved a retrospective review of all 631 patients who underwent a vasectomy consult at UC San Diego Medical Center from June 2021 to June 2023. More vasectomy consults occurred after the Dobbs decision than before it (56% vs 44%). The gap for vasectomy consults was slightly wider for partnerless patients after vs before Dobbs (58% vs 42%) and substantially larger for childless patients post-Dobbs compared with pre-Dobbs (63% vs 37%). The childless men undergoing vasectomies after Dobbs also were significantly younger than those who had had this procedure before the ruling (mean, 36.4 vs 39.8 years; P <.001). 

“Patients should be counseled on the permanent nature of this procedure, underscoring need for effective and reversible male contraception,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Schardein and Dr. Watts reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Nangia is conducting an idiopathic infertility study with funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. None of the studies reported external funding.

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

People with HIV who wish to breastfeed their infants should have sustained viral suppression, with a viral load below 50 copies per mL, to have the least risk of transmitting HIV to their baby aside from avoiding breastfeeding altogether, according to a new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

“The risk of HIV transmission via breastfeeding from a parent with HIV who is receiving antiretroviral treatment (ART) and is virally suppressed is estimated to be less than 1%,” Lisa Abuogi, MD, an associate professor of pediatric infectious disease at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and her colleagues wrote in Pediatrics. For people living with HIV in the United States, however, the AAP recommends that “avoidance of breastfeeding is the only infant feeding option with 0% risk of HIV transmission.”

The authors go on to suggest that pediatricians “be prepared to offer a family-centered, nonjudgmental, harm reduction approach” to support people with HIV who do want to breastfeed and have sustained viral suppression. Parents with HIV who are not on ART or who do not have adequate viral suppression should be advised against breastfeeding, the report states. Members of the AAP Committee on Pediatric and Adolescent HIV and of the AAP Section on Breastfeeding coauthored the clinical report.

“The new guidelines emphasize the importance of patient-centered counseling as the foundation for shared decision-making, allowing patients and pediatric providers to make feeding decisions together and for the first time really giving support to people with HIV in the U.S. who want to breastfeed,” Danna Biala, MD, MS, an attending pediatrician at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore and an assistant professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, told MDedge News.

Dr. Biala was not involved in the development of the report, but she said the AAP’s guidance reflects the recent shift in the stance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regarding breastfeeding among people who are HIV+. Recommendations from the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) were updated in 2023.

“I’m glad that the AAP is putting out guidelines on infant feeding for people with HIV,” Dr. Biala said. “For so long in the U.S., pediatricians have been advising all mothers with HIV to avoid breastfeeding, believing that the risk of transmission outweighed the benefits of breastfeeding.”

The updated guidance from HHS in 2023 “was revolutionary in supporting people with HIV in low-risk situations who want to breastfeed,” Dr. Biala said, but “clear protocols for monitoring and follow-up were not in place,” which these AAP guidelines help address.
 

Prior Discordance Between Global, U.S. Guidance

An estimated 5,000 people with HIV give birth each year in the United States, and up to one third of pregnant people with HIV may be unaware of their HIV status, the AAP report notes. Pediatric healthcare professionals in the United States therefore need to be aware of recommendations related to HIV testing of pregnant people and of counseling the feeding of infants exposed to HIV. The report recommends opt-out HIV testing at the first prenatal visit and then possibly retesting in the third trimester in areas with high HIV incidence or for people at high risk for HIV or with signs or symptoms of acute HIV infection.

The report also highlights the health benefits of breastfeeding to both the infant and the breastfeeding parent, but notes the CDC’s historical recommendation against breastfeeding for people who are HIV+. The WHO, meanwhile, began recommending in 2016 that infants be breastfed through 12 to 24 months old if the parent was on ART and/or the infant was receiving antiretroviral (ARV) prophylaxis, since research showed those treatments were effective in reducing transmission risk.

Still, an estimated 30% of perinatal HIV transmission occurs via breastfeeding worldwide, primarily from people with HIV who are not on ART or are not adequately virally suppressed. Without parental ART or infant ARV prophylaxis, HIV transmission risk to infants via breastfeeding is highest, about 5%-6%, in the first 4-6 weeks of life. Risk then declines to about 0.9% a month thereafter. The AAP report goes on to describe factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of transmission during breastfeeding, but it notes that neither ART in the breastfeeding person nor ARV prophylaxis in the infant completely eliminates the risk of HIV transmission during breastfeeding. There have been rare cases where transmission occurred despite viral suppression in the person with HIV.

Among the reasons people with HIV have expressed a desire to breastfeed are wanting to bond with their infant, wanting to provide optimal nutrition and health benefits to their baby, and meeting cultural expectations, including the desire not to disclose their HIV infection status to family or friends by virtue of not breastfeeding.

“Among immigrant and refugee populations, the discordance between infant feeding guidelines in the United States and their country of birth may result in confusion, especially among parents who breastfed previous infants,” the AAP report also notes. Further, not breastfeeding could compound health disparities already more likely to be present among those living with HIV.

Discussions about infant feeding with parents with HIV should therefore “begin as early as possible and involve a multidisciplinary team that might include the pediatric primary care provider (once identified), a pediatric HIV expert, the breastfeeding parent’s HIV care and obstetric providers, and lactation consultants,” the report states. ”The parent’s motivations for breastfeeding should be explored and counseling provided on the risks and benefits of each feeding option, including breastfeeding, formula feeding, or certified, banked donor human milk.” The statement emphasizes the need for providing counseling in a “non-judgmental, respectful way, recognizing potential drivers for their decisions such as avoidance of stigma, prior experience with breastfeeding, and cultural contributors.”
 

Clear Recommendations Can Help Providers

The AAP’s statement that “replacement feeding (with formula or certified, banked donor human milk) is the only option that is 100% certain to prevent postnatal transmission of HIV” feels like it takes a “more conservative or discouraging approach” to breastfeeding than the CDC or WHO guidelines, Alissa Parker-Smith, APRN, DNP, CPNP-PC, IBCLC, a nurse practitioner and lactation consultant at PrimaryPlus, a Federally Qualified Health Clinic in Ashland, Kentucky, told MDedge. But she said they do clearly align with the CDC guidelines, and their differences from the WHO guidelines make sense in light of the different populations served by the WHO versus the U.S. agencies.

“Unclean water for formula preparation and a reduced or lack of access to formula in general can lead to many other risks of death for the infant other than the very small risk of HIV infection from breastfeeding from an HIV+ parent,” Ms. Parker-Smith said. “In the U.S. we generally have consistent access to clean water and safe formula as well as social structures to help families have access to formula, so the very small risk of HIV being passed to the infant is far greater than an infant in the U.S. dying as a result of unclean water or formula contamination.”

Ms. Parker-Smith also said the AAP recommendations seem thorough in helping pediatric practitioners counsel and support parents with HIV. “If I had a parent who is HIV+ walk in the door today wanting to breastfeed their infant, the AAP guidelines give me specific steps to make me feel confident in helping that parent breastfeed as safely as possible as well as providing education to assist that parent through the decision process,” she said.

Dr. Biala agreed, noting that the clinical report “very clearly delineates recommendations for different groups of people: those in labor or postpartum with undocumented HIV infection status, pregnant and postpartum people with HIV, those without HIV but at high risk of acquiring it, and those with suspected acute HIV infection while breastfeeding.” Dr. Biala said the report “provides concrete, detailed, and easy-to-follow guidance on comprehensive counseling, strategies to minimize risk of transmission, and infant screening timelines.”

How easily the guidelines can be implemented will depend on the existing resources at different institutions in the United States, Dr. Biala added.

“In hospitals and clinics that have, or could easily have, systems in place to ensure follow-up and regular assessment during breastfeeding, the guidelines could be implemented fairly quickly,” she said. “It might be more challenging in areas with inadequate or limited access to multidisciplinary team members, including HIV care providers and lactation consultants.”

The report did not use external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Abuogi and Ms. Parker-Smith have no disclosures.

People with HIV who wish to breastfeed their infants should have sustained viral suppression, with a viral load below 50 copies per mL, to have the least risk of transmitting HIV to their baby aside from avoiding breastfeeding altogether, according to a new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

“The risk of HIV transmission via breastfeeding from a parent with HIV who is receiving antiretroviral treatment (ART) and is virally suppressed is estimated to be less than 1%,” Lisa Abuogi, MD, an associate professor of pediatric infectious disease at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and her colleagues wrote in Pediatrics. For people living with HIV in the United States, however, the AAP recommends that “avoidance of breastfeeding is the only infant feeding option with 0% risk of HIV transmission.”

The authors go on to suggest that pediatricians “be prepared to offer a family-centered, nonjudgmental, harm reduction approach” to support people with HIV who do want to breastfeed and have sustained viral suppression. Parents with HIV who are not on ART or who do not have adequate viral suppression should be advised against breastfeeding, the report states. Members of the AAP Committee on Pediatric and Adolescent HIV and of the AAP Section on Breastfeeding coauthored the clinical report.

“The new guidelines emphasize the importance of patient-centered counseling as the foundation for shared decision-making, allowing patients and pediatric providers to make feeding decisions together and for the first time really giving support to people with HIV in the U.S. who want to breastfeed,” Danna Biala, MD, MS, an attending pediatrician at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore and an assistant professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, told MDedge News.

Dr. Biala was not involved in the development of the report, but she said the AAP’s guidance reflects the recent shift in the stance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regarding breastfeeding among people who are HIV+. Recommendations from the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) were updated in 2023.

“I’m glad that the AAP is putting out guidelines on infant feeding for people with HIV,” Dr. Biala said. “For so long in the U.S., pediatricians have been advising all mothers with HIV to avoid breastfeeding, believing that the risk of transmission outweighed the benefits of breastfeeding.”

The updated guidance from HHS in 2023 “was revolutionary in supporting people with HIV in low-risk situations who want to breastfeed,” Dr. Biala said, but “clear protocols for monitoring and follow-up were not in place,” which these AAP guidelines help address.
 

Prior Discordance Between Global, U.S. Guidance

An estimated 5,000 people with HIV give birth each year in the United States, and up to one third of pregnant people with HIV may be unaware of their HIV status, the AAP report notes. Pediatric healthcare professionals in the United States therefore need to be aware of recommendations related to HIV testing of pregnant people and of counseling the feeding of infants exposed to HIV. The report recommends opt-out HIV testing at the first prenatal visit and then possibly retesting in the third trimester in areas with high HIV incidence or for people at high risk for HIV or with signs or symptoms of acute HIV infection.

The report also highlights the health benefits of breastfeeding to both the infant and the breastfeeding parent, but notes the CDC’s historical recommendation against breastfeeding for people who are HIV+. The WHO, meanwhile, began recommending in 2016 that infants be breastfed through 12 to 24 months old if the parent was on ART and/or the infant was receiving antiretroviral (ARV) prophylaxis, since research showed those treatments were effective in reducing transmission risk.

Still, an estimated 30% of perinatal HIV transmission occurs via breastfeeding worldwide, primarily from people with HIV who are not on ART or are not adequately virally suppressed. Without parental ART or infant ARV prophylaxis, HIV transmission risk to infants via breastfeeding is highest, about 5%-6%, in the first 4-6 weeks of life. Risk then declines to about 0.9% a month thereafter. The AAP report goes on to describe factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of transmission during breastfeeding, but it notes that neither ART in the breastfeeding person nor ARV prophylaxis in the infant completely eliminates the risk of HIV transmission during breastfeeding. There have been rare cases where transmission occurred despite viral suppression in the person with HIV.

Among the reasons people with HIV have expressed a desire to breastfeed are wanting to bond with their infant, wanting to provide optimal nutrition and health benefits to their baby, and meeting cultural expectations, including the desire not to disclose their HIV infection status to family or friends by virtue of not breastfeeding.

“Among immigrant and refugee populations, the discordance between infant feeding guidelines in the United States and their country of birth may result in confusion, especially among parents who breastfed previous infants,” the AAP report also notes. Further, not breastfeeding could compound health disparities already more likely to be present among those living with HIV.

Discussions about infant feeding with parents with HIV should therefore “begin as early as possible and involve a multidisciplinary team that might include the pediatric primary care provider (once identified), a pediatric HIV expert, the breastfeeding parent’s HIV care and obstetric providers, and lactation consultants,” the report states. ”The parent’s motivations for breastfeeding should be explored and counseling provided on the risks and benefits of each feeding option, including breastfeeding, formula feeding, or certified, banked donor human milk.” The statement emphasizes the need for providing counseling in a “non-judgmental, respectful way, recognizing potential drivers for their decisions such as avoidance of stigma, prior experience with breastfeeding, and cultural contributors.”
 

Clear Recommendations Can Help Providers

The AAP’s statement that “replacement feeding (with formula or certified, banked donor human milk) is the only option that is 100% certain to prevent postnatal transmission of HIV” feels like it takes a “more conservative or discouraging approach” to breastfeeding than the CDC or WHO guidelines, Alissa Parker-Smith, APRN, DNP, CPNP-PC, IBCLC, a nurse practitioner and lactation consultant at PrimaryPlus, a Federally Qualified Health Clinic in Ashland, Kentucky, told MDedge. But she said they do clearly align with the CDC guidelines, and their differences from the WHO guidelines make sense in light of the different populations served by the WHO versus the U.S. agencies.

“Unclean water for formula preparation and a reduced or lack of access to formula in general can lead to many other risks of death for the infant other than the very small risk of HIV infection from breastfeeding from an HIV+ parent,” Ms. Parker-Smith said. “In the U.S. we generally have consistent access to clean water and safe formula as well as social structures to help families have access to formula, so the very small risk of HIV being passed to the infant is far greater than an infant in the U.S. dying as a result of unclean water or formula contamination.”

Ms. Parker-Smith also said the AAP recommendations seem thorough in helping pediatric practitioners counsel and support parents with HIV. “If I had a parent who is HIV+ walk in the door today wanting to breastfeed their infant, the AAP guidelines give me specific steps to make me feel confident in helping that parent breastfeed as safely as possible as well as providing education to assist that parent through the decision process,” she said.

Dr. Biala agreed, noting that the clinical report “very clearly delineates recommendations for different groups of people: those in labor or postpartum with undocumented HIV infection status, pregnant and postpartum people with HIV, those without HIV but at high risk of acquiring it, and those with suspected acute HIV infection while breastfeeding.” Dr. Biala said the report “provides concrete, detailed, and easy-to-follow guidance on comprehensive counseling, strategies to minimize risk of transmission, and infant screening timelines.”

How easily the guidelines can be implemented will depend on the existing resources at different institutions in the United States, Dr. Biala added.

“In hospitals and clinics that have, or could easily have, systems in place to ensure follow-up and regular assessment during breastfeeding, the guidelines could be implemented fairly quickly,” she said. “It might be more challenging in areas with inadequate or limited access to multidisciplinary team members, including HIV care providers and lactation consultants.”

The report did not use external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Abuogi and Ms. Parker-Smith have no disclosures.

People with HIV who wish to breastfeed their infants should have sustained viral suppression, with a viral load below 50 copies per mL, to have the least risk of transmitting HIV to their baby aside from avoiding breastfeeding altogether, according to a new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

“The risk of HIV transmission via breastfeeding from a parent with HIV who is receiving antiretroviral treatment (ART) and is virally suppressed is estimated to be less than 1%,” Lisa Abuogi, MD, an associate professor of pediatric infectious disease at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and her colleagues wrote in Pediatrics. For people living with HIV in the United States, however, the AAP recommends that “avoidance of breastfeeding is the only infant feeding option with 0% risk of HIV transmission.”

The authors go on to suggest that pediatricians “be prepared to offer a family-centered, nonjudgmental, harm reduction approach” to support people with HIV who do want to breastfeed and have sustained viral suppression. Parents with HIV who are not on ART or who do not have adequate viral suppression should be advised against breastfeeding, the report states. Members of the AAP Committee on Pediatric and Adolescent HIV and of the AAP Section on Breastfeeding coauthored the clinical report.

“The new guidelines emphasize the importance of patient-centered counseling as the foundation for shared decision-making, allowing patients and pediatric providers to make feeding decisions together and for the first time really giving support to people with HIV in the U.S. who want to breastfeed,” Danna Biala, MD, MS, an attending pediatrician at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore and an assistant professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, told MDedge News.

Dr. Biala was not involved in the development of the report, but she said the AAP’s guidance reflects the recent shift in the stance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regarding breastfeeding among people who are HIV+. Recommendations from the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) were updated in 2023.

“I’m glad that the AAP is putting out guidelines on infant feeding for people with HIV,” Dr. Biala said. “For so long in the U.S., pediatricians have been advising all mothers with HIV to avoid breastfeeding, believing that the risk of transmission outweighed the benefits of breastfeeding.”

The updated guidance from HHS in 2023 “was revolutionary in supporting people with HIV in low-risk situations who want to breastfeed,” Dr. Biala said, but “clear protocols for monitoring and follow-up were not in place,” which these AAP guidelines help address.
 

Prior Discordance Between Global, U.S. Guidance

An estimated 5,000 people with HIV give birth each year in the United States, and up to one third of pregnant people with HIV may be unaware of their HIV status, the AAP report notes. Pediatric healthcare professionals in the United States therefore need to be aware of recommendations related to HIV testing of pregnant people and of counseling the feeding of infants exposed to HIV. The report recommends opt-out HIV testing at the first prenatal visit and then possibly retesting in the third trimester in areas with high HIV incidence or for people at high risk for HIV or with signs or symptoms of acute HIV infection.

The report also highlights the health benefits of breastfeeding to both the infant and the breastfeeding parent, but notes the CDC’s historical recommendation against breastfeeding for people who are HIV+. The WHO, meanwhile, began recommending in 2016 that infants be breastfed through 12 to 24 months old if the parent was on ART and/or the infant was receiving antiretroviral (ARV) prophylaxis, since research showed those treatments were effective in reducing transmission risk.

