Eating dinner close to bedtime when endogenous melatonin levels are high is associated with decreased insulin secretion and decreased glucose tolerance, which increase the risk of type 2 diabetes.

And people who are carriers of the G allele of the MTNR1B gene have greater impairment in glucose tolerance after eating a late dinner.

“In natural late eaters [in Spain], we simulated early and late dinner timing by administering a glucose drink and compared effects on blood sugar control over 2 hours,” said senior author Richa Saxena, PhD, a principal investigator at the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.  

The study also compared outcomes in carriers and noncarriers of the G allele variant of the melatonin receptor gene, Dr. Saxena pointed out in a press release from the hospital.

“We found that late eating disturbed blood sugar control in the whole group,” added lead author Marta Garaulet, PhD.

“This impaired glucose control was predominantly seen in genetic risk variant carriers, representing about half of the cohort,” said Dr. Garaulet, professor of physiology and nutrition, University of Murcia (Spain).

The study results “may be important in the effort toward prevention of type 2 diabetes,” according to co–senior author Frank A.J.L. Scheer, PhD.

“Our findings are applicable to about a third of the population in the industrialized world who consume food close to bedtime, as well as other populations who eat at night, including shift workers, or those experiencing jet lag or night-eating disorders, as well as those who routinely use melatonin supplements close to food intake,” said Dr. Scheer, director of the medical chronobiology program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The results suggest people should not eat within 2 hours of bedtime, said the researchers.

“Notably, our study does not include patients with diabetes, so additional studies are needed to examine the impact of food timing and its link with melatonin and receptor variation in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Scheer said.

The findings, from the MTNR1B SNP*Food Timing Interaction on Glucose Control (ONTIME-MT) randomized crossover study, were recently published in Diabetes Care.

Melatonin plays a key role in glucose metabolism

Melatonin, a hormone primarily released at night that helps control the sleep-wake cycle, typically rises around 2 hours before bedtime, the researchers explained.

The discovery of MTNR1B as a type 2 diabetes–associated gene “suggests that, beyond sleep and circadian regulation, melatonin plays a key role in glucose metabolism,” they noted. However, whether melatonin improves or impairs glucose control is controversial, and the effect of MTNR1B genotypes on glucose control is not clear.

“We decided to test if late eating that usually occurs with elevated melatonin levels results in disturbed blood sugar control,” Dr. Saxena explained.

To investigate this, researchers enrolled 845 adults in Spain who were 18-70 years old and did not have diabetes. Participants were a mean age of 38 years and 71% were women. They had a mean body mass index of 25.7 kg/m2 and 18% had obesity.

On average, they typically ate dinner at 21:38 (9:38 p.m.) and went to bed at 24:32 (12:32 a.m.).

DNA analysis from participants’ blood samples determined that 50% had the CC genotype of the MTNR1B gene, 40% had the CG genotype, and 10% had the GG genotype.

Each participant underwent two oral glucose tolerance tests. They fasted for 8 hours and then had a 2-hour 75-g oral glucose tolerance test either 1 hour before bedtime (simulating a late dinner) or 4 hours before bedtime (simulating an early dinner). Then they repeated the test at the opposite dinner time on another night.

The average serum melatonin values were 3.5-fold higher after the late dinner than after the early dinner, resulting in 6.7% lower insulin area under the curve and 8.3% higher glucose AUC.

Genotype differences in glucose tolerance were attributed to reductions in beta-cell function.

“Our results confirm that late eating acutely impairs glucose tolerance through a defect in insulin secretion,” the researchers reiterated.

ONTIME-MT was funded by the National Institutes of Health; the Spanish Government of Investigation, Development, and Innovation; and the Seneca Foundation. The researchers reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Eating dinner close to bedtime when endogenous melatonin levels are high is associated with decreased insulin secretion and decreased glucose tolerance, which increase the risk of type 2 diabetes.

And people who are carriers of the G allele of the MTNR1B gene have greater impairment in glucose tolerance after eating a late dinner.

“In natural late eaters [in Spain], we simulated early and late dinner timing by administering a glucose drink and compared effects on blood sugar control over 2 hours,” said senior author Richa Saxena, PhD, a principal investigator at the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.  

The study also compared outcomes in carriers and noncarriers of the G allele variant of the melatonin receptor gene, Dr. Saxena pointed out in a press release from the hospital.

“We found that late eating disturbed blood sugar control in the whole group,” added lead author Marta Garaulet, PhD.

“This impaired glucose control was predominantly seen in genetic risk variant carriers, representing about half of the cohort,” said Dr. Garaulet, professor of physiology and nutrition, University of Murcia (Spain).

The study results “may be important in the effort toward prevention of type 2 diabetes,” according to co–senior author Frank A.J.L. Scheer, PhD.

“Our findings are applicable to about a third of the population in the industrialized world who consume food close to bedtime, as well as other populations who eat at night, including shift workers, or those experiencing jet lag or night-eating disorders, as well as those who routinely use melatonin supplements close to food intake,” said Dr. Scheer, director of the medical chronobiology program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The results suggest people should not eat within 2 hours of bedtime, said the researchers.

“Notably, our study does not include patients with diabetes, so additional studies are needed to examine the impact of food timing and its link with melatonin and receptor variation in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Scheer said.

The findings, from the MTNR1B SNP*Food Timing Interaction on Glucose Control (ONTIME-MT) randomized crossover study, were recently published in Diabetes Care.

Melatonin plays a key role in glucose metabolism

Melatonin, a hormone primarily released at night that helps control the sleep-wake cycle, typically rises around 2 hours before bedtime, the researchers explained.

The discovery of MTNR1B as a type 2 diabetes–associated gene “suggests that, beyond sleep and circadian regulation, melatonin plays a key role in glucose metabolism,” they noted. However, whether melatonin improves or impairs glucose control is controversial, and the effect of MTNR1B genotypes on glucose control is not clear.

“We decided to test if late eating that usually occurs with elevated melatonin levels results in disturbed blood sugar control,” Dr. Saxena explained.

To investigate this, researchers enrolled 845 adults in Spain who were 18-70 years old and did not have diabetes. Participants were a mean age of 38 years and 71% were women. They had a mean body mass index of 25.7 kg/m2 and 18% had obesity.

On average, they typically ate dinner at 21:38 (9:38 p.m.) and went to bed at 24:32 (12:32 a.m.).

DNA analysis from participants’ blood samples determined that 50% had the CC genotype of the MTNR1B gene, 40% had the CG genotype, and 10% had the GG genotype.

Each participant underwent two oral glucose tolerance tests. They fasted for 8 hours and then had a 2-hour 75-g oral glucose tolerance test either 1 hour before bedtime (simulating a late dinner) or 4 hours before bedtime (simulating an early dinner). Then they repeated the test at the opposite dinner time on another night.

The average serum melatonin values were 3.5-fold higher after the late dinner than after the early dinner, resulting in 6.7% lower insulin area under the curve and 8.3% higher glucose AUC.

Genotype differences in glucose tolerance were attributed to reductions in beta-cell function.

“Our results confirm that late eating acutely impairs glucose tolerance through a defect in insulin secretion,” the researchers reiterated.

ONTIME-MT was funded by the National Institutes of Health; the Spanish Government of Investigation, Development, and Innovation; and the Seneca Foundation. The researchers reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Eating dinner close to bedtime when endogenous melatonin levels are high is associated with decreased insulin secretion and decreased glucose tolerance, which increase the risk of type 2 diabetes.

And people who are carriers of the G allele of the MTNR1B gene have greater impairment in glucose tolerance after eating a late dinner.

“In natural late eaters [in Spain], we simulated early and late dinner timing by administering a glucose drink and compared effects on blood sugar control over 2 hours,” said senior author Richa Saxena, PhD, a principal investigator at the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.  

The study also compared outcomes in carriers and noncarriers of the G allele variant of the melatonin receptor gene, Dr. Saxena pointed out in a press release from the hospital.

“We found that late eating disturbed blood sugar control in the whole group,” added lead author Marta Garaulet, PhD.

“This impaired glucose control was predominantly seen in genetic risk variant carriers, representing about half of the cohort,” said Dr. Garaulet, professor of physiology and nutrition, University of Murcia (Spain).

The study results “may be important in the effort toward prevention of type 2 diabetes,” according to co–senior author Frank A.J.L. Scheer, PhD.

“Our findings are applicable to about a third of the population in the industrialized world who consume food close to bedtime, as well as other populations who eat at night, including shift workers, or those experiencing jet lag or night-eating disorders, as well as those who routinely use melatonin supplements close to food intake,” said Dr. Scheer, director of the medical chronobiology program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The results suggest people should not eat within 2 hours of bedtime, said the researchers.

“Notably, our study does not include patients with diabetes, so additional studies are needed to examine the impact of food timing and its link with melatonin and receptor variation in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Scheer said.

The findings, from the MTNR1B SNP*Food Timing Interaction on Glucose Control (ONTIME-MT) randomized crossover study, were recently published in Diabetes Care.

