The World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) has changed the recommendation for vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV).

From the available evidence, SAGE has concluded that a single dose of vaccine offers solid protection against HPV, comparable to that achieved with two-dose schedules.

This could be a “game-changer for the prevention of the disease,” as it would allow “more doses of the life-saving jab reach more girls,” the WHO declared in a press release.

SAGE recommends updating HPV dose schedules as follows:

• One- or two-dose schedule for the primary target of girls aged 9-14 years.
• One- or two-dose schedule for young women aged 15-20.
• Two doses with a 6-month interval for women older than 21.

The HPV vaccine is highly effective for the prevention of HPV serotypes 16 and 18, which cause 70% of cases of cervical cancer, said Alejandro Cravioto, MD, PhD, SAGE chair, in a statement.

“SAGE urges all countries to introduce HPV vaccines and prioritize multi-age cohort catch up of missed and older cohorts of girls. These recommendations will enable more girls and women to be vaccinated and thus preventing them from having cervical cancer and all its consequences over the course of their lifetimes,” he added.

For individuals who are immunocompromised, including those with HIV, three doses of the vaccine should be given if feasible, and if not, then at least two doses. There is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of a single dose in this group, the advisory group noted.
 

Policy makers need to make changes

Now that the WHO has deemed that one dose of HPV vaccine is sufficient, policy makers should make changes, say experts in a recent editorial comment published in The Lancet Oncology.

“Policy makers should consider modifying their HPV immunization schedules for girls aged 9-14 years from a two-dose regimen to a one-dose regimen,” wrote Jeff D’Souza, PhD, Institute for Better Health, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ont., and David Nderitu, PhD, Egerton University, Nakuru County, Kenya.

Policy makers also need to consider reorienting their efforts on cervical cancer screening and treatment, and they should ensure that all girls globally have access to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, they add.

The editorialists also make a radical proposal.

Existing supply constraints of the HPV vaccine at the country level are expected to continue for the next 3 years, and the vast majority of new cervical cancer cases and related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

To overcome these problems, they suggest that “high-income countries that currently offer two-dose regimens to girls aged 9-14 years should consider opting for a one-dose vaccination schedule, and give any excess of vaccines to countries in greater need of them.”
 

Two doses in high-income countries

But it is unclear whether high-income countries are ready to move to a one-dose schedule.

Approached for comment, Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, told this news organization that while he can’t say for certain, he suspects that the United States will be slower to accept this recommendation for a single dose of HPV vaccine “as a component of a ‘standard-of-care’ approach.”

However, it “might formally acknowledge that if an individual/parent will only accept a single vaccine dose (or ultimately refuses to return for a recommended second dose), this will be considered a favorable outcome, both for the individual and society.

“I do not know if regulatory bodies in the United States will accept the existing studies performed to address the one-dose vaccination strategy to rather dramatically change the approach in our country,” he said. “The issue would be that if a single dose was stated to be a clinically acceptable option in the United States, it would rapidly become the standard approach, and the regulators would want to be as certain as possible that this would not have a negative effect on what is now recognized to be a remarkably safe and effective cancer prevention effort.”

Another expert who was approached for comment, Stephanie V. Blank, MD, professor of gynecologic oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “In higher-resourced countries, two doses are still preferred, as they are more effective than one.

“The modeling on which the SAGE recommendation is based is all from studies in LMICs and other modeling studies,” she added.

At present, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a two-dose schedule of HPV vaccines for individuals who receive the first dose before their 15th birthday. The three-dose schedule is recommended for those who receive the first dose on or after their 15th birthday and for people with certain immunocompromising conditions.

Studies have shown that two doses of HPV vaccine given to children aged 9-14 years provide as good or better protection than three doses given to older adolescents or young adults.

But even with a two-dose schedule, the WHO reports that uptake of the vaccine has been slow, and coverage is much lower than their 90% target. In 2020, global coverage with two doses was only 13%.

Factors that have influenced the slow uptake and low coverage of HPV vaccines include supply challenges, programmatic challenges, and costs related to delivering a two-dose regimen to older girls who are not typically included in childhood vaccination programs. The relatively high cost of HPV vaccines has also been problematic, particularly for middle-income countries.
 

Trials of one-dose schedules

The one-dose vaccine schedule has garnered a lot of interest, with several studies showing efficacy.

The KEN SHE trial, based in Kenya, showed that a single dose of the HPV vaccine was highly effective at preventing oncogenic infection, rivaling the protection offered by multidose regimens. Vaccine efficacy was 97.5% (P < .001) against HPV 16/18 for both the bivalent and monovalent vaccines, which is “comparable to that seen in multidose vaccine trials,” the researchers noted.

A study in India found that efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection among participants evaluable for the endpoint was 95.4% for the single dose, 93.1% for the two-dose schedule, and 93.3% for the three-dose series.

Commenting on this trial in India in a recent interview with this news organization, Geoffroy Canlorbe, MD, PhD, of the department of gynecologic and breast surgery and oncology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, said the findings from India would need “to be confirmed by other studies.” The results were nonetheless “excellent news for developing countries where there are challenges when it comes to access to vaccination.”

Speaking at the 45th Congress of the French Society for Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases, he emphasized that at this stage, the findings “cannot be extrapolated” to France. HPV vaccination coverage is low in France (it is estimated that the rate is 23.7%, placing the country 28th of 31 countries in Europe), and he recommended continuing with the two- or three-dose schedule for the time being.

“This poor coverage has nothing to do with health care–related logistical or organizational issues; instead, it has to do with people’s mistrust when it comes to vaccination. Here, people who get the first dose get the subsequent ones,” said Dr. Canlorbe. “The very fact of getting two to three doses allows the person’s body to increase the production of antibodies and get a longer-lasting response to the vaccine.”
 

Ethics of the vaccine

In their editorial, Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu note that there are ethical considerations with the HPV vaccine that can “help guide deliberations, covering nonmaleficence, beneficence, health equity, stewardship, and solidarity.”

It would be inequitable and unjustifiable, they write, to offer a two-dose regimen to girls aged 9-14 years without also introducing multi-age cohort catch-up campaigns or programs for women who do not have access. “When it comes to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, no woman or girl should be left behind,” they say.

To achieve the goal of eliminating cervical cancer, “countries must ensure that 90% of girls are vaccinated, 70% of women are screened, and 90% of women with precancerous lesions receive treatment and care,” they write. “Given resource constraints, particularly in low-middle income countries, policy makers have a responsibility to ensure that resources are used in an optimal manner that promotes the right to health of all individuals.”

Thus, countries that are lagging far behind in cervical cancer education, screening, and treatment should consider opting for a one-dose regimen for girls aged 9-14 years, as well as using additional resources to close the gap in these other areas.

Dr. Markman has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen; he is also a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology with the Markamn on Oncology video column. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) has changed the recommendation for vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV).

From the available evidence, SAGE has concluded that a single dose of vaccine offers solid protection against HPV, comparable to that achieved with two-dose schedules.

This could be a “game-changer for the prevention of the disease,” as it would allow “more doses of the life-saving jab reach more girls,” the WHO declared in a press release.

SAGE recommends updating HPV dose schedules as follows:

• One- or two-dose schedule for the primary target of girls aged 9-14 years.
• One- or two-dose schedule for young women aged 15-20.
• Two doses with a 6-month interval for women older than 21.

The HPV vaccine is highly effective for the prevention of HPV serotypes 16 and 18, which cause 70% of cases of cervical cancer, said Alejandro Cravioto, MD, PhD, SAGE chair, in a statement.

“SAGE urges all countries to introduce HPV vaccines and prioritize multi-age cohort catch up of missed and older cohorts of girls. These recommendations will enable more girls and women to be vaccinated and thus preventing them from having cervical cancer and all its consequences over the course of their lifetimes,” he added.

For individuals who are immunocompromised, including those with HIV, three doses of the vaccine should be given if feasible, and if not, then at least two doses. There is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of a single dose in this group, the advisory group noted.
 

Policy makers need to make changes

Now that the WHO has deemed that one dose of HPV vaccine is sufficient, policy makers should make changes, say experts in a recent editorial comment published in The Lancet Oncology.

“Policy makers should consider modifying their HPV immunization schedules for girls aged 9-14 years from a two-dose regimen to a one-dose regimen,” wrote Jeff D’Souza, PhD, Institute for Better Health, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ont., and David Nderitu, PhD, Egerton University, Nakuru County, Kenya.

Policy makers also need to consider reorienting their efforts on cervical cancer screening and treatment, and they should ensure that all girls globally have access to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, they add.

The editorialists also make a radical proposal.

Existing supply constraints of the HPV vaccine at the country level are expected to continue for the next 3 years, and the vast majority of new cervical cancer cases and related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

To overcome these problems, they suggest that “high-income countries that currently offer two-dose regimens to girls aged 9-14 years should consider opting for a one-dose vaccination schedule, and give any excess of vaccines to countries in greater need of them.”
 

Two doses in high-income countries

But it is unclear whether high-income countries are ready to move to a one-dose schedule.

Approached for comment, Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, told this news organization that while he can’t say for certain, he suspects that the United States will be slower to accept this recommendation for a single dose of HPV vaccine “as a component of a ‘standard-of-care’ approach.”

However, it “might formally acknowledge that if an individual/parent will only accept a single vaccine dose (or ultimately refuses to return for a recommended second dose), this will be considered a favorable outcome, both for the individual and society.

“I do not know if regulatory bodies in the United States will accept the existing studies performed to address the one-dose vaccination strategy to rather dramatically change the approach in our country,” he said. “The issue would be that if a single dose was stated to be a clinically acceptable option in the United States, it would rapidly become the standard approach, and the regulators would want to be as certain as possible that this would not have a negative effect on what is now recognized to be a remarkably safe and effective cancer prevention effort.”

Another expert who was approached for comment, Stephanie V. Blank, MD, professor of gynecologic oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “In higher-resourced countries, two doses are still preferred, as they are more effective than one.

“The modeling on which the SAGE recommendation is based is all from studies in LMICs and other modeling studies,” she added.

At present, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a two-dose schedule of HPV vaccines for individuals who receive the first dose before their 15th birthday. The three-dose schedule is recommended for those who receive the first dose on or after their 15th birthday and for people with certain immunocompromising conditions.

Studies have shown that two doses of HPV vaccine given to children aged 9-14 years provide as good or better protection than three doses given to older adolescents or young adults.

But even with a two-dose schedule, the WHO reports that uptake of the vaccine has been slow, and coverage is much lower than their 90% target. In 2020, global coverage with two doses was only 13%.

Factors that have influenced the slow uptake and low coverage of HPV vaccines include supply challenges, programmatic challenges, and costs related to delivering a two-dose regimen to older girls who are not typically included in childhood vaccination programs. The relatively high cost of HPV vaccines has also been problematic, particularly for middle-income countries.
 

Trials of one-dose schedules

The one-dose vaccine schedule has garnered a lot of interest, with several studies showing efficacy.

The KEN SHE trial, based in Kenya, showed that a single dose of the HPV vaccine was highly effective at preventing oncogenic infection, rivaling the protection offered by multidose regimens. Vaccine efficacy was 97.5% (P < .001) against HPV 16/18 for both the bivalent and monovalent vaccines, which is “comparable to that seen in multidose vaccine trials,” the researchers noted.

A study in India found that efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection among participants evaluable for the endpoint was 95.4% for the single dose, 93.1% for the two-dose schedule, and 93.3% for the three-dose series.

Commenting on this trial in India in a recent interview with this news organization, Geoffroy Canlorbe, MD, PhD, of the department of gynecologic and breast surgery and oncology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, said the findings from India would need “to be confirmed by other studies.” The results were nonetheless “excellent news for developing countries where there are challenges when it comes to access to vaccination.”

Speaking at the 45th Congress of the French Society for Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases, he emphasized that at this stage, the findings “cannot be extrapolated” to France. HPV vaccination coverage is low in France (it is estimated that the rate is 23.7%, placing the country 28th of 31 countries in Europe), and he recommended continuing with the two- or three-dose schedule for the time being.

“This poor coverage has nothing to do with health care–related logistical or organizational issues; instead, it has to do with people’s mistrust when it comes to vaccination. Here, people who get the first dose get the subsequent ones,” said Dr. Canlorbe. “The very fact of getting two to three doses allows the person’s body to increase the production of antibodies and get a longer-lasting response to the vaccine.”
 

Ethics of the vaccine

In their editorial, Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu note that there are ethical considerations with the HPV vaccine that can “help guide deliberations, covering nonmaleficence, beneficence, health equity, stewardship, and solidarity.”

It would be inequitable and unjustifiable, they write, to offer a two-dose regimen to girls aged 9-14 years without also introducing multi-age cohort catch-up campaigns or programs for women who do not have access. “When it comes to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, no woman or girl should be left behind,” they say.

To achieve the goal of eliminating cervical cancer, “countries must ensure that 90% of girls are vaccinated, 70% of women are screened, and 90% of women with precancerous lesions receive treatment and care,” they write. “Given resource constraints, particularly in low-middle income countries, policy makers have a responsibility to ensure that resources are used in an optimal manner that promotes the right to health of all individuals.”

Thus, countries that are lagging far behind in cervical cancer education, screening, and treatment should consider opting for a one-dose regimen for girls aged 9-14 years, as well as using additional resources to close the gap in these other areas.