Still, an estimated 30% of perinatal HIV transmission occurs via breastfeeding worldwide, primarily from people with HIV who are not on ART or are not adequately virally suppressed. Without parental ART or infant ARV prophylaxis, HIV transmission risk to infants via breastfeeding is highest, about 5%-6%, in the first 4-6 weeks of life. Risk then declines to about 0.9% a month thereafter. The AAP report goes on to describe factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of transmission during breastfeeding, but it notes that neither ART in the breastfeeding person nor ARV prophylaxis in the infant completely eliminates the risk of HIV transmission during breastfeeding. There have been rare cases where transmission occurred despite viral suppression in the person with HIV.

Among the reasons people with HIV have expressed a desire to breastfeed are wanting to bond with their infant, wanting to provide optimal nutrition and health benefits to their baby, and meeting cultural expectations, including the desire not to disclose their HIV infection status to family or friends by virtue of not breastfeeding.

“Among immigrant and refugee populations, the discordance between infant feeding guidelines in the United States and their country of birth may result in confusion, especially among parents who breastfed previous infants,” the AAP report also notes. Further, not breastfeeding could compound health disparities already more likely to be present among those living with HIV.

Discussions about infant feeding with parents with HIV should therefore “begin as early as possible and involve a multidisciplinary team that might include the pediatric primary care provider (once identified), a pediatric HIV expert, the breastfeeding parent’s HIV care and obstetric providers, and lactation consultants,” the report states. ”The parent’s motivations for breastfeeding should be explored and counseling provided on the risks and benefits of each feeding option, including breastfeeding, formula feeding, or certified, banked donor human milk.” The statement emphasizes the need for providing counseling in a “non-judgmental, respectful way, recognizing potential drivers for their decisions such as avoidance of stigma, prior experience with breastfeeding, and cultural contributors.”
 

Clear Recommendations Can Help Providers

The AAP’s statement that “replacement feeding (with formula or certified, banked donor human milk) is the only option that is 100% certain to prevent postnatal transmission of HIV” feels like it takes a “more conservative or discouraging approach” to breastfeeding than the CDC or WHO guidelines, Alissa Parker-Smith, APRN, DNP, CPNP-PC, IBCLC, a nurse practitioner and lactation consultant at PrimaryPlus, a Federally Qualified Health Clinic in Ashland, Kentucky, told MDedge. But she said they do clearly align with the CDC guidelines, and their differences from the WHO guidelines make sense in light of the different populations served by the WHO versus the U.S. agencies.

“Unclean water for formula preparation and a reduced or lack of access to formula in general can lead to many other risks of death for the infant other than the very small risk of HIV infection from breastfeeding from an HIV+ parent,” Ms. Parker-Smith said. “In the U.S. we generally have consistent access to clean water and safe formula as well as social structures to help families have access to formula, so the very small risk of HIV being passed to the infant is far greater than an infant in the U.S. dying as a result of unclean water or formula contamination.”

Ms. Parker-Smith also said the AAP recommendations seem thorough in helping pediatric practitioners counsel and support parents with HIV. “If I had a parent who is HIV+ walk in the door today wanting to breastfeed their infant, the AAP guidelines give me specific steps to make me feel confident in helping that parent breastfeed as safely as possible as well as providing education to assist that parent through the decision process,” she said.

Dr. Biala agreed, noting that the clinical report “very clearly delineates recommendations for different groups of people: those in labor or postpartum with undocumented HIV infection status, pregnant and postpartum people with HIV, those without HIV but at high risk of acquiring it, and those with suspected acute HIV infection while breastfeeding.” Dr. Biala said the report “provides concrete, detailed, and easy-to-follow guidance on comprehensive counseling, strategies to minimize risk of transmission, and infant screening timelines.”

How easily the guidelines can be implemented will depend on the existing resources at different institutions in the United States, Dr. Biala added.

“In hospitals and clinics that have, or could easily have, systems in place to ensure follow-up and regular assessment during breastfeeding, the guidelines could be implemented fairly quickly,” she said. “It might be more challenging in areas with inadequate or limited access to multidisciplinary team members, including HIV care providers and lactation consultants.”

The report did not use external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Abuogi and Ms. Parker-Smith have no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO — Discussion of gestational weight gain occurred in only half of first-time obstetric visits, most often brought up by the provider, according to data presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Weight can be a challenging and sensitive topic at a healthcare visit,” Malini Harinath, an undergraduate research assistant at Magee-Women’s Research Institute at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, told attendees. “Providers discussed weight gain recommendations in less than half of conversations.”

The researchers analyzed an existing dataset of audio-recorded first obstetric visits to find out how often gestational weight gain was brought up, who initiated the discussion, whether ACOG guidelines were discussed, and what the provider’s comments were.

Among 150 visits, half (50%) involved discussion of weight, with patients bringing it up 24% of the time and providers bringing it up 72% of the time. In the other 3% of visits, it was brought up by a third party, such as a partner or other family member with the patient.

Only two of those visits mentioned body mass index (BMI) specifically, and ACOG guidelines on gestational weight gain were brought up in only six visits (8% of the visits where weight was mentioned). However, mention of recommendations on gestational weight gain was more frequent, coming up in nearly half (46.7%) of the visits where weight was mentioned, though that was still just 23% of all visits.

Concern about weight was brought up in 25.3% of visits where weight was discussed, and the provider’s reassurance to the patient occurred in about a third (32%) of those visits. General comments about the patient’s body occurred in 16% of visits, such as a clinician saying, “Usually we start trying [to find the heartbeat] at about 15 weeks, but you are so skinny we might be able to find it now.”

Ms. Harinath intends to look in future research at whether patient race or BMI are associated with the frequency and content of gestational weight gain conversations and to explore how patients react to different ways that discussion of weight is brought up.

Katherine Kaak, MD, a second-year resident at the University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine in Knoxville, was surprised that weight was brought up in only half of the visits. “The clinical takeaway is just how important counseling in the prenatal time is and how a lot of this discussion is preventive medicine,” Dr. Kaak said. “Even though we think of those visits as being quick, it’s good to keep in mind that we need to really take our time and make sure we counsel the patient as best we can.”

There’s a fair amount of research suggesting that existing recommendations on gestational weight gain are not very good because they’re very generic, Jill Maples, PhD, associate professor of ob.gyn. research at the University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, said in an interview. For example, the guidelines are generally the same for everyone with a BMI over 30, but a person with a BMI of 30 is very different from someone with a BMI of 50, she said.

“There’s not even a lot of clarity on what is appropriate weight gain for that group because some people have seen good outcomes on the lower end of gestational weight gain,” Dr. Maples said. She said it’s important that clinicians not forget about the importance of these discussions, however, because lifestyle habits and gestational weight gain are related to maternal and neonatal outcomes.

The authors, Dr. Kaak, and Dr. Maples had no disclosures. The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

SAN FRANCISCO — Discussion of gestational weight gain occurred in only half of first-time obstetric visits, most often brought up by the provider, according to data presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Weight can be a challenging and sensitive topic at a healthcare visit,” Malini Harinath, an undergraduate research assistant at Magee-Women’s Research Institute at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, told attendees. “Providers discussed weight gain recommendations in less than half of conversations.”

The researchers analyzed an existing dataset of audio-recorded first obstetric visits to find out how often gestational weight gain was brought up, who initiated the discussion, whether ACOG guidelines were discussed, and what the provider’s comments were.

Among 150 visits, half (50%) involved discussion of weight, with patients bringing it up 24% of the time and providers bringing it up 72% of the time. In the other 3% of visits, it was brought up by a third party, such as a partner or other family member with the patient.

Only two of those visits mentioned body mass index (BMI) specifically, and ACOG guidelines on gestational weight gain were brought up in only six visits (8% of the visits where weight was mentioned). However, mention of recommendations on gestational weight gain was more frequent, coming up in nearly half (46.7%) of the visits where weight was mentioned, though that was still just 23% of all visits.

Concern about weight was brought up in 25.3% of visits where weight was discussed, and the provider’s reassurance to the patient occurred in about a third (32%) of those visits. General comments about the patient’s body occurred in 16% of visits, such as a clinician saying, “Usually we start trying [to find the heartbeat] at about 15 weeks, but you are so skinny we might be able to find it now.”

Ms. Harinath intends to look in future research at whether patient race or BMI are associated with the frequency and content of gestational weight gain conversations and to explore how patients react to different ways that discussion of weight is brought up.

Katherine Kaak, MD, a second-year resident at the University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine in Knoxville, was surprised that weight was brought up in only half of the visits. “The clinical takeaway is just how important counseling in the prenatal time is and how a lot of this discussion is preventive medicine,” Dr. Kaak said. “Even though we think of those visits as being quick, it’s good to keep in mind that we need to really take our time and make sure we counsel the patient as best we can.”

There’s a fair amount of research suggesting that existing recommendations on gestational weight gain are not very good because they’re very generic, Jill Maples, PhD, associate professor of ob.gyn. research at the University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, said in an interview. For example, the guidelines are generally the same for everyone with a BMI over 30, but a person with a BMI of 30 is very different from someone with a BMI of 50, she said.

“There’s not even a lot of clarity on what is appropriate weight gain for that group because some people have seen good outcomes on the lower end of gestational weight gain,” Dr. Maples said. She said it’s important that clinicians not forget about the importance of these discussions, however, because lifestyle habits and gestational weight gain are related to maternal and neonatal outcomes.

The authors, Dr. Kaak, and Dr. Maples had no disclosures. The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

SAN FRANCISCO — Discussion of gestational weight gain occurred in only half of first-time obstetric visits, most often brought up by the provider, according to data presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Weight can be a challenging and sensitive topic at a healthcare visit,” Malini Harinath, an undergraduate research assistant at Magee-Women’s Research Institute at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, told attendees. “Providers discussed weight gain recommendations in less than half of conversations.”

The researchers analyzed an existing dataset of audio-recorded first obstetric visits to find out how often gestational weight gain was brought up, who initiated the discussion, whether ACOG guidelines were discussed, and what the provider’s comments were.

Among 150 visits, half (50%) involved discussion of weight, with patients bringing it up 24% of the time and providers bringing it up 72% of the time. In the other 3% of visits, it was brought up by a third party, such as a partner or other family member with the patient.

Only two of those visits mentioned body mass index (BMI) specifically, and ACOG guidelines on gestational weight gain were brought up in only six visits (8% of the visits where weight was mentioned). However, mention of recommendations on gestational weight gain was more frequent, coming up in nearly half (46.7%) of the visits where weight was mentioned, though that was still just 23% of all visits.

Concern about weight was brought up in 25.3% of visits where weight was discussed, and the provider’s reassurance to the patient occurred in about a third (32%) of those visits. General comments about the patient’s body occurred in 16% of visits, such as a clinician saying, “Usually we start trying [to find the heartbeat] at about 15 weeks, but you are so skinny we might be able to find it now.”

Ms. Harinath intends to look in future research at whether patient race or BMI are associated with the frequency and content of gestational weight gain conversations and to explore how patients react to different ways that discussion of weight is brought up.

Katherine Kaak, MD, a second-year resident at the University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine in Knoxville, was surprised that weight was brought up in only half of the visits. “The clinical takeaway is just how important counseling in the prenatal time is and how a lot of this discussion is preventive medicine,” Dr. Kaak said. “Even though we think of those visits as being quick, it’s good to keep in mind that we need to really take our time and make sure we counsel the patient as best we can.”

There’s a fair amount of research suggesting that existing recommendations on gestational weight gain are not very good because they’re very generic, Jill Maples, PhD, associate professor of ob.gyn. research at the University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, said in an interview. For example, the guidelines are generally the same for everyone with a BMI over 30, but a person with a BMI of 30 is very different from someone with a BMI of 50, she said.

“There’s not even a lot of clarity on what is appropriate weight gain for that group because some people have seen good outcomes on the lower end of gestational weight gain,” Dr. Maples said. She said it’s important that clinicians not forget about the importance of these discussions, however, because lifestyle habits and gestational weight gain are related to maternal and neonatal outcomes.

The authors, Dr. Kaak, and Dr. Maples had no disclosures. The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

SAN FRANCISCO — Women who used marijuana during pregnancy were significantly less likely to view it as risky even in a state where it was not legalized, according to prospectively collected data presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. But most of those women had not received any counseling about stopping its use, and more than half wanted more information about its effects on pregnancy complications.

“The biggest thing we recognized was that our counseling in prenatal visits was lower than what it really should have been,” Abigail M. Ramseyer, DO, of University of Michigan Health– Sparrow in Lansing, said in an interview. She said doctors really need to be asking their patients about marijuana use and having a conversation about the risks of its use during pregnancy.

An estimated 3%-30% of pregnant women use marijuana, depending on the population, but prevalence has been rising as more states legalize its use. Yet research has shown an association between marijuana use during pregnancy and multiple neonatal complications, including fetal growth restriction and low birth weight.

Pregnant women at a single center in Arkansas were invited during their prenatal visits to complete a 35-question, anonymous survey electronically or on paper. Of the 460 approached, 88.7% completed the survey and 11.8% of those women reported use of marijuana during pregnancy. Among those who used it while pregnant, 50% reported using it 2-3 times a week, 27% reported using it once weekly, and 18.8% reported using it daily.

The women who used it while pregnant were less likely to have a college degree and half (50%) were aged 18-24, with use declining with increasing age. A third of those who use it were White (33.3%), 52.1% were Black, and 6.3% were Hispanic.

More than half of the women (52.7%) who used marijuana during pregnancy reported that there had not been any discussion about substance use during pregnancy at the prenatal visit, and 82.4% said they had not received any counseling about stopping its use during pregnancy. Yet 54% of them wanted more information about pregnancy complications linked to cannabis use.

The other questions asked respondents on a 5-point Likert scale how much they agreed or disagreed with various statements related to perceptions of marijuana, its use during pregnancy, and its risks.

Most respondents strongly agreed that “marijuana isn’t as bad as other drugs like heroin, cocaine or meth,” but average agreement was higher among those who used marijuana (4.88) than who didn’t (4.02, P < .001).

Respondents largely neither agreed nor disagreed with its being okay to use marijuana during pregnancy with a prescription, but agreement was still higher among those who used it (3.68) than didn’t use it (2.82, P < .001). Those who used marijuana were more likely to agree that it’s “a natural substance and not a drug” (4.67 vs. 3.38, P < .001); to believe “marijuana has minimal health risks during and outside of pregnancy” (4.15 vs. 2.96, P < .001); and to believe “marijuana has less risk for treating symptoms in pregnancy than prescription medication from my provider” (4.19 vs. 3.01, P < .001).

It was not surprising that patients using marijuana would have more favorable opinions toward legalizing it, Dr. Ramseyer said, but it was interesting that the respondents’ attitude overall, regardless of use, was positive in a fairly conservative state where it was still illegal. She said her research group has data they are starting to analyze about the perceptions of patients’ partners and family members regarding marijuana use during pregnancy.

Animesh Upadhyay, MD, a resident at Yale–New Haven Medical Center in Connecticut, was also surprised by how positive the attitudes toward marijuana use and legalization were in a state where it’s illegal.

“The thing that disturbs me is that nobody has spoken about the risks of marijuana in pregnancy” to many of the respondents, said Dr. Upadhyay, who was not involved in the study. Based on the findings, Dr. Upadhyay said he would definitely begin asking patients more about their use of marijuana and their beliefs about it.

In a separate poster, Sarah Dzubay, BS, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, presented data examining potential associations between cannabis use and fertility. Previous research has suggested an association, but the cross-sectional analysis by Ms. Dzubay identified only a nonsignificant trend toward an association.

The researchers analyzed data from the 2013-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Study (NHANES) for woman aged 20-49 based on self-reported use of cannabis. Among 3166 women, 51% reported never using cannabis, 29% reported irregular use, and 20% reported regular use at least monthly.

“Women reporting regular use were younger, of lower income and educational attainment, and more likely to be single,” Ms. Dzubay reported. Those reporting irregular use, meanwhile, were more likely to be college graduates.

More of the women who used cannabis regularly (15.4%) reported an inability to conceive within one year than women who used cannabis irregularly (10.8%) or never (12.6%). The higher odds ratio of infertility among those using cannabis regularly (OR 1.47) compared to never using it was not statistically significant, however, nor was the reduced odds ratio among those using it irregularly (OR 0.83).

Because the results were not significant, the possibility of a link to infertility is “something to keep in mind,” Ms. Dzubay said, but “a lot more data has to be collected about this question before we can definitively say there’s a risk.”

The authors and Dr. Upadhyay had no disclosures. Neither study noted any external funding.

SAN FRANCISCO — Women who used marijuana during pregnancy were significantly less likely to view it as risky even in a state where it was not legalized, according to prospectively collected data presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. But most of those women had not received any counseling about stopping its use, and more than half wanted more information about its effects on pregnancy complications.

“The biggest thing we recognized was that our counseling in prenatal visits was lower than what it really should have been,” Abigail M. Ramseyer, DO, of University of Michigan Health– Sparrow in Lansing, said in an interview. She said doctors really need to be asking their patients about marijuana use and having a conversation about the risks of its use during pregnancy.

An estimated 3%-30% of pregnant women use marijuana, depending on the population, but prevalence has been rising as more states legalize its use. Yet research has shown an association between marijuana use during pregnancy and multiple neonatal complications, including fetal growth restriction and low birth weight.

Pregnant women at a single center in Arkansas were invited during their prenatal visits to complete a 35-question, anonymous survey electronically or on paper. Of the 460 approached, 88.7% completed the survey and 11.8% of those women reported use of marijuana during pregnancy. Among those who used it while pregnant, 50% reported using it 2-3 times a week, 27% reported using it once weekly, and 18.8% reported using it daily.

The women who used it while pregnant were less likely to have a college degree and half (50%) were aged 18-24, with use declining with increasing age. A third of those who use it were White (33.3%), 52.1% were Black, and 6.3% were Hispanic.

More than half of the women (52.7%) who used marijuana during pregnancy reported that there had not been any discussion about substance use during pregnancy at the prenatal visit, and 82.4% said they had not received any counseling about stopping its use during pregnancy. Yet 54% of them wanted more information about pregnancy complications linked to cannabis use.