Melatonin plays a key role in glucose metabolism

Melatonin, a hormone primarily released at night that helps control the sleep-wake cycle, typically rises around 2 hours before bedtime, the researchers explained.

The discovery of MTNR1B as a type 2 diabetes–associated gene “suggests that, beyond sleep and circadian regulation, melatonin plays a key role in glucose metabolism,” they noted. However, whether melatonin improves or impairs glucose control is controversial, and the effect of MTNR1B genotypes on glucose control is not clear.

“We decided to test if late eating that usually occurs with elevated melatonin levels results in disturbed blood sugar control,” Dr. Saxena explained.

To investigate this, researchers enrolled 845 adults in Spain who were 18-70 years old and did not have diabetes. Participants were a mean age of 38 years and 71% were women. They had a mean body mass index of 25.7 kg/m2 and 18% had obesity.

On average, they typically ate dinner at 21:38 (9:38 p.m.) and went to bed at 24:32 (12:32 a.m.).

DNA analysis from participants’ blood samples determined that 50% had the CC genotype of the MTNR1B gene, 40% had the CG genotype, and 10% had the GG genotype.

Each participant underwent two oral glucose tolerance tests. They fasted for 8 hours and then had a 2-hour 75-g oral glucose tolerance test either 1 hour before bedtime (simulating a late dinner) or 4 hours before bedtime (simulating an early dinner). Then they repeated the test at the opposite dinner time on another night.

The average serum melatonin values were 3.5-fold higher after the late dinner than after the early dinner, resulting in 6.7% lower insulin area under the curve and 8.3% higher glucose AUC.

Genotype differences in glucose tolerance were attributed to reductions in beta-cell function.

“Our results confirm that late eating acutely impairs glucose tolerance through a defect in insulin secretion,” the researchers reiterated.

ONTIME-MT was funded by the National Institutes of Health; the Spanish Government of Investigation, Development, and Innovation; and the Seneca Foundation. The researchers reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Updated guidelines for the management and treatment of endometriosis reflect changes in clinical practice to guide clinician and patient decision-making, according to a statement from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, which issued the guidelines in February 2022.

Although the exact prevalence of endometriosis remains unclear, estimates suggest that approximately 190 million women and adolescent girls are affected by endometriosis during their reproductive years, and women continue to suffer beyond menopause, according to the authors. Endometriosis has a significant impact on society through both direct and indirect health care costs comparable to those of type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and Crohn’s disease, they noted.

The guidelines are the first update on the topic of endometriosis since 2014, and include more than 100 recommendations, according to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). The target audience, according to the authors, is secondary and tertiary health care providers who treat women with endometriosis. The recommendations were based on research papers published up to Dec. 1, 2020.

Although most of the recent studies confirm previous ESHRE recommendations, several topics reflect significant changes in clinical practice.

Notably, laparoscopy is no longer recommended as the diagnostic gold standard, and should be used only in patients with negative imaging for whom empirical treatment was unsuccessful.

For pain management, studies support the use of GnRH antagonists as a second-line treatment, while laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy are no longer included in the recommendations.

The guidelines include new information on pregnancy and fertility preservation for women with endometriosis. The Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI) was added to support joint decision-making for women seeking pregnancy after surgery. However, the extended use of GnRH antagonist prior to assisted reproductive technology treatments to improve live birth rate is not recommended.

Endometriosis in adolescent patients is included in the guidelines for the first time, and strong recommendations include taking a careful history and using ultrasound if appropriate, but the use of serum biomarkers is not recommended for diagnosis. Strong recommendations for treatment strategies for adolescents include hormonal contraceptives or progestins as a first-line therapy.

Recommendations for managing endometriosis in menopause are more extensive than in previous guidelines and the strongest update is against the use of estrogen-only treatment in these patients. However, the guidelines continue to recommend treating women with a history of endometriosis after surgical menopause with combined estrogen-progestogen therapy “at least up to the age of natural menopause.”

Expanded recommendations related to endometriosis and cancer begin with a strong recommendation for clinicians to advise women that endometriosis is not associated with a significantly higher risk of cancer overall. “Although endometriosis is associated with a higher risk of ovarian, breast, and thyroid cancers in particular, the increase in absolute risk compared with women in the general population is low,” the authors wrote. Other strong recommendations include reassuring women with endometriosis of the low risk of malignancy associated with hormonal contraceptive use, and performing cancer screening according to the existing population-based guidelines without additional screening. Epidemiologic data show that complete excision of visible endometriosis may reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, but the potential benefits must be weighed against the risks of surgery, including morbidity, pain, and ovarian reserve, the authors said.

The guidelines include recommendations related to asymptomatic endometriosis, extrapelvic endometriosis, and primary prevention of endometriosis, but without major changes to the 2014 guidelines.
 

Guidelines expand strategies, but research gaps remain

In 2021, an international working group of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, the European Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy, ESHRE, and the World Endometriosis Society defined endometriosis as “a disease characterized by the presence of endometrium-like epithelium and/or stroma outside the endometrium and myometrium, usually with an associated inflammatory process,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of The IVF Center, Orlando, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, said in an interview.

Although the current guidelines represent the second update since 2005, many unanswered questions remain, Dr. Trolice said. “There is a large diagnostic void between the onset of symptoms and the time to a reliable diagnosis averaging between 8 and 12 years,” he emphasized.

Dr. Trolice noted the change of the addition of an oral GnRH antagonist, “now FDA approved for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis,” he said. However, “Extended GnRH agonist prior to ART is not recommended due to the lack of any clear benefit,” he noted.

Dr. Trolice noted the inclusion of the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010, “as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and IUI [intrauterine insemination]) based on patient characteristics, revised ASRM staging, and ‘least function score of the adnexa.’ ” He agreed with the need for expanded information on the topics of endometriosis and adolescence and endometriosis and cancer.

The most important changes for clinical practice include reducing unnecessary laparoscopy and procedures without benefit, such as laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy, and GnRH suppression using an oral antagonist, said Dr. Trolice. Other especially practical guidance includes the recommendation to discontinue advising patients that pregnancy will reduce symptoms of endometriosis, and to avoid prescribing estrogen-only treatment in menopause given the risk of malignant transformation of endometriosis, he said.

Another clinically useful recommendation, though not a significant update, is the need to identify extrapelvic endometriosis symptoms, such as cyclical shoulder pain, cyclical spontaneous pneumothorax, cyclical cough, or nodules that enlarge during menses, Dr. Trolice added.

Barriers to implementing the updated guidelines include lack of education of clinicians, including primary care providers, and the lack of definitive evidence for many areas, he noted.

As for additional research, more data are needed to explore the genetic, mutational, and epigenetic profile of endometriosis, and to identify biomarkers to noninvasively detect and provide a prognosis for endometriosis, and optimal methods for prevention and management, said Dr. Trolice. Other research gaps include “definitive medical and surgical treatment of endometriosis for improvement of fertility, quality of life, and reduction of pain,” he noted. From a fertility standpoint, more studies are needed on “the use of ovarian tissue or oocytes cryopreservation in adolescents and adults who undergo ovarian surgery for endometriomas, and the role of the EFI as a presurgical triage tool and to predict IUI outcomes,” said Dr. Trolice.

Overall, society recommendations such as these from ESHRE “serve as guides for physicians by providing evidence-based medicine and dispelling prior unproven practices so patients may receive the most effective care of endometriosis, throughout a woman’s life,” Dr. Trolice emphasized.

The current guideline will be considered for revision in 2025, and the full version is available on the ESHRE website.

Members of the ESHRE guideline development group received no payment for participating in the development process, although they were reimbursed for travel expenses related to guideline meetings.

Dr. Trolice had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.

Updated guidelines for the management and treatment of endometriosis reflect changes in clinical practice to guide clinician and patient decision-making, according to a statement from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, which issued the guidelines in February 2022.

Although the exact prevalence of endometriosis remains unclear, estimates suggest that approximately 190 million women and adolescent girls are affected by endometriosis during their reproductive years, and women continue to suffer beyond menopause, according to the authors. Endometriosis has a significant impact on society through both direct and indirect health care costs comparable to those of type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and Crohn’s disease, they noted.

The guidelines are the first update on the topic of endometriosis since 2014, and include more than 100 recommendations, according to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). The target audience, according to the authors, is secondary and tertiary health care providers who treat women with endometriosis. The recommendations were based on research papers published up to Dec. 1, 2020.

Although most of the recent studies confirm previous ESHRE recommendations, several topics reflect significant changes in clinical practice.

Notably, laparoscopy is no longer recommended as the diagnostic gold standard, and should be used only in patients with negative imaging for whom empirical treatment was unsuccessful.

For pain management, studies support the use of GnRH antagonists as a second-line treatment, while laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy are no longer included in the recommendations.

The guidelines include new information on pregnancy and fertility preservation for women with endometriosis. The Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI) was added to support joint decision-making for women seeking pregnancy after surgery. However, the extended use of GnRH antagonist prior to assisted reproductive technology treatments to improve live birth rate is not recommended.