Dr. Markman has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen; he is also a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology with the Markamn on Oncology video column. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) has changed the recommendation for vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV).

From the available evidence, SAGE has concluded that a single dose of vaccine offers solid protection against HPV, comparable to that achieved with two-dose schedules.

This could be a “game-changer for the prevention of the disease,” as it would allow “more doses of the life-saving jab reach more girls,” the WHO declared in a press release.

SAGE recommends updating HPV dose schedules as follows:

• One- or two-dose schedule for the primary target of girls aged 9-14 years.
• One- or two-dose schedule for young women aged 15-20.
• Two doses with a 6-month interval for women older than 21.

The HPV vaccine is highly effective for the prevention of HPV serotypes 16 and 18, which cause 70% of cases of cervical cancer, said Alejandro Cravioto, MD, PhD, SAGE chair, in a statement.

“SAGE urges all countries to introduce HPV vaccines and prioritize multi-age cohort catch up of missed and older cohorts of girls. These recommendations will enable more girls and women to be vaccinated and thus preventing them from having cervical cancer and all its consequences over the course of their lifetimes,” he added.

For individuals who are immunocompromised, including those with HIV, three doses of the vaccine should be given if feasible, and if not, then at least two doses. There is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of a single dose in this group, the advisory group noted.
 

Policy makers need to make changes

Now that the WHO has deemed that one dose of HPV vaccine is sufficient, policy makers should make changes, say experts in a recent editorial comment published in The Lancet Oncology.

“Policy makers should consider modifying their HPV immunization schedules for girls aged 9-14 years from a two-dose regimen to a one-dose regimen,” wrote Jeff D’Souza, PhD, Institute for Better Health, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ont., and David Nderitu, PhD, Egerton University, Nakuru County, Kenya.

Policy makers also need to consider reorienting their efforts on cervical cancer screening and treatment, and they should ensure that all girls globally have access to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, they add.

The editorialists also make a radical proposal.

Existing supply constraints of the HPV vaccine at the country level are expected to continue for the next 3 years, and the vast majority of new cervical cancer cases and related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

To overcome these problems, they suggest that “high-income countries that currently offer two-dose regimens to girls aged 9-14 years should consider opting for a one-dose vaccination schedule, and give any excess of vaccines to countries in greater need of them.”
 

Two doses in high-income countries

But it is unclear whether high-income countries are ready to move to a one-dose schedule.

Approached for comment, Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, told this news organization that while he can’t say for certain, he suspects that the United States will be slower to accept this recommendation for a single dose of HPV vaccine “as a component of a ‘standard-of-care’ approach.”

However, it “might formally acknowledge that if an individual/parent will only accept a single vaccine dose (or ultimately refuses to return for a recommended second dose), this will be considered a favorable outcome, both for the individual and society.

“I do not know if regulatory bodies in the United States will accept the existing studies performed to address the one-dose vaccination strategy to rather dramatically change the approach in our country,” he said. “The issue would be that if a single dose was stated to be a clinically acceptable option in the United States, it would rapidly become the standard approach, and the regulators would want to be as certain as possible that this would not have a negative effect on what is now recognized to be a remarkably safe and effective cancer prevention effort.”

Another expert who was approached for comment, Stephanie V. Blank, MD, professor of gynecologic oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “In higher-resourced countries, two doses are still preferred, as they are more effective than one.

“The modeling on which the SAGE recommendation is based is all from studies in LMICs and other modeling studies,” she added.

At present, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a two-dose schedule of HPV vaccines for individuals who receive the first dose before their 15th birthday. The three-dose schedule is recommended for those who receive the first dose on or after their 15th birthday and for people with certain immunocompromising conditions.

Studies have shown that two doses of HPV vaccine given to children aged 9-14 years provide as good or better protection than three doses given to older adolescents or young adults.

But even with a two-dose schedule, the WHO reports that uptake of the vaccine has been slow, and coverage is much lower than their 90% target. In 2020, global coverage with two doses was only 13%.

Factors that have influenced the slow uptake and low coverage of HPV vaccines include supply challenges, programmatic challenges, and costs related to delivering a two-dose regimen to older girls who are not typically included in childhood vaccination programs. The relatively high cost of HPV vaccines has also been problematic, particularly for middle-income countries.
 

Trials of one-dose schedules

The one-dose vaccine schedule has garnered a lot of interest, with several studies showing efficacy.

The KEN SHE trial, based in Kenya, showed that a single dose of the HPV vaccine was highly effective at preventing oncogenic infection, rivaling the protection offered by multidose regimens. Vaccine efficacy was 97.5% (P < .001) against HPV 16/18 for both the bivalent and monovalent vaccines, which is “comparable to that seen in multidose vaccine trials,” the researchers noted.

A study in India found that efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection among participants evaluable for the endpoint was 95.4% for the single dose, 93.1% for the two-dose schedule, and 93.3% for the three-dose series.

Commenting on this trial in India in a recent interview with this news organization, Geoffroy Canlorbe, MD, PhD, of the department of gynecologic and breast surgery and oncology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, said the findings from India would need “to be confirmed by other studies.” The results were nonetheless “excellent news for developing countries where there are challenges when it comes to access to vaccination.”

Speaking at the 45th Congress of the French Society for Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases, he emphasized that at this stage, the findings “cannot be extrapolated” to France. HPV vaccination coverage is low in France (it is estimated that the rate is 23.7%, placing the country 28th of 31 countries in Europe), and he recommended continuing with the two- or three-dose schedule for the time being.

“This poor coverage has nothing to do with health care–related logistical or organizational issues; instead, it has to do with people’s mistrust when it comes to vaccination. Here, people who get the first dose get the subsequent ones,” said Dr. Canlorbe. “The very fact of getting two to three doses allows the person’s body to increase the production of antibodies and get a longer-lasting response to the vaccine.”
 

Ethics of the vaccine

In their editorial, Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu note that there are ethical considerations with the HPV vaccine that can “help guide deliberations, covering nonmaleficence, beneficence, health equity, stewardship, and solidarity.”

It would be inequitable and unjustifiable, they write, to offer a two-dose regimen to girls aged 9-14 years without also introducing multi-age cohort catch-up campaigns or programs for women who do not have access. “When it comes to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, no woman or girl should be left behind,” they say.

To achieve the goal of eliminating cervical cancer, “countries must ensure that 90% of girls are vaccinated, 70% of women are screened, and 90% of women with precancerous lesions receive treatment and care,” they write. “Given resource constraints, particularly in low-middle income countries, policy makers have a responsibility to ensure that resources are used in an optimal manner that promotes the right to health of all individuals.”

Thus, countries that are lagging far behind in cervical cancer education, screening, and treatment should consider opting for a one-dose regimen for girls aged 9-14 years, as well as using additional resources to close the gap in these other areas.

Dr. Markman has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen; he is also a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology with the Markamn on Oncology video column. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cee Elliot is afraid of pregnancy. The 29-year-old retail manager in Connecticut said she has felt that way since puberty, when she “finally understood” pregnancy and reproduction. Always squeamish around babies and pregnant people, she said, as she learned more about the complications birth can cause, the idea of carrying a child herself became increasingly repulsive.

Later, Ms. Elliot said, she was treated poorly by a partner because of her fears, leading to regular panic attacks. She moved on from that partner, but her fear of pregnancy did not. Along the way, she felt her fears were dismissed by doctors and peers alike.

Tokophobia – a severe fear of childbirth – goes beyond the typical anxieties about birth or pregnancy that women often experience. The condition can intrude on everyday life, crippling social interaction and interrupting regular sleep patterns. Although statistics in the United States don’t exist, as many as 14% of women internationally are thought to have tokophobia.

Although psychiatric treatment focusing on past traumas can help, many women resort to managing the condition themselves. Some seek sterilization, whereas others take multiple forms of contraception simultaneously – combining intrauterine devices and oral birth control, for example, experts said. Some women have sought abortions and some even have attempted suicide rather than face giving birth, according to Leila Frodsham, MbChB, a women’s health expert at King’s College London, who has studied tokophobia.

The International Classification of Diseases added tokophobia to its list of diagnostic codes in 2018. But the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, used by clinicians in the United States, has yet to do the same. Without this designation, some doctors are more inclined to diagnose tokophobia than others, Dr. Frodsham said.

“I think some clinicians struggle to understand how much this condition affects women. There isn’t training in it, and I’d like to see it discussed more,” Dr. Frodsham told this news organization.

Dr. Frodsham said she has seen hundreds of patients seeking help with their fear of pregnancy. Many of these women don’t know that they might have a condition that could benefit from psychiatric treatment.

Tokophobia typically takes two forms: primary, which affects women who have never given birth; and secondary, which stems from a previous traumatic birth experience.

“It’s not the pain of childbirth they are afraid of, but rather their fear comes out of a sense that they lack control over themselves and the situation of being pregnant,” Dr. Frodsham said.

Although the phenomenon has been studied internationally, particularly in Europe, fear of childbirth remains almost entirely unexplored in the United States literature.

One of the only scientific examinations of tokophobia in this country was a 2016 survey of 22 women with the condition by researchers at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Published in the Journal of Obstetric, Gynecology & Neonatal Nursing, the survey found that many of the women expressed concern that their race, gender, or level of income might affect the quality of their care. Some women surveyed said they had experienced traumas directly related to systemic inequalities in the health care system.

Lee Roosevelt, PhD, MPH, CNM, a nurse and midwife and a coauthor of the study, said fear of the health care system, coupled with concern over the loss of bodily autonomy, can foster severe aversion to childbirth. In her experience, she said, clinicians often handle these patients poorly.

“If a woman is making the decision not to have children, we want it to be because she has decided for her, and her body, that it is the right thing,” added Lisa Kane Low, PhD, CNM, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan, who worked with Dr. Roosevelt on the survey. “She shouldn’t feel the decision is made because she can’t access what she needs or the health care system is unable to provide it.”

Access to midwives, doulas, or therapists trained in trauma counseling can allow women to have a voice in their treatment, Dr. Roosevelt said.

No specific medication exists to treat tokophobia; however, drugs for depression or anxiety sometimes help, Dr. Low said. “Women with tokophobia may not need medication but would benefit from other therapies like desensitization or biobehavioral approaches or combinations of those,” she said.
 

Treating triggers

According to Dr. Frodsham, women with tokophobia often experience guilt and isolation. They may avoid speaking to women who are pregnant or avoid discussing pregnancy and childbirth, afraid that doing so may trigger their fear.

“They can’t see how they can get close to this catastrophic thing they think is going to happen to them,” she said. “Many of them think they will die.”

Many patients avoid thinking about memories of traumatic events so as to not trigger extreme emotional responses.

Dr. Roosevelt said developing ways to assess and treat tokophobia has become more urgent, since the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade could lead to more instances of women carrying unwanted pregnancies.
 

Seeking community

The internet has become a place where women with tokophobia and less severe fears about pregnancy can share their experiences. On the online bulletin board Reddit, r/Tokphobia and r/childfree contain thousands of queries and personal stories about the condition, as well as requests for advice.

Jillian Kilcoyne, who lives in New York and attends college in Michigan, said: “Pregnancy has always freaked me out. A part of me believes it’s a biological injustice that women have to go through such pain and be ignored by the medical community just to give birth.” Ms. Kilcoyne said she has not sought counseling or help from a clinician.

“I’m not sure I even want it,” she told this news organization. “Some people want to get over their phobia because they want families, and others don’t want children at all. I think that those individuals should have the help they need.”

Claudia, a South Carolina resident who asked to be identified only by her first name owing to concerns about her privacy, said her tokophobia began when she started having sex. It grew worse when she developed health conditions that could be exacerbated by pregnancy. She said she stocks up on contraceptives and periodically takes a pregnancy test to ease her nerves.

“This started for me when I realized that having children wasn’t a requirement for life. I didn’t even know there was a name for what I was feeling,” Claudia said in an interview. “So, letting women know they have options, and then not making them feel guilty, or ashamed, is the most important thing. We shouldn’t try to convince women that motherhood is the only, or the correct, path.”

Ms. Elliot urged clinicians to have compassion: “Treat tokophobic patients – especially a pregnant one seeking an abortion – like someone with a life-threatening parasite. Don’t belittle or dismiss them. We’re already going to lose so many lives because of unwanted pregnancies and birth. Don’t add to the number.”

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

Cee Elliot is afraid of pregnancy. The 29-year-old retail manager in Connecticut said she has felt that way since puberty, when she “finally understood” pregnancy and reproduction. Always squeamish around babies and pregnant people, she said, as she learned more about the complications birth can cause, the idea of carrying a child herself became increasingly repulsive.

Later, Ms. Elliot said, she was treated poorly by a partner because of her fears, leading to regular panic attacks. She moved on from that partner, but her fear of pregnancy did not. Along the way, she felt her fears were dismissed by doctors and peers alike.

Tokophobia – a severe fear of childbirth – goes beyond the typical anxieties about birth or pregnancy that women often experience. The condition can intrude on everyday life, crippling social interaction and interrupting regular sleep patterns. Although statistics in the United States don’t exist, as many as 14% of women internationally are thought to have tokophobia.

Although psychiatric treatment focusing on past traumas can help, many women resort to managing the condition themselves. Some seek sterilization, whereas others take multiple forms of contraception simultaneously – combining intrauterine devices and oral birth control, for example, experts said. Some women have sought abortions and some even have attempted suicide rather than face giving birth, according to Leila Frodsham, MbChB, a women’s health expert at King’s College London, who has studied tokophobia.