The other questions asked respondents on a 5-point Likert scale how much they agreed or disagreed with various statements related to perceptions of marijuana, its use during pregnancy, and its risks.

Most respondents strongly agreed that “marijuana isn’t as bad as other drugs like heroin, cocaine or meth,” but average agreement was higher among those who used marijuana (4.88) than who didn’t (4.02, P < .001).

Respondents largely neither agreed nor disagreed with its being okay to use marijuana during pregnancy with a prescription, but agreement was still higher among those who used it (3.68) than didn’t use it (2.82, P < .001). Those who used marijuana were more likely to agree that it’s “a natural substance and not a drug” (4.67 vs. 3.38, P < .001); to believe “marijuana has minimal health risks during and outside of pregnancy” (4.15 vs. 2.96, P < .001); and to believe “marijuana has less risk for treating symptoms in pregnancy than prescription medication from my provider” (4.19 vs. 3.01, P < .001).

It was not surprising that patients using marijuana would have more favorable opinions toward legalizing it, Dr. Ramseyer said, but it was interesting that the respondents’ attitude overall, regardless of use, was positive in a fairly conservative state where it was still illegal. She said her research group has data they are starting to analyze about the perceptions of patients’ partners and family members regarding marijuana use during pregnancy.

Animesh Upadhyay, MD, a resident at Yale–New Haven Medical Center in Connecticut, was also surprised by how positive the attitudes toward marijuana use and legalization were in a state where it’s illegal.

“The thing that disturbs me is that nobody has spoken about the risks of marijuana in pregnancy” to many of the respondents, said Dr. Upadhyay, who was not involved in the study. Based on the findings, Dr. Upadhyay said he would definitely begin asking patients more about their use of marijuana and their beliefs about it.

In a separate poster, Sarah Dzubay, BS, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, presented data examining potential associations between cannabis use and fertility. Previous research has suggested an association, but the cross-sectional analysis by Ms. Dzubay identified only a nonsignificant trend toward an association.

The researchers analyzed data from the 2013-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Study (NHANES) for woman aged 20-49 based on self-reported use of cannabis. Among 3166 women, 51% reported never using cannabis, 29% reported irregular use, and 20% reported regular use at least monthly.

“Women reporting regular use were younger, of lower income and educational attainment, and more likely to be single,” Ms. Dzubay reported. Those reporting irregular use, meanwhile, were more likely to be college graduates.

More of the women who used cannabis regularly (15.4%) reported an inability to conceive within one year than women who used cannabis irregularly (10.8%) or never (12.6%). The higher odds ratio of infertility among those using cannabis regularly (OR 1.47) compared to never using it was not statistically significant, however, nor was the reduced odds ratio among those using it irregularly (OR 0.83).

Because the results were not significant, the possibility of a link to infertility is “something to keep in mind,” Ms. Dzubay said, but “a lot more data has to be collected about this question before we can definitively say there’s a risk.”

The authors and Dr. Upadhyay had no disclosures. Neither study noted any external funding.

SAN FRANCISCO — Women who used marijuana during pregnancy were significantly less likely to view it as risky even in a state where it was not legalized, according to prospectively collected data presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. But most of those women had not received any counseling about stopping its use, and more than half wanted more information about its effects on pregnancy complications.

“The biggest thing we recognized was that our counseling in prenatal visits was lower than what it really should have been,” Abigail M. Ramseyer, DO, of University of Michigan Health– Sparrow in Lansing, said in an interview. She said doctors really need to be asking their patients about marijuana use and having a conversation about the risks of its use during pregnancy.

An estimated 3%-30% of pregnant women use marijuana, depending on the population, but prevalence has been rising as more states legalize its use. Yet research has shown an association between marijuana use during pregnancy and multiple neonatal complications, including fetal growth restriction and low birth weight.

Pregnant women at a single center in Arkansas were invited during their prenatal visits to complete a 35-question, anonymous survey electronically or on paper. Of the 460 approached, 88.7% completed the survey and 11.8% of those women reported use of marijuana during pregnancy. Among those who used it while pregnant, 50% reported using it 2-3 times a week, 27% reported using it once weekly, and 18.8% reported using it daily.

The women who used it while pregnant were less likely to have a college degree and half (50%) were aged 18-24, with use declining with increasing age. A third of those who use it were White (33.3%), 52.1% were Black, and 6.3% were Hispanic.

More than half of the women (52.7%) who used marijuana during pregnancy reported that there had not been any discussion about substance use during pregnancy at the prenatal visit, and 82.4% said they had not received any counseling about stopping its use during pregnancy. Yet 54% of them wanted more information about pregnancy complications linked to cannabis use.

The other questions asked respondents on a 5-point Likert scale how much they agreed or disagreed with various statements related to perceptions of marijuana, its use during pregnancy, and its risks.

Most respondents strongly agreed that “marijuana isn’t as bad as other drugs like heroin, cocaine or meth,” but average agreement was higher among those who used marijuana (4.88) than who didn’t (4.02, P < .001).

Respondents largely neither agreed nor disagreed with its being okay to use marijuana during pregnancy with a prescription, but agreement was still higher among those who used it (3.68) than didn’t use it (2.82, P < .001). Those who used marijuana were more likely to agree that it’s “a natural substance and not a drug” (4.67 vs. 3.38, P < .001); to believe “marijuana has minimal health risks during and outside of pregnancy” (4.15 vs. 2.96, P < .001); and to believe “marijuana has less risk for treating symptoms in pregnancy than prescription medication from my provider” (4.19 vs. 3.01, P < .001).

It was not surprising that patients using marijuana would have more favorable opinions toward legalizing it, Dr. Ramseyer said, but it was interesting that the respondents’ attitude overall, regardless of use, was positive in a fairly conservative state where it was still illegal. She said her research group has data they are starting to analyze about the perceptions of patients’ partners and family members regarding marijuana use during pregnancy.

Animesh Upadhyay, MD, a resident at Yale–New Haven Medical Center in Connecticut, was also surprised by how positive the attitudes toward marijuana use and legalization were in a state where it’s illegal.

“The thing that disturbs me is that nobody has spoken about the risks of marijuana in pregnancy” to many of the respondents, said Dr. Upadhyay, who was not involved in the study. Based on the findings, Dr. Upadhyay said he would definitely begin asking patients more about their use of marijuana and their beliefs about it.

In a separate poster, Sarah Dzubay, BS, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, presented data examining potential associations between cannabis use and fertility. Previous research has suggested an association, but the cross-sectional analysis by Ms. Dzubay identified only a nonsignificant trend toward an association.

The researchers analyzed data from the 2013-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Study (NHANES) for woman aged 20-49 based on self-reported use of cannabis. Among 3166 women, 51% reported never using cannabis, 29% reported irregular use, and 20% reported regular use at least monthly.

“Women reporting regular use were younger, of lower income and educational attainment, and more likely to be single,” Ms. Dzubay reported. Those reporting irregular use, meanwhile, were more likely to be college graduates.

More of the women who used cannabis regularly (15.4%) reported an inability to conceive within one year than women who used cannabis irregularly (10.8%) or never (12.6%). The higher odds ratio of infertility among those using cannabis regularly (OR 1.47) compared to never using it was not statistically significant, however, nor was the reduced odds ratio among those using it irregularly (OR 0.83).

Because the results were not significant, the possibility of a link to infertility is “something to keep in mind,” Ms. Dzubay said, but “a lot more data has to be collected about this question before we can definitively say there’s a risk.”

The authors and Dr. Upadhyay had no disclosures. Neither study noted any external funding.

The medication vibegron led to improvements in symptoms of overactive bladder and overall quality of life in men undergoing treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia, according to findings from a phase 3 trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA) and data published in the Journal of Urology.

“Vibegron was associated with significant reductions in daily micturition and urgency episodes, as well as our secondary endpoints,” David R. Staskin, MD, an associate professor of urology at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, told attendees. “Symptoms really did improve compared to placebo as early as week 2.”

Vibegron is a selective beta-3 adrenergic receptor agonist approved in 2020 by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of overactive bladder.

However, treating overactive bladder symptoms in patients undergoing benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment is more complex because benign prostatic hyperplasia itself can contribute to overactive bladder symptoms, said Kara Watts, MD, an associate professor of urology at Montefiore Einstein in New York City, who was not involved in the new research.

“Management of overactive bladder in this setting may require treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia as well, but a discussion of the relationship between benign prostatic hyperplasia and overactive bladder symptoms is important,” Dr. Watts told this news organization. “Beyond consideration of treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia — which can be in the form of medications or surgeries to reduce the size of the prostate — treatment of overactive bladder can include behavioral modification,” such as avoiding bladder irritants, timed voiding, managing constipation, and nighttime liquid restriction,” as well as “medications, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, and occasionally more invasive options.”

Vibegron “represents a very attractive and effective pharmaceutical management option for overactive bladder,” both in patients with and without benign prostatic hyperplasia, Dr. Watts said. “It has a favorable side-effect profile compared to other oral agents that can be prescribed for overactive bladder, such as anticholinergics, and also has the added benefit of a much lower risk of urinary retention in comparison to most other oral agents.”

Among 1104 men at least 45 years old who were undergoing treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia and had symptoms of overactive bladder, 538 received 75 mg of vibegron and 542 received a placebo. The men in the vibegron group showed 2.04 fewer mean daily urinations at 12 weeks and 2.2 fewer at 24 weeks compared to 1.3 fewer at both 12 and 24 weeks for men in the placebo group (P < .0001), according to the researchers.

The drug also reduced urgency of urination. Mean daily episodes of urgency were 2.88 fewer at 12 weeks and 3.07 fewer at 24 weeks in the vibegron group compared to 1.93 and 2.17 fewer, respectively, in the placebo group (P < .0001).

In secondary endpoints, those taking vibegron experienced 0.22 fewer episodes of nocturia (P = .002), 0.8 fewer episodes of urgency incontinence (P = .003), a 0.9-point difference in improvement in the International Prostate Symptom Score (P < .0001), and about 15 mL more volume voided (P < .0001) compared to those receiving placebo, the researchers reported.

“The clinical significance of these findings is that vibegron represents an effective pharmacologic option for managing overactive bladder in the context of concomitant benign prostatic hyperplasia, which is a broader context than its original approval for overactive bladder alone,” Dr. Watts said.

Data from 969 patients on the overactive bladder quality-of-life questionnaire found that the symptom bother score was 6.2 points better for men in the vibegron group than those who took a placebo (P < .0001) at 12 weeks. Similarly, the total health-related quality-of-life score was 4.3 points better in the vibegron group (P < .0001). Measures of concern, coping, and sleep also improved significantly in the men taking vibegron and remained significant at 24 weeks (P < .0001).

Rates of adverse events were similar in the vibegron (45%) and placebo (39%) groups. The most common adverse event was hypertension, which occurred in 9% of the vibegron group and 8.3% of men in the placebo group.

The research was funded by Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc., which makes vibegron. Dr. Staskin is a consultant for Astellas, AzuraBio, Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc., and UroCure; is a lecturer for Astellas and Sumitomo; and holds other interests in UroCure, AzuraBio, and Quillitin Pharma. Three co-authors are Sumitomo employees; one is an investigator for Sumitomo, and another has consulted for Hologic, received research funding from Allergan/AbbVie and Uromedica, and been involved in clinical trials on behalf of Sumitomo. Dr. Watts reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

The medication vibegron led to improvements in symptoms of overactive bladder and overall quality of life in men undergoing treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia, according to findings from a phase 3 trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA) and data published in the Journal of Urology.

“Vibegron was associated with significant reductions in daily micturition and urgency episodes, as well as our secondary endpoints,” David R. Staskin, MD, an associate professor of urology at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, told attendees. “Symptoms really did improve compared to placebo as early as week 2.”

Vibegron is a selective beta-3 adrenergic receptor agonist approved in 2020 by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of overactive bladder.

However, treating overactive bladder symptoms in patients undergoing benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment is more complex because benign prostatic hyperplasia itself can contribute to overactive bladder symptoms, said Kara Watts, MD, an associate professor of urology at Montefiore Einstein in New York City, who was not involved in the new research.

“Management of overactive bladder in this setting may require treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia as well, but a discussion of the relationship between benign prostatic hyperplasia and overactive bladder symptoms is important,” Dr. Watts told this news organization. “Beyond consideration of treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia — which can be in the form of medications or surgeries to reduce the size of the prostate — treatment of overactive bladder can include behavioral modification,” such as avoiding bladder irritants, timed voiding, managing constipation, and nighttime liquid restriction,” as well as “medications, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, and occasionally more invasive options.”

Vibegron “represents a very attractive and effective pharmaceutical management option for overactive bladder,” both in patients with and without benign prostatic hyperplasia, Dr. Watts said. “It has a favorable side-effect profile compared to other oral agents that can be prescribed for overactive bladder, such as anticholinergics, and also has the added benefit of a much lower risk of urinary retention in comparison to most other oral agents.”

Among 1104 men at least 45 years old who were undergoing treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia and had symptoms of overactive bladder, 538 received 75 mg of vibegron and 542 received a placebo. The men in the vibegron group showed 2.04 fewer mean daily urinations at 12 weeks and 2.2 fewer at 24 weeks compared to 1.3 fewer at both 12 and 24 weeks for men in the placebo group (P < .0001), according to the researchers.

The drug also reduced urgency of urination. Mean daily episodes of urgency were 2.88 fewer at 12 weeks and 3.07 fewer at 24 weeks in the vibegron group compared to 1.93 and 2.17 fewer, respectively, in the placebo group (P < .0001).

In secondary endpoints, those taking vibegron experienced 0.22 fewer episodes of nocturia (P = .002), 0.8 fewer episodes of urgency incontinence (P = .003), a 0.9-point difference in improvement in the International Prostate Symptom Score (P < .0001), and about 15 mL more volume voided (P < .0001) compared to those receiving placebo, the researchers reported.

“The clinical significance of these findings is that vibegron represents an effective pharmacologic option for managing overactive bladder in the context of concomitant benign prostatic hyperplasia, which is a broader context than its original approval for overactive bladder alone,” Dr. Watts said.

Data from 969 patients on the overactive bladder quality-of-life questionnaire found that the symptom bother score was 6.2 points better for men in the vibegron group than those who took a placebo (P < .0001) at 12 weeks. Similarly, the total health-related quality-of-life score was 4.3 points better in the vibegron group (P < .0001). Measures of concern, coping, and sleep also improved significantly in the men taking vibegron and remained significant at 24 weeks (P < .0001).

Rates of adverse events were similar in the vibegron (45%) and placebo (39%) groups. The most common adverse event was hypertension, which occurred in 9% of the vibegron group and 8.3% of men in the placebo group.

The research was funded by Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc., which makes vibegron. Dr. Staskin is a consultant for Astellas, AzuraBio, Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc., and UroCure; is a lecturer for Astellas and Sumitomo; and holds other interests in UroCure, AzuraBio, and Quillitin Pharma. Three co-authors are Sumitomo employees; one is an investigator for Sumitomo, and another has consulted for Hologic, received research funding from Allergan/AbbVie and Uromedica, and been involved in clinical trials on behalf of Sumitomo. Dr. Watts reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

The medication vibegron led to improvements in symptoms of overactive bladder and overall quality of life in men undergoing treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia, according to findings from a phase 3 trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA) and data published in the Journal of Urology.

“Vibegron was associated with significant reductions in daily micturition and urgency episodes, as well as our secondary endpoints,” David R. Staskin, MD, an associate professor of urology at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, told attendees. “Symptoms really did improve compared to placebo as early as week 2.”

Vibegron is a selective beta-3 adrenergic receptor agonist approved in 2020 by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of overactive bladder.

However, treating overactive bladder symptoms in patients undergoing benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment is more complex because benign prostatic hyperplasia itself can contribute to overactive bladder symptoms, said Kara Watts, MD, an associate professor of urology at Montefiore Einstein in New York City, who was not involved in the new research.

“Management of overactive bladder in this setting may require treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia as well, but a discussion of the relationship between benign prostatic hyperplasia and overactive bladder symptoms is important,” Dr. Watts told this news organization. “Beyond consideration of treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia — which can be in the form of medications or surgeries to reduce the size of the prostate — treatment of overactive bladder can include behavioral modification,” such as avoiding bladder irritants, timed voiding, managing constipation, and nighttime liquid restriction,” as well as “medications, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, and occasionally more invasive options.”

Vibegron “represents a very attractive and effective pharmaceutical management option for overactive bladder,” both in patients with and without benign prostatic hyperplasia, Dr. Watts said. “It has a favorable side-effect profile compared to other oral agents that can be prescribed for overactive bladder, such as anticholinergics, and also has the added benefit of a much lower risk of urinary retention in comparison to most other oral agents.”

Among 1104 men at least 45 years old who were undergoing treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia and had symptoms of overactive bladder, 538 received 75 mg of vibegron and 542 received a placebo. The men in the vibegron group showed 2.04 fewer mean daily urinations at 12 weeks and 2.2 fewer at 24 weeks compared to 1.3 fewer at both 12 and 24 weeks for men in the placebo group (P < .0001), according to the researchers.

The drug also reduced urgency of urination. Mean daily episodes of urgency were 2.88 fewer at 12 weeks and 3.07 fewer at 24 weeks in the vibegron group compared to 1.93 and 2.17 fewer, respectively, in the placebo group (P < .0001).

In secondary endpoints, those taking vibegron experienced 0.22 fewer episodes of nocturia (P = .002), 0.8 fewer episodes of urgency incontinence (P = .003), a 0.9-point difference in improvement in the International Prostate Symptom Score (P < .0001), and about 15 mL more volume voided (P < .0001) compared to those receiving placebo, the researchers reported.

“The clinical significance of these findings is that vibegron represents an effective pharmacologic option for managing overactive bladder in the context of concomitant benign prostatic hyperplasia, which is a broader context than its original approval for overactive bladder alone,” Dr. Watts said.