Endometriosis in adolescent patients is included in the guidelines for the first time, and strong recommendations include taking a careful history and using ultrasound if appropriate, but the use of serum biomarkers is not recommended for diagnosis. Strong recommendations for treatment strategies for adolescents include hormonal contraceptives or progestins as a first-line therapy.

Recommendations for managing endometriosis in menopause are more extensive than in previous guidelines and the strongest update is against the use of estrogen-only treatment in these patients. However, the guidelines continue to recommend treating women with a history of endometriosis after surgical menopause with combined estrogen-progestogen therapy “at least up to the age of natural menopause.”

Expanded recommendations related to endometriosis and cancer begin with a strong recommendation for clinicians to advise women that endometriosis is not associated with a significantly higher risk of cancer overall. “Although endometriosis is associated with a higher risk of ovarian, breast, and thyroid cancers in particular, the increase in absolute risk compared with women in the general population is low,” the authors wrote. Other strong recommendations include reassuring women with endometriosis of the low risk of malignancy associated with hormonal contraceptive use, and performing cancer screening according to the existing population-based guidelines without additional screening. Epidemiologic data show that complete excision of visible endometriosis may reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, but the potential benefits must be weighed against the risks of surgery, including morbidity, pain, and ovarian reserve, the authors said.

The guidelines include recommendations related to asymptomatic endometriosis, extrapelvic endometriosis, and primary prevention of endometriosis, but without major changes to the 2014 guidelines.
 

Guidelines expand strategies, but research gaps remain

In 2021, an international working group of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, the European Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy, ESHRE, and the World Endometriosis Society defined endometriosis as “a disease characterized by the presence of endometrium-like epithelium and/or stroma outside the endometrium and myometrium, usually with an associated inflammatory process,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of The IVF Center, Orlando, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, said in an interview.

Although the current guidelines represent the second update since 2005, many unanswered questions remain, Dr. Trolice said. “There is a large diagnostic void between the onset of symptoms and the time to a reliable diagnosis averaging between 8 and 12 years,” he emphasized.

Dr. Trolice noted the change of the addition of an oral GnRH antagonist, “now FDA approved for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis,” he said. However, “Extended GnRH agonist prior to ART is not recommended due to the lack of any clear benefit,” he noted.

Dr. Trolice noted the inclusion of the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010, “as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and IUI [intrauterine insemination]) based on patient characteristics, revised ASRM staging, and ‘least function score of the adnexa.’ ” He agreed with the need for expanded information on the topics of endometriosis and adolescence and endometriosis and cancer.

The most important changes for clinical practice include reducing unnecessary laparoscopy and procedures without benefit, such as laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy, and GnRH suppression using an oral antagonist, said Dr. Trolice. Other especially practical guidance includes the recommendation to discontinue advising patients that pregnancy will reduce symptoms of endometriosis, and to avoid prescribing estrogen-only treatment in menopause given the risk of malignant transformation of endometriosis, he said.

Another clinically useful recommendation, though not a significant update, is the need to identify extrapelvic endometriosis symptoms, such as cyclical shoulder pain, cyclical spontaneous pneumothorax, cyclical cough, or nodules that enlarge during menses, Dr. Trolice added.

Barriers to implementing the updated guidelines include lack of education of clinicians, including primary care providers, and the lack of definitive evidence for many areas, he noted.

As for additional research, more data are needed to explore the genetic, mutational, and epigenetic profile of endometriosis, and to identify biomarkers to noninvasively detect and provide a prognosis for endometriosis, and optimal methods for prevention and management, said Dr. Trolice. Other research gaps include “definitive medical and surgical treatment of endometriosis for improvement of fertility, quality of life, and reduction of pain,” he noted. From a fertility standpoint, more studies are needed on “the use of ovarian tissue or oocytes cryopreservation in adolescents and adults who undergo ovarian surgery for endometriomas, and the role of the EFI as a presurgical triage tool and to predict IUI outcomes,” said Dr. Trolice.

Overall, society recommendations such as these from ESHRE “serve as guides for physicians by providing evidence-based medicine and dispelling prior unproven practices so patients may receive the most effective care of endometriosis, throughout a woman’s life,” Dr. Trolice emphasized.

The current guideline will be considered for revision in 2025, and the full version is available on the ESHRE website.

Members of the ESHRE guideline development group received no payment for participating in the development process, although they were reimbursed for travel expenses related to guideline meetings.

Dr. Trolice had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.

Updated guidelines for the management and treatment of endometriosis reflect changes in clinical practice to guide clinician and patient decision-making, according to a statement from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, which issued the guidelines in February 2022.

Although the exact prevalence of endometriosis remains unclear, estimates suggest that approximately 190 million women and adolescent girls are affected by endometriosis during their reproductive years, and women continue to suffer beyond menopause, according to the authors. Endometriosis has a significant impact on society through both direct and indirect health care costs comparable to those of type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and Crohn’s disease, they noted.

The guidelines are the first update on the topic of endometriosis since 2014, and include more than 100 recommendations, according to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). The target audience, according to the authors, is secondary and tertiary health care providers who treat women with endometriosis. The recommendations were based on research papers published up to Dec. 1, 2020.

Although most of the recent studies confirm previous ESHRE recommendations, several topics reflect significant changes in clinical practice.

Notably, laparoscopy is no longer recommended as the diagnostic gold standard, and should be used only in patients with negative imaging for whom empirical treatment was unsuccessful.

For pain management, studies support the use of GnRH antagonists as a second-line treatment, while laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy are no longer included in the recommendations.

The guidelines include new information on pregnancy and fertility preservation for women with endometriosis. The Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI) was added to support joint decision-making for women seeking pregnancy after surgery. However, the extended use of GnRH antagonist prior to assisted reproductive technology treatments to improve live birth rate is not recommended.

Endometriosis in adolescent patients is included in the guidelines for the first time, and strong recommendations include taking a careful history and using ultrasound if appropriate, but the use of serum biomarkers is not recommended for diagnosis. Strong recommendations for treatment strategies for adolescents include hormonal contraceptives or progestins as a first-line therapy.

Recommendations for managing endometriosis in menopause are more extensive than in previous guidelines and the strongest update is against the use of estrogen-only treatment in these patients. However, the guidelines continue to recommend treating women with a history of endometriosis after surgical menopause with combined estrogen-progestogen therapy “at least up to the age of natural menopause.”

Expanded recommendations related to endometriosis and cancer begin with a strong recommendation for clinicians to advise women that endometriosis is not associated with a significantly higher risk of cancer overall. “Although endometriosis is associated with a higher risk of ovarian, breast, and thyroid cancers in particular, the increase in absolute risk compared with women in the general population is low,” the authors wrote. Other strong recommendations include reassuring women with endometriosis of the low risk of malignancy associated with hormonal contraceptive use, and performing cancer screening according to the existing population-based guidelines without additional screening. Epidemiologic data show that complete excision of visible endometriosis may reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, but the potential benefits must be weighed against the risks of surgery, including morbidity, pain, and ovarian reserve, the authors said.

The guidelines include recommendations related to asymptomatic endometriosis, extrapelvic endometriosis, and primary prevention of endometriosis, but without major changes to the 2014 guidelines.
 

Guidelines expand strategies, but research gaps remain

In 2021, an international working group of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, the European Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy, ESHRE, and the World Endometriosis Society defined endometriosis as “a disease characterized by the presence of endometrium-like epithelium and/or stroma outside the endometrium and myometrium, usually with an associated inflammatory process,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of The IVF Center, Orlando, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, said in an interview.

Although the current guidelines represent the second update since 2005, many unanswered questions remain, Dr. Trolice said. “There is a large diagnostic void between the onset of symptoms and the time to a reliable diagnosis averaging between 8 and 12 years,” he emphasized.

Dr. Trolice noted the change of the addition of an oral GnRH antagonist, “now FDA approved for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis,” he said. However, “Extended GnRH agonist prior to ART is not recommended due to the lack of any clear benefit,” he noted.

Dr. Trolice noted the inclusion of the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010, “as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and IUI [intrauterine insemination]) based on patient characteristics, revised ASRM staging, and ‘least function score of the adnexa.’ ” He agreed with the need for expanded information on the topics of endometriosis and adolescence and endometriosis and cancer.

The most important changes for clinical practice include reducing unnecessary laparoscopy and procedures without benefit, such as laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy, and GnRH suppression using an oral antagonist, said Dr. Trolice. Other especially practical guidance includes the recommendation to discontinue advising patients that pregnancy will reduce symptoms of endometriosis, and to avoid prescribing estrogen-only treatment in menopause given the risk of malignant transformation of endometriosis, he said.

Another clinically useful recommendation, though not a significant update, is the need to identify extrapelvic endometriosis symptoms, such as cyclical shoulder pain, cyclical spontaneous pneumothorax, cyclical cough, or nodules that enlarge during menses, Dr. Trolice added.