The International Classification of Diseases added tokophobia to its list of diagnostic codes in 2018. But the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, used by clinicians in the United States, has yet to do the same. Without this designation, some doctors are more inclined to diagnose tokophobia than others, Dr. Frodsham said.

“I think some clinicians struggle to understand how much this condition affects women. There isn’t training in it, and I’d like to see it discussed more,” Dr. Frodsham told this news organization.

Dr. Frodsham said she has seen hundreds of patients seeking help with their fear of pregnancy. Many of these women don’t know that they might have a condition that could benefit from psychiatric treatment.

Tokophobia typically takes two forms: primary, which affects women who have never given birth; and secondary, which stems from a previous traumatic birth experience.

“It’s not the pain of childbirth they are afraid of, but rather their fear comes out of a sense that they lack control over themselves and the situation of being pregnant,” Dr. Frodsham said.

Although the phenomenon has been studied internationally, particularly in Europe, fear of childbirth remains almost entirely unexplored in the United States literature.

One of the only scientific examinations of tokophobia in this country was a 2016 survey of 22 women with the condition by researchers at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Published in the Journal of Obstetric, Gynecology & Neonatal Nursing, the survey found that many of the women expressed concern that their race, gender, or level of income might affect the quality of their care. Some women surveyed said they had experienced traumas directly related to systemic inequalities in the health care system.

Lee Roosevelt, PhD, MPH, CNM, a nurse and midwife and a coauthor of the study, said fear of the health care system, coupled with concern over the loss of bodily autonomy, can foster severe aversion to childbirth. In her experience, she said, clinicians often handle these patients poorly.

“If a woman is making the decision not to have children, we want it to be because she has decided for her, and her body, that it is the right thing,” added Lisa Kane Low, PhD, CNM, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan, who worked with Dr. Roosevelt on the survey. “She shouldn’t feel the decision is made because she can’t access what she needs or the health care system is unable to provide it.”

Access to midwives, doulas, or therapists trained in trauma counseling can allow women to have a voice in their treatment, Dr. Roosevelt said.

No specific medication exists to treat tokophobia; however, drugs for depression or anxiety sometimes help, Dr. Low said. “Women with tokophobia may not need medication but would benefit from other therapies like desensitization or biobehavioral approaches or combinations of those,” she said.
 

Treating triggers

According to Dr. Frodsham, women with tokophobia often experience guilt and isolation. They may avoid speaking to women who are pregnant or avoid discussing pregnancy and childbirth, afraid that doing so may trigger their fear.

“They can’t see how they can get close to this catastrophic thing they think is going to happen to them,” she said. “Many of them think they will die.”

Many patients avoid thinking about memories of traumatic events so as to not trigger extreme emotional responses.

Dr. Roosevelt said developing ways to assess and treat tokophobia has become more urgent, since the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade could lead to more instances of women carrying unwanted pregnancies.
 

Seeking community

The internet has become a place where women with tokophobia and less severe fears about pregnancy can share their experiences. On the online bulletin board Reddit, r/Tokphobia and r/childfree contain thousands of queries and personal stories about the condition, as well as requests for advice.

Jillian Kilcoyne, who lives in New York and attends college in Michigan, said: “Pregnancy has always freaked me out. A part of me believes it’s a biological injustice that women have to go through such pain and be ignored by the medical community just to give birth.” Ms. Kilcoyne said she has not sought counseling or help from a clinician.

“I’m not sure I even want it,” she told this news organization. “Some people want to get over their phobia because they want families, and others don’t want children at all. I think that those individuals should have the help they need.”

Claudia, a South Carolina resident who asked to be identified only by her first name owing to concerns about her privacy, said her tokophobia began when she started having sex. It grew worse when she developed health conditions that could be exacerbated by pregnancy. She said she stocks up on contraceptives and periodically takes a pregnancy test to ease her nerves.

“This started for me when I realized that having children wasn’t a requirement for life. I didn’t even know there was a name for what I was feeling,” Claudia said in an interview. “So, letting women know they have options, and then not making them feel guilty, or ashamed, is the most important thing. We shouldn’t try to convince women that motherhood is the only, or the correct, path.”

Ms. Elliot urged clinicians to have compassion: “Treat tokophobic patients – especially a pregnant one seeking an abortion – like someone with a life-threatening parasite. Don’t belittle or dismiss them. We’re already going to lose so many lives because of unwanted pregnancies and birth. Don’t add to the number.”

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

Cee Elliot is afraid of pregnancy. The 29-year-old retail manager in Connecticut said she has felt that way since puberty, when she “finally understood” pregnancy and reproduction. Always squeamish around babies and pregnant people, she said, as she learned more about the complications birth can cause, the idea of carrying a child herself became increasingly repulsive.

Later, Ms. Elliot said, she was treated poorly by a partner because of her fears, leading to regular panic attacks. She moved on from that partner, but her fear of pregnancy did not. Along the way, she felt her fears were dismissed by doctors and peers alike.

Tokophobia – a severe fear of childbirth – goes beyond the typical anxieties about birth or pregnancy that women often experience. The condition can intrude on everyday life, crippling social interaction and interrupting regular sleep patterns. Although statistics in the United States don’t exist, as many as 14% of women internationally are thought to have tokophobia.

Although psychiatric treatment focusing on past traumas can help, many women resort to managing the condition themselves. Some seek sterilization, whereas others take multiple forms of contraception simultaneously – combining intrauterine devices and oral birth control, for example, experts said. Some women have sought abortions and some even have attempted suicide rather than face giving birth, according to Leila Frodsham, MbChB, a women’s health expert at King’s College London, who has studied tokophobia.

The International Classification of Diseases added tokophobia to its list of diagnostic codes in 2018. But the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, used by clinicians in the United States, has yet to do the same. Without this designation, some doctors are more inclined to diagnose tokophobia than others, Dr. Frodsham said.

“I think some clinicians struggle to understand how much this condition affects women. There isn’t training in it, and I’d like to see it discussed more,” Dr. Frodsham told this news organization.

Dr. Frodsham said she has seen hundreds of patients seeking help with their fear of pregnancy. Many of these women don’t know that they might have a condition that could benefit from psychiatric treatment.

Tokophobia typically takes two forms: primary, which affects women who have never given birth; and secondary, which stems from a previous traumatic birth experience.

“It’s not the pain of childbirth they are afraid of, but rather their fear comes out of a sense that they lack control over themselves and the situation of being pregnant,” Dr. Frodsham said.

Although the phenomenon has been studied internationally, particularly in Europe, fear of childbirth remains almost entirely unexplored in the United States literature.

One of the only scientific examinations of tokophobia in this country was a 2016 survey of 22 women with the condition by researchers at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Published in the Journal of Obstetric, Gynecology & Neonatal Nursing, the survey found that many of the women expressed concern that their race, gender, or level of income might affect the quality of their care. Some women surveyed said they had experienced traumas directly related to systemic inequalities in the health care system.

Lee Roosevelt, PhD, MPH, CNM, a nurse and midwife and a coauthor of the study, said fear of the health care system, coupled with concern over the loss of bodily autonomy, can foster severe aversion to childbirth. In her experience, she said, clinicians often handle these patients poorly.

“If a woman is making the decision not to have children, we want it to be because she has decided for her, and her body, that it is the right thing,” added Lisa Kane Low, PhD, CNM, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan, who worked with Dr. Roosevelt on the survey. “She shouldn’t feel the decision is made because she can’t access what she needs or the health care system is unable to provide it.”

Access to midwives, doulas, or therapists trained in trauma counseling can allow women to have a voice in their treatment, Dr. Roosevelt said.

No specific medication exists to treat tokophobia; however, drugs for depression or anxiety sometimes help, Dr. Low said. “Women with tokophobia may not need medication but would benefit from other therapies like desensitization or biobehavioral approaches or combinations of those,” she said.
 

Treating triggers

According to Dr. Frodsham, women with tokophobia often experience guilt and isolation. They may avoid speaking to women who are pregnant or avoid discussing pregnancy and childbirth, afraid that doing so may trigger their fear.

“They can’t see how they can get close to this catastrophic thing they think is going to happen to them,” she said. “Many of them think they will die.”

Many patients avoid thinking about memories of traumatic events so as to not trigger extreme emotional responses.

Dr. Roosevelt said developing ways to assess and treat tokophobia has become more urgent, since the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade could lead to more instances of women carrying unwanted pregnancies.
 

Seeking community

The internet has become a place where women with tokophobia and less severe fears about pregnancy can share their experiences. On the online bulletin board Reddit, r/Tokphobia and r/childfree contain thousands of queries and personal stories about the condition, as well as requests for advice.

Jillian Kilcoyne, who lives in New York and attends college in Michigan, said: “Pregnancy has always freaked me out. A part of me believes it’s a biological injustice that women have to go through such pain and be ignored by the medical community just to give birth.” Ms. Kilcoyne said she has not sought counseling or help from a clinician.

“I’m not sure I even want it,” she told this news organization. “Some people want to get over their phobia because they want families, and others don’t want children at all. I think that those individuals should have the help they need.”

Claudia, a South Carolina resident who asked to be identified only by her first name owing to concerns about her privacy, said her tokophobia began when she started having sex. It grew worse when she developed health conditions that could be exacerbated by pregnancy. She said she stocks up on contraceptives and periodically takes a pregnancy test to ease her nerves.

“This started for me when I realized that having children wasn’t a requirement for life. I didn’t even know there was a name for what I was feeling,” Claudia said in an interview. “So, letting women know they have options, and then not making them feel guilty, or ashamed, is the most important thing. We shouldn’t try to convince women that motherhood is the only, or the correct, path.”

Ms. Elliot urged clinicians to have compassion: “Treat tokophobic patients – especially a pregnant one seeking an abortion – like someone with a life-threatening parasite. Don’t belittle or dismiss them. We’re already going to lose so many lives because of unwanted pregnancies and birth. Don’t add to the number.”

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

New research offers more evidence linking targeted therapies for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma to higher risks for major adverse cardiovascular events.

Patients on targeted therapy were more likely to develop conditions such as heart attacks and stroke than were those who took cytokine therapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-2.74), according to a retrospective Taiwanese study reports.

“These findings may inform the evaluation of cardiovascular risk when considering targeted cancer therapies for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in real-world clinical practice,” wrote the authors of the report, which appeared in JACC: CardioOncology.

The study notes that one kind of targeted therapy – tyrosine kinase inhibitors with anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGFR-TKI) have been linked to higher rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (1.38-22.7). There have also been reports linking another kind of targeted therapy, mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTOR), to major adverse cardiovascular events.

In the new study, Dong-Yi Chen, MD, of Chang Gung University, Taiwan, and colleagues, tracked patients with renal cell carcinoma who underwent treatment with targeted therapy (sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, everolimus, or temsirolimus, (n = 2,257, 81%) or cytokine therapy (interleukin-2 or interferon gamma, n = 528, 19%) from 2007 to 2018.

The two groups had similar gender, age and socioeconomic levels. Combined, the groups were 74% male, the median age was 63, and 68% had hypertension.

After stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, the adjusted incidence rates of major cardiovascular events were 6.65 and 3.36 per 100 person-years in the targeted and cytokine therapy groups, respectively. “The higher cardiovascular risk of the targeted group was driven primarily by the VEGFR TKI–treated patients,” the authors wrote.

Two drugs were linked to statistically significant higher rates of major cardiovascular adverse events compared with the reference drug sunitinib: the VEGFR TKI sorafenib (univariable HR, 1.94, 95% CI, 1.11-3.39), P = .021) and the mTOR temsirolimus (univariable HR, 2.11, 95% CI, 1.24-3.59, P = .006). Sunitinib was by far the most commonly used targeted therapy drug.

Among patients on targeted therapy, several factors were linked to higher rates of major cardiovascular events, such as baseline history of heart failure (HR, 3.88, 95% CI, 2.25-6.71), atrial fibrillation (HR, 3.60, 95% CI, 2.16-5.99), venous thromboembolism (HR, 2.50, 95% CI, 1.27-4.92), ischemic stroke (HR, 1.88, 95% CI, 1.14-3.11), and age at least 65 years (HR, 1.81, 95% CI, 1.27-2.58).

According to the authors, there are several theories about why targeted therapy may boost the risk of major adverse cardiovascular risk. “VEGF signaling inhibitors have been associated with hypertension,” which is a risk factor for cardiac death, they noted. Also, “multi-receptor TKIs, including VEGFR and platelet-derived growth factor receptor inhibitors, could destabilize the coronary microvascular endothelial network and reduce coronary flow reserve, leading to an increased risk for thrombosis and arterial ischemic events, including myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke.”

The study was funded by Chang Gung Memorial Hospital.

New research offers more evidence linking targeted therapies for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma to higher risks for major adverse cardiovascular events.

Patients on targeted therapy were more likely to develop conditions such as heart attacks and stroke than were those who took cytokine therapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-2.74), according to a retrospective Taiwanese study reports.

“These findings may inform the evaluation of cardiovascular risk when considering targeted cancer therapies for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in real-world clinical practice,” wrote the authors of the report, which appeared in JACC: CardioOncology.

The study notes that one kind of targeted therapy – tyrosine kinase inhibitors with anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGFR-TKI) have been linked to higher rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (1.38-22.7). There have also been reports linking another kind of targeted therapy, mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTOR), to major adverse cardiovascular events.