Data from 969 patients on the overactive bladder quality-of-life questionnaire found that the symptom bother score was 6.2 points better for men in the vibegron group than those who took a placebo (P < .0001) at 12 weeks. Similarly, the total health-related quality-of-life score was 4.3 points better in the vibegron group (P < .0001). Measures of concern, coping, and sleep also improved significantly in the men taking vibegron and remained significant at 24 weeks (P < .0001).

Rates of adverse events were similar in the vibegron (45%) and placebo (39%) groups. The most common adverse event was hypertension, which occurred in 9% of the vibegron group and 8.3% of men in the placebo group.

The research was funded by Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc., which makes vibegron. Dr. Staskin is a consultant for Astellas, AzuraBio, Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc., and UroCure; is a lecturer for Astellas and Sumitomo; and holds other interests in UroCure, AzuraBio, and Quillitin Pharma. Three co-authors are Sumitomo employees; one is an investigator for Sumitomo, and another has consulted for Hologic, received research funding from Allergan/AbbVie and Uromedica, and been involved in clinical trials on behalf of Sumitomo. Dr. Watts reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Sherrie Palm, a patient advocate in Mukwonago, Wisconsin, learned in her 30s that she needed to educate herself about her own health. So when she discovered a walnut-sized lump coming out of her vagina in her mid-50s, she was stunned when her primary care provider (PCP) told her it was pelvic organ prolapse (POP), where one or more organs descend into the vaginal cavity.

“I was shocked,” Ms. Palm said. After searching online and discovering how prevalent POP was, her shock turned to anger. “I was blown away that it could be this common and I’d never heard of it,” she said. “I knew within 2 weeks that I had to do something to change the status quo.”

Ms. Palm eventually founded the nonprofit Association for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Support, or APOPS, complete with a forum where women can learn about POP and support one another. She said awareness has improved substantially since her diagnosis in 2007, but “we have a long way to go” because POP and vaginal health in general are so stigmatized.

Her website notes that about half of women with incontinence do not seek help, largely because of stigma. “The status quo is that PCPs do not POP screen,” she said. ObGyns may screen but often “because the patient has asked to be screened, they say it’s not that bad, come back and see me in a year, and do your Kegels,” Ms. Palm said.

Doctors who diagnose POP agree that the issue is often off PCPs’ radar.

“Primary care doctors are really in a time crunch, so this is one of the things that may not get addressed,” Jill Rabin, MD, vice chair of education and development in obstetrics and gynecology at Northwell Health in New York, said. Dr. Rabin is also head of urogynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center.

Ann Nwabuebo, PT, DPT, owner and founder of Body Connect Physical Therapy in Bethesda, Maryland, said social media has been shifting the attitude that pelvic health is a taboo subject. “It’s empowering people to seek care if they’re not finding physicians who are helping.”

But social media is also a double-edged sword, said Jenny LaCross, PT, DPT, PhD, a physical therapist at MOVE PT in Monroe, Michigan, and a postdoctoral research fellow with Michigan Medicine’s Pelvic Floor Research Group. “Pelvic health in general is talked about a lot more, but there’s also a lot more misinformation,” she said.

Part of that misinformation is the idea that pelvic prolapse is solely about weakness in the pelvic floor when it can also result from a widening of natural openings within the pelvis, Dr. LaCross said. She pointed to the two definitions of pelvic organ prolapse by the International Urogynecologic Consultation and the International Continence Society, both of which have been updated in recent years.

“This is why this is challenging for primary care providers,” Dr. LaCross said. “Even urogynecologists who are the specialists that treat prolapse and incontinence have changed how they assess it and the terminology and criteria that they use.”

What hasn’t changed is the substantial negative impact POP can have on quality of life. “This is the second most common reason that women enter nursing homes,” primarily because of urinary incontinence, Dr. Rabin said. “It’s very debilitating, but a lot of it is preventable and a lot is treatable.”

Dr. Rabin estimated that three out of every five women older than 60 and one or two out of every five women younger than 60 experience POP. Prevalence studies vary widely, from nearly a quarter of women to more than half, and racial and ethnic disparities in diagnosis further complicate the statistics.

PCPs therefore have an important role to play in screening for POP. The evidence shows that “patients want their providers to bring this up,” Dr. LaCross said. “They want to talk about it, but they want the provider to ask the questions first.”
 

Causes, Risk Factors, and Symptoms

Many causes contribute to POP, with gravity, aging, childbirth, and menopause at the top of the list.

“As people get older, their pelvic muscles and connective tissue get weaker, and the nerves don’t function as well,” Dr. Rabin said. Meanwhile, the body is losing estrogen, which affects how well the muscles contract and how easily the connective tissue can tear, she said.

With menopause, when baseline estrogen is lower, the tissue integrity is not as supportive as it should be and women are going to be at an increased risk of prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said.

POP has a range of risk factors:

• Increasing age, as muscle mass decreases and connective tissue hardens.
• Menopause.
• Vaginal delivery with complications, such as long second-stage labor, instrument-assisted delivery, multiple vaginal lacerations, and improperly repaired episiotomy.
• Multiple vaginal deliveries.
• Birthing large babies.
• Family history of pelvic organ prolapse (genetics can play a role in POP risk).
• Previous pelvic/abdominal surgery, including cesarean delivery and hysterectomy.
• Smoking (largely because of associated coughing).
• Chronic lung conditions that cause a lot of coughing.
• Chronic constipation or irritable bowel syndrome.
• Some types of high-impact activity, such as jogging or marathon running.
• Early menopause, for younger women.
• Repetitive heavy lifting in daily activities, such as occupational lifting (though not necessarily weight lifting as an exercise).
• Higher body mass index.
• Connective tissue disorders, such as joint hypermobility syndrome or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

Roger Dmochowski, MD, professor of urology and surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, groups POP symptoms into two groups: anatomic and functional ones. A common anatomic symptom is bulging. “They’ll describe sitting on a ball, feeling like their bladder or something’s falling out, feeling a pressure or a heaviness,” Dr. Dmochowski said.

Functional symptoms can include vaginal dryness, vaginal irritation, painful intercourse, contact of the vaginal tissues with underclothes, and associated urinary symptoms, such as stress incontinence, urge incontinence, and incomplete emptying of the bladder. Dr. Dmochowski noted that women who report urinary incontinence may be at risk for being prescribed a medication without the necessary referral to a specialist for a full gynecologic evaluation.

Two other groups of functional symptoms include bowel-related disorders – primarily fecal incontinence and ongoing constipation – and pelvic pain or discomfort.

There can also be asymptomatic cases. “A lot of women have what we call silent prolapse,” Dr. Dmochowski said. That is, “they have some degree of loss of support to the bladder, vagina, or uterus, but they’re not symptomatic.” These women may be particularly good candidates for pelvic health physical therapy.
 

Screening and Diagnosis

Because many postmenopausal women stop seeing their ob.gyn, it’s often up to their primary care physician to determine whether their patients are experiencing POP symptoms.

“Women sometimes don’t bring this up with their doctor because they think there’s not enough time, or they’ll be laughed at, or their friends told them this is normal,” Dr. Rabin said. But primary care providers are really in a unique position to be able to ask the key symptom questions.

Dr. Rabin recommends a couple of questions to cover all the bases: “Do you leak urine when you cough or sneeze or on the way to the bathroom? Do you notice a bulge coming out of the vagina, or are you bothered by pelvic pressure?”

Dr. Dmochowski offered a single question that can open the conversation to more questions: “Are you bothered by any urinary or bowel or vaginal issues that we should talk about?” He also suggests asking how bothersome the symptoms are, which can help in directing treatment or prevention options. A physical exam can reveal signs of POP as well.

Diagnosis involves a detailed history, a comprehensive physical exam, and assessment with the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) tool. A urogynecologist can diagnose the type of POP – such as cystocele, rectocele, enterocele, uterine prolapse, or vaginal vault prolapse – and its grade (0-4).
 

Treatment: Physical Therapy, Pessary, and Surgery

No medications can treat prolapse, though some can treat downstream effects, such as hormonal vaginal creams for vaginal dryness and irritation, and medications for urinary incontinence. However, two mistakes PCPs can make are sending someone straight to surgery or prescribing them medication for symptoms without referring them for a diagnostic evaluation, Dr. Rabin said. “You have to have a diagnosis first to know what type of prolapse is there,” she said.

Because there can be long waiting lists for a urogynecologist or urologist, PCPs should also refer their patients to a pelvic health physical therapist (PT) who can help patients begin addressing the symptoms while they await a specialist who can diagnose them.

Though PT is often thought of as preventive, it’s also a conservative first-line intervention for prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said. Strong evidence shows pelvic floor muscle training from pelvic health PT can reduce symptoms of prolapse and reduce the severity by one grade in those with a grade 1 or 2 prolapse. Stage 3 is trickier, where PT may or may not be able to shift the symptom presentation, Dr. Nwabeubo said, and stage 4 is usually a surgical candidate.

“If you have a grade 4 prolapse, or the tissues are really visible outside the body, physical therapy and pelvic floor muscle training is not going to elevate that tissue back up into your body, but it can sometimes help with symptoms,” Dr. LaCross said.

The PT conducts a thorough pelvic muscle assessment, discusses lifestyle, and may teach breathing and bracing strategies for lifting, for example.

“A lot of what we’re talking about with pelvic floor therapy is lifestyle modifications,” Dr. Nwabuebo said. “If I have a patient with a history of chronic constipation, it doesn’t matter how much we do pelvic floor exercises; if we don’t manage the constipation issues by addressing their nutrition, then straining when using the bathroom will keep putting pressure on the pelvic floor.”

PTs can also recommend appropriate vaginal weights and dilators to help with pelvic floor strengthening and teach patients how to use them properly.

Even if women ultimately opt for surgery, PT prior to surgery can be beneficial. Dr. Rabin cited three reasons she recommends first-line PT: It may elevate the bladder enough to reduce stress incontinence and thicken the pelvic muscles, it can improve the effectiveness of a pessary or surgery if the woman chooses one of those options, and it can quiet bladder contractions, potentially obviating the need for pharmacologic treatment for overactive bladder.

The next nonsurgical option is a pessary, a device that fits into the vagina to provide support to the tissues displaced by prolapse. There’s a wide range of pessary types: some are short-term, worn only daily, or disposable, while others can be worn longer. Some women can self-insert and remove the pessary, and others may need a clinician to do so. Dr. Dmochowski recommends patients try a pessary to see if it benefits them. About a third of women will find them comfortable enough to wear regularly, but others will feel more sensitive to the pessary’s presence, he said.

One of the newest, most innovative pessary options for women is Gynethotics, which received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance in March, as the first 3D-printed, customizable pessary capable of nearly 10 million configurations based on a person’s body.

Nearly all stage 4 prolapses and most of stage 3 prolapses can be addressed only through transvaginal or transabdominal surgery.

“We tell patients, if you can get 10 years out of your operation, you’re lucky,” Dr. Dmochowski said. A major reason for the short-lived durability is the poor quality of the tissue that needs to be pulled together. Serious complications resulting from use of polypropylene mesh during prolapse surgery led the FDA to halt sales of the devices and recommend discontinuing their use. However, one type of vaginal mesh is still considered safe to use in sacral colpopexy surgery.

Three things can shorten the durability of the surgery, Dr. Dmochowski said: heavy lifting, particularly anything over 30 pounds; chronic coughing, such as in those with chronic lung conditions; and chronic constipation.

Ms. Palm tried a pessary for her grade 3 prolapse with cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele but didn’t feel she had the time to use it regularly, so she opted for surgery. After a week on the couch recovering, she took it easy for another 12 weeks. Since then, she’s dedicated much of her time to educating and supporting women with POP and combating stigma associated with it. The APOPS website that she started has become a valuable resource for PCPs to send patients to, and the forum includes more 27,000 women from around the world.

“We encourage women to share what they’re experiencing. Tell your family, tell your friends, tell the people you work with about it,” Ms. Palm said. But many still feel uncomfortable speaking up, making PCPs’ role even more important.

*This story was updated on May 14, 2024.

Sherrie Palm, a patient advocate in Mukwonago, Wisconsin, learned in her 30s that she needed to educate herself about her own health. So when she discovered a walnut-sized lump coming out of her vagina in her mid-50s, she was stunned when her primary care provider (PCP) told her it was pelvic organ prolapse (POP), where one or more organs descend into the vaginal cavity.

“I was shocked,” Ms. Palm said. After searching online and discovering how prevalent POP was, her shock turned to anger. “I was blown away that it could be this common and I’d never heard of it,” she said. “I knew within 2 weeks that I had to do something to change the status quo.”

Ms. Palm eventually founded the nonprofit Association for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Support, or APOPS, complete with a forum where women can learn about POP and support one another. She said awareness has improved substantially since her diagnosis in 2007, but “we have a long way to go” because POP and vaginal health in general are so stigmatized.

Her website notes that about half of women with incontinence do not seek help, largely because of stigma. “The status quo is that PCPs do not POP screen,” she said. ObGyns may screen but often “because the patient has asked to be screened, they say it’s not that bad, come back and see me in a year, and do your Kegels,” Ms. Palm said.

Doctors who diagnose POP agree that the issue is often off PCPs’ radar.

“Primary care doctors are really in a time crunch, so this is one of the things that may not get addressed,” Jill Rabin, MD, vice chair of education and development in obstetrics and gynecology at Northwell Health in New York, said. Dr. Rabin is also head of urogynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center.

Ann Nwabuebo, PT, DPT, owner and founder of Body Connect Physical Therapy in Bethesda, Maryland, said social media has been shifting the attitude that pelvic health is a taboo subject. “It’s empowering people to seek care if they’re not finding physicians who are helping.”

But social media is also a double-edged sword, said Jenny LaCross, PT, DPT, PhD, a physical therapist at MOVE PT in Monroe, Michigan, and a postdoctoral research fellow with Michigan Medicine’s Pelvic Floor Research Group. “Pelvic health in general is talked about a lot more, but there’s also a lot more misinformation,” she said.

Part of that misinformation is the idea that pelvic prolapse is solely about weakness in the pelvic floor when it can also result from a widening of natural openings within the pelvis, Dr. LaCross said. She pointed to the two definitions of pelvic organ prolapse by the International Urogynecologic Consultation and the International Continence Society, both of which have been updated in recent years.

“This is why this is challenging for primary care providers,” Dr. LaCross said. “Even urogynecologists who are the specialists that treat prolapse and incontinence have changed how they assess it and the terminology and criteria that they use.”

What hasn’t changed is the substantial negative impact POP can have on quality of life. “This is the second most common reason that women enter nursing homes,” primarily because of urinary incontinence, Dr. Rabin said. “It’s very debilitating, but a lot of it is preventable and a lot is treatable.”

Dr. Rabin estimated that three out of every five women older than 60 and one or two out of every five women younger than 60 experience POP. Prevalence studies vary widely, from nearly a quarter of women to more than half, and racial and ethnic disparities in diagnosis further complicate the statistics.

PCPs therefore have an important role to play in screening for POP. The evidence shows that “patients want their providers to bring this up,” Dr. LaCross said. “They want to talk about it, but they want the provider to ask the questions first.”
 

Causes, Risk Factors, and Symptoms

Many causes contribute to POP, with gravity, aging, childbirth, and menopause at the top of the list.

“As people get older, their pelvic muscles and connective tissue get weaker, and the nerves don’t function as well,” Dr. Rabin said. Meanwhile, the body is losing estrogen, which affects how well the muscles contract and how easily the connective tissue can tear, she said.

With menopause, when baseline estrogen is lower, the tissue integrity is not as supportive as it should be and women are going to be at an increased risk of prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said.

POP has a range of risk factors:

• Increasing age, as muscle mass decreases and connective tissue hardens.
• Menopause.
• Vaginal delivery with complications, such as long second-stage labor, instrument-assisted delivery, multiple vaginal lacerations, and improperly repaired episiotomy.
• Multiple vaginal deliveries.
• Birthing large babies.
• Family history of pelvic organ prolapse (genetics can play a role in POP risk).
• Previous pelvic/abdominal surgery, including cesarean delivery and hysterectomy.
• Smoking (largely because of associated coughing).
• Chronic lung conditions that cause a lot of coughing.
• Chronic constipation or irritable bowel syndrome.
• Some types of high-impact activity, such as jogging or marathon running.
• Early menopause, for younger women.
• Repetitive heavy lifting in daily activities, such as occupational lifting (though not necessarily weight lifting as an exercise).
• Higher body mass index.
• Connective tissue disorders, such as joint hypermobility syndrome or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

Roger Dmochowski, MD, professor of urology and surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, groups POP symptoms into two groups: anatomic and functional ones. A common anatomic symptom is bulging. “They’ll describe sitting on a ball, feeling like their bladder or something’s falling out, feeling a pressure or a heaviness,” Dr. Dmochowski said.

Functional symptoms can include vaginal dryness, vaginal irritation, painful intercourse, contact of the vaginal tissues with underclothes, and associated urinary symptoms, such as stress incontinence, urge incontinence, and incomplete emptying of the bladder. Dr. Dmochowski noted that women who report urinary incontinence may be at risk for being prescribed a medication without the necessary referral to a specialist for a full gynecologic evaluation.

Two other groups of functional symptoms include bowel-related disorders – primarily fecal incontinence and ongoing constipation – and pelvic pain or discomfort.

There can also be asymptomatic cases. “A lot of women have what we call silent prolapse,” Dr. Dmochowski said. That is, “they have some degree of loss of support to the bladder, vagina, or uterus, but they’re not symptomatic.” These women may be particularly good candidates for pelvic health physical therapy.
 

Screening and Diagnosis

Because many postmenopausal women stop seeing their ob.gyn, it’s often up to their primary care physician to determine whether their patients are experiencing POP symptoms.

“Women sometimes don’t bring this up with their doctor because they think there’s not enough time, or they’ll be laughed at, or their friends told them this is normal,” Dr. Rabin said. But primary care providers are really in a unique position to be able to ask the key symptom questions.