Barriers to implementing the updated guidelines include lack of education of clinicians, including primary care providers, and the lack of definitive evidence for many areas, he noted.

As for additional research, more data are needed to explore the genetic, mutational, and epigenetic profile of endometriosis, and to identify biomarkers to noninvasively detect and provide a prognosis for endometriosis, and optimal methods for prevention and management, said Dr. Trolice. Other research gaps include “definitive medical and surgical treatment of endometriosis for improvement of fertility, quality of life, and reduction of pain,” he noted. From a fertility standpoint, more studies are needed on “the use of ovarian tissue or oocytes cryopreservation in adolescents and adults who undergo ovarian surgery for endometriomas, and the role of the EFI as a presurgical triage tool and to predict IUI outcomes,” said Dr. Trolice.

Overall, society recommendations such as these from ESHRE “serve as guides for physicians by providing evidence-based medicine and dispelling prior unproven practices so patients may receive the most effective care of endometriosis, throughout a woman’s life,” Dr. Trolice emphasized.

The current guideline will be considered for revision in 2025, and the full version is available on the ESHRE website.

Members of the ESHRE guideline development group received no payment for participating in the development process, although they were reimbursed for travel expenses related to guideline meetings.

Dr. Trolice had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.

Hundreds of Native American tribes have tentatively settled in what one of the lead attorneys describes as “an epic deal”: The top 3 pharmaceutical distributors in the US and Johnson & Johnson have agreed to pay $665 million for deceptive marketing practices and overdistribution of opioids. Native Americans were among those hardest hit by the opioid epidemic. Between 2006 and 2014, Native Americans were nearly 50% more likely than non-Natives to die of an opioid overdose. In 2014, they ranked number 1 for death by opioid overdose.

Overprescribing was rampant. In some areas, such as southwestern Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Alabama, prescriptions were 5 to 6 times higher than the national average. The overprescribing was largely due to massive and aggressive billion-dollar marketing campaigns, which misrepresented the safety of opioid medications. Purdue Pharma, for instance, trained sales representatives to claim that the risk of addiction was “less than 1 percent.” In an interview with Smithsonian Magazine, Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins’ Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, said, “When I was in residency training, we were taught that one needn’t worry about the addictive potential of opioids if a patient had true pain.” He said it was no accident that physicians were cultivated to overestimate the effectiveness for chronic, noncancer pain while underestimating the risks.

Native Americans were not only in the target group for prescriptions, but also apparently singularly targeted. “We were preyed upon,” said Chickasaw Nation Governor Bill Anoatubby in the Washington Post. “It was unconscionable.” A Washington Post analysis found that, between 2006 and 2014, opioid distributors shipped an average of 36 pills per person in the US. States in the so-called opioid belt (mostly Southern states), received an average of 60 to 66 pills per person. The distributors shipped 57 pills per person to Oklahoma, home to nearly 322,000 Native Americans. (The opioid death rate for Native Americans in Oklahoma from 2006 to 2014 was more than triple the nationwide rate for non-Natives.) In South Dakota as recently as 2015, enough opioids were prescribed to medicate every adult around-the-clock for 19 consecutive days. Native Americans comprise 9% of South Dakota’s population; however, almost 30% of the patients are being treated for opioid use disorder.

In the settlement, which is a first for tribes, McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen would pay $515 million over 7 years. Johnson & Johnson would contribute $150 million in 2 years to the federally recognized tribes. “This settlement is a real turning point in history,” said Lloyd Miller, one of the attorneys representing one-third of the litigating tribes.

But the money is still small compensation for ravaging millions of lives. “Flooding the Native community with Western medicine—sedating a population rather than seeking to understand its needs and challenges—is not an acceptable means of handling its trauma,” the Lakota People’s Law Project says in an article on its website. Thus, the money dispersal will be overseen by a panel of tribal health experts, to go toward programs that aid drug users and their communities.

The funds will be managed in a way that will consider the long-term damage, Native American leaders vow. Children, for instance, have not been exempt from the sequelae of the overprescribing. Foster care systems are “overrun” with children of addicted parents, the Law Project says, and the children are placed in homes outside the tribe. “In the long run, this has the potential to curtail tribal membership, break down familial lines, and degrade cultural values.”

Dealing with the problem has drained tribal resources—doubly strained by the COVID-19 epidemic. Chairman Douglas Yankton, of the Spirit Lake Nation in North Dakota, said in a statement, “The dollars that will flow to Tribes under this initial settlement will help fund crucial, on-reservation, culturally appropriate opioid treatment services.”

However, Chairman Kristopher Peters, of the Squaxin Island Tribe in Washington State, told the Washington Post, “There is no amount of money that’s going to solve the generational issues that have been created from this. Our hope is that we can use these funds to help revitalize our culture and help heal our people.”

Johnson & Johnson says it no longer sells prescription opioids in the US

Hundreds of Native American tribes have tentatively settled in what one of the lead attorneys describes as “an epic deal”: The top 3 pharmaceutical distributors in the US and Johnson & Johnson have agreed to pay $665 million for deceptive marketing practices and overdistribution of opioids. Native Americans were among those hardest hit by the opioid epidemic. Between 2006 and 2014, Native Americans were nearly 50% more likely than non-Natives to die of an opioid overdose. In 2014, they ranked number 1 for death by opioid overdose.

Overprescribing was rampant. In some areas, such as southwestern Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Alabama, prescriptions were 5 to 6 times higher than the national average. The overprescribing was largely due to massive and aggressive billion-dollar marketing campaigns, which misrepresented the safety of opioid medications. Purdue Pharma, for instance, trained sales representatives to claim that the risk of addiction was “less than 1 percent.” In an interview with Smithsonian Magazine, Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins’ Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, said, “When I was in residency training, we were taught that one needn’t worry about the addictive potential of opioids if a patient had true pain.” He said it was no accident that physicians were cultivated to overestimate the effectiveness for chronic, noncancer pain while underestimating the risks.

Native Americans were not only in the target group for prescriptions, but also apparently singularly targeted. “We were preyed upon,” said Chickasaw Nation Governor Bill Anoatubby in the Washington Post. “It was unconscionable.” A Washington Post analysis found that, between 2006 and 2014, opioid distributors shipped an average of 36 pills per person in the US. States in the so-called opioid belt (mostly Southern states), received an average of 60 to 66 pills per person. The distributors shipped 57 pills per person to Oklahoma, home to nearly 322,000 Native Americans. (The opioid death rate for Native Americans in Oklahoma from 2006 to 2014 was more than triple the nationwide rate for non-Natives.) In South Dakota as recently as 2015, enough opioids were prescribed to medicate every adult around-the-clock for 19 consecutive days. Native Americans comprise 9% of South Dakota’s population; however, almost 30% of the patients are being treated for opioid use disorder.

In the settlement, which is a first for tribes, McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen would pay $515 million over 7 years. Johnson & Johnson would contribute $150 million in 2 years to the federally recognized tribes. “This settlement is a real turning point in history,” said Lloyd Miller, one of the attorneys representing one-third of the litigating tribes.

But the money is still small compensation for ravaging millions of lives. “Flooding the Native community with Western medicine—sedating a population rather than seeking to understand its needs and challenges—is not an acceptable means of handling its trauma,” the Lakota People’s Law Project says in an article on its website. Thus, the money dispersal will be overseen by a panel of tribal health experts, to go toward programs that aid drug users and their communities.

The funds will be managed in a way that will consider the long-term damage, Native American leaders vow. Children, for instance, have not been exempt from the sequelae of the overprescribing. Foster care systems are “overrun” with children of addicted parents, the Law Project says, and the children are placed in homes outside the tribe. “In the long run, this has the potential to curtail tribal membership, break down familial lines, and degrade cultural values.”

Dealing with the problem has drained tribal resources—doubly strained by the COVID-19 epidemic. Chairman Douglas Yankton, of the Spirit Lake Nation in North Dakota, said in a statement, “The dollars that will flow to Tribes under this initial settlement will help fund crucial, on-reservation, culturally appropriate opioid treatment services.”

However, Chairman Kristopher Peters, of the Squaxin Island Tribe in Washington State, told the Washington Post, “There is no amount of money that’s going to solve the generational issues that have been created from this. Our hope is that we can use these funds to help revitalize our culture and help heal our people.”

Johnson & Johnson says it no longer sells prescription opioids in the US

Hundreds of Native American tribes have tentatively settled in what one of the lead attorneys describes as “an epic deal”: The top 3 pharmaceutical distributors in the US and Johnson & Johnson have agreed to pay $665 million for deceptive marketing practices and overdistribution of opioids. Native Americans were among those hardest hit by the opioid epidemic. Between 2006 and 2014, Native Americans were nearly 50% more likely than non-Natives to die of an opioid overdose. In 2014, they ranked number 1 for death by opioid overdose.