In the new study, Dong-Yi Chen, MD, of Chang Gung University, Taiwan, and colleagues, tracked patients with renal cell carcinoma who underwent treatment with targeted therapy (sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, everolimus, or temsirolimus, (n = 2,257, 81%) or cytokine therapy (interleukin-2 or interferon gamma, n = 528, 19%) from 2007 to 2018.

The two groups had similar gender, age and socioeconomic levels. Combined, the groups were 74% male, the median age was 63, and 68% had hypertension.

After stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, the adjusted incidence rates of major cardiovascular events were 6.65 and 3.36 per 100 person-years in the targeted and cytokine therapy groups, respectively. “The higher cardiovascular risk of the targeted group was driven primarily by the VEGFR TKI–treated patients,” the authors wrote.

Two drugs were linked to statistically significant higher rates of major cardiovascular adverse events compared with the reference drug sunitinib: the VEGFR TKI sorafenib (univariable HR, 1.94, 95% CI, 1.11-3.39), P = .021) and the mTOR temsirolimus (univariable HR, 2.11, 95% CI, 1.24-3.59, P = .006). Sunitinib was by far the most commonly used targeted therapy drug.

Among patients on targeted therapy, several factors were linked to higher rates of major cardiovascular events, such as baseline history of heart failure (HR, 3.88, 95% CI, 2.25-6.71), atrial fibrillation (HR, 3.60, 95% CI, 2.16-5.99), venous thromboembolism (HR, 2.50, 95% CI, 1.27-4.92), ischemic stroke (HR, 1.88, 95% CI, 1.14-3.11), and age at least 65 years (HR, 1.81, 95% CI, 1.27-2.58).

According to the authors, there are several theories about why targeted therapy may boost the risk of major adverse cardiovascular risk. “VEGF signaling inhibitors have been associated with hypertension,” which is a risk factor for cardiac death, they noted. Also, “multi-receptor TKIs, including VEGFR and platelet-derived growth factor receptor inhibitors, could destabilize the coronary microvascular endothelial network and reduce coronary flow reserve, leading to an increased risk for thrombosis and arterial ischemic events, including myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke.”

The study was funded by Chang Gung Memorial Hospital.

New research offers more evidence linking targeted therapies for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma to higher risks for major adverse cardiovascular events.

Patients on targeted therapy were more likely to develop conditions such as heart attacks and stroke than were those who took cytokine therapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-2.74), according to a retrospective Taiwanese study reports.

“These findings may inform the evaluation of cardiovascular risk when considering targeted cancer therapies for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in real-world clinical practice,” wrote the authors of the report, which appeared in JACC: CardioOncology.

The study notes that one kind of targeted therapy – tyrosine kinase inhibitors with anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGFR-TKI) have been linked to higher rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (1.38-22.7). There have also been reports linking another kind of targeted therapy, mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTOR), to major adverse cardiovascular events.

In the new study, Dong-Yi Chen, MD, of Chang Gung University, Taiwan, and colleagues, tracked patients with renal cell carcinoma who underwent treatment with targeted therapy (sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, everolimus, or temsirolimus, (n = 2,257, 81%) or cytokine therapy (interleukin-2 or interferon gamma, n = 528, 19%) from 2007 to 2018.

The two groups had similar gender, age and socioeconomic levels. Combined, the groups were 74% male, the median age was 63, and 68% had hypertension.

After stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, the adjusted incidence rates of major cardiovascular events were 6.65 and 3.36 per 100 person-years in the targeted and cytokine therapy groups, respectively. “The higher cardiovascular risk of the targeted group was driven primarily by the VEGFR TKI–treated patients,” the authors wrote.

Two drugs were linked to statistically significant higher rates of major cardiovascular adverse events compared with the reference drug sunitinib: the VEGFR TKI sorafenib (univariable HR, 1.94, 95% CI, 1.11-3.39), P = .021) and the mTOR temsirolimus (univariable HR, 2.11, 95% CI, 1.24-3.59, P = .006). Sunitinib was by far the most commonly used targeted therapy drug.

Among patients on targeted therapy, several factors were linked to higher rates of major cardiovascular events, such as baseline history of heart failure (HR, 3.88, 95% CI, 2.25-6.71), atrial fibrillation (HR, 3.60, 95% CI, 2.16-5.99), venous thromboembolism (HR, 2.50, 95% CI, 1.27-4.92), ischemic stroke (HR, 1.88, 95% CI, 1.14-3.11), and age at least 65 years (HR, 1.81, 95% CI, 1.27-2.58).

According to the authors, there are several theories about why targeted therapy may boost the risk of major adverse cardiovascular risk. “VEGF signaling inhibitors have been associated with hypertension,” which is a risk factor for cardiac death, they noted. Also, “multi-receptor TKIs, including VEGFR and platelet-derived growth factor receptor inhibitors, could destabilize the coronary microvascular endothelial network and reduce coronary flow reserve, leading to an increased risk for thrombosis and arterial ischemic events, including myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke.”

The study was funded by Chang Gung Memorial Hospital.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved belimumab (Benlysta) for treating active lupus nephritis (LN) in children aged 5-17 years. The drug can now be used to treat adult and pediatric patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and LN. The decision expands therapeutic options for the estimated 1.5 million Americans currently living with lupus.

“This approval marks a significant step forward in providing treatment options to these children at risk of incurring kidney damage early on in life,” Stevan W. Gibson, president and CEO of the Lupus Foundation of America, said in a press release issued by the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline. LN is a condition that sometimes develops in people with lupus. In LN, the autoimmune cells produced by the disease attack the kidney. Roughly 40% of people with SLE experience LN.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Damage to the kidneys causes the body to have difficulty processing waste and toxins. This can create a host of problems, including end-stage kidney disease, which may be treated only with dialysis or kidney transplant. These situations significantly increase mortality among people with lupus, especially children.

Prior to the approval, the only treatment pathway for children with active LN included immunosuppressants and corticosteroids. While they may be effective, use of these classes of drugs may come with many side effects, including susceptibility to other diseases and infections. Belimumab, by contrast, is a B-lymphocyte stimulator protein inhibitor. It inhibits the survival of B cells, which are thought to play a role in the disease’s pathophysiology.

Belimumab was first approved to treat patients with SLE in 2011. It was approved for children with SLE 8 years later. The drug’s indications were expanded to include adults with LN in 2020.

Organizations within the lupus research community have communicated their support of the FDA’s decision. “Our community has much to celebrate with the approval of the first and much-needed treatment for children with lupus nephritis,” Lupus Research Alliance President and CEO Kenneth M. Farber said in a release from the organization.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved belimumab (Benlysta) for treating active lupus nephritis (LN) in children aged 5-17 years. The drug can now be used to treat adult and pediatric patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and LN. The decision expands therapeutic options for the estimated 1.5 million Americans currently living with lupus.

“This approval marks a significant step forward in providing treatment options to these children at risk of incurring kidney damage early on in life,” Stevan W. Gibson, president and CEO of the Lupus Foundation of America, said in a press release issued by the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline. LN is a condition that sometimes develops in people with lupus. In LN, the autoimmune cells produced by the disease attack the kidney. Roughly 40% of people with SLE experience LN.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Damage to the kidneys causes the body to have difficulty processing waste and toxins. This can create a host of problems, including end-stage kidney disease, which may be treated only with dialysis or kidney transplant. These situations significantly increase mortality among people with lupus, especially children.

Prior to the approval, the only treatment pathway for children with active LN included immunosuppressants and corticosteroids. While they may be effective, use of these classes of drugs may come with many side effects, including susceptibility to other diseases and infections. Belimumab, by contrast, is a B-lymphocyte stimulator protein inhibitor. It inhibits the survival of B cells, which are thought to play a role in the disease’s pathophysiology.

Belimumab was first approved to treat patients with SLE in 2011. It was approved for children with SLE 8 years later. The drug’s indications were expanded to include adults with LN in 2020.

Organizations within the lupus research community have communicated their support of the FDA’s decision. “Our community has much to celebrate with the approval of the first and much-needed treatment for children with lupus nephritis,” Lupus Research Alliance President and CEO Kenneth M. Farber said in a release from the organization.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved belimumab (Benlysta) for treating active lupus nephritis (LN) in children aged 5-17 years. The drug can now be used to treat adult and pediatric patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and LN. The decision expands therapeutic options for the estimated 1.5 million Americans currently living with lupus.

“This approval marks a significant step forward in providing treatment options to these children at risk of incurring kidney damage early on in life,” Stevan W. Gibson, president and CEO of the Lupus Foundation of America, said in a press release issued by the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline. LN is a condition that sometimes develops in people with lupus. In LN, the autoimmune cells produced by the disease attack the kidney. Roughly 40% of people with SLE experience LN.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Damage to the kidneys causes the body to have difficulty processing waste and toxins. This can create a host of problems, including end-stage kidney disease, which may be treated only with dialysis or kidney transplant. These situations significantly increase mortality among people with lupus, especially children.

Prior to the approval, the only treatment pathway for children with active LN included immunosuppressants and corticosteroids. While they may be effective, use of these classes of drugs may come with many side effects, including susceptibility to other diseases and infections. Belimumab, by contrast, is a B-lymphocyte stimulator protein inhibitor. It inhibits the survival of B cells, which are thought to play a role in the disease’s pathophysiology.

Belimumab was first approved to treat patients with SLE in 2011. It was approved for children with SLE 8 years later. The drug’s indications were expanded to include adults with LN in 2020.

Organizations within the lupus research community have communicated their support of the FDA’s decision. “Our community has much to celebrate with the approval of the first and much-needed treatment for children with lupus nephritis,” Lupus Research Alliance President and CEO Kenneth M. Farber said in a release from the organization.

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

As cases of monkeypox continue to mount in the United States and abroad, infectious disease experts are closely monitoring one group of people in particular: women.

So far, the overwhelming majority of cases of the viral disease have been reported in men who have sex with men. But in recent days, officials have learned of a handful of cases in women – possibly indicating that the outbreak may be widening.

Researchers are keeping close tabs on the proportion of cases in women to “assess whether the outbreak is moving away” from networks of men who have sex with men, where most of the initial cases have been identified, according to a briefing from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

“There is insufficient evidence to support a change in the transmission dynamics,” the agency said. “However, over the last few weeks the proportion of female cases has been increasing, so this trend needs to be monitored closely.”

A global collaboration of researchers and clinicians recently described 528 cases of monkeypox in 16 countries – but none were in women.

Since data collection for that study ended in June, the research group has confirmed cases in women, said study coauthor John P. Thornhill, MD, PhD, consultant physician in sexual health and HIV and clinical senior lecturer at Barts Health NHS Trust and Queen Mary University of London.

“Cases in women have certainly been reported but are currently far less common,” Dr. Thornhill told this news organization.

Although infections in women have been outliers during the current outbreak, they can be severe when they do occur. Several women in England have been hospitalized with severe symptoms.

A similar pattern has been seen in New York City, where just one woman is among the 639 total cases, according to a July 21 report from the city’s health agency.

Researchers have recently published guidance on monkeypox for ob.gyns., maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists, and people who are pregnant or breastfeeding in anticipation of the possibility of more cases in women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises that “pregnant, recently pregnant, and breastfeeding people should be prioritized for medical treatment” of monkeypox if needed. 

One monkeypox vaccine, Jynneos, can be offered to people who are pregnant or breastfeeding and are otherwise eligible for vaccination on the basis of confirmed or likely contact with cases, ideally within 4 days of exposure. Some people at high risk for exposure, such as laboratory workers, may receive the vaccine preemptively.

Another vaccine, ACAM2000, is contraindicated in people who are pregnant or breastfeeding, according to the CDC.
 

Transmission dynamics

Investigators have not yet identified substantial spread of monkeypox beyond men who have sex with men, although transmission among household contacts, including women and children, has been reported.

Most initial infections during the current outbreak occurred during sexual activity. But monkeypox can spread through any close contact with skin lesions or body fluids and possibly through touching contaminated items like clothing or linens, according to the CDC. It also may spread from mother to child in utero.

Infected pets have been known to spread the disease as well. A multistate monkeypox outbreak in the United States in 2003 was linked to pet prairie dogs, including in childcare and school settings. That year, 55% of the 71 cases occurred in female patients.
 

More testing, higher positivity rates in men

Since May, more men than women in the United Kingdom have undergone testing for monkeypox, with 3,467 tests in men versus 447 tests in women. Among those tested, the positivity rate has been far higher in men than in women, 54% versus 2.2%, respectively.

As of July 20, about 0.65% of U.K. cases with known gender were in women. Two weeks prior, about 0.4% were in women.

In all, 13 monkeypox cases in England have been in women, and four had severe manifestations that required hospitalization, according to the UKHSA.

Globally, more than 16,000 monkeypox cases have been reported, according to the World Health Organization. The agency said that it plans to rename the disease to reduce stigma.
 

Monkeypox and pregnancy

Ob.gyns. are often on the “front line in terms of identifying people with infectious diseases,” said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Jamieson coauthored “A Primer on Monkeypox Virus for Obstetrician-Gynecologists,” published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“Obstetricians need to be aware of what infectious diseases are circulating and be aware of what is going on in the community,” she said.

With monkeypox, “it is anybody’s guess as to how widespread this is going to be,” Dr. Jamieson said.