Dr. Rabin recommends a couple of questions to cover all the bases: “Do you leak urine when you cough or sneeze or on the way to the bathroom? Do you notice a bulge coming out of the vagina, or are you bothered by pelvic pressure?”

Dr. Dmochowski offered a single question that can open the conversation to more questions: “Are you bothered by any urinary or bowel or vaginal issues that we should talk about?” He also suggests asking how bothersome the symptoms are, which can help in directing treatment or prevention options. A physical exam can reveal signs of POP as well.

Diagnosis involves a detailed history, a comprehensive physical exam, and assessment with the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) tool. A urogynecologist can diagnose the type of POP – such as cystocele, rectocele, enterocele, uterine prolapse, or vaginal vault prolapse – and its grade (0-4).
 

Treatment: Physical Therapy, Pessary, and Surgery

No medications can treat prolapse, though some can treat downstream effects, such as hormonal vaginal creams for vaginal dryness and irritation, and medications for urinary incontinence. However, two mistakes PCPs can make are sending someone straight to surgery or prescribing them medication for symptoms without referring them for a diagnostic evaluation, Dr. Rabin said. “You have to have a diagnosis first to know what type of prolapse is there,” she said.

Because there can be long waiting lists for a urogynecologist or urologist, PCPs should also refer their patients to a pelvic health physical therapist (PT) who can help patients begin addressing the symptoms while they await a specialist who can diagnose them.

Though PT is often thought of as preventive, it’s also a conservative first-line intervention for prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said. Strong evidence shows pelvic floor muscle training from pelvic health PT can reduce symptoms of prolapse and reduce the severity by one grade in those with a grade 1 or 2 prolapse. Stage 3 is trickier, where PT may or may not be able to shift the symptom presentation, Dr. Nwabeubo said, and stage 4 is usually a surgical candidate.

“If you have a grade 4 prolapse, or the tissues are really visible outside the body, physical therapy and pelvic floor muscle training is not going to elevate that tissue back up into your body, but it can sometimes help with symptoms,” Dr. LaCross said.

The PT conducts a thorough pelvic muscle assessment, discusses lifestyle, and may teach breathing and bracing strategies for lifting, for example.

“A lot of what we’re talking about with pelvic floor therapy is lifestyle modifications,” Dr. Nwabuebo said. “If I have a patient with a history of chronic constipation, it doesn’t matter how much we do pelvic floor exercises; if we don’t manage the constipation issues by addressing their nutrition, then straining when using the bathroom will keep putting pressure on the pelvic floor.”

PTs can also recommend appropriate vaginal weights and dilators to help with pelvic floor strengthening and teach patients how to use them properly.

Even if women ultimately opt for surgery, PT prior to surgery can be beneficial. Dr. Rabin cited three reasons she recommends first-line PT: It may elevate the bladder enough to reduce stress incontinence and thicken the pelvic muscles, it can improve the effectiveness of a pessary or surgery if the woman chooses one of those options, and it can quiet bladder contractions, potentially obviating the need for pharmacologic treatment for overactive bladder.

The next nonsurgical option is a pessary, a device that fits into the vagina to provide support to the tissues displaced by prolapse. There’s a wide range of pessary types: some are short-term, worn only daily, or disposable, while others can be worn longer. Some women can self-insert and remove the pessary, and others may need a clinician to do so. Dr. Dmochowski recommends patients try a pessary to see if it benefits them. About a third of women will find them comfortable enough to wear regularly, but others will feel more sensitive to the pessary’s presence, he said.

One of the newest, most innovative pessary options for women is Gynethotics, which received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance in March, as the first 3D-printed, customizable pessary capable of nearly 10 million configurations based on a person’s body.

Nearly all stage 4 prolapses and most of stage 3 prolapses can be addressed only through transvaginal or transabdominal surgery.

“We tell patients, if you can get 10 years out of your operation, you’re lucky,” Dr. Dmochowski said. A major reason for the short-lived durability is the poor quality of the tissue that needs to be pulled together. Serious complications resulting from use of polypropylene mesh during prolapse surgery led the FDA to halt sales of the devices and recommend discontinuing their use. However, one type of vaginal mesh is still considered safe to use in sacral colpopexy surgery.

Three things can shorten the durability of the surgery, Dr. Dmochowski said: heavy lifting, particularly anything over 30 pounds; chronic coughing, such as in those with chronic lung conditions; and chronic constipation.

Ms. Palm tried a pessary for her grade 3 prolapse with cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele but didn’t feel she had the time to use it regularly, so she opted for surgery. After a week on the couch recovering, she took it easy for another 12 weeks. Since then, she’s dedicated much of her time to educating and supporting women with POP and combating stigma associated with it. The APOPS website that she started has become a valuable resource for PCPs to send patients to, and the forum includes more 27,000 women from around the world.

“We encourage women to share what they’re experiencing. Tell your family, tell your friends, tell the people you work with about it,” Ms. Palm said. But many still feel uncomfortable speaking up, making PCPs’ role even more important.

*This story was updated on May 14, 2024.

Sherrie Palm, a patient advocate in Mukwonago, Wisconsin, learned in her 30s that she needed to educate herself about her own health. So when she discovered a walnut-sized lump coming out of her vagina in her mid-50s, she was stunned when her primary care provider (PCP) told her it was pelvic organ prolapse (POP), where one or more organs descend into the vaginal cavity.

“I was shocked,” Ms. Palm said. After searching online and discovering how prevalent POP was, her shock turned to anger. “I was blown away that it could be this common and I’d never heard of it,” she said. “I knew within 2 weeks that I had to do something to change the status quo.”

Ms. Palm eventually founded the nonprofit Association for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Support, or APOPS, complete with a forum where women can learn about POP and support one another. She said awareness has improved substantially since her diagnosis in 2007, but “we have a long way to go” because POP and vaginal health in general are so stigmatized.

Her website notes that about half of women with incontinence do not seek help, largely because of stigma. “The status quo is that PCPs do not POP screen,” she said. ObGyns may screen but often “because the patient has asked to be screened, they say it’s not that bad, come back and see me in a year, and do your Kegels,” Ms. Palm said.

Doctors who diagnose POP agree that the issue is often off PCPs’ radar.

“Primary care doctors are really in a time crunch, so this is one of the things that may not get addressed,” Jill Rabin, MD, vice chair of education and development in obstetrics and gynecology at Northwell Health in New York, said. Dr. Rabin is also head of urogynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center.

Ann Nwabuebo, PT, DPT, owner and founder of Body Connect Physical Therapy in Bethesda, Maryland, said social media has been shifting the attitude that pelvic health is a taboo subject. “It’s empowering people to seek care if they’re not finding physicians who are helping.”

But social media is also a double-edged sword, said Jenny LaCross, PT, DPT, PhD, a physical therapist at MOVE PT in Monroe, Michigan, and a postdoctoral research fellow with Michigan Medicine’s Pelvic Floor Research Group. “Pelvic health in general is talked about a lot more, but there’s also a lot more misinformation,” she said.

Part of that misinformation is the idea that pelvic prolapse is solely about weakness in the pelvic floor when it can also result from a widening of natural openings within the pelvis, Dr. LaCross said. She pointed to the two definitions of pelvic organ prolapse by the International Urogynecologic Consultation and the International Continence Society, both of which have been updated in recent years.

“This is why this is challenging for primary care providers,” Dr. LaCross said. “Even urogynecologists who are the specialists that treat prolapse and incontinence have changed how they assess it and the terminology and criteria that they use.”

What hasn’t changed is the substantial negative impact POP can have on quality of life. “This is the second most common reason that women enter nursing homes,” primarily because of urinary incontinence, Dr. Rabin said. “It’s very debilitating, but a lot of it is preventable and a lot is treatable.”

Dr. Rabin estimated that three out of every five women older than 60 and one or two out of every five women younger than 60 experience POP. Prevalence studies vary widely, from nearly a quarter of women to more than half, and racial and ethnic disparities in diagnosis further complicate the statistics.

PCPs therefore have an important role to play in screening for POP. The evidence shows that “patients want their providers to bring this up,” Dr. LaCross said. “They want to talk about it, but they want the provider to ask the questions first.”
 

Causes, Risk Factors, and Symptoms

Many causes contribute to POP, with gravity, aging, childbirth, and menopause at the top of the list.

“As people get older, their pelvic muscles and connective tissue get weaker, and the nerves don’t function as well,” Dr. Rabin said. Meanwhile, the body is losing estrogen, which affects how well the muscles contract and how easily the connective tissue can tear, she said.

With menopause, when baseline estrogen is lower, the tissue integrity is not as supportive as it should be and women are going to be at an increased risk of prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said.

POP has a range of risk factors:

• Increasing age, as muscle mass decreases and connective tissue hardens.
• Menopause.
• Vaginal delivery with complications, such as long second-stage labor, instrument-assisted delivery, multiple vaginal lacerations, and improperly repaired episiotomy.
• Multiple vaginal deliveries.
• Birthing large babies.
• Family history of pelvic organ prolapse (genetics can play a role in POP risk).
• Previous pelvic/abdominal surgery, including cesarean delivery and hysterectomy.
• Smoking (largely because of associated coughing).
• Chronic lung conditions that cause a lot of coughing.
• Chronic constipation or irritable bowel syndrome.
• Some types of high-impact activity, such as jogging or marathon running.
• Early menopause, for younger women.
• Repetitive heavy lifting in daily activities, such as occupational lifting (though not necessarily weight lifting as an exercise).
• Higher body mass index.
• Connective tissue disorders, such as joint hypermobility syndrome or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

Roger Dmochowski, MD, professor of urology and surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, groups POP symptoms into two groups: anatomic and functional ones. A common anatomic symptom is bulging. “They’ll describe sitting on a ball, feeling like their bladder or something’s falling out, feeling a pressure or a heaviness,” Dr. Dmochowski said.

Functional symptoms can include vaginal dryness, vaginal irritation, painful intercourse, contact of the vaginal tissues with underclothes, and associated urinary symptoms, such as stress incontinence, urge incontinence, and incomplete emptying of the bladder. Dr. Dmochowski noted that women who report urinary incontinence may be at risk for being prescribed a medication without the necessary referral to a specialist for a full gynecologic evaluation.

Two other groups of functional symptoms include bowel-related disorders – primarily fecal incontinence and ongoing constipation – and pelvic pain or discomfort.

There can also be asymptomatic cases. “A lot of women have what we call silent prolapse,” Dr. Dmochowski said. That is, “they have some degree of loss of support to the bladder, vagina, or uterus, but they’re not symptomatic.” These women may be particularly good candidates for pelvic health physical therapy.
 

Screening and Diagnosis

Because many postmenopausal women stop seeing their ob.gyn, it’s often up to their primary care physician to determine whether their patients are experiencing POP symptoms.

“Women sometimes don’t bring this up with their doctor because they think there’s not enough time, or they’ll be laughed at, or their friends told them this is normal,” Dr. Rabin said. But primary care providers are really in a unique position to be able to ask the key symptom questions.

Dr. Rabin recommends a couple of questions to cover all the bases: “Do you leak urine when you cough or sneeze or on the way to the bathroom? Do you notice a bulge coming out of the vagina, or are you bothered by pelvic pressure?”

Dr. Dmochowski offered a single question that can open the conversation to more questions: “Are you bothered by any urinary or bowel or vaginal issues that we should talk about?” He also suggests asking how bothersome the symptoms are, which can help in directing treatment or prevention options. A physical exam can reveal signs of POP as well.

Diagnosis involves a detailed history, a comprehensive physical exam, and assessment with the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) tool. A urogynecologist can diagnose the type of POP – such as cystocele, rectocele, enterocele, uterine prolapse, or vaginal vault prolapse – and its grade (0-4).
 

Treatment: Physical Therapy, Pessary, and Surgery

No medications can treat prolapse, though some can treat downstream effects, such as hormonal vaginal creams for vaginal dryness and irritation, and medications for urinary incontinence. However, two mistakes PCPs can make are sending someone straight to surgery or prescribing them medication for symptoms without referring them for a diagnostic evaluation, Dr. Rabin said. “You have to have a diagnosis first to know what type of prolapse is there,” she said.

Because there can be long waiting lists for a urogynecologist or urologist, PCPs should also refer their patients to a pelvic health physical therapist (PT) who can help patients begin addressing the symptoms while they await a specialist who can diagnose them.

Though PT is often thought of as preventive, it’s also a conservative first-line intervention for prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said. Strong evidence shows pelvic floor muscle training from pelvic health PT can reduce symptoms of prolapse and reduce the severity by one grade in those with a grade 1 or 2 prolapse. Stage 3 is trickier, where PT may or may not be able to shift the symptom presentation, Dr. Nwabeubo said, and stage 4 is usually a surgical candidate.

“If you have a grade 4 prolapse, or the tissues are really visible outside the body, physical therapy and pelvic floor muscle training is not going to elevate that tissue back up into your body, but it can sometimes help with symptoms,” Dr. LaCross said.

The PT conducts a thorough pelvic muscle assessment, discusses lifestyle, and may teach breathing and bracing strategies for lifting, for example.

“A lot of what we’re talking about with pelvic floor therapy is lifestyle modifications,” Dr. Nwabuebo said. “If I have a patient with a history of chronic constipation, it doesn’t matter how much we do pelvic floor exercises; if we don’t manage the constipation issues by addressing their nutrition, then straining when using the bathroom will keep putting pressure on the pelvic floor.”

PTs can also recommend appropriate vaginal weights and dilators to help with pelvic floor strengthening and teach patients how to use them properly.

Even if women ultimately opt for surgery, PT prior to surgery can be beneficial. Dr. Rabin cited three reasons she recommends first-line PT: It may elevate the bladder enough to reduce stress incontinence and thicken the pelvic muscles, it can improve the effectiveness of a pessary or surgery if the woman chooses one of those options, and it can quiet bladder contractions, potentially obviating the need for pharmacologic treatment for overactive bladder.

The next nonsurgical option is a pessary, a device that fits into the vagina to provide support to the tissues displaced by prolapse. There’s a wide range of pessary types: some are short-term, worn only daily, or disposable, while others can be worn longer. Some women can self-insert and remove the pessary, and others may need a clinician to do so. Dr. Dmochowski recommends patients try a pessary to see if it benefits them. About a third of women will find them comfortable enough to wear regularly, but others will feel more sensitive to the pessary’s presence, he said.

One of the newest, most innovative pessary options for women is Gynethotics, which received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance in March, as the first 3D-printed, customizable pessary capable of nearly 10 million configurations based on a person’s body.

Nearly all stage 4 prolapses and most of stage 3 prolapses can be addressed only through transvaginal or transabdominal surgery.

“We tell patients, if you can get 10 years out of your operation, you’re lucky,” Dr. Dmochowski said. A major reason for the short-lived durability is the poor quality of the tissue that needs to be pulled together. Serious complications resulting from use of polypropylene mesh during prolapse surgery led the FDA to halt sales of the devices and recommend discontinuing their use. However, one type of vaginal mesh is still considered safe to use in sacral colpopexy surgery.

Three things can shorten the durability of the surgery, Dr. Dmochowski said: heavy lifting, particularly anything over 30 pounds; chronic coughing, such as in those with chronic lung conditions; and chronic constipation.

Ms. Palm tried a pessary for her grade 3 prolapse with cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele but didn’t feel she had the time to use it regularly, so she opted for surgery. After a week on the couch recovering, she took it easy for another 12 weeks. Since then, she’s dedicated much of her time to educating and supporting women with POP and combating stigma associated with it. The APOPS website that she started has become a valuable resource for PCPs to send patients to, and the forum includes more 27,000 women from around the world.

“We encourage women to share what they’re experiencing. Tell your family, tell your friends, tell the people you work with about it,” Ms. Palm said. But many still feel uncomfortable speaking up, making PCPs’ role even more important.

*This story was updated on May 14, 2024.

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CORRECTED April 7, 2024 // An earlier version of this article misstated the clinical factors of children with CNO that were significantly associated with the need for second-line treatment, as well as the scope of assessments of aspects of disease involvement and their relationship to total number of days on NSAID monotherapy and the odds of needing a second-line treatment.

Children with chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) who had symmetric bone lesions or multiple affected body regions were more likely to need second-line treatment than were patients without these features, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

CNO is an auto-inflammatory condition that results in sterile inflammatory bone lesions and most commonly affects the long bones of people who are skeletally immature. After a first-line treatment of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), second-line treatments per CARRA guidelines typically include methotrexate or sulfasalazine, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors, and bisphosphonates.

“Since it’s common for there to be long delays before diagnosis of CNO, it is important to start an effective treatment promptly,” Katherine D. Nowicki, MD, of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, told attendees. “While we have guidance on which treatments to use, it remains unclear which patients are most likely to respond to NSAIDs and which patients will require a second-line treatment.”
 

Findings Helpful for Counseling

Melissa S. Oliver, MD, MS, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in rheumatology at Riley Children’s Health at Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, who was not involved in the research, said the findings of this study are helpful in “counseling families and patients at that initial visit and having a lower threshold to start a second-line agent if NSAID monotherapy is not working well.”

There are no clinical trials on patients with CNO, Dr. Oliver said, so very little data exist for guiding clinicians on the best therapy to use and how long to keep patients on therapy while minimizing risk for flare when coming off therapy.

A key clinical takeaway for clinicians is being able to tell patients with unifocal disease that they may not need to be on NSAIDs for a long period and can still do well, Dr. Oliver said. For patients with multifocal disease with symmetric bone lesions or multiple regions involved with CNO, “pediatric rheumatologists should have a lower threshold to start a second-line therapy for these patients,” she said.

Findings From Largest Single-Center Cohort in North America

Their topline findings revealed that patients with unifocal disease at diagnosis required 47% fewer total days of NSAID monotherapy treatment than those with multifocal disease at diagnosis, Dr. Nowicki told attendees. Having symmetric bone lesions increased the likelihood of needing a second-line therapy by 6.86 times compared with those without symmetric bone lesions, and for each additional region affected by CNO, the odds of needing a second-line therapy increased by a factor of 1.94, she said.