Overprescribing was rampant. In some areas, such as southwestern Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Alabama, prescriptions were 5 to 6 times higher than the national average. The overprescribing was largely due to massive and aggressive billion-dollar marketing campaigns, which misrepresented the safety of opioid medications. Purdue Pharma, for instance, trained sales representatives to claim that the risk of addiction was “less than 1 percent.” In an interview with Smithsonian Magazine, Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins’ Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, said, “When I was in residency training, we were taught that one needn’t worry about the addictive potential of opioids if a patient had true pain.” He said it was no accident that physicians were cultivated to overestimate the effectiveness for chronic, noncancer pain while underestimating the risks.

Native Americans were not only in the target group for prescriptions, but also apparently singularly targeted. “We were preyed upon,” said Chickasaw Nation Governor Bill Anoatubby in the Washington Post. “It was unconscionable.” A Washington Post analysis found that, between 2006 and 2014, opioid distributors shipped an average of 36 pills per person in the US. States in the so-called opioid belt (mostly Southern states), received an average of 60 to 66 pills per person. The distributors shipped 57 pills per person to Oklahoma, home to nearly 322,000 Native Americans. (The opioid death rate for Native Americans in Oklahoma from 2006 to 2014 was more than triple the nationwide rate for non-Natives.) In South Dakota as recently as 2015, enough opioids were prescribed to medicate every adult around-the-clock for 19 consecutive days. Native Americans comprise 9% of South Dakota’s population; however, almost 30% of the patients are being treated for opioid use disorder.

In the settlement, which is a first for tribes, McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen would pay $515 million over 7 years. Johnson & Johnson would contribute $150 million in 2 years to the federally recognized tribes. “This settlement is a real turning point in history,” said Lloyd Miller, one of the attorneys representing one-third of the litigating tribes.

But the money is still small compensation for ravaging millions of lives. “Flooding the Native community with Western medicine—sedating a population rather than seeking to understand its needs and challenges—is not an acceptable means of handling its trauma,” the Lakota People’s Law Project says in an article on its website. Thus, the money dispersal will be overseen by a panel of tribal health experts, to go toward programs that aid drug users and their communities.

The funds will be managed in a way that will consider the long-term damage, Native American leaders vow. Children, for instance, have not been exempt from the sequelae of the overprescribing. Foster care systems are “overrun” with children of addicted parents, the Law Project says, and the children are placed in homes outside the tribe. “In the long run, this has the potential to curtail tribal membership, break down familial lines, and degrade cultural values.”

Dealing with the problem has drained tribal resources—doubly strained by the COVID-19 epidemic. Chairman Douglas Yankton, of the Spirit Lake Nation in North Dakota, said in a statement, “The dollars that will flow to Tribes under this initial settlement will help fund crucial, on-reservation, culturally appropriate opioid treatment services.”

However, Chairman Kristopher Peters, of the Squaxin Island Tribe in Washington State, told the Washington Post, “There is no amount of money that’s going to solve the generational issues that have been created from this. Our hope is that we can use these funds to help revitalize our culture and help heal our people.”

Johnson & Johnson says it no longer sells prescription opioids in the US

Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!

During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.

All of a sudden, your female mentors and pillars of the oncology world start disappearing around you due to early retirement, new career opportunities, or deciding to leave clinical medicine all together. You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.

The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”

We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.

In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.

One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.

While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.

Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.

A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!

During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.

All of a sudden, your female mentors and pillars of the oncology world start disappearing around you due to early retirement, new career opportunities, or deciding to leave clinical medicine all together. You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.

The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”

We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.

In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.

One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.

While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.

Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.

A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!

During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.

All of a sudden, your female mentors and pillars of the oncology world start disappearing around you due to early retirement, new career opportunities, or deciding to leave clinical medicine all together. You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.

The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”

We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.

In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.

One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.

While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.

Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.

A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic largely altered the practice of medicine, including a rapid expansion of telemedicine following the March 2020 World Health Organization guidelines for social distancing, which recommended suspension of all nonurgent in-person visits.¹ Expectedly, COVID-related urgent care visits initially comprised the bulk of the new telemedicine wave: NYU Langone Health (New York, New York), for example, saw a 683% increase in virtual visits between March and April 2020, most (55.3%) of which were for respiratory concerns. In-person visits, on the other hand, concurrently fell by more than 80%. Interestingly, nonurgent ambulatory care specialties also saw a considerable uptick in virtual encounters, from less than 50 visits in a typical day to an average of 7000 in a 10-day stretch.²

As a largely ambulatory specialty that relies on visual examination, dermatology was no exception to the swing toward telemedicine, or teledermatology (TD). Before the COVID-19 pandemic, 14.1% (82 of 582 respondents) of practicing US dermatologists reported having used teledermatology, compared to 96.9% (572/591) during the pandemic.³ Even at my home institution (Massachusetts General Hospital [Boston, Massachusetts] and its 12 affiliated dermatology clinics), the number of in-person visits in April 2020 (n=67) was less than 1% of that in April 2019 (n=7919), whereas there was a total of 1564 virtual visits in April 2020 compared to zero the year prior. Virtual provider-to-provider consults (e-consultations) also saw an increase of more than 20%, suggesting that dermatology’s avid adoption of TD also had improved the perceived accessibility of our specialty.⁴

The adoption and adaptation of TD are projected to continue to grow rapidly across the globe, as digitalization has enhanced access without increasing costs, shortened wait times, and even created opportunities for primary care providers based in rural or overseas locations to learn the diagnosis and treatment of skin disease.⁵ Residents and fellows should be privy to the nuances of training and practicing in this digital era, as our careers inevitably will involve some facet of TD.

The Art of Medicine

Touch, a sense that perhaps ranks second to sight in dermatology, is absent in TD. In either synchronous (live-interactive, face video visits) or asynchronous (store-and-forward, where digital photographs and clinical information sent by patients or referring physicians are assessed at a later time) TD, the skin cannot be rubbed for texture, pinched for thickness, or pushed for blanching. Instead, all we have is vision. Irwin Braverman, MD, Professor Emeritus of Dermatology at Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut), alongside Jacqueline Dolev, MD, dermatologist and Yale graduate, and Linda Friedlaender, curator at the Yale Center for British Art, founded an observational skills workshop in which trainees learn to observe and describe the paintings housed in the museum, noting all memorable details: the color of the sky, the actions of the animals, and the facial expressions of the people. A study of 90 participants over a 2-year period found that following the workshop, the ability to identify key diagnostic details from clinical photography improved by more than 10%.⁶ Other studies also utilizing fine art as a medical training tool to improve “visual literacy” saw similarly increased sophistication in the description of clinical imagery, which translated to better diagnostic acumen.⁷ Confined to video and photographs, TD necessitates trainees and practicing dermatologists to be excellent visual diagnosticians. Although surveyed dermatologists believe TD is presently appropriate for acne, benign lesions, or follow-up appointments,³ conditions for which patients have been examined via TD have included drug eruptions, premalignant or malignant neoplasms, infections, and papulosquamous or inflammatory dermatoses.⁸ At the very least, clinicians should be versed in identifying those conditions that require in-person evaluation, as patients cannot be held responsible to distinguish which situations can and cannot be addressed virtually.

Issues of Patient-Physician Confidentiality

Teledermatology is not without its shortcomings; critics have noted diagnostic challenges with poor quality photographs or videos, inability to perform total-body skin examinations, and socioeconomic limitations due to broadband availability and speed.^5,9 Although most of these shortcomings are outside of our control, a key challenge within the purview of the provider is the protection of patient privacy.

Much of the salient concerns regarding patient-physician confidentiality involve asynchronous TD, where store-and-forward data sharing allows physicians to download patient photographs or information onto their personal email or smartphones.¹⁰ Although some hospital systems provide encryption software or hospital-sponsored devices to ensure security, physicians may opt to use their personal phones or laptops out of convenience or to save time.^10,11 One study found that less than 30% of smartphone users choose to activate user authentication on their devices, even ones as simple as a passphrase.¹¹ The digital exchange of information thus poses an immense risk for compromising protected health information (PHI), as personal devices can be easily lost, stolen, or hacked. Indeed, in 2015, more than 113 million individuals were affected by a breach of PHI, the majority over hacked network servers.¹² With the growing diversity of mediums through which PHI is exchanged, such as videoconferencing and instant messaging, the potential medicolegal risks of information breach continue to climb. The US Department of Health & Human Services urges health care providers to uphold best practices for security, including encrypting data, updating all software including antivirus software, using multifactor authentication, and following local cybersecurity regulations or recommendations.¹³ For synchronous TD, suggested best practices include utilizing headphones during live appointments, avoiding public wireless networks, and ensuring the provider and patient both scan the room with their device’s camera before the start of the visit.¹⁴