“The initial monkeypox cases in the current outbreak have been predominately but not exclusively among men who have sex with men; enhanced transmission in this group may be facilitated by sexual activity and spread through complex sexual networks,” Dr. Thornhill said. “As the outbreak continues, we will likely see more monkeypox infections” outside that group.

“Those working in sexual health should have a high index of suspicion in all individuals presenting with genital and oral ulcers and those with proctitis,” he added.

During previous monkeypox outbreaks, the chain of household transmissions has been short, typically two or three people, said Chloe M. Orkin, MD, professor of HIV medicine at Queen Mary University of London. Dr. Orkin directs the Sexual Health and HIV All East Research (SHARE) Collaborative, which has worked to compile the international case series.

Though monkeypox has mainly been transmitted among men who have sex with men, not all identify as gay and some may also have female and nonbinary partners, Dr. Orkin said.

“Clinicians should bear this in mind when examining any person,” she said.

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

As cases of monkeypox continue to mount in the United States and abroad, infectious disease experts are closely monitoring one group of people in particular: women.

So far, the overwhelming majority of cases of the viral disease have been reported in men who have sex with men. But in recent days, officials have learned of a handful of cases in women – possibly indicating that the outbreak may be widening.

Researchers are keeping close tabs on the proportion of cases in women to “assess whether the outbreak is moving away” from networks of men who have sex with men, where most of the initial cases have been identified, according to a briefing from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

“There is insufficient evidence to support a change in the transmission dynamics,” the agency said. “However, over the last few weeks the proportion of female cases has been increasing, so this trend needs to be monitored closely.”

A global collaboration of researchers and clinicians recently described 528 cases of monkeypox in 16 countries – but none were in women.

Since data collection for that study ended in June, the research group has confirmed cases in women, said study coauthor John P. Thornhill, MD, PhD, consultant physician in sexual health and HIV and clinical senior lecturer at Barts Health NHS Trust and Queen Mary University of London.

“Cases in women have certainly been reported but are currently far less common,” Dr. Thornhill told this news organization.

Although infections in women have been outliers during the current outbreak, they can be severe when they do occur. Several women in England have been hospitalized with severe symptoms.

A similar pattern has been seen in New York City, where just one woman is among the 639 total cases, according to a July 21 report from the city’s health agency.

Researchers have recently published guidance on monkeypox for ob.gyns., maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists, and people who are pregnant or breastfeeding in anticipation of the possibility of more cases in women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises that “pregnant, recently pregnant, and breastfeeding people should be prioritized for medical treatment” of monkeypox if needed. 

One monkeypox vaccine, Jynneos, can be offered to people who are pregnant or breastfeeding and are otherwise eligible for vaccination on the basis of confirmed or likely contact with cases, ideally within 4 days of exposure. Some people at high risk for exposure, such as laboratory workers, may receive the vaccine preemptively.

Another vaccine, ACAM2000, is contraindicated in people who are pregnant or breastfeeding, according to the CDC.
 

Transmission dynamics

Investigators have not yet identified substantial spread of monkeypox beyond men who have sex with men, although transmission among household contacts, including women and children, has been reported.

Most initial infections during the current outbreak occurred during sexual activity. But monkeypox can spread through any close contact with skin lesions or body fluids and possibly through touching contaminated items like clothing or linens, according to the CDC. It also may spread from mother to child in utero.

Infected pets have been known to spread the disease as well. A multistate monkeypox outbreak in the United States in 2003 was linked to pet prairie dogs, including in childcare and school settings. That year, 55% of the 71 cases occurred in female patients.
 

More testing, higher positivity rates in men

Since May, more men than women in the United Kingdom have undergone testing for monkeypox, with 3,467 tests in men versus 447 tests in women. Among those tested, the positivity rate has been far higher in men than in women, 54% versus 2.2%, respectively.

As of July 20, about 0.65% of U.K. cases with known gender were in women. Two weeks prior, about 0.4% were in women.

In all, 13 monkeypox cases in England have been in women, and four had severe manifestations that required hospitalization, according to the UKHSA.

Globally, more than 16,000 monkeypox cases have been reported, according to the World Health Organization. The agency said that it plans to rename the disease to reduce stigma.
 

Monkeypox and pregnancy

Ob.gyns. are often on the “front line in terms of identifying people with infectious diseases,” said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Jamieson coauthored “A Primer on Monkeypox Virus for Obstetrician-Gynecologists,” published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“Obstetricians need to be aware of what infectious diseases are circulating and be aware of what is going on in the community,” she said.

With monkeypox, “it is anybody’s guess as to how widespread this is going to be,” Dr. Jamieson said.

“The initial monkeypox cases in the current outbreak have been predominately but not exclusively among men who have sex with men; enhanced transmission in this group may be facilitated by sexual activity and spread through complex sexual networks,” Dr. Thornhill said. “As the outbreak continues, we will likely see more monkeypox infections” outside that group.

“Those working in sexual health should have a high index of suspicion in all individuals presenting with genital and oral ulcers and those with proctitis,” he added.

During previous monkeypox outbreaks, the chain of household transmissions has been short, typically two or three people, said Chloe M. Orkin, MD, professor of HIV medicine at Queen Mary University of London. Dr. Orkin directs the Sexual Health and HIV All East Research (SHARE) Collaborative, which has worked to compile the international case series.

Though monkeypox has mainly been transmitted among men who have sex with men, not all identify as gay and some may also have female and nonbinary partners, Dr. Orkin said.

“Clinicians should bear this in mind when examining any person,” she said.

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

As cases of monkeypox continue to mount in the United States and abroad, infectious disease experts are closely monitoring one group of people in particular: women.

So far, the overwhelming majority of cases of the viral disease have been reported in men who have sex with men. But in recent days, officials have learned of a handful of cases in women – possibly indicating that the outbreak may be widening.

Researchers are keeping close tabs on the proportion of cases in women to “assess whether the outbreak is moving away” from networks of men who have sex with men, where most of the initial cases have been identified, according to a briefing from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

“There is insufficient evidence to support a change in the transmission dynamics,” the agency said. “However, over the last few weeks the proportion of female cases has been increasing, so this trend needs to be monitored closely.”

A global collaboration of researchers and clinicians recently described 528 cases of monkeypox in 16 countries – but none were in women.

Since data collection for that study ended in June, the research group has confirmed cases in women, said study coauthor John P. Thornhill, MD, PhD, consultant physician in sexual health and HIV and clinical senior lecturer at Barts Health NHS Trust and Queen Mary University of London.

“Cases in women have certainly been reported but are currently far less common,” Dr. Thornhill told this news organization.

Although infections in women have been outliers during the current outbreak, they can be severe when they do occur. Several women in England have been hospitalized with severe symptoms.

A similar pattern has been seen in New York City, where just one woman is among the 639 total cases, according to a July 21 report from the city’s health agency.

Researchers have recently published guidance on monkeypox for ob.gyns., maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists, and people who are pregnant or breastfeeding in anticipation of the possibility of more cases in women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises that “pregnant, recently pregnant, and breastfeeding people should be prioritized for medical treatment” of monkeypox if needed. 

One monkeypox vaccine, Jynneos, can be offered to people who are pregnant or breastfeeding and are otherwise eligible for vaccination on the basis of confirmed or likely contact with cases, ideally within 4 days of exposure. Some people at high risk for exposure, such as laboratory workers, may receive the vaccine preemptively.

Another vaccine, ACAM2000, is contraindicated in people who are pregnant or breastfeeding, according to the CDC.
 

Transmission dynamics

Investigators have not yet identified substantial spread of monkeypox beyond men who have sex with men, although transmission among household contacts, including women and children, has been reported.

Most initial infections during the current outbreak occurred during sexual activity. But monkeypox can spread through any close contact with skin lesions or body fluids and possibly through touching contaminated items like clothing or linens, according to the CDC. It also may spread from mother to child in utero.

Infected pets have been known to spread the disease as well. A multistate monkeypox outbreak in the United States in 2003 was linked to pet prairie dogs, including in childcare and school settings. That year, 55% of the 71 cases occurred in female patients.
 

More testing, higher positivity rates in men

Since May, more men than women in the United Kingdom have undergone testing for monkeypox, with 3,467 tests in men versus 447 tests in women. Among those tested, the positivity rate has been far higher in men than in women, 54% versus 2.2%, respectively.

As of July 20, about 0.65% of U.K. cases with known gender were in women. Two weeks prior, about 0.4% were in women.

In all, 13 monkeypox cases in England have been in women, and four had severe manifestations that required hospitalization, according to the UKHSA.

Globally, more than 16,000 monkeypox cases have been reported, according to the World Health Organization. The agency said that it plans to rename the disease to reduce stigma.
 

Monkeypox and pregnancy

Ob.gyns. are often on the “front line in terms of identifying people with infectious diseases,” said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Jamieson coauthored “A Primer on Monkeypox Virus for Obstetrician-Gynecologists,” published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“Obstetricians need to be aware of what infectious diseases are circulating and be aware of what is going on in the community,” she said.

With monkeypox, “it is anybody’s guess as to how widespread this is going to be,” Dr. Jamieson said.

“The initial monkeypox cases in the current outbreak have been predominately but not exclusively among men who have sex with men; enhanced transmission in this group may be facilitated by sexual activity and spread through complex sexual networks,” Dr. Thornhill said. “As the outbreak continues, we will likely see more monkeypox infections” outside that group.

“Those working in sexual health should have a high index of suspicion in all individuals presenting with genital and oral ulcers and those with proctitis,” he added.

During previous monkeypox outbreaks, the chain of household transmissions has been short, typically two or three people, said Chloe M. Orkin, MD, professor of HIV medicine at Queen Mary University of London. Dr. Orkin directs the Sexual Health and HIV All East Research (SHARE) Collaborative, which has worked to compile the international case series.

Though monkeypox has mainly been transmitted among men who have sex with men, not all identify as gay and some may also have female and nonbinary partners, Dr. Orkin said.

“Clinicians should bear this in mind when examining any person,” she said.

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

It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.

The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.

The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.

Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.

“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.

“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.

And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.

Dr. Shatsky is not alone. Oncologists face difficult decisions every day, and many wrestle with these choices long after their day in the clinic is over.

“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”

The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.

Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.

“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
 

What am I missing?

Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.

But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?

For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.

“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”

That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.

Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.

“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.

For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.

“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”

That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.

Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.

Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.

“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.

Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.

“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.

Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”

However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer. 

“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
 

The difficult conversation

Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”

It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.

“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.

For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.

“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”

When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.

“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”

The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.

Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.

“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”

He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.

In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
 

Life outside the clinic

Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.

Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.

“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.

The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.

“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.

This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?

“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
 

The inevitable losses and the wins

For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.

Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”

For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.

“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.

That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”

Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.

When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.

And there’s a delicate balance.

“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”

What would you do if you had terminal cancer?

Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.

Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.

That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”

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

It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.

The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.

The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.

Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.

“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.

“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.

And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.

Dr. Shatsky is not alone. Oncologists face difficult decisions every day, and many wrestle with these choices long after their day in the clinic is over.

“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”

The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.

Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.

“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
 

What am I missing?

Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.

But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?

For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.

“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”

That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.

Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.

“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.

For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.

“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”

That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.

Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.

Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.

“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.

Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.

“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.

Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”

However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer. 

“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
 

The difficult conversation

Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”

It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.

“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.

For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.

“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”

When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.

“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”

The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.

Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.

“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”

He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.

In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
 

Life outside the clinic

Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.

Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.

“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.

The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.

“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.

This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?

“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
 

The inevitable losses and the wins

For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.

Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”

For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.

“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.

That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”

Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.

When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.

And there’s a delicate balance.

“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”

What would you do if you had terminal cancer?

Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.

Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.

That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”

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

It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.

The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.

The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.

Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.

“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.

“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.

And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.

Dr. Shatsky is not alone. Oncologists face difficult decisions every day, and many wrestle with these choices long after their day in the clinic is over.

“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”

The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.

Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.

“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
 

What am I missing?

Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.

But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?

For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.

“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”

That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.

Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.

“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.

For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.

“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”

That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.

Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.

Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.

“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.

Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.

“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.

Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”

However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer. 

“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
 

The difficult conversation

Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”

It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.

“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.

For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.

“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”

When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.

“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”

The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.

Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.

“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”

He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.

In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
 

Life outside the clinic

Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.

Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.

“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.

The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.

“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.

This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?

“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
 

The inevitable losses and the wins

For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.

Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”

For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.

“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.

That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”

Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.

When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.

And there’s a delicate balance.

“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”

What would you do if you had terminal cancer?

Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.

Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.

That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”

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

Women with well-controlled rheumatoid arthritis who used a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor during pregnancy gave birth to infants with higher birth weight than did other patients, without an increased risk of adverse outcomes, according to findings from a Dutch prospective cohort study published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The study involved 188 patients drawn from the ongoing Preconceptional Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, which followed patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases before and during pregnancy. Women enrolled in PreCARA were closely monitored and treated with a therapeutic approach that aimed to achieve minimal disease activity, which included the use of TNF inhibitors.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

Much research on TNF inhibitors during pregnancy has been limited to the first trimester and focused primarily on congenital malformations. In addition, most previous studies evaluating TNF inhibitors during pregnancy involved patients with different underlying diseases, making it difficult to interpret the results.

Hieronymus T. W. Smeele, MD, and colleagues at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, evaluated participants every 3 months before pregnancy; then again in the first, second, and third trimesters; and at 6, 12, and 26 weeks post partum. At these visits, in addition to undergoing an examination of their joints, patients completed questionnaires and gave blood samples. Disease activity was determined using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. Twin births and diagnoses other than RA were excluded.
 