There were no significant differences in patient ages or sex or in mean interval from symptom onset to treatment onset across treatment groups. However, patients who received second-line treatment did have a significantly longer average time from symptom onset to diagnosis (324 days) than those who had a short course (119 days) or long course (270 days) of NSAIDs (P = .023). Mean follow-up was also significantly longer for patients with second-line treatment (3.8 years) or long-course NSAIDs (2.7 years) than for those with short-course NSAIDs (1.2 years; P < .001).

Mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein did not differ across treatment groups nor did presence of a CNO lesion on x-rays at presentation. But significantly more patients in the second-line group had a biopsy (94%) than in the long-course (74%) or short-course (69%) NSAID groups (P = .0025). They were also more likely to have one or more whole-body MRIs. Most of the patients on short-course (88%) and long-course (82%) NSAIDs did not undergo a whole-body MRI, whereas most patients (59%) on a second-line treatment underwent at least one and 24% underwent three or more MRIs (P < .001).

More patients on short-course NSAIDs had unifocal disease at diagnosis (72%) than those on long-course NSAIDs (47%) or a second-line treatment (41%; P = .015). Patients on a second-line treatment were also more likely to have symmetric involvement in the same bone (73% vs 16% short-course and 23% long-course NSAIDs) and to have more regions of the body affected (P < .001).

There were significant differences in mean days on NSAID monotherapy and number of NSAIDs trialed. Patients on a second-line treatment had a mean 441 days of NSAID monotherapy compared with 175 days for patients on short-course NSAIDs and 725 for patients on long-course NSAIDs (P < .001). Nearly all the short-course patients (94%) trialed a single NSAID, while more than half the long-course and second-line patients trialed two or more (P < .001).

None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had complications. More patients on second-line treatments had vertebral height loss (20%) or amplified pain (14%) than long-course patients (13% and 5%, respectively; P = .02).

At the study’s end date, nearly all the patients on short-course NSAIDs were in remission (94%) compared with 71% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and only half of patients (51%) on the second-line treatment (P < .001). None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had active disease compared with 11% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and 20% of patients on second-line treatments (P = .02).

This study included the largest single-center cohort of patients with CNO in North America, all treated at a multidisciplinary clinic with a protocolized treatment approach, but it remains limited by its retrospective nature and the missing data for 70 patients, Dr. Nowicki said. She noted that whole-body MRI was not systematically performed on all patients, so it was possible patients without a whole-body MRI had undetected asymptomatic lesions.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Oliver said retrospective studies like these can help pediatric rheumatologists get an idea of reasonable therapies to start, how long to keep patients on them, and when to escalate to the next step.

“I hope one day our CNO research will be able to tell us about which is the optimal second-line therapy for patients, such as bisphosphonates vs TNF inhibitors vs DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Oliver said.

Dr. Nowicki and Dr. Oliver reported no disclosures. Information on study funding was not provided.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

CORRECTED April 7, 2024 // An earlier version of this article misstated the clinical factors of children with CNO that were significantly associated with the need for second-line treatment, as well as the scope of assessments of aspects of disease involvement and their relationship to total number of days on NSAID monotherapy and the odds of needing a second-line treatment.

Children with chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) who had symmetric bone lesions or multiple affected body regions were more likely to need second-line treatment than were patients without these features, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

CNO is an auto-inflammatory condition that results in sterile inflammatory bone lesions and most commonly affects the long bones of people who are skeletally immature. After a first-line treatment of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), second-line treatments per CARRA guidelines typically include methotrexate or sulfasalazine, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors, and bisphosphonates.

“Since it’s common for there to be long delays before diagnosis of CNO, it is important to start an effective treatment promptly,” Katherine D. Nowicki, MD, of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, told attendees. “While we have guidance on which treatments to use, it remains unclear which patients are most likely to respond to NSAIDs and which patients will require a second-line treatment.”
 

Findings Helpful for Counseling

Melissa S. Oliver, MD, MS, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in rheumatology at Riley Children’s Health at Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, who was not involved in the research, said the findings of this study are helpful in “counseling families and patients at that initial visit and having a lower threshold to start a second-line agent if NSAID monotherapy is not working well.”

There are no clinical trials on patients with CNO, Dr. Oliver said, so very little data exist for guiding clinicians on the best therapy to use and how long to keep patients on therapy while minimizing risk for flare when coming off therapy.

A key clinical takeaway for clinicians is being able to tell patients with unifocal disease that they may not need to be on NSAIDs for a long period and can still do well, Dr. Oliver said. For patients with multifocal disease with symmetric bone lesions or multiple regions involved with CNO, “pediatric rheumatologists should have a lower threshold to start a second-line therapy for these patients,” she said.

Findings From Largest Single-Center Cohort in North America

Their topline findings revealed that patients with unifocal disease at diagnosis required 47% fewer total days of NSAID monotherapy treatment than those with multifocal disease at diagnosis, Dr. Nowicki told attendees. Having symmetric bone lesions increased the likelihood of needing a second-line therapy by 6.86 times compared with those without symmetric bone lesions, and for each additional region affected by CNO, the odds of needing a second-line therapy increased by a factor of 1.94, she said.

There were no significant differences in patient ages or sex or in mean interval from symptom onset to treatment onset across treatment groups. However, patients who received second-line treatment did have a significantly longer average time from symptom onset to diagnosis (324 days) than those who had a short course (119 days) or long course (270 days) of NSAIDs (P = .023). Mean follow-up was also significantly longer for patients with second-line treatment (3.8 years) or long-course NSAIDs (2.7 years) than for those with short-course NSAIDs (1.2 years; P < .001).

Mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein did not differ across treatment groups nor did presence of a CNO lesion on x-rays at presentation. But significantly more patients in the second-line group had a biopsy (94%) than in the long-course (74%) or short-course (69%) NSAID groups (P = .0025). They were also more likely to have one or more whole-body MRIs. Most of the patients on short-course (88%) and long-course (82%) NSAIDs did not undergo a whole-body MRI, whereas most patients (59%) on a second-line treatment underwent at least one and 24% underwent three or more MRIs (P < .001).

More patients on short-course NSAIDs had unifocal disease at diagnosis (72%) than those on long-course NSAIDs (47%) or a second-line treatment (41%; P = .015). Patients on a second-line treatment were also more likely to have symmetric involvement in the same bone (73% vs 16% short-course and 23% long-course NSAIDs) and to have more regions of the body affected (P < .001).

There were significant differences in mean days on NSAID monotherapy and number of NSAIDs trialed. Patients on a second-line treatment had a mean 441 days of NSAID monotherapy compared with 175 days for patients on short-course NSAIDs and 725 for patients on long-course NSAIDs (P < .001). Nearly all the short-course patients (94%) trialed a single NSAID, while more than half the long-course and second-line patients trialed two or more (P < .001).

None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had complications. More patients on second-line treatments had vertebral height loss (20%) or amplified pain (14%) than long-course patients (13% and 5%, respectively; P = .02).

At the study’s end date, nearly all the patients on short-course NSAIDs were in remission (94%) compared with 71% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and only half of patients (51%) on the second-line treatment (P < .001). None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had active disease compared with 11% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and 20% of patients on second-line treatments (P = .02).

This study included the largest single-center cohort of patients with CNO in North America, all treated at a multidisciplinary clinic with a protocolized treatment approach, but it remains limited by its retrospective nature and the missing data for 70 patients, Dr. Nowicki said. She noted that whole-body MRI was not systematically performed on all patients, so it was possible patients without a whole-body MRI had undetected asymptomatic lesions.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Oliver said retrospective studies like these can help pediatric rheumatologists get an idea of reasonable therapies to start, how long to keep patients on them, and when to escalate to the next step.

“I hope one day our CNO research will be able to tell us about which is the optimal second-line therapy for patients, such as bisphosphonates vs TNF inhibitors vs DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Oliver said.

Dr. Nowicki and Dr. Oliver reported no disclosures. Information on study funding was not provided.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

CORRECTED April 7, 2024 // An earlier version of this article misstated the clinical factors of children with CNO that were significantly associated with the need for second-line treatment, as well as the scope of assessments of aspects of disease involvement and their relationship to total number of days on NSAID monotherapy and the odds of needing a second-line treatment.

Children with chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) who had symmetric bone lesions or multiple affected body regions were more likely to need second-line treatment than were patients without these features, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

CNO is an auto-inflammatory condition that results in sterile inflammatory bone lesions and most commonly affects the long bones of people who are skeletally immature. After a first-line treatment of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), second-line treatments per CARRA guidelines typically include methotrexate or sulfasalazine, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors, and bisphosphonates.

“Since it’s common for there to be long delays before diagnosis of CNO, it is important to start an effective treatment promptly,” Katherine D. Nowicki, MD, of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, told attendees. “While we have guidance on which treatments to use, it remains unclear which patients are most likely to respond to NSAIDs and which patients will require a second-line treatment.”
 

Findings Helpful for Counseling

Melissa S. Oliver, MD, MS, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in rheumatology at Riley Children’s Health at Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, who was not involved in the research, said the findings of this study are helpful in “counseling families and patients at that initial visit and having a lower threshold to start a second-line agent if NSAID monotherapy is not working well.”

There are no clinical trials on patients with CNO, Dr. Oliver said, so very little data exist for guiding clinicians on the best therapy to use and how long to keep patients on therapy while minimizing risk for flare when coming off therapy.

A key clinical takeaway for clinicians is being able to tell patients with unifocal disease that they may not need to be on NSAIDs for a long period and can still do well, Dr. Oliver said. For patients with multifocal disease with symmetric bone lesions or multiple regions involved with CNO, “pediatric rheumatologists should have a lower threshold to start a second-line therapy for these patients,” she said.

Findings From Largest Single-Center Cohort in North America

Their topline findings revealed that patients with unifocal disease at diagnosis required 47% fewer total days of NSAID monotherapy treatment than those with multifocal disease at diagnosis, Dr. Nowicki told attendees. Having symmetric bone lesions increased the likelihood of needing a second-line therapy by 6.86 times compared with those without symmetric bone lesions, and for each additional region affected by CNO, the odds of needing a second-line therapy increased by a factor of 1.94, she said.

There were no significant differences in patient ages or sex or in mean interval from symptom onset to treatment onset across treatment groups. However, patients who received second-line treatment did have a significantly longer average time from symptom onset to diagnosis (324 days) than those who had a short course (119 days) or long course (270 days) of NSAIDs (P = .023). Mean follow-up was also significantly longer for patients with second-line treatment (3.8 years) or long-course NSAIDs (2.7 years) than for those with short-course NSAIDs (1.2 years; P < .001).

Mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein did not differ across treatment groups nor did presence of a CNO lesion on x-rays at presentation. But significantly more patients in the second-line group had a biopsy (94%) than in the long-course (74%) or short-course (69%) NSAID groups (P = .0025). They were also more likely to have one or more whole-body MRIs. Most of the patients on short-course (88%) and long-course (82%) NSAIDs did not undergo a whole-body MRI, whereas most patients (59%) on a second-line treatment underwent at least one and 24% underwent three or more MRIs (P < .001).

More patients on short-course NSAIDs had unifocal disease at diagnosis (72%) than those on long-course NSAIDs (47%) or a second-line treatment (41%; P = .015). Patients on a second-line treatment were also more likely to have symmetric involvement in the same bone (73% vs 16% short-course and 23% long-course NSAIDs) and to have more regions of the body affected (P < .001).

There were significant differences in mean days on NSAID monotherapy and number of NSAIDs trialed. Patients on a second-line treatment had a mean 441 days of NSAID monotherapy compared with 175 days for patients on short-course NSAIDs and 725 for patients on long-course NSAIDs (P < .001). Nearly all the short-course patients (94%) trialed a single NSAID, while more than half the long-course and second-line patients trialed two or more (P < .001).

None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had complications. More patients on second-line treatments had vertebral height loss (20%) or amplified pain (14%) than long-course patients (13% and 5%, respectively; P = .02).

At the study’s end date, nearly all the patients on short-course NSAIDs were in remission (94%) compared with 71% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and only half of patients (51%) on the second-line treatment (P < .001). None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had active disease compared with 11% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and 20% of patients on second-line treatments (P = .02).

This study included the largest single-center cohort of patients with CNO in North America, all treated at a multidisciplinary clinic with a protocolized treatment approach, but it remains limited by its retrospective nature and the missing data for 70 patients, Dr. Nowicki said. She noted that whole-body MRI was not systematically performed on all patients, so it was possible patients without a whole-body MRI had undetected asymptomatic lesions.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Oliver said retrospective studies like these can help pediatric rheumatologists get an idea of reasonable therapies to start, how long to keep patients on them, and when to escalate to the next step.

“I hope one day our CNO research will be able to tell us about which is the optimal second-line therapy for patients, such as bisphosphonates vs TNF inhibitors vs DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Oliver said.

Dr. Nowicki and Dr. Oliver reported no disclosures. Information on study funding was not provided.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

CORRECTED April 16, 2024 // An earlier version of this article stated incorrect percentages of patients who never received any biologics during the study's 3-year period but improved rapidly or moderately.

Early initiation of biologics — within the first 2 months of symptom presentation — appears to have a significant impact on how rapidly patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) improve, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

“Our study provides evidence that early use of biologics can significantly alter the disease trajectory of patients with JIA,” Mei-Sing Ong, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, told attendees. At the same time, however, not all patients who improved rapidly during a 3-year follow-up period needed biologics, a finding that Ong said the researchers are continuing to investigate.

Marinka Twilt, MD, MScE, PhD, chair of CARRA’s JIA Research Committee and a pediatric rheumatologist and clinician scientist at Alberta Children’s Hospital in Calgary, Canada, was not involved in the research but said the continued sustained remission in patients who improved rapidly is very reassuring.

Dr. Twilt

“We always wonder if initial response will be sustained or if patients tend to flare after the initial treatment,” Dr. Twilt told this news organization. “To see the sustained response up to 3 years is fantastic.” She added that it would be enlightening to see more information about patients who rapidly improved over 3 years, including whether they were still taking a [conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)] and/or biologic.

“A new diagnosis can be overwhelming for families, and this sometimes leads to step-up therapy to not overwhelm them more with information on new drugs,” Dr. Twilt said. “This study shows that an earlier start is beneficial, and this should be discussed with families early on so there is less delay in early treatment.”

Canada and many US states currently require 3 months of conventional DMARD treatment before patients can start a biologic, Dr. Twilt said, yet “this study shows the additive benefit of using a biologic within 2 months of starting a DMARD, which hopefully will lead to insurance companies adopting this threshold.”

The STOP-JIA study is a prospective observational study that compares the effectiveness of three different treatment plans for JIA. A Step-Up cohort of 257 patients received conventional antirheumatic monotherapy initially, with a biologic added at 3 months or later as needed. The Early Combination cohort of 100 patients received conventional antirheumatic therapy with a biologic from the start. The Biologic First cohort of 43 patients began taking a biologic as a first-line therapy.

In previously reported results of the study at 12 months’ follow-up, there was no significant difference between the Step-Up and Biologic First groups, but there were significant differences between the Step-Up and Early Combination groups. Significantly more patients in the Early Combination group (58.8%) than in the Step-Up group (42.8%) had inactive disease, based on the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score 10 (cJADAS-10) (P = .03). Similarly, 81% of Early Combination patients achieved the American College of Rheumatology 70% improvement criteria, compared with 62% of the Step-Up patients (P = .01).

To learn whether the timing of starting a biologic influenced the disease trajectory over time, the researchers compared subgroups of patients with similar trajectories.

“Assessing treatment outcomes at a single point in time does not give us a complete picture of the effects of treatment on disease trajectory, which is an important outcome given that JIA is characterized by a relapsing-remitting course,” Dr. Ong told attendees.

Patients were sorted in the slow, moderate, or rapid improvement trajectories. In previously reported data at 12 months’ follow-up, patients’ odds of achieving rapid improvement were 3.6 times greater if they had started a biologic within 3 months.

This study compared patients’ trajectories over 3 years in the 259 patients (65% of the original cohort) who had at least one cJADAS-10 assessment in each year of follow-up. Most patients (66.8%) were in the rapid improvement class, with 25.9% in the moderate improvement class and 7.3% in the slow improvement class.

Patients in the rapid improvement group achieved inactive disease (cJADAS-10 of 2.5 or less) within 1 year and maintained inactive disease through the second and third years. The moderate and low improvement groups both had higher disease activity at baseline, but the moderate group continued to improve in years 2 and 3, with minimal disease by year 3, on the basis of the cJADAS-10 scores of 2.5-5. The slow group continued to experience moderate disease activity during years 2 and 3.

The findings also revealed that the earlier patients began a biologic, the more likely they were to be in the rapid improvement group than the slow improvement group. Participants who started a biologic in the first month had more than five times greater odds of being in the rapid improvement group than in the slow improvement group (odds ratio [OR], 5.33; P = .017).

Those who started a biologic in the second month were also more likely to be in the rapid improvement group (OR, 2.67; P = .032). For those who began a biologic by the third month, the odds of improving rapidly were not statistically significant, though Ong noted that could have been because of the small sample size. There was also no significant difference between those who improved moderately vs slowly based on when a biologic was initiated.

It would be helpful to learn whether any of the patients in the rapid improvement group were able to stop medications or whether they all continued treatment during the 3 years of follow-up, Dr. Twilt said. “Does early treatment with biologics not only lead to early remission after initiation but also to the possibility of stopping treatment earlier and remaining in remission?” she asked.

The researchers also found that not all patients needed biologics to end up in the rapid improvement group. Among patients who never received any biologics during the 3-year period, 83% improved rapidly and 17% improved moderately. Yet the researchers identified no significant differences in demographics or clinical factors between patients who received biologics and those who did not.