On the Horizon of Teledermatology

What can we expect in the coming years? Increased utilization of telemedicine will translate into data that will help address questions surrounding safety, diagnostic accuracy, privacy, and accessibility. One aspect of TD in need of clarity is a guideline on payment and reimbursement, and whether TD can continue to be financially attractive to providers. Starting in 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services removed geographic restrictions for reimbursement of telemedicine visits, enabling even urban-residing patients to enjoy the convenience of TD. This followed a prior relaxation of restrictions, where even prerecorded patient information became eligible for Medicare reimbursement.⁹ However, as virtual visits tend to be shorter with fewer diagnostic services compared to in-person visits, the reimbursement structure of TD must be nuanced, which is the subject of ongoing study and modification in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁵

Another point to consider is the explosion of direct-to-consumer TD, which allows patients to receive virtual dermatologic care or prescription medication without a pre-established relationship with any physician. In 2017, there were 22 direct-to-consumer TD services available to US patients in 45 states, 16 (73%) of which provided dermatologic care for any concern while 6 (27%) were limited to acne or antiaging and were largely prescription oriented. Orchestrated mostly by the for-profit private sector, direct-to-consumer companies are poorly regulated and have raised concerns over questionable practices, such as the use of non–US board-certified physicians, exorbitant fees, and failure to disclose medication side effects.¹⁶ A study of 16 direct-to-consumer telemedicine sites found substantial discordance in the suggested management of the same patient, and many of the services relied heavily on patient-provided self-diagnoses, such as a case where psoriasis medication was dispensed for a psoriasis patient who submitted a photograph of his syphilitic rash.¹⁷ Despite these problems, consumers show a willingness to pay out of pocket to access these services for their shorter waiting times and convenience.¹⁸ Hence, we must learn to ask about direct-to-consumer service use when obtaining a thorough history and be open to counseling our patients on the proper use and potential risks of direct-to-consumer TD.

Final Thoughts

The telemedicine industry is expected to reach more than $130 billion by 2025, with more than 90% of surveyed health care executives planning for the adoption and incorporation of telemedicine into their business models.¹⁹ The COVID-19 pandemic was an impetus for an exponential adoption of TD, and it would behoove current residents to realize that the practice of dermatology will continue to be increasingly digitalized within the coming years. Whether through formal training or self-assessment, we must strive to grow as proficient virtual dermatologists while upholding professionalism, patient safety, and health information privacy.

The COVID-19 pandemic largely altered the practice of medicine, including a rapid expansion of telemedicine following the March 2020 World Health Organization guidelines for social distancing, which recommended suspension of all nonurgent in-person visits.¹ Expectedly, COVID-related urgent care visits initially comprised the bulk of the new telemedicine wave: NYU Langone Health (New York, New York), for example, saw a 683% increase in virtual visits between March and April 2020, most (55.3%) of which were for respiratory concerns. In-person visits, on the other hand, concurrently fell by more than 80%. Interestingly, nonurgent ambulatory care specialties also saw a considerable uptick in virtual encounters, from less than 50 visits in a typical day to an average of 7000 in a 10-day stretch.²

As a largely ambulatory specialty that relies on visual examination, dermatology was no exception to the swing toward telemedicine, or teledermatology (TD). Before the COVID-19 pandemic, 14.1% (82 of 582 respondents) of practicing US dermatologists reported having used teledermatology, compared to 96.9% (572/591) during the pandemic.³ Even at my home institution (Massachusetts General Hospital [Boston, Massachusetts] and its 12 affiliated dermatology clinics), the number of in-person visits in April 2020 (n=67) was less than 1% of that in April 2019 (n=7919), whereas there was a total of 1564 virtual visits in April 2020 compared to zero the year prior. Virtual provider-to-provider consults (e-consultations) also saw an increase of more than 20%, suggesting that dermatology’s avid adoption of TD also had improved the perceived accessibility of our specialty.⁴

The adoption and adaptation of TD are projected to continue to grow rapidly across the globe, as digitalization has enhanced access without increasing costs, shortened wait times, and even created opportunities for primary care providers based in rural or overseas locations to learn the diagnosis and treatment of skin disease.⁵ Residents and fellows should be privy to the nuances of training and practicing in this digital era, as our careers inevitably will involve some facet of TD.

The Art of Medicine

Touch, a sense that perhaps ranks second to sight in dermatology, is absent in TD. In either synchronous (live-interactive, face video visits) or asynchronous (store-and-forward, where digital photographs and clinical information sent by patients or referring physicians are assessed at a later time) TD, the skin cannot be rubbed for texture, pinched for thickness, or pushed for blanching. Instead, all we have is vision. Irwin Braverman, MD, Professor Emeritus of Dermatology at Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut), alongside Jacqueline Dolev, MD, dermatologist and Yale graduate, and Linda Friedlaender, curator at the Yale Center for British Art, founded an observational skills workshop in which trainees learn to observe and describe the paintings housed in the museum, noting all memorable details: the color of the sky, the actions of the animals, and the facial expressions of the people. A study of 90 participants over a 2-year period found that following the workshop, the ability to identify key diagnostic details from clinical photography improved by more than 10%.⁶ Other studies also utilizing fine art as a medical training tool to improve “visual literacy” saw similarly increased sophistication in the description of clinical imagery, which translated to better diagnostic acumen.⁷ Confined to video and photographs, TD necessitates trainees and practicing dermatologists to be excellent visual diagnosticians. Although surveyed dermatologists believe TD is presently appropriate for acne, benign lesions, or follow-up appointments,³ conditions for which patients have been examined via TD have included drug eruptions, premalignant or malignant neoplasms, infections, and papulosquamous or inflammatory dermatoses.⁸ At the very least, clinicians should be versed in identifying those conditions that require in-person evaluation, as patients cannot be held responsible to distinguish which situations can and cannot be addressed virtually.

Issues of Patient-Physician Confidentiality

Teledermatology is not without its shortcomings; critics have noted diagnostic challenges with poor quality photographs or videos, inability to perform total-body skin examinations, and socioeconomic limitations due to broadband availability and speed.^5,9 Although most of these shortcomings are outside of our control, a key challenge within the purview of the provider is the protection of patient privacy.

Much of the salient concerns regarding patient-physician confidentiality involve asynchronous TD, where store-and-forward data sharing allows physicians to download patient photographs or information onto their personal email or smartphones.¹⁰ Although some hospital systems provide encryption software or hospital-sponsored devices to ensure security, physicians may opt to use their personal phones or laptops out of convenience or to save time.^10,11 One study found that less than 30% of smartphone users choose to activate user authentication on their devices, even ones as simple as a passphrase.¹¹ The digital exchange of information thus poses an immense risk for compromising protected health information (PHI), as personal devices can be easily lost, stolen, or hacked. Indeed, in 2015, more than 113 million individuals were affected by a breach of PHI, the majority over hacked network servers.¹² With the growing diversity of mediums through which PHI is exchanged, such as videoconferencing and instant messaging, the potential medicolegal risks of information breach continue to climb. The US Department of Health & Human Services urges health care providers to uphold best practices for security, including encrypting data, updating all software including antivirus software, using multifactor authentication, and following local cybersecurity regulations or recommendations.¹³ For synchronous TD, suggested best practices include utilizing headphones during live appointments, avoiding public wireless networks, and ensuring the provider and patient both scan the room with their device’s camera before the start of the visit.¹⁴

On the Horizon of Teledermatology

What can we expect in the coming years? Increased utilization of telemedicine will translate into data that will help address questions surrounding safety, diagnostic accuracy, privacy, and accessibility. One aspect of TD in need of clarity is a guideline on payment and reimbursement, and whether TD can continue to be financially attractive to providers. Starting in 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services removed geographic restrictions for reimbursement of telemedicine visits, enabling even urban-residing patients to enjoy the convenience of TD. This followed a prior relaxation of restrictions, where even prerecorded patient information became eligible for Medicare reimbursement.⁹ However, as virtual visits tend to be shorter with fewer diagnostic services compared to in-person visits, the reimbursement structure of TD must be nuanced, which is the subject of ongoing study and modification in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁵

Another point to consider is the explosion of direct-to-consumer TD, which allows patients to receive virtual dermatologic care or prescription medication without a pre-established relationship with any physician. In 2017, there were 22 direct-to-consumer TD services available to US patients in 45 states, 16 (73%) of which provided dermatologic care for any concern while 6 (27%) were limited to acne or antiaging and were largely prescription oriented. Orchestrated mostly by the for-profit private sector, direct-to-consumer companies are poorly regulated and have raised concerns over questionable practices, such as the use of non–US board-certified physicians, exorbitant fees, and failure to disclose medication side effects.¹⁶ A study of 16 direct-to-consumer telemedicine sites found substantial discordance in the suggested management of the same patient, and many of the services relied heavily on patient-provided self-diagnoses, such as a case where psoriasis medication was dispensed for a psoriasis patient who submitted a photograph of his syphilitic rash.¹⁷ Despite these problems, consumers show a willingness to pay out of pocket to access these services for their shorter waiting times and convenience.¹⁸ Hence, we must learn to ask about direct-to-consumer service use when obtaining a thorough history and be open to counseling our patients on the proper use and potential risks of direct-to-consumer TD.