Bigger babies

The study found that use of TNF inhibitors during pregnancy (n = 92 women) did not increase the risk of birth defects or emergency cesarean sections. While RA is typically associated with small-for-gestational-age (SGA) birth weights, TNF inhibitors were associated with a significant increase in birth weight and fewer infants born SGA, even when the comparison was adjusted for confounders, such as disease activity. At the same time, TNF inhibitors were not associated with high birth weight or with infants who were large for gestational age (LGA).

The results showed that the effects were greatest when TNF inhibitors were used in the third trimester. However, teasing out the effects based on trimester is difficult because participants who used TNF inhibitors during the third trimester were likely to use them in the first and second trimester as well. The study’s authors pointed out that these results need to be replicated.

“The immune system is not only important in the pathogenesis of RA,” the study’s authors wrote, “but also for ensuring and maintaining a normal pregnancy.” They pointed out that many adverse outcomes of pregnancy that are thought to arise from inadequate development of the placenta, such as intrauterine growth restriction, SGA, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, can involve an increase in proinflammatory cytokines, such as TNF. “It is tempting to speculate that treatment with [TNF inhibitors] during pregnancy promotes placentation and thereby fetal growth and birth weight by changing the balance between proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines and by increasing the number and function of [regulatory T cells].” They also hypothesize that treatment with TNF inhibitors induces epigenetic changes in the fetus, which positively influence fetal growth. 
 

Welcomed data

This is a well-done, interesting study that will add to the still-slim body of research on pregnancy in rheumatic diseases, Kevin Byram, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology and immunology and associate director of the rheumatology training program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

“Historically, pregnant women have been excluded from clinical trials, not just in rheumatoid arthritis, but in other rheumatic diseases, so we don’t have a lot of great data,” he said, adding that the more interesting part of the study was that it showed there was no increased risk of adverse outcomes. “I’m not sure what to make of the increased birth weight. It will be interesting to see if the hypothesis that there might be a role for this molecule in preventing low birth weight goes anywhere.”

The work was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation. PreCARA is an investigator-initiated study that was financially supported by UCB. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

Women with well-controlled rheumatoid arthritis who used a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor during pregnancy gave birth to infants with higher birth weight than did other patients, without an increased risk of adverse outcomes, according to findings from a Dutch prospective cohort study published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The study involved 188 patients drawn from the ongoing Preconceptional Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, which followed patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases before and during pregnancy. Women enrolled in PreCARA were closely monitored and treated with a therapeutic approach that aimed to achieve minimal disease activity, which included the use of TNF inhibitors.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

Much research on TNF inhibitors during pregnancy has been limited to the first trimester and focused primarily on congenital malformations. In addition, most previous studies evaluating TNF inhibitors during pregnancy involved patients with different underlying diseases, making it difficult to interpret the results.

Hieronymus T. W. Smeele, MD, and colleagues at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, evaluated participants every 3 months before pregnancy; then again in the first, second, and third trimesters; and at 6, 12, and 26 weeks post partum. At these visits, in addition to undergoing an examination of their joints, patients completed questionnaires and gave blood samples. Disease activity was determined using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. Twin births and diagnoses other than RA were excluded.
 

Bigger babies

The study found that use of TNF inhibitors during pregnancy (n = 92 women) did not increase the risk of birth defects or emergency cesarean sections. While RA is typically associated with small-for-gestational-age (SGA) birth weights, TNF inhibitors were associated with a significant increase in birth weight and fewer infants born SGA, even when the comparison was adjusted for confounders, such as disease activity. At the same time, TNF inhibitors were not associated with high birth weight or with infants who were large for gestational age (LGA).

The results showed that the effects were greatest when TNF inhibitors were used in the third trimester. However, teasing out the effects based on trimester is difficult because participants who used TNF inhibitors during the third trimester were likely to use them in the first and second trimester as well. The study’s authors pointed out that these results need to be replicated.

“The immune system is not only important in the pathogenesis of RA,” the study’s authors wrote, “but also for ensuring and maintaining a normal pregnancy.” They pointed out that many adverse outcomes of pregnancy that are thought to arise from inadequate development of the placenta, such as intrauterine growth restriction, SGA, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, can involve an increase in proinflammatory cytokines, such as TNF. “It is tempting to speculate that treatment with [TNF inhibitors] during pregnancy promotes placentation and thereby fetal growth and birth weight by changing the balance between proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines and by increasing the number and function of [regulatory T cells].” They also hypothesize that treatment with TNF inhibitors induces epigenetic changes in the fetus, which positively influence fetal growth. 
 

Welcomed data

This is a well-done, interesting study that will add to the still-slim body of research on pregnancy in rheumatic diseases, Kevin Byram, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology and immunology and associate director of the rheumatology training program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

“Historically, pregnant women have been excluded from clinical trials, not just in rheumatoid arthritis, but in other rheumatic diseases, so we don’t have a lot of great data,” he said, adding that the more interesting part of the study was that it showed there was no increased risk of adverse outcomes. “I’m not sure what to make of the increased birth weight. It will be interesting to see if the hypothesis that there might be a role for this molecule in preventing low birth weight goes anywhere.”

The work was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation. PreCARA is an investigator-initiated study that was financially supported by UCB. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

Women with well-controlled rheumatoid arthritis who used a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor during pregnancy gave birth to infants with higher birth weight than did other patients, without an increased risk of adverse outcomes, according to findings from a Dutch prospective cohort study published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The study involved 188 patients drawn from the ongoing Preconceptional Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, which followed patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases before and during pregnancy. Women enrolled in PreCARA were closely monitored and treated with a therapeutic approach that aimed to achieve minimal disease activity, which included the use of TNF inhibitors.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

Much research on TNF inhibitors during pregnancy has been limited to the first trimester and focused primarily on congenital malformations. In addition, most previous studies evaluating TNF inhibitors during pregnancy involved patients with different underlying diseases, making it difficult to interpret the results.

Hieronymus T. W. Smeele, MD, and colleagues at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, evaluated participants every 3 months before pregnancy; then again in the first, second, and third trimesters; and at 6, 12, and 26 weeks post partum. At these visits, in addition to undergoing an examination of their joints, patients completed questionnaires and gave blood samples. Disease activity was determined using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. Twin births and diagnoses other than RA were excluded.
 

Bigger babies

The study found that use of TNF inhibitors during pregnancy (n = 92 women) did not increase the risk of birth defects or emergency cesarean sections. While RA is typically associated with small-for-gestational-age (SGA) birth weights, TNF inhibitors were associated with a significant increase in birth weight and fewer infants born SGA, even when the comparison was adjusted for confounders, such as disease activity. At the same time, TNF inhibitors were not associated with high birth weight or with infants who were large for gestational age (LGA).

The results showed that the effects were greatest when TNF inhibitors were used in the third trimester. However, teasing out the effects based on trimester is difficult because participants who used TNF inhibitors during the third trimester were likely to use them in the first and second trimester as well. The study’s authors pointed out that these results need to be replicated.

“The immune system is not only important in the pathogenesis of RA,” the study’s authors wrote, “but also for ensuring and maintaining a normal pregnancy.” They pointed out that many adverse outcomes of pregnancy that are thought to arise from inadequate development of the placenta, such as intrauterine growth restriction, SGA, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, can involve an increase in proinflammatory cytokines, such as TNF. “It is tempting to speculate that treatment with [TNF inhibitors] during pregnancy promotes placentation and thereby fetal growth and birth weight by changing the balance between proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines and by increasing the number and function of [regulatory T cells].” They also hypothesize that treatment with TNF inhibitors induces epigenetic changes in the fetus, which positively influence fetal growth. 
 

Welcomed data

This is a well-done, interesting study that will add to the still-slim body of research on pregnancy in rheumatic diseases, Kevin Byram, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology and immunology and associate director of the rheumatology training program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

“Historically, pregnant women have been excluded from clinical trials, not just in rheumatoid arthritis, but in other rheumatic diseases, so we don’t have a lot of great data,” he said, adding that the more interesting part of the study was that it showed there was no increased risk of adverse outcomes. “I’m not sure what to make of the increased birth weight. It will be interesting to see if the hypothesis that there might be a role for this molecule in preventing low birth weight goes anywhere.”

The work was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation. PreCARA is an investigator-initiated study that was financially supported by UCB. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis have a higher fracture rate and a higher post-fracture mortality rate, compared with the general population, according to a large new study from Sweden.

Alcohol-related cirrhosis was associated with an almost fourfold increased fracture rate, and the post-fracture mortality rates were higher at both 30 days and 1 year later.

“Half of all fractures were presumably associated with osteoporosis,” write the study authors, who are gastroenterologists and epidemiologists at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. “This suggests that existing pharmacotherapy for osteoporosis may reduce the fracture risk in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and possibly also reduce mortality rates.”

But, the authors continue, “our data indicate that osteoporosis may not be the only explanatory factor for this increased fracture risk. Removing modifiable risk factors such as smoking, heavy alcohol use, or malnutrition may further reduce the risk of fractures.”

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing risks

The association between liver cirrhosis and fractures appears strongest in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis, the most common cause of cirrhosis in many countries, including Sweden, the authors write.

Previous studies have examined mostly relative risk or hip fractures. The authors aimed to determine not only the relative risk but also the absolute risk, which “can better inform clinicians and policymakers of the actual size of the problem,” they write.

In a nationwide population-based cohort study, they analyzed data from the Swedish National Patient Registry between 1969 and 2016, which included 25,090 patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis. Patients were matched for sex, age, and municipality with 239,458 controls from the Swedish Total Population Registry. They calculated the cumulative incidence of fractures and accounted for competing risks, such as death or liver transportation.

Overall, 48,635 fractures occurred during 3.4 million person-years of follow-up, including 3,659 (14.6%) among patients and 44,976 (18.8%) among controls.

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 3.8-times higher fracture rate, with 38.7 fractures per 1,000 person-years, compared with 13.3 in controls. Alcohol-related cirrhosis was also associated with a 1.9-times higher fracture rate than nonalcoholic cirrhosis and a 1.3-times higher fracture rate than noncirrhotic alcohol-related liver disease.

The cumulative incidence of fractures was elevated for patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis in the first 19 years of follow-up, with a 5-year risk at nearly 10%, compared with 4.5% for controls, and a 10-year risk of 13.5%, compared with 8.7% for controls.

Among those with a fracture, the median time to death was 2.8 years in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and 3.5 years in controls.

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 1.6-times higher post-fracture mortality rate at 30 days, as well as a 1.8-times higher post-fracture mortality rate after one year.

“Falls and fractures kill patients with cirrhosis. Data like these are crucial to spread awareness and represent a call to arms,” Elliot Tapper, MD, an assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

Dr. Tapper, who wasn’t involved with this study, researches the health outcomes of patients with cirrhosis. His previous studies have found that falls, injuries, and death are common in patients with cirrhosis, which could be predicted with an algorithm based on a prior history of falls, blood sodium level, mobility, and quality of life.

“The data emphasize that a fall and fracture herald a time of increased risk,” he said. “Research is needed to develop interventions that prevent falls and help patients remain more resilient when they happen.”
 

Promoting bone health

Osteoporosis was the most common presumed mechanism in both patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis (49.4%) and controls (52.2%), while high-energy trauma from motor vehicle crashes or heights preceded 10.9% of fractures in patients and 13.5% in controls.

The Karolinska Institute study found that patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 4.4-times higher rate of osteoporotic fracture than controls, which remained 3.6-times higher when using a stricter definition of osteoporotic fracture (a diagnosis of osteoporosis before, at, or within 3 months from the date of a fracture of the vertebrae, pelvis, proximal humerus, distal forearm, or hip).

Patients with osteoporosis at baseline had a 2.5-times higher incidence of fractures than controls with baseline osteoporosis. The absolute risk of fractures in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and osteoporosis was higher than for controls with osteoporosis during the first 3 years after a cirrhosis diagnosis.

In addition, the post-fracture mortality rate in those with osteoporosis was more than double in patients with cirrhosis in the first 30 days after a fracture and more than tripled after one year.

“Bone health isn’t necessarily prioritized for our patients, even though it is linked to higher mortality and disability,” Arpan Patel, MD, PhD, a hepatologist at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center and assistant professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Dr. Patel, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the associations between osteoporotic fracture risk, hospitalization, and death in patients with cirrhosis.

“Current guidelines support assessing post-liver transplant patients for bone density but do not currently advocate for doing so in patients with cirrhosis or alcohol-associated liver disease, who are a much larger at-risk population,” Dr. Patel said.

“The current paper supports the idea that we should consider the broad ramifications of alcohol use on bone health for our patients and suggests that there should be greater efforts to screen for and manage osteoporosis and osteopenia in our patients earlier,” he added.

The researchers were supported by grants from Region Stockholm and the Syskonen Svensson Foundation, though the funders had no role in the conduct of the study. The study authors reported no other disclosures or conflicts of interest. Dr. Tapper and Dr. Patel report no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis have a higher fracture rate and a higher post-fracture mortality rate, compared with the general population, according to a large new study from Sweden.

Alcohol-related cirrhosis was associated with an almost fourfold increased fracture rate, and the post-fracture mortality rates were higher at both 30 days and 1 year later.