“The fact that there is a group of patients in the rapid response group who never need a biologic is of great interest, as we always want to treat patients early with the medications they need, but we also want to avoid overtreating patients,” Dr. Twilt said. It’s important to find out what differentiates those patients and whether it is possible to predict which patients do not need biologics early on, she said.

Dr. Ong said the research team is working to develop machine learning methods to improve risk stratification in hopes of addressing that question.

Dr. Ong and Dr. Twilt reported no disclosures. The research was funded by CARRA and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

CORRECTED April 16, 2024 // An earlier version of this article stated incorrect percentages of patients who never received any biologics during the study's 3-year period but improved rapidly or moderately.

Early initiation of biologics — within the first 2 months of symptom presentation — appears to have a significant impact on how rapidly patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) improve, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

“Our study provides evidence that early use of biologics can significantly alter the disease trajectory of patients with JIA,” Mei-Sing Ong, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, told attendees. At the same time, however, not all patients who improved rapidly during a 3-year follow-up period needed biologics, a finding that Ong said the researchers are continuing to investigate.

Marinka Twilt, MD, MScE, PhD, chair of CARRA’s JIA Research Committee and a pediatric rheumatologist and clinician scientist at Alberta Children’s Hospital in Calgary, Canada, was not involved in the research but said the continued sustained remission in patients who improved rapidly is very reassuring.

Dr. Twilt

“We always wonder if initial response will be sustained or if patients tend to flare after the initial treatment,” Dr. Twilt told this news organization. “To see the sustained response up to 3 years is fantastic.” She added that it would be enlightening to see more information about patients who rapidly improved over 3 years, including whether they were still taking a [conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)] and/or biologic.

“A new diagnosis can be overwhelming for families, and this sometimes leads to step-up therapy to not overwhelm them more with information on new drugs,” Dr. Twilt said. “This study shows that an earlier start is beneficial, and this should be discussed with families early on so there is less delay in early treatment.”

Canada and many US states currently require 3 months of conventional DMARD treatment before patients can start a biologic, Dr. Twilt said, yet “this study shows the additive benefit of using a biologic within 2 months of starting a DMARD, which hopefully will lead to insurance companies adopting this threshold.”

The STOP-JIA study is a prospective observational study that compares the effectiveness of three different treatment plans for JIA. A Step-Up cohort of 257 patients received conventional antirheumatic monotherapy initially, with a biologic added at 3 months or later as needed. The Early Combination cohort of 100 patients received conventional antirheumatic therapy with a biologic from the start. The Biologic First cohort of 43 patients began taking a biologic as a first-line therapy.

In previously reported results of the study at 12 months’ follow-up, there was no significant difference between the Step-Up and Biologic First groups, but there were significant differences between the Step-Up and Early Combination groups. Significantly more patients in the Early Combination group (58.8%) than in the Step-Up group (42.8%) had inactive disease, based on the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score 10 (cJADAS-10) (P = .03). Similarly, 81% of Early Combination patients achieved the American College of Rheumatology 70% improvement criteria, compared with 62% of the Step-Up patients (P = .01).

To learn whether the timing of starting a biologic influenced the disease trajectory over time, the researchers compared subgroups of patients with similar trajectories.

“Assessing treatment outcomes at a single point in time does not give us a complete picture of the effects of treatment on disease trajectory, which is an important outcome given that JIA is characterized by a relapsing-remitting course,” Dr. Ong told attendees.

Patients were sorted in the slow, moderate, or rapid improvement trajectories. In previously reported data at 12 months’ follow-up, patients’ odds of achieving rapid improvement were 3.6 times greater if they had started a biologic within 3 months.

This study compared patients’ trajectories over 3 years in the 259 patients (65% of the original cohort) who had at least one cJADAS-10 assessment in each year of follow-up. Most patients (66.8%) were in the rapid improvement class, with 25.9% in the moderate improvement class and 7.3% in the slow improvement class.

Patients in the rapid improvement group achieved inactive disease (cJADAS-10 of 2.5 or less) within 1 year and maintained inactive disease through the second and third years. The moderate and low improvement groups both had higher disease activity at baseline, but the moderate group continued to improve in years 2 and 3, with minimal disease by year 3, on the basis of the cJADAS-10 scores of 2.5-5. The slow group continued to experience moderate disease activity during years 2 and 3.

The findings also revealed that the earlier patients began a biologic, the more likely they were to be in the rapid improvement group than the slow improvement group. Participants who started a biologic in the first month had more than five times greater odds of being in the rapid improvement group than in the slow improvement group (odds ratio [OR], 5.33; P = .017).

Those who started a biologic in the second month were also more likely to be in the rapid improvement group (OR, 2.67; P = .032). For those who began a biologic by the third month, the odds of improving rapidly were not statistically significant, though Ong noted that could have been because of the small sample size. There was also no significant difference between those who improved moderately vs slowly based on when a biologic was initiated.

It would be helpful to learn whether any of the patients in the rapid improvement group were able to stop medications or whether they all continued treatment during the 3 years of follow-up, Dr. Twilt said. “Does early treatment with biologics not only lead to early remission after initiation but also to the possibility of stopping treatment earlier and remaining in remission?” she asked.

The researchers also found that not all patients needed biologics to end up in the rapid improvement group. Among patients who never received any biologics during the 3-year period, 83% improved rapidly and 17% improved moderately. Yet the researchers identified no significant differences in demographics or clinical factors between patients who received biologics and those who did not.

“The fact that there is a group of patients in the rapid response group who never need a biologic is of great interest, as we always want to treat patients early with the medications they need, but we also want to avoid overtreating patients,” Dr. Twilt said. It’s important to find out what differentiates those patients and whether it is possible to predict which patients do not need biologics early on, she said.

Dr. Ong said the research team is working to develop machine learning methods to improve risk stratification in hopes of addressing that question.

Dr. Ong and Dr. Twilt reported no disclosures. The research was funded by CARRA and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

CORRECTED April 16, 2024 // An earlier version of this article stated incorrect percentages of patients who never received any biologics during the study's 3-year period but improved rapidly or moderately.

Early initiation of biologics — within the first 2 months of symptom presentation — appears to have a significant impact on how rapidly patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) improve, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

“Our study provides evidence that early use of biologics can significantly alter the disease trajectory of patients with JIA,” Mei-Sing Ong, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, told attendees. At the same time, however, not all patients who improved rapidly during a 3-year follow-up period needed biologics, a finding that Ong said the researchers are continuing to investigate.

Marinka Twilt, MD, MScE, PhD, chair of CARRA’s JIA Research Committee and a pediatric rheumatologist and clinician scientist at Alberta Children’s Hospital in Calgary, Canada, was not involved in the research but said the continued sustained remission in patients who improved rapidly is very reassuring.

Dr. Twilt

“We always wonder if initial response will be sustained or if patients tend to flare after the initial treatment,” Dr. Twilt told this news organization. “To see the sustained response up to 3 years is fantastic.” She added that it would be enlightening to see more information about patients who rapidly improved over 3 years, including whether they were still taking a [conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)] and/or biologic.

“A new diagnosis can be overwhelming for families, and this sometimes leads to step-up therapy to not overwhelm them more with information on new drugs,” Dr. Twilt said. “This study shows that an earlier start is beneficial, and this should be discussed with families early on so there is less delay in early treatment.”

Canada and many US states currently require 3 months of conventional DMARD treatment before patients can start a biologic, Dr. Twilt said, yet “this study shows the additive benefit of using a biologic within 2 months of starting a DMARD, which hopefully will lead to insurance companies adopting this threshold.”

The STOP-JIA study is a prospective observational study that compares the effectiveness of three different treatment plans for JIA. A Step-Up cohort of 257 patients received conventional antirheumatic monotherapy initially, with a biologic added at 3 months or later as needed. The Early Combination cohort of 100 patients received conventional antirheumatic therapy with a biologic from the start. The Biologic First cohort of 43 patients began taking a biologic as a first-line therapy.

In previously reported results of the study at 12 months’ follow-up, there was no significant difference between the Step-Up and Biologic First groups, but there were significant differences between the Step-Up and Early Combination groups. Significantly more patients in the Early Combination group (58.8%) than in the Step-Up group (42.8%) had inactive disease, based on the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score 10 (cJADAS-10) (P = .03). Similarly, 81% of Early Combination patients achieved the American College of Rheumatology 70% improvement criteria, compared with 62% of the Step-Up patients (P = .01).

To learn whether the timing of starting a biologic influenced the disease trajectory over time, the researchers compared subgroups of patients with similar trajectories.

“Assessing treatment outcomes at a single point in time does not give us a complete picture of the effects of treatment on disease trajectory, which is an important outcome given that JIA is characterized by a relapsing-remitting course,” Dr. Ong told attendees.

Patients were sorted in the slow, moderate, or rapid improvement trajectories. In previously reported data at 12 months’ follow-up, patients’ odds of achieving rapid improvement were 3.6 times greater if they had started a biologic within 3 months.

This study compared patients’ trajectories over 3 years in the 259 patients (65% of the original cohort) who had at least one cJADAS-10 assessment in each year of follow-up. Most patients (66.8%) were in the rapid improvement class, with 25.9% in the moderate improvement class and 7.3% in the slow improvement class.

Patients in the rapid improvement group achieved inactive disease (cJADAS-10 of 2.5 or less) within 1 year and maintained inactive disease through the second and third years. The moderate and low improvement groups both had higher disease activity at baseline, but the moderate group continued to improve in years 2 and 3, with minimal disease by year 3, on the basis of the cJADAS-10 scores of 2.5-5. The slow group continued to experience moderate disease activity during years 2 and 3.

The findings also revealed that the earlier patients began a biologic, the more likely they were to be in the rapid improvement group than the slow improvement group. Participants who started a biologic in the first month had more than five times greater odds of being in the rapid improvement group than in the slow improvement group (odds ratio [OR], 5.33; P = .017).

Those who started a biologic in the second month were also more likely to be in the rapid improvement group (OR, 2.67; P = .032). For those who began a biologic by the third month, the odds of improving rapidly were not statistically significant, though Ong noted that could have been because of the small sample size. There was also no significant difference between those who improved moderately vs slowly based on when a biologic was initiated.

It would be helpful to learn whether any of the patients in the rapid improvement group were able to stop medications or whether they all continued treatment during the 3 years of follow-up, Dr. Twilt said. “Does early treatment with biologics not only lead to early remission after initiation but also to the possibility of stopping treatment earlier and remaining in remission?” she asked.

The researchers also found that not all patients needed biologics to end up in the rapid improvement group. Among patients who never received any biologics during the 3-year period, 83% improved rapidly and 17% improved moderately. Yet the researchers identified no significant differences in demographics or clinical factors between patients who received biologics and those who did not.

“The fact that there is a group of patients in the rapid response group who never need a biologic is of great interest, as we always want to treat patients early with the medications they need, but we also want to avoid overtreating patients,” Dr. Twilt said. It’s important to find out what differentiates those patients and whether it is possible to predict which patients do not need biologics early on, she said.

Dr. Ong said the research team is working to develop machine learning methods to improve risk stratification in hopes of addressing that question.

Dr. Ong and Dr. Twilt reported no disclosures. The research was funded by CARRA and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The accumulation of multiple adverse social determinants of health is linked to worse disease at initial presentation and worse disease activity over time in children with rheumatologic conditions, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

One study revealed that cumulative factors conferring social disadvantage progressively increased the odds of active disease and functional disability in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Another study similarly found that children with lupus living in neighborhoods with comparatively fewer resources for childhood opportunity had worse disease at presentation and greater disease activity over follow-up.

The findings suggest that exposure to multiple disadvantaging social variables may be linked to worse outcomes than exposure to any single factor, William Daniel Soulsby, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, told attendees in his presentation of data from the JIA study.

“Most prior studies have analyzed such determinants as independent risk factors,” Dr. Soulsby said. “However, individuals experiencing social disadvantage often face multiple social hardships that rarely act in isolation; studying these factors independently may miss underlying disparities.”

Stacy P. Ardoin, MD, MSc, professor of pediatric and adult rheumatology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University in Columbus, and vice president of CARRA, did not find the results of Soulsby’s study surprising, but she said they do “provide important confirmation of our growing understanding of the impact of social determinants of health on the outcomes of children and adolescents with chronic disease like juvenile idiopathic arthritis.” She added: “In medicine, we often think about the bench, the bedside, and the clinic, but this study tells us that if we want to improve outcomes for our patients, we also need to think about the ‘backyard,’ too.”
 

Social Disadvantage With JIA

Dr. Soulsby’s team adopted an approach similar to that of a recent National Survey of Children’s Health analysis that used a combined scoring system to calculate cumulative social disadvantage. The researchers used income level, insurance status, and education level to capture individual factors related to disadvantage and then an area deprivation index (ADI) to capture community factors. While they were unable to use any variables specific to societal factors, they included race, which is relevant at all three levels.

The cohort included 9612 patients in the CARRA Registry from July 2015 to January 2022. They included all patients who had a JIA diagnosis with onset before age 16 and at least one visit with a complete clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS) score. Most of the patients (70%) were female, with an average age at enrollment of 11 and a mean time to diagnosis of 10.6 months.

Most of the patients had oligoarthritis (35.5%) or rheumatoid factor–negative polyarthritis (29.4%), followed by enthesitis-related arthritis (10.5%) and then other forms. A total of 4% of patients had a secondary rheumatologic condition. Most of the patients were White (74.9%), with 3.9% Black, 7.6% Hispanic, and 6.5% of more than one race. ADI data were missing for 17.2% of patients.

The researchers assigned a score to each patient that could add up to a maximum of 3. They received 1 point for an annual household income below $50,000, 1 point for having public insurance or no insurance, and 1 point for their guardian having no more than a high school education. Patients with a score of 0 comprised 60.9% of the patients, while 21.3% had a score of 1, 12.9% had a score of 2, and 4.9% had a score of 3.

Just over a quarter of the patients (26.3%) were underinsured, 19.1% were low income, and 16.4% had caregivers with a high school education or less. However, income level was unknown for 24.6% of patients, and guardians’ education level was unknown for 15.7% of patients.

The primary outcomes were the odds of active disease as based on clinical JADAS (at least a 1.1 score for oligoarticular JIA and more than 2.5 for all other subtypes) and odds of functional disability based on the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ). Adjustments were made for sex, race/ethnicity, age at enrollment, time to diagnosis, ADI, JIA category, presence of secondary rheumatologic disease, and medication (use of a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD], biologic DMARD, or small molecule drug).

Nearly half (48%) of patients had active disease during follow-up, with an average clinical JADAS score of 4 from the whole cohort. Compared with children with a cumulative disadvantage score of 0, each additional point on the clinical JADAS resulted in significantly increased odds of active disease. Those with the highest score of 3 were twice as likely to have active disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.05; P < .001) as those with a score of 0, but those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.36; P < .001) or 2 (aOR, 1.86; P < .001) were also more likely to have active disease. Other significant independent predictors of active arthritis included being of Black race (aOR, 1.55) or more than one race (aOR, 1.31).

Each of the scored factors also independently increased the likelihood of active disease by similar amounts: 1.69 higher odds for low household income on its own, 1.6 higher odds for public or no insurance, and 1.45 higher odds for high school education or less (all P < .001).

Similarly, odds of functional disability based on CHAQ increased significantly with each additional point. The mean CHAQ score was 0.31, and 46% of patients had functional disability during follow-up. Those with a cumulative social disadvantage score of 3 were three times as likely to have functional disability (aOR, 3.09; P < .001) as those with a score of 0. Those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.82) or 2 (aOR, 2.81) were also more likely to have functional disability (P < .001). Again, Black individuals (aOR, 2.09) or those of mixed race (aOR, 1.78) had greater odds of functional disability (P < .001).

The independent factor most associated with increased odds of functional disability was a household income below $50,000 a year (OR, 3.03; P < .001), followed by having public or no insurance (OR, 2.57) or a caregiver with no more than a high school education (OR, 1.98). Dr. Soulsby noted that their study was limited by the missing data and may oversimplify the relationships between social determinants of health.

Overall, however, the findings revealed both the importance of social risk screening in the pediatric rheumatology clinic and the coupling of that screening with individual level support for patients, Dr. Soulsby said.

“This study did a great job of harnessing the power of the CARRA Registry,” said Dr. Ardoin, who was not involved in the research. “These findings underscore how important it is for all clinicians, including pediatric rheumatologists, to evaluate every child for social risks of poor outcomes,” she said.

One take-home message from the findings is that once pediatric rheumatologists identify social risks for poor outcomes in their patients, they can “consult with social workers and connect families with community resources in an effort to ameliorate social deprivation.”
 

Childhood Lupus and Reduced Childhood Opportunity

In a similar study looking at children with childhood-onset lupus, researchers similarly identified the way that compounding social determinants of health were linked to greater disease activity.

“We know that structural racism segregates children from historically marginalized groups into different neighborhoods with lower childhood opportunity,” Joyce C. Chang, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, told attendees. “When we talk about child opportunity, we’re really describing all of the resources and conditions that helped to promote healthy childhood development,” including factors related to education, physical health, the built environment, and social and economic security, she said.

Dr. Chang and her colleagues therefore assessed the relationship between a 29-indicator Child Opportunity Index for patients with childhood-onset lupus and the severity of their disease presentation and activity over time. They determined the Child Opportunity Index for different neighborhoods and assessed the amount of racial residential segregation around the three institutions involved in the study. Severity of lupus presentation was based on the need for intensive care unit admission or dialysis or a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of 10 or higher. Disease activity over time was based on the SLEDAI-2K score.

The patient population included 553 patients with childhood-onset lupus from three institutions: Boston Children’s Hospital, Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, Alabama. Across the full population, 30% of the patients were Black and 30% were Hispanic, but the distribution of race and ethnicity varied by institution. Most of the Black patients, for example, were at Children’s of Alabama (59%), while 43% of the Hispanic patients were at Lurie. Across all the sites, 14% of the patients’ families preferred a non-English language as their first language, and just over half the patients (52%) had public insurance.