Final Thoughts

The telemedicine industry is expected to reach more than $130 billion by 2025, with more than 90% of surveyed health care executives planning for the adoption and incorporation of telemedicine into their business models.¹⁹ The COVID-19 pandemic was an impetus for an exponential adoption of TD, and it would behoove current residents to realize that the practice of dermatology will continue to be increasingly digitalized within the coming years. Whether through formal training or self-assessment, we must strive to grow as proficient virtual dermatologists while upholding professionalism, patient safety, and health information privacy.

The COVID-19 pandemic largely altered the practice of medicine, including a rapid expansion of telemedicine following the March 2020 World Health Organization guidelines for social distancing, which recommended suspension of all nonurgent in-person visits.¹ Expectedly, COVID-related urgent care visits initially comprised the bulk of the new telemedicine wave: NYU Langone Health (New York, New York), for example, saw a 683% increase in virtual visits between March and April 2020, most (55.3%) of which were for respiratory concerns. In-person visits, on the other hand, concurrently fell by more than 80%. Interestingly, nonurgent ambulatory care specialties also saw a considerable uptick in virtual encounters, from less than 50 visits in a typical day to an average of 7000 in a 10-day stretch.²

As a largely ambulatory specialty that relies on visual examination, dermatology was no exception to the swing toward telemedicine, or teledermatology (TD). Before the COVID-19 pandemic, 14.1% (82 of 582 respondents) of practicing US dermatologists reported having used teledermatology, compared to 96.9% (572/591) during the pandemic.³ Even at my home institution (Massachusetts General Hospital [Boston, Massachusetts] and its 12 affiliated dermatology clinics), the number of in-person visits in April 2020 (n=67) was less than 1% of that in April 2019 (n=7919), whereas there was a total of 1564 virtual visits in April 2020 compared to zero the year prior. Virtual provider-to-provider consults (e-consultations) also saw an increase of more than 20%, suggesting that dermatology’s avid adoption of TD also had improved the perceived accessibility of our specialty.⁴

The adoption and adaptation of TD are projected to continue to grow rapidly across the globe, as digitalization has enhanced access without increasing costs, shortened wait times, and even created opportunities for primary care providers based in rural or overseas locations to learn the diagnosis and treatment of skin disease.⁵ Residents and fellows should be privy to the nuances of training and practicing in this digital era, as our careers inevitably will involve some facet of TD.

The Art of Medicine

Touch, a sense that perhaps ranks second to sight in dermatology, is absent in TD. In either synchronous (live-interactive, face video visits) or asynchronous (store-and-forward, where digital photographs and clinical information sent by patients or referring physicians are assessed at a later time) TD, the skin cannot be rubbed for texture, pinched for thickness, or pushed for blanching. Instead, all we have is vision. Irwin Braverman, MD, Professor Emeritus of Dermatology at Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut), alongside Jacqueline Dolev, MD, dermatologist and Yale graduate, and Linda Friedlaender, curator at the Yale Center for British Art, founded an observational skills workshop in which trainees learn to observe and describe the paintings housed in the museum, noting all memorable details: the color of the sky, the actions of the animals, and the facial expressions of the people. A study of 90 participants over a 2-year period found that following the workshop, the ability to identify key diagnostic details from clinical photography improved by more than 10%.⁶ Other studies also utilizing fine art as a medical training tool to improve “visual literacy” saw similarly increased sophistication in the description of clinical imagery, which translated to better diagnostic acumen.⁷ Confined to video and photographs, TD necessitates trainees and practicing dermatologists to be excellent visual diagnosticians. Although surveyed dermatologists believe TD is presently appropriate for acne, benign lesions, or follow-up appointments,³ conditions for which patients have been examined via TD have included drug eruptions, premalignant or malignant neoplasms, infections, and papulosquamous or inflammatory dermatoses.⁸ At the very least, clinicians should be versed in identifying those conditions that require in-person evaluation, as patients cannot be held responsible to distinguish which situations can and cannot be addressed virtually.

Issues of Patient-Physician Confidentiality

Teledermatology is not without its shortcomings; critics have noted diagnostic challenges with poor quality photographs or videos, inability to perform total-body skin examinations, and socioeconomic limitations due to broadband availability and speed.^5,9 Although most of these shortcomings are outside of our control, a key challenge within the purview of the provider is the protection of patient privacy.

Much of the salient concerns regarding patient-physician confidentiality involve asynchronous TD, where store-and-forward data sharing allows physicians to download patient photographs or information onto their personal email or smartphones.¹⁰ Although some hospital systems provide encryption software or hospital-sponsored devices to ensure security, physicians may opt to use their personal phones or laptops out of convenience or to save time.^10,11 One study found that less than 30% of smartphone users choose to activate user authentication on their devices, even ones as simple as a passphrase.¹¹ The digital exchange of information thus poses an immense risk for compromising protected health information (PHI), as personal devices can be easily lost, stolen, or hacked. Indeed, in 2015, more than 113 million individuals were affected by a breach of PHI, the majority over hacked network servers.¹² With the growing diversity of mediums through which PHI is exchanged, such as videoconferencing and instant messaging, the potential medicolegal risks of information breach continue to climb. The US Department of Health & Human Services urges health care providers to uphold best practices for security, including encrypting data, updating all software including antivirus software, using multifactor authentication, and following local cybersecurity regulations or recommendations.¹³ For synchronous TD, suggested best practices include utilizing headphones during live appointments, avoiding public wireless networks, and ensuring the provider and patient both scan the room with their device’s camera before the start of the visit.¹⁴

On the Horizon of Teledermatology

What can we expect in the coming years? Increased utilization of telemedicine will translate into data that will help address questions surrounding safety, diagnostic accuracy, privacy, and accessibility. One aspect of TD in need of clarity is a guideline on payment and reimbursement, and whether TD can continue to be financially attractive to providers. Starting in 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services removed geographic restrictions for reimbursement of telemedicine visits, enabling even urban-residing patients to enjoy the convenience of TD. This followed a prior relaxation of restrictions, where even prerecorded patient information became eligible for Medicare reimbursement.⁹ However, as virtual visits tend to be shorter with fewer diagnostic services compared to in-person visits, the reimbursement structure of TD must be nuanced, which is the subject of ongoing study and modification in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁵

Another point to consider is the explosion of direct-to-consumer TD, which allows patients to receive virtual dermatologic care or prescription medication without a pre-established relationship with any physician. In 2017, there were 22 direct-to-consumer TD services available to US patients in 45 states, 16 (73%) of which provided dermatologic care for any concern while 6 (27%) were limited to acne or antiaging and were largely prescription oriented. Orchestrated mostly by the for-profit private sector, direct-to-consumer companies are poorly regulated and have raised concerns over questionable practices, such as the use of non–US board-certified physicians, exorbitant fees, and failure to disclose medication side effects.¹⁶ A study of 16 direct-to-consumer telemedicine sites found substantial discordance in the suggested management of the same patient, and many of the services relied heavily on patient-provided self-diagnoses, such as a case where psoriasis medication was dispensed for a psoriasis patient who submitted a photograph of his syphilitic rash.¹⁷ Despite these problems, consumers show a willingness to pay out of pocket to access these services for their shorter waiting times and convenience.¹⁸ Hence, we must learn to ask about direct-to-consumer service use when obtaining a thorough history and be open to counseling our patients on the proper use and potential risks of direct-to-consumer TD.

Final Thoughts

The telemedicine industry is expected to reach more than $130 billion by 2025, with more than 90% of surveyed health care executives planning for the adoption and incorporation of telemedicine into their business models.¹⁹ The COVID-19 pandemic was an impetus for an exponential adoption of TD, and it would behoove current residents to realize that the practice of dermatology will continue to be increasingly digitalized within the coming years. Whether through formal training or self-assessment, we must strive to grow as proficient virtual dermatologists while upholding professionalism, patient safety, and health information privacy.

A new tracer for use in PET imaging can detect more metastases in patients with cancer than the standard tracer, leading to predictions of a “paradigm shift” in this field.

The new tracer, 68Ga-FAPI (fibroblast activation protein inhibitor), detected more metastases in patients with lung cancer than the standard tracer, 18F-FDG (fluorodeoxyglucose), which has been in use for years.

The study by Chinese researchers was published in Radiology.

The team imaged 34 lung cancer patients with both 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG. Performance was similar for primary tumors and for lung, liver, and adrenal gland metastases. However, FAPI imaging detected more metastases in the lymph nodes (356 vs. 320), brain (23 vs. 10), bone (109 vs. 91), and pleura (66 vs. 35). However, neither modality outperformed MRI for brain metastases, the researchers note.

An accompanying editorial concluded that 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT scanning marks “an important paradigm shift to more specific identification and characterization of a variety of cancers.”

“This may also mark the arrival of a new era in nuclear medicine where molecular imaging helps visualize and characterize the entire tumor burden in one setting,” write editorialists Francine Jacobson, MD, and Annick Van den Abbeele, MD, from Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Dana Farber Cancer Center, in Boston.