“Half of all fractures were presumably associated with osteoporosis,” write the study authors, who are gastroenterologists and epidemiologists at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. “This suggests that existing pharmacotherapy for osteoporosis may reduce the fracture risk in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and possibly also reduce mortality rates.”

But, the authors continue, “our data indicate that osteoporosis may not be the only explanatory factor for this increased fracture risk. Removing modifiable risk factors such as smoking, heavy alcohol use, or malnutrition may further reduce the risk of fractures.”

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing risks

The association between liver cirrhosis and fractures appears strongest in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis, the most common cause of cirrhosis in many countries, including Sweden, the authors write.

Previous studies have examined mostly relative risk or hip fractures. The authors aimed to determine not only the relative risk but also the absolute risk, which “can better inform clinicians and policymakers of the actual size of the problem,” they write.

In a nationwide population-based cohort study, they analyzed data from the Swedish National Patient Registry between 1969 and 2016, which included 25,090 patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis. Patients were matched for sex, age, and municipality with 239,458 controls from the Swedish Total Population Registry. They calculated the cumulative incidence of fractures and accounted for competing risks, such as death or liver transportation.

Overall, 48,635 fractures occurred during 3.4 million person-years of follow-up, including 3,659 (14.6%) among patients and 44,976 (18.8%) among controls.

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 3.8-times higher fracture rate, with 38.7 fractures per 1,000 person-years, compared with 13.3 in controls. Alcohol-related cirrhosis was also associated with a 1.9-times higher fracture rate than nonalcoholic cirrhosis and a 1.3-times higher fracture rate than noncirrhotic alcohol-related liver disease.

The cumulative incidence of fractures was elevated for patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis in the first 19 years of follow-up, with a 5-year risk at nearly 10%, compared with 4.5% for controls, and a 10-year risk of 13.5%, compared with 8.7% for controls.

Among those with a fracture, the median time to death was 2.8 years in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and 3.5 years in controls.

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 1.6-times higher post-fracture mortality rate at 30 days, as well as a 1.8-times higher post-fracture mortality rate after one year.

“Falls and fractures kill patients with cirrhosis. Data like these are crucial to spread awareness and represent a call to arms,” Elliot Tapper, MD, an assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

Dr. Tapper, who wasn’t involved with this study, researches the health outcomes of patients with cirrhosis. His previous studies have found that falls, injuries, and death are common in patients with cirrhosis, which could be predicted with an algorithm based on a prior history of falls, blood sodium level, mobility, and quality of life.

“The data emphasize that a fall and fracture herald a time of increased risk,” he said. “Research is needed to develop interventions that prevent falls and help patients remain more resilient when they happen.”
 

Promoting bone health

Osteoporosis was the most common presumed mechanism in both patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis (49.4%) and controls (52.2%), while high-energy trauma from motor vehicle crashes or heights preceded 10.9% of fractures in patients and 13.5% in controls.

The Karolinska Institute study found that patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 4.4-times higher rate of osteoporotic fracture than controls, which remained 3.6-times higher when using a stricter definition of osteoporotic fracture (a diagnosis of osteoporosis before, at, or within 3 months from the date of a fracture of the vertebrae, pelvis, proximal humerus, distal forearm, or hip).

Patients with osteoporosis at baseline had a 2.5-times higher incidence of fractures than controls with baseline osteoporosis. The absolute risk of fractures in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and osteoporosis was higher than for controls with osteoporosis during the first 3 years after a cirrhosis diagnosis.

In addition, the post-fracture mortality rate in those with osteoporosis was more than double in patients with cirrhosis in the first 30 days after a fracture and more than tripled after one year.

“Bone health isn’t necessarily prioritized for our patients, even though it is linked to higher mortality and disability,” Arpan Patel, MD, PhD, a hepatologist at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center and assistant professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Dr. Patel, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the associations between osteoporotic fracture risk, hospitalization, and death in patients with cirrhosis.

“Current guidelines support assessing post-liver transplant patients for bone density but do not currently advocate for doing so in patients with cirrhosis or alcohol-associated liver disease, who are a much larger at-risk population,” Dr. Patel said.

“The current paper supports the idea that we should consider the broad ramifications of alcohol use on bone health for our patients and suggests that there should be greater efforts to screen for and manage osteoporosis and osteopenia in our patients earlier,” he added.

The researchers were supported by grants from Region Stockholm and the Syskonen Svensson Foundation, though the funders had no role in the conduct of the study. The study authors reported no other disclosures or conflicts of interest. Dr. Tapper and Dr. Patel report no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis have a higher fracture rate and a higher post-fracture mortality rate, compared with the general population, according to a large new study from Sweden.

Alcohol-related cirrhosis was associated with an almost fourfold increased fracture rate, and the post-fracture mortality rates were higher at both 30 days and 1 year later.

“Half of all fractures were presumably associated with osteoporosis,” write the study authors, who are gastroenterologists and epidemiologists at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. “This suggests that existing pharmacotherapy for osteoporosis may reduce the fracture risk in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and possibly also reduce mortality rates.”

But, the authors continue, “our data indicate that osteoporosis may not be the only explanatory factor for this increased fracture risk. Removing modifiable risk factors such as smoking, heavy alcohol use, or malnutrition may further reduce the risk of fractures.”

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing risks

The association between liver cirrhosis and fractures appears strongest in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis, the most common cause of cirrhosis in many countries, including Sweden, the authors write.

Previous studies have examined mostly relative risk or hip fractures. The authors aimed to determine not only the relative risk but also the absolute risk, which “can better inform clinicians and policymakers of the actual size of the problem,” they write.

In a nationwide population-based cohort study, they analyzed data from the Swedish National Patient Registry between 1969 and 2016, which included 25,090 patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis. Patients were matched for sex, age, and municipality with 239,458 controls from the Swedish Total Population Registry. They calculated the cumulative incidence of fractures and accounted for competing risks, such as death or liver transportation.

Overall, 48,635 fractures occurred during 3.4 million person-years of follow-up, including 3,659 (14.6%) among patients and 44,976 (18.8%) among controls.

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 3.8-times higher fracture rate, with 38.7 fractures per 1,000 person-years, compared with 13.3 in controls. Alcohol-related cirrhosis was also associated with a 1.9-times higher fracture rate than nonalcoholic cirrhosis and a 1.3-times higher fracture rate than noncirrhotic alcohol-related liver disease.

The cumulative incidence of fractures was elevated for patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis in the first 19 years of follow-up, with a 5-year risk at nearly 10%, compared with 4.5% for controls, and a 10-year risk of 13.5%, compared with 8.7% for controls.

Among those with a fracture, the median time to death was 2.8 years in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and 3.5 years in controls.

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 1.6-times higher post-fracture mortality rate at 30 days, as well as a 1.8-times higher post-fracture mortality rate after one year.

“Falls and fractures kill patients with cirrhosis. Data like these are crucial to spread awareness and represent a call to arms,” Elliot Tapper, MD, an assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

Dr. Tapper, who wasn’t involved with this study, researches the health outcomes of patients with cirrhosis. His previous studies have found that falls, injuries, and death are common in patients with cirrhosis, which could be predicted with an algorithm based on a prior history of falls, blood sodium level, mobility, and quality of life.

“The data emphasize that a fall and fracture herald a time of increased risk,” he said. “Research is needed to develop interventions that prevent falls and help patients remain more resilient when they happen.”
 

Promoting bone health

Osteoporosis was the most common presumed mechanism in both patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis (49.4%) and controls (52.2%), while high-energy trauma from motor vehicle crashes or heights preceded 10.9% of fractures in patients and 13.5% in controls.

The Karolinska Institute study found that patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 4.4-times higher rate of osteoporotic fracture than controls, which remained 3.6-times higher when using a stricter definition of osteoporotic fracture (a diagnosis of osteoporosis before, at, or within 3 months from the date of a fracture of the vertebrae, pelvis, proximal humerus, distal forearm, or hip).

Patients with osteoporosis at baseline had a 2.5-times higher incidence of fractures than controls with baseline osteoporosis. The absolute risk of fractures in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and osteoporosis was higher than for controls with osteoporosis during the first 3 years after a cirrhosis diagnosis.

In addition, the post-fracture mortality rate in those with osteoporosis was more than double in patients with cirrhosis in the first 30 days after a fracture and more than tripled after one year.

“Bone health isn’t necessarily prioritized for our patients, even though it is linked to higher mortality and disability,” Arpan Patel, MD, PhD, a hepatologist at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center and assistant professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Dr. Patel, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the associations between osteoporotic fracture risk, hospitalization, and death in patients with cirrhosis.

“Current guidelines support assessing post-liver transplant patients for bone density but do not currently advocate for doing so in patients with cirrhosis or alcohol-associated liver disease, who are a much larger at-risk population,” Dr. Patel said.

“The current paper supports the idea that we should consider the broad ramifications of alcohol use on bone health for our patients and suggests that there should be greater efforts to screen for and manage osteoporosis and osteopenia in our patients earlier,” he added.

The researchers were supported by grants from Region Stockholm and the Syskonen Svensson Foundation, though the funders had no role in the conduct of the study. The study authors reported no other disclosures or conflicts of interest. Dr. Tapper and Dr. Patel report no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Top-line results released on July 26 from the RADIANCE II trial show the Paradise ultrasound renal denervation system significantly reduces daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure, compared with a sham procedure at 2 months in patients with mild to moderate uncontrolled hypertension.

The trial was conducted in 224 patients who were previously treated with up to two medications and were randomized while off medication at more than 60 centers in 8 countries. No further details or results were provided.

The pivotal RADIANCE II trial, required for FDA approval, is the third and largest randomized, sham-controlled study following positive results reported by RADIANCE-HTN SOLO and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, ReCor Medical and its subsidiary Otsuka Medical Devices noted in the announcement.

The field of renal denervation fell out of favor after the largest trial in 535 patients, SYMPLICITY HTN-3, failed to show a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure at 6 months, compared with sham control in resistant hypertension.

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

Top-line results released on July 26 from the RADIANCE II trial show the Paradise ultrasound renal denervation system significantly reduces daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure, compared with a sham procedure at 2 months in patients with mild to moderate uncontrolled hypertension.

The trial was conducted in 224 patients who were previously treated with up to two medications and were randomized while off medication at more than 60 centers in 8 countries. No further details or results were provided.

The pivotal RADIANCE II trial, required for FDA approval, is the third and largest randomized, sham-controlled study following positive results reported by RADIANCE-HTN SOLO and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, ReCor Medical and its subsidiary Otsuka Medical Devices noted in the announcement.

The field of renal denervation fell out of favor after the largest trial in 535 patients, SYMPLICITY HTN-3, failed to show a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure at 6 months, compared with sham control in resistant hypertension.

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

Top-line results released on July 26 from the RADIANCE II trial show the Paradise ultrasound renal denervation system significantly reduces daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure, compared with a sham procedure at 2 months in patients with mild to moderate uncontrolled hypertension.

The trial was conducted in 224 patients who were previously treated with up to two medications and were randomized while off medication at more than 60 centers in 8 countries. No further details or results were provided.

The pivotal RADIANCE II trial, required for FDA approval, is the third and largest randomized, sham-controlled study following positive results reported by RADIANCE-HTN SOLO and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, ReCor Medical and its subsidiary Otsuka Medical Devices noted in the announcement.

The field of renal denervation fell out of favor after the largest trial in 535 patients, SYMPLICITY HTN-3, failed to show a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure at 6 months, compared with sham control in resistant hypertension.

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

Taking vitamin D supplements did not significantly reduce the risk of fractures among adults in midlife and older adults, compared with placebo, according to results from an ancillary study of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

The data showed that taking 2,000 IU of supplemental vitamin D each day without coadministered calcium did not have a significant effect on nonvertebral fractures (hazard ratio, 0.97; P = .50), hip fractures (HR, 1.01; P = .96), or total fractures (HR, 0.98; P = .70), compared with taking placebo, among individuals who did not have osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, or low bone mass, report Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the calcium and bone section at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and colleagues.

iStock/thinkstock

The findings were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Prior randomized, controlled trials have presented conflicting findings. Some have shown that there is some benefit to supplemental vitamin D, whereas others have shown no effect or even harm with regard to risk of fractures, Dr. LeBoff noted.

“Because of the conflicting data at the time, we tested this hypothesis in an effort to advance science and understanding of the effects of vitamin D on bone. In a previous study, we did not see an effect of supplemental vitamin D on bone density in a subcohort from the VITAL trial,” Dr. LeBoff said in an interview.

“We previously reported that vitamin D, about 2,000 units per day, did not increase bone density, nor did it affect bone structure, according to PQCT [peripheral quantitative CT]. So that was an indicator that since bone density is a surrogate marker of fractures, there may not be an effect on fractures,” she added.

These results should dispel any idea that vitamin D alone could significantly reduce fracture rates in the general population, noted Steven R. Cummings, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and Clifford Rosen, MD, of Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, in an accompanying editorial.

“Adding those findings to previous reports from VITAL and other trials showing the lack of an effect for preventing numerous conditions suggests that providers should stop screening for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels or recommending vitamin D supplements, and people should stop taking vitamin D supplements to prevent major diseases or extend life,” the editorialists wrote.

The researchers assessed 25,871 participants from all 50 states during a median follow-up time of 5.3 years. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive placebo or vitamin D.