Dr. Chang did not have data yet from the Lurie and Alabama cohorts, so she presented preliminary data from the Boston Children’s cohort of 148 patients. In those results, children living in neighborhoods of low childhood opportunity had four times higher odds of presenting with severe disease than children living in neighborhoods of very high opportunity. Then the researchers factored in the location quotient that represented the magnitude of racial segregation in a residential area. In areas with high levels of Black vs White segregation, children were 2.5 times more likely to have a more severe initial disease presentation. However, there was not a significant difference in areas highly segregated between Hispanic and non-Hispanic residents.

After initial presentation, the data revealed a dose-dependent relationship between childhood opportunity and severity of disease activity based on SLEDAI-2K. After adjustment for insurance status, race, preferred language, age at disease onset, sex, major organ involvement, initial SLEDAI-2K score at presentation, and follow-up time, disease activity incrementally increased as childhood opportunity decreased (P < .001 for the trend).

The findings suggested that even in regions like Boston, where overall childhood opportunity is higher than the national average, “poor relative neighborhood opportunity is still associated with more severe lupus presentation, as well as higher lupus disease activity during follow-up,” Dr. Chang said. “Area-level conditions may drive inequitable outcomes at numerous points,” including initial access to subspecialty care and after establishing that care, she said.

Dr. Soulsby, Dr. Chang, and Dr. Ardoin reported having no disclosures. Dr. Soulsby’s research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation, and Dr. Chang’s research was funded by CARRA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The accumulation of multiple adverse social determinants of health is linked to worse disease at initial presentation and worse disease activity over time in children with rheumatologic conditions, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

One study revealed that cumulative factors conferring social disadvantage progressively increased the odds of active disease and functional disability in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Another study similarly found that children with lupus living in neighborhoods with comparatively fewer resources for childhood opportunity had worse disease at presentation and greater disease activity over follow-up.

The findings suggest that exposure to multiple disadvantaging social variables may be linked to worse outcomes than exposure to any single factor, William Daniel Soulsby, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, told attendees in his presentation of data from the JIA study.

“Most prior studies have analyzed such determinants as independent risk factors,” Dr. Soulsby said. “However, individuals experiencing social disadvantage often face multiple social hardships that rarely act in isolation; studying these factors independently may miss underlying disparities.”

Stacy P. Ardoin, MD, MSc, professor of pediatric and adult rheumatology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University in Columbus, and vice president of CARRA, did not find the results of Soulsby’s study surprising, but she said they do “provide important confirmation of our growing understanding of the impact of social determinants of health on the outcomes of children and adolescents with chronic disease like juvenile idiopathic arthritis.” She added: “In medicine, we often think about the bench, the bedside, and the clinic, but this study tells us that if we want to improve outcomes for our patients, we also need to think about the ‘backyard,’ too.”
 

Social Disadvantage With JIA

Dr. Soulsby’s team adopted an approach similar to that of a recent National Survey of Children’s Health analysis that used a combined scoring system to calculate cumulative social disadvantage. The researchers used income level, insurance status, and education level to capture individual factors related to disadvantage and then an area deprivation index (ADI) to capture community factors. While they were unable to use any variables specific to societal factors, they included race, which is relevant at all three levels.

The cohort included 9612 patients in the CARRA Registry from July 2015 to January 2022. They included all patients who had a JIA diagnosis with onset before age 16 and at least one visit with a complete clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS) score. Most of the patients (70%) were female, with an average age at enrollment of 11 and a mean time to diagnosis of 10.6 months.

Most of the patients had oligoarthritis (35.5%) or rheumatoid factor–negative polyarthritis (29.4%), followed by enthesitis-related arthritis (10.5%) and then other forms. A total of 4% of patients had a secondary rheumatologic condition. Most of the patients were White (74.9%), with 3.9% Black, 7.6% Hispanic, and 6.5% of more than one race. ADI data were missing for 17.2% of patients.

The researchers assigned a score to each patient that could add up to a maximum of 3. They received 1 point for an annual household income below $50,000, 1 point for having public insurance or no insurance, and 1 point for their guardian having no more than a high school education. Patients with a score of 0 comprised 60.9% of the patients, while 21.3% had a score of 1, 12.9% had a score of 2, and 4.9% had a score of 3.

Just over a quarter of the patients (26.3%) were underinsured, 19.1% were low income, and 16.4% had caregivers with a high school education or less. However, income level was unknown for 24.6% of patients, and guardians’ education level was unknown for 15.7% of patients.

The primary outcomes were the odds of active disease as based on clinical JADAS (at least a 1.1 score for oligoarticular JIA and more than 2.5 for all other subtypes) and odds of functional disability based on the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ). Adjustments were made for sex, race/ethnicity, age at enrollment, time to diagnosis, ADI, JIA category, presence of secondary rheumatologic disease, and medication (use of a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD], biologic DMARD, or small molecule drug).

Nearly half (48%) of patients had active disease during follow-up, with an average clinical JADAS score of 4 from the whole cohort. Compared with children with a cumulative disadvantage score of 0, each additional point on the clinical JADAS resulted in significantly increased odds of active disease. Those with the highest score of 3 were twice as likely to have active disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.05; P < .001) as those with a score of 0, but those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.36; P < .001) or 2 (aOR, 1.86; P < .001) were also more likely to have active disease. Other significant independent predictors of active arthritis included being of Black race (aOR, 1.55) or more than one race (aOR, 1.31).

Each of the scored factors also independently increased the likelihood of active disease by similar amounts: 1.69 higher odds for low household income on its own, 1.6 higher odds for public or no insurance, and 1.45 higher odds for high school education or less (all P < .001).

Similarly, odds of functional disability based on CHAQ increased significantly with each additional point. The mean CHAQ score was 0.31, and 46% of patients had functional disability during follow-up. Those with a cumulative social disadvantage score of 3 were three times as likely to have functional disability (aOR, 3.09; P < .001) as those with a score of 0. Those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.82) or 2 (aOR, 2.81) were also more likely to have functional disability (P < .001). Again, Black individuals (aOR, 2.09) or those of mixed race (aOR, 1.78) had greater odds of functional disability (P < .001).

The independent factor most associated with increased odds of functional disability was a household income below $50,000 a year (OR, 3.03; P < .001), followed by having public or no insurance (OR, 2.57) or a caregiver with no more than a high school education (OR, 1.98). Dr. Soulsby noted that their study was limited by the missing data and may oversimplify the relationships between social determinants of health.

Overall, however, the findings revealed both the importance of social risk screening in the pediatric rheumatology clinic and the coupling of that screening with individual level support for patients, Dr. Soulsby said.

“This study did a great job of harnessing the power of the CARRA Registry,” said Dr. Ardoin, who was not involved in the research. “These findings underscore how important it is for all clinicians, including pediatric rheumatologists, to evaluate every child for social risks of poor outcomes,” she said.

One take-home message from the findings is that once pediatric rheumatologists identify social risks for poor outcomes in their patients, they can “consult with social workers and connect families with community resources in an effort to ameliorate social deprivation.”
 

Childhood Lupus and Reduced Childhood Opportunity

In a similar study looking at children with childhood-onset lupus, researchers similarly identified the way that compounding social determinants of health were linked to greater disease activity.

“We know that structural racism segregates children from historically marginalized groups into different neighborhoods with lower childhood opportunity,” Joyce C. Chang, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, told attendees. “When we talk about child opportunity, we’re really describing all of the resources and conditions that helped to promote healthy childhood development,” including factors related to education, physical health, the built environment, and social and economic security, she said.

Dr. Chang and her colleagues therefore assessed the relationship between a 29-indicator Child Opportunity Index for patients with childhood-onset lupus and the severity of their disease presentation and activity over time. They determined the Child Opportunity Index for different neighborhoods and assessed the amount of racial residential segregation around the three institutions involved in the study. Severity of lupus presentation was based on the need for intensive care unit admission or dialysis or a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of 10 or higher. Disease activity over time was based on the SLEDAI-2K score.

The patient population included 553 patients with childhood-onset lupus from three institutions: Boston Children’s Hospital, Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, Alabama. Across the full population, 30% of the patients were Black and 30% were Hispanic, but the distribution of race and ethnicity varied by institution. Most of the Black patients, for example, were at Children’s of Alabama (59%), while 43% of the Hispanic patients were at Lurie. Across all the sites, 14% of the patients’ families preferred a non-English language as their first language, and just over half the patients (52%) had public insurance.

Dr. Chang did not have data yet from the Lurie and Alabama cohorts, so she presented preliminary data from the Boston Children’s cohort of 148 patients. In those results, children living in neighborhoods of low childhood opportunity had four times higher odds of presenting with severe disease than children living in neighborhoods of very high opportunity. Then the researchers factored in the location quotient that represented the magnitude of racial segregation in a residential area. In areas with high levels of Black vs White segregation, children were 2.5 times more likely to have a more severe initial disease presentation. However, there was not a significant difference in areas highly segregated between Hispanic and non-Hispanic residents.

After initial presentation, the data revealed a dose-dependent relationship between childhood opportunity and severity of disease activity based on SLEDAI-2K. After adjustment for insurance status, race, preferred language, age at disease onset, sex, major organ involvement, initial SLEDAI-2K score at presentation, and follow-up time, disease activity incrementally increased as childhood opportunity decreased (P < .001 for the trend).

The findings suggested that even in regions like Boston, where overall childhood opportunity is higher than the national average, “poor relative neighborhood opportunity is still associated with more severe lupus presentation, as well as higher lupus disease activity during follow-up,” Dr. Chang said. “Area-level conditions may drive inequitable outcomes at numerous points,” including initial access to subspecialty care and after establishing that care, she said.

Dr. Soulsby, Dr. Chang, and Dr. Ardoin reported having no disclosures. Dr. Soulsby’s research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation, and Dr. Chang’s research was funded by CARRA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The accumulation of multiple adverse social determinants of health is linked to worse disease at initial presentation and worse disease activity over time in children with rheumatologic conditions, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

One study revealed that cumulative factors conferring social disadvantage progressively increased the odds of active disease and functional disability in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Another study similarly found that children with lupus living in neighborhoods with comparatively fewer resources for childhood opportunity had worse disease at presentation and greater disease activity over follow-up.

The findings suggest that exposure to multiple disadvantaging social variables may be linked to worse outcomes than exposure to any single factor, William Daniel Soulsby, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, told attendees in his presentation of data from the JIA study.

“Most prior studies have analyzed such determinants as independent risk factors,” Dr. Soulsby said. “However, individuals experiencing social disadvantage often face multiple social hardships that rarely act in isolation; studying these factors independently may miss underlying disparities.”

Stacy P. Ardoin, MD, MSc, professor of pediatric and adult rheumatology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University in Columbus, and vice president of CARRA, did not find the results of Soulsby’s study surprising, but she said they do “provide important confirmation of our growing understanding of the impact of social determinants of health on the outcomes of children and adolescents with chronic disease like juvenile idiopathic arthritis.” She added: “In medicine, we often think about the bench, the bedside, and the clinic, but this study tells us that if we want to improve outcomes for our patients, we also need to think about the ‘backyard,’ too.”
 

Social Disadvantage With JIA

Dr. Soulsby’s team adopted an approach similar to that of a recent National Survey of Children’s Health analysis that used a combined scoring system to calculate cumulative social disadvantage. The researchers used income level, insurance status, and education level to capture individual factors related to disadvantage and then an area deprivation index (ADI) to capture community factors. While they were unable to use any variables specific to societal factors, they included race, which is relevant at all three levels.

The cohort included 9612 patients in the CARRA Registry from July 2015 to January 2022. They included all patients who had a JIA diagnosis with onset before age 16 and at least one visit with a complete clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS) score. Most of the patients (70%) were female, with an average age at enrollment of 11 and a mean time to diagnosis of 10.6 months.

Most of the patients had oligoarthritis (35.5%) or rheumatoid factor–negative polyarthritis (29.4%), followed by enthesitis-related arthritis (10.5%) and then other forms. A total of 4% of patients had a secondary rheumatologic condition. Most of the patients were White (74.9%), with 3.9% Black, 7.6% Hispanic, and 6.5% of more than one race. ADI data were missing for 17.2% of patients.

The researchers assigned a score to each patient that could add up to a maximum of 3. They received 1 point for an annual household income below $50,000, 1 point for having public insurance or no insurance, and 1 point for their guardian having no more than a high school education. Patients with a score of 0 comprised 60.9% of the patients, while 21.3% had a score of 1, 12.9% had a score of 2, and 4.9% had a score of 3.

Just over a quarter of the patients (26.3%) were underinsured, 19.1% were low income, and 16.4% had caregivers with a high school education or less. However, income level was unknown for 24.6% of patients, and guardians’ education level was unknown for 15.7% of patients.

The primary outcomes were the odds of active disease as based on clinical JADAS (at least a 1.1 score for oligoarticular JIA and more than 2.5 for all other subtypes) and odds of functional disability based on the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ). Adjustments were made for sex, race/ethnicity, age at enrollment, time to diagnosis, ADI, JIA category, presence of secondary rheumatologic disease, and medication (use of a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD], biologic DMARD, or small molecule drug).

Nearly half (48%) of patients had active disease during follow-up, with an average clinical JADAS score of 4 from the whole cohort. Compared with children with a cumulative disadvantage score of 0, each additional point on the clinical JADAS resulted in significantly increased odds of active disease. Those with the highest score of 3 were twice as likely to have active disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.05; P < .001) as those with a score of 0, but those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.36; P < .001) or 2 (aOR, 1.86; P < .001) were also more likely to have active disease. Other significant independent predictors of active arthritis included being of Black race (aOR, 1.55) or more than one race (aOR, 1.31).

Each of the scored factors also independently increased the likelihood of active disease by similar amounts: 1.69 higher odds for low household income on its own, 1.6 higher odds for public or no insurance, and 1.45 higher odds for high school education or less (all P < .001).

Similarly, odds of functional disability based on CHAQ increased significantly with each additional point. The mean CHAQ score was 0.31, and 46% of patients had functional disability during follow-up. Those with a cumulative social disadvantage score of 3 were three times as likely to have functional disability (aOR, 3.09; P < .001) as those with a score of 0. Those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.82) or 2 (aOR, 2.81) were also more likely to have functional disability (P < .001). Again, Black individuals (aOR, 2.09) or those of mixed race (aOR, 1.78) had greater odds of functional disability (P < .001).

The independent factor most associated with increased odds of functional disability was a household income below $50,000 a year (OR, 3.03; P < .001), followed by having public or no insurance (OR, 2.57) or a caregiver with no more than a high school education (OR, 1.98). Dr. Soulsby noted that their study was limited by the missing data and may oversimplify the relationships between social determinants of health.

Overall, however, the findings revealed both the importance of social risk screening in the pediatric rheumatology clinic and the coupling of that screening with individual level support for patients, Dr. Soulsby said.

“This study did a great job of harnessing the power of the CARRA Registry,” said Dr. Ardoin, who was not involved in the research. “These findings underscore how important it is for all clinicians, including pediatric rheumatologists, to evaluate every child for social risks of poor outcomes,” she said.

One take-home message from the findings is that once pediatric rheumatologists identify social risks for poor outcomes in their patients, they can “consult with social workers and connect families with community resources in an effort to ameliorate social deprivation.”
 

Childhood Lupus and Reduced Childhood Opportunity

In a similar study looking at children with childhood-onset lupus, researchers similarly identified the way that compounding social determinants of health were linked to greater disease activity.

“We know that structural racism segregates children from historically marginalized groups into different neighborhoods with lower childhood opportunity,” Joyce C. Chang, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, told attendees. “When we talk about child opportunity, we’re really describing all of the resources and conditions that helped to promote healthy childhood development,” including factors related to education, physical health, the built environment, and social and economic security, she said.

Dr. Chang and her colleagues therefore assessed the relationship between a 29-indicator Child Opportunity Index for patients with childhood-onset lupus and the severity of their disease presentation and activity over time. They determined the Child Opportunity Index for different neighborhoods and assessed the amount of racial residential segregation around the three institutions involved in the study. Severity of lupus presentation was based on the need for intensive care unit admission or dialysis or a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of 10 or higher. Disease activity over time was based on the SLEDAI-2K score.

The patient population included 553 patients with childhood-onset lupus from three institutions: Boston Children’s Hospital, Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, Alabama. Across the full population, 30% of the patients were Black and 30% were Hispanic, but the distribution of race and ethnicity varied by institution. Most of the Black patients, for example, were at Children’s of Alabama (59%), while 43% of the Hispanic patients were at Lurie. Across all the sites, 14% of the patients’ families preferred a non-English language as their first language, and just over half the patients (52%) had public insurance.

Dr. Chang did not have data yet from the Lurie and Alabama cohorts, so she presented preliminary data from the Boston Children’s cohort of 148 patients. In those results, children living in neighborhoods of low childhood opportunity had four times higher odds of presenting with severe disease than children living in neighborhoods of very high opportunity. Then the researchers factored in the location quotient that represented the magnitude of racial segregation in a residential area. In areas with high levels of Black vs White segregation, children were 2.5 times more likely to have a more severe initial disease presentation. However, there was not a significant difference in areas highly segregated between Hispanic and non-Hispanic residents.

After initial presentation, the data revealed a dose-dependent relationship between childhood opportunity and severity of disease activity based on SLEDAI-2K. After adjustment for insurance status, race, preferred language, age at disease onset, sex, major organ involvement, initial SLEDAI-2K score at presentation, and follow-up time, disease activity incrementally increased as childhood opportunity decreased (P < .001 for the trend).

The findings suggested that even in regions like Boston, where overall childhood opportunity is higher than the national average, “poor relative neighborhood opportunity is still associated with more severe lupus presentation, as well as higher lupus disease activity during follow-up,” Dr. Chang said. “Area-level conditions may drive inequitable outcomes at numerous points,” including initial access to subspecialty care and after establishing that care, she said.

Dr. Soulsby, Dr. Chang, and Dr. Ardoin reported having no disclosures. Dr. Soulsby’s research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation, and Dr. Chang’s research was funded by CARRA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.