The mean age of the participants was 67.1 years; 50.6% of the study cohort were women, and 20.2% of the cohort were Black. Participants did not have low bone mass, vitamin D deficiency, or osteoporosis.

Participants agreed not to supplement their dietary intake with more than 1,200 mg of calcium each day and no more than 800 IU of vitamin D each day.

Participants filled out detailed surveys to evaluate baseline prescription drug use, demographic factors, medical history, and the consumption of supplements, such as fish oil, calcium, and vitamin D, during the run-in stage. Yearly surveys were used to assess side effects, adherence to the investigation protocol, falls, fractures, physical activity, osteoporosis and associated risk factors, onset of major illness, and the use of nontrial prescription drugs and supplements, such as vitamin D and calcium.

The researchers adjudicated incident fracture data using a centralized medical record review. To approximate the therapeutic effect in intention-to-treat analyses, they used proportional-hazard models.

Notably, outcomes were similar for the placebo and vitamin D groups with regard to incident kidney stones and hypercalcemia.

The effect of vitamin D supplementation was not modified by baseline parameters such as race or ethnicity, sex, body mass index, age, or blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

Dr. Cummings and Dr. Rosen pointed out that these findings, along with other VITAL trial data, show that no subgroups classified on the basis of baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, including those with levels less than 20 ng/mL, benefited from vitamin supplementation.

“There is no justification for measuring 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the general population or treating to a target serum level. A 25-hydroxyvitamin D level might be a useful diagnostic test for some patients with conditions that may be due to or that may cause severe deficiency,” the editorialists noted.

Except with regard to select patients, such as individuals living in nursing homes who have limited sun exposure, the use of the terms “vitamin D deficiency” and “vitamin D “insufficiency” should now be reevaluated, Dr. Rosen and Dr. Cummings wrote.

The study’s limitations include its assessment of only one dosage of vitamin D supplementation and a lack of adjustment for multiplicity, exploratory, parent trial, or secondary endpoints, the researchers noted.

The number of participants who had vitamin D deficiency was limited, owing to ethical and feasibility concerns regarding these patients. The data are not generalizable to individuals who are older and institutionalized or those who have osteomalacia or osteoporosis, the researchers wrote.
 

Expert commentary

“The interpretation of this [study] to me is that vitamin D is not for everybody,” said Baha Arafah, MD, professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University and chief of the division of endocrinology at University Hospital, both in Cleveland, who was not involved in the study.

“This is not the final word; I would suggest that you don’t throw vitamin D at everybody. I would use markers of bone formation as a better measure to determine whether they need vitamin D or not, specifically looking at parathyroid hormone,” Dr. Arafah said in an interview.

Dr. Arafah pointed out that these data do not mean that clinicians should stop thinking about vitamin D altogether. “I think that would be the wrong message to read. If you read through the article, you will find that there are people who do need vitamin D; people who are deficient do need vitamin D. There’s no question that excessive or extreme vitamin D deficiency can lead to other things, specifically, osteomalacia, weak bones, [and] poor mineralization, so we are not totally out of the woods at this time.”

The ancillary study of the VITAL trial was sponsored by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Pharmavite donated the vitamin D 3 supplements used in the trial. Dr. LeBoff reported that she holds stock in Amgen. Cummings reported receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. Rosen is associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Arafah reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking vitamin D supplements did not significantly reduce the risk of fractures among adults in midlife and older adults, compared with placebo, according to results from an ancillary study of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

The data showed that taking 2,000 IU of supplemental vitamin D each day without coadministered calcium did not have a significant effect on nonvertebral fractures (hazard ratio, 0.97; P = .50), hip fractures (HR, 1.01; P = .96), or total fractures (HR, 0.98; P = .70), compared with taking placebo, among individuals who did not have osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, or low bone mass, report Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the calcium and bone section at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and colleagues.

iStock/thinkstock

The findings were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Prior randomized, controlled trials have presented conflicting findings. Some have shown that there is some benefit to supplemental vitamin D, whereas others have shown no effect or even harm with regard to risk of fractures, Dr. LeBoff noted.

“Because of the conflicting data at the time, we tested this hypothesis in an effort to advance science and understanding of the effects of vitamin D on bone. In a previous study, we did not see an effect of supplemental vitamin D on bone density in a subcohort from the VITAL trial,” Dr. LeBoff said in an interview.

“We previously reported that vitamin D, about 2,000 units per day, did not increase bone density, nor did it affect bone structure, according to PQCT [peripheral quantitative CT]. So that was an indicator that since bone density is a surrogate marker of fractures, there may not be an effect on fractures,” she added.

These results should dispel any idea that vitamin D alone could significantly reduce fracture rates in the general population, noted Steven R. Cummings, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and Clifford Rosen, MD, of Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, in an accompanying editorial.

“Adding those findings to previous reports from VITAL and other trials showing the lack of an effect for preventing numerous conditions suggests that providers should stop screening for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels or recommending vitamin D supplements, and people should stop taking vitamin D supplements to prevent major diseases or extend life,” the editorialists wrote.

The researchers assessed 25,871 participants from all 50 states during a median follow-up time of 5.3 years. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive placebo or vitamin D.

The mean age of the participants was 67.1 years; 50.6% of the study cohort were women, and 20.2% of the cohort were Black. Participants did not have low bone mass, vitamin D deficiency, or osteoporosis.

Participants agreed not to supplement their dietary intake with more than 1,200 mg of calcium each day and no more than 800 IU of vitamin D each day.

Participants filled out detailed surveys to evaluate baseline prescription drug use, demographic factors, medical history, and the consumption of supplements, such as fish oil, calcium, and vitamin D, during the run-in stage. Yearly surveys were used to assess side effects, adherence to the investigation protocol, falls, fractures, physical activity, osteoporosis and associated risk factors, onset of major illness, and the use of nontrial prescription drugs and supplements, such as vitamin D and calcium.

The researchers adjudicated incident fracture data using a centralized medical record review. To approximate the therapeutic effect in intention-to-treat analyses, they used proportional-hazard models.

Notably, outcomes were similar for the placebo and vitamin D groups with regard to incident kidney stones and hypercalcemia.

The effect of vitamin D supplementation was not modified by baseline parameters such as race or ethnicity, sex, body mass index, age, or blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

Dr. Cummings and Dr. Rosen pointed out that these findings, along with other VITAL trial data, show that no subgroups classified on the basis of baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, including those with levels less than 20 ng/mL, benefited from vitamin supplementation.

“There is no justification for measuring 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the general population or treating to a target serum level. A 25-hydroxyvitamin D level might be a useful diagnostic test for some patients with conditions that may be due to or that may cause severe deficiency,” the editorialists noted.

Except with regard to select patients, such as individuals living in nursing homes who have limited sun exposure, the use of the terms “vitamin D deficiency” and “vitamin D “insufficiency” should now be reevaluated, Dr. Rosen and Dr. Cummings wrote.

The study’s limitations include its assessment of only one dosage of vitamin D supplementation and a lack of adjustment for multiplicity, exploratory, parent trial, or secondary endpoints, the researchers noted.

The number of participants who had vitamin D deficiency was limited, owing to ethical and feasibility concerns regarding these patients. The data are not generalizable to individuals who are older and institutionalized or those who have osteomalacia or osteoporosis, the researchers wrote.
 

Expert commentary

“The interpretation of this [study] to me is that vitamin D is not for everybody,” said Baha Arafah, MD, professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University and chief of the division of endocrinology at University Hospital, both in Cleveland, who was not involved in the study.

“This is not the final word; I would suggest that you don’t throw vitamin D at everybody. I would use markers of bone formation as a better measure to determine whether they need vitamin D or not, specifically looking at parathyroid hormone,” Dr. Arafah said in an interview.

Dr. Arafah pointed out that these data do not mean that clinicians should stop thinking about vitamin D altogether. “I think that would be the wrong message to read. If you read through the article, you will find that there are people who do need vitamin D; people who are deficient do need vitamin D. There’s no question that excessive or extreme vitamin D deficiency can lead to other things, specifically, osteomalacia, weak bones, [and] poor mineralization, so we are not totally out of the woods at this time.”

The ancillary study of the VITAL trial was sponsored by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Pharmavite donated the vitamin D 3 supplements used in the trial. Dr. LeBoff reported that she holds stock in Amgen. Cummings reported receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. Rosen is associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Arafah reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking vitamin D supplements did not significantly reduce the risk of fractures among adults in midlife and older adults, compared with placebo, according to results from an ancillary study of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

The data showed that taking 2,000 IU of supplemental vitamin D each day without coadministered calcium did not have a significant effect on nonvertebral fractures (hazard ratio, 0.97; P = .50), hip fractures (HR, 1.01; P = .96), or total fractures (HR, 0.98; P = .70), compared with taking placebo, among individuals who did not have osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, or low bone mass, report Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the calcium and bone section at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and colleagues.

iStock/thinkstock

The findings were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Prior randomized, controlled trials have presented conflicting findings. Some have shown that there is some benefit to supplemental vitamin D, whereas others have shown no effect or even harm with regard to risk of fractures, Dr. LeBoff noted.

“Because of the conflicting data at the time, we tested this hypothesis in an effort to advance science and understanding of the effects of vitamin D on bone. In a previous study, we did not see an effect of supplemental vitamin D on bone density in a subcohort from the VITAL trial,” Dr. LeBoff said in an interview.

“We previously reported that vitamin D, about 2,000 units per day, did not increase bone density, nor did it affect bone structure, according to PQCT [peripheral quantitative CT]. So that was an indicator that since bone density is a surrogate marker of fractures, there may not be an effect on fractures,” she added.

These results should dispel any idea that vitamin D alone could significantly reduce fracture rates in the general population, noted Steven R. Cummings, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and Clifford Rosen, MD, of Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, in an accompanying editorial.

“Adding those findings to previous reports from VITAL and other trials showing the lack of an effect for preventing numerous conditions suggests that providers should stop screening for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels or recommending vitamin D supplements, and people should stop taking vitamin D supplements to prevent major diseases or extend life,” the editorialists wrote.

The researchers assessed 25,871 participants from all 50 states during a median follow-up time of 5.3 years. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive placebo or vitamin D.

The mean age of the participants was 67.1 years; 50.6% of the study cohort were women, and 20.2% of the cohort were Black. Participants did not have low bone mass, vitamin D deficiency, or osteoporosis.

Participants agreed not to supplement their dietary intake with more than 1,200 mg of calcium each day and no more than 800 IU of vitamin D each day.

Participants filled out detailed surveys to evaluate baseline prescription drug use, demographic factors, medical history, and the consumption of supplements, such as fish oil, calcium, and vitamin D, during the run-in stage. Yearly surveys were used to assess side effects, adherence to the investigation protocol, falls, fractures, physical activity, osteoporosis and associated risk factors, onset of major illness, and the use of nontrial prescription drugs and supplements, such as vitamin D and calcium.

The researchers adjudicated incident fracture data using a centralized medical record review. To approximate the therapeutic effect in intention-to-treat analyses, they used proportional-hazard models.

Notably, outcomes were similar for the placebo and vitamin D groups with regard to incident kidney stones and hypercalcemia.

The effect of vitamin D supplementation was not modified by baseline parameters such as race or ethnicity, sex, body mass index, age, or blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

Dr. Cummings and Dr. Rosen pointed out that these findings, along with other VITAL trial data, show that no subgroups classified on the basis of baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, including those with levels less than 20 ng/mL, benefited from vitamin supplementation.

“There is no justification for measuring 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the general population or treating to a target serum level. A 25-hydroxyvitamin D level might be a useful diagnostic test for some patients with conditions that may be due to or that may cause severe deficiency,” the editorialists noted.

Except with regard to select patients, such as individuals living in nursing homes who have limited sun exposure, the use of the terms “vitamin D deficiency” and “vitamin D “insufficiency” should now be reevaluated, Dr. Rosen and Dr. Cummings wrote.

The study’s limitations include its assessment of only one dosage of vitamin D supplementation and a lack of adjustment for multiplicity, exploratory, parent trial, or secondary endpoints, the researchers noted.

The number of participants who had vitamin D deficiency was limited, owing to ethical and feasibility concerns regarding these patients. The data are not generalizable to individuals who are older and institutionalized or those who have osteomalacia or osteoporosis, the researchers wrote.
 

Expert commentary

“The interpretation of this [study] to me is that vitamin D is not for everybody,” said Baha Arafah, MD, professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University and chief of the division of endocrinology at University Hospital, both in Cleveland, who was not involved in the study.

“This is not the final word; I would suggest that you don’t throw vitamin D at everybody. I would use markers of bone formation as a better measure to determine whether they need vitamin D or not, specifically looking at parathyroid hormone,” Dr. Arafah said in an interview.

Dr. Arafah pointed out that these data do not mean that clinicians should stop thinking about vitamin D altogether. “I think that would be the wrong message to read. If you read through the article, you will find that there are people who do need vitamin D; people who are deficient do need vitamin D. There’s no question that excessive or extreme vitamin D deficiency can lead to other things, specifically, osteomalacia, weak bones, [and] poor mineralization, so we are not totally out of the woods at this time.”

The ancillary study of the VITAL trial was sponsored by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Pharmavite donated the vitamin D 3 supplements used in the trial. Dr. LeBoff reported that she holds stock in Amgen. Cummings reported receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. Rosen is associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Arafah reported no relevant financial relationships.

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