This study was the one of the latest in a fast-growing body of literature reporting that tracers targeting FAP with a small-molecule inhibitor (FAPI) outperform FDG tracers, not just in lung cancer but across a broad range of cancers, including breast, hepatic, gastrointestinal, head-neck, gynecologic, and many other tumor types.

The possibilities aren’t limited to imaging, either. Several companies are planning trials to target FAP with radiopharmaceuticals.

FAP is associated with wound repair and is highly expressed by the fibroblasts tightly packed in with cancer cells, particularly in stroma-dense tumors. FAP is rarely expressed by healthy tissue.

The underlying idea is to deliver a radionuclide to cancer-associated fibroblasts, using either a positron emitter, such as gallium-68 (68Ga), for PET imaging or a beta particle or other short-radiation emitter to kill nearby cancer cells as part of treatment.

Targeting FAP holds the promise of PET imaging that is more selective for cancer than FDG. FDG resolution depends on glucose uptake, which is high in active tumors but is also high in inflamed tissues as well as in the brain, gastrointestinal tract, and other areas. Uptake by background tissue can make it difficult to distinguish tumors from their surroundings. FDG uptake can also be lower in small and indolent tumors.

On the therapy side, there’s hope that FAP targeting will lead to radiopharmaceuticals that work across tumor types, not just in specific cancers.
 

High interest in FAP

Overall, FAP “is a target of high interest for the whole medical oncology community. The preliminary data are good, but this will take a while” to get to market, said Jeremie Calais, MD, a nuclear medicine specialist and FAP researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Interest in FAP as a radiopharmaceutical target is being driven by the success of two agents that have served as a kind of proof of concept, Dr. Calais said.

The first is Novartis’s 177Lu-PSMA-617, which was granted priority review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in September 2021 following phase 3 results that showed a progression-free survival benefit of about 5 months when added to standard of care for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, as well as an overall survival benefit of 4 months.

PSMA-617 binds prostate cancer cells that express prostate-specific membrane antigen. The lutetium-177 (177Lu) bombards them with beta particles and gamma radiation.

FAP researchers are also encouraged by the success of 177Lu dotatate (Lutathera), from Advanced Accelerator Applications, which delivers the radionucleotide to gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors that express somatostatin receptors.

The FDA approved this agent in 2018 in part on the basis of phase 3 results that found a 20-month progression-free survival of 65.2% when Lutathera was added to octreotide for metastatic disease vs. 10.8% when it wasn’t.

Novartis is now looking into developing FAP-targeted radiopharmaceuticals, along with Clovis and Point Biopharma, among others.

“That’s the key goal” of industry research, “more so than FAP as a diagnostic tool,” Dr. Calais commented to this news organization. There’s “huge potential” if it works out, he said, in part because it won’t be limited to one tumor type.

Clovis recently launched a phase 1/2 trial of its candidate, 177Lu-FAP-2286, for advanced/metastatic solid tumors.

In the company’s “luMIERE” trial, subjects will be infused with 68Ga-FAP-2286 to image the tumor. Once uptake is confirmed, they’ll be infused with 177Lu-FAP-2286 for treatment.

The two-step process – uptake confirmation, then treatment – is dubbed “theranostics” and is the standard approach for radiopharmaceutical therapy, Dr. Calais said.

His own team is working to confirm that imaging accurately reflects FAP expression in tumors by comparing preoperative imaging results with FAP expression on surgical specimens. So far, his team has found that they are strongly correlated.

FAPI PET imaging research is much farther along than therapeutic applications, with almost 200 research articles listed on PubMed in 2021, up from just 3 in 2018. One 2019 paper reported “remarkably high uptake and image contrast” across 28 cancers in 80 patients, including breast, esophagus, lung, pancreatic, head-neck, and colorectal tumors.

Imaging studies so far have tended to be small, with many currently focused on identifying the optimal molecule for targeting FAP and the best positron emitter to combine with it.

FAPI tracers are not available yet commercially, so researchers are creating them themselves. One team recently reported it’s recipe for automated synthesis using commercially available synthesis modules.

Sofie, a maker of FDG and other tracers, hopes to change that and is working to bring FAP tracers to market. The company announced in November 2021 a phase 2 study of 68Ga FAPI-46 to image pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. It’s the first step in a broader development program for oncologic and nononcologic indications, Sofie said in a press release.

Dr. Calais sees potential for indications where FAPI has already outperformed FDG in the literature, particularly for gastrointestinal cancers. He doesn’t think it will ever replace FDG for indications such as lymphoma, where it “works perfectly well.”

“On the other hand, you have lesions located in a tissue that has some background level” of FDG uptake. “These things are okay with FDG, but I think maybe FAP can help” because of the improved signal-to-noise ratio, Dr. Calais commented. Unlike FDG, “you mostly never see background uptake with FAP-imaging agents,” he said.

Other pluses include quicker distribution throughout the body than FDG, so scan times are shorter, and also patients do not need to fast beforehand.

Dr. Calais predicts that FAPI tracers will reach the market within 5 years.

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

A new tracer for use in PET imaging can detect more metastases in patients with cancer than the standard tracer, leading to predictions of a “paradigm shift” in this field.

The new tracer, 68Ga-FAPI (fibroblast activation protein inhibitor), detected more metastases in patients with lung cancer than the standard tracer, 18F-FDG (fluorodeoxyglucose), which has been in use for years.

The study by Chinese researchers was published in Radiology.

The team imaged 34 lung cancer patients with both 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG. Performance was similar for primary tumors and for lung, liver, and adrenal gland metastases. However, FAPI imaging detected more metastases in the lymph nodes (356 vs. 320), brain (23 vs. 10), bone (109 vs. 91), and pleura (66 vs. 35). However, neither modality outperformed MRI for brain metastases, the researchers note.

An accompanying editorial concluded that 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT scanning marks “an important paradigm shift to more specific identification and characterization of a variety of cancers.”

“This may also mark the arrival of a new era in nuclear medicine where molecular imaging helps visualize and characterize the entire tumor burden in one setting,” write editorialists Francine Jacobson, MD, and Annick Van den Abbeele, MD, from Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Dana Farber Cancer Center, in Boston.

This study was the one of the latest in a fast-growing body of literature reporting that tracers targeting FAP with a small-molecule inhibitor (FAPI) outperform FDG tracers, not just in lung cancer but across a broad range of cancers, including breast, hepatic, gastrointestinal, head-neck, gynecologic, and many other tumor types.

The possibilities aren’t limited to imaging, either. Several companies are planning trials to target FAP with radiopharmaceuticals.

FAP is associated with wound repair and is highly expressed by the fibroblasts tightly packed in with cancer cells, particularly in stroma-dense tumors. FAP is rarely expressed by healthy tissue.

The underlying idea is to deliver a radionuclide to cancer-associated fibroblasts, using either a positron emitter, such as gallium-68 (68Ga), for PET imaging or a beta particle or other short-radiation emitter to kill nearby cancer cells as part of treatment.

Targeting FAP holds the promise of PET imaging that is more selective for cancer than FDG. FDG resolution depends on glucose uptake, which is high in active tumors but is also high in inflamed tissues as well as in the brain, gastrointestinal tract, and other areas. Uptake by background tissue can make it difficult to distinguish tumors from their surroundings. FDG uptake can also be lower in small and indolent tumors.

On the therapy side, there’s hope that FAP targeting will lead to radiopharmaceuticals that work across tumor types, not just in specific cancers.
 

High interest in FAP

Overall, FAP “is a target of high interest for the whole medical oncology community. The preliminary data are good, but this will take a while” to get to market, said Jeremie Calais, MD, a nuclear medicine specialist and FAP researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Interest in FAP as a radiopharmaceutical target is being driven by the success of two agents that have served as a kind of proof of concept, Dr. Calais said.

The first is Novartis’s 177Lu-PSMA-617, which was granted priority review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in September 2021 following phase 3 results that showed a progression-free survival benefit of about 5 months when added to standard of care for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, as well as an overall survival benefit of 4 months.

PSMA-617 binds prostate cancer cells that express prostate-specific membrane antigen. The lutetium-177 (177Lu) bombards them with beta particles and gamma radiation.

FAP researchers are also encouraged by the success of 177Lu dotatate (Lutathera), from Advanced Accelerator Applications, which delivers the radionucleotide to gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors that express somatostatin receptors.

The FDA approved this agent in 2018 in part on the basis of phase 3 results that found a 20-month progression-free survival of 65.2% when Lutathera was added to octreotide for metastatic disease vs. 10.8% when it wasn’t.

Novartis is now looking into developing FAP-targeted radiopharmaceuticals, along with Clovis and Point Biopharma, among others.

“That’s the key goal” of industry research, “more so than FAP as a diagnostic tool,” Dr. Calais commented to this news organization. There’s “huge potential” if it works out, he said, in part because it won’t be limited to one tumor type.

Clovis recently launched a phase 1/2 trial of its candidate, 177Lu-FAP-2286, for advanced/metastatic solid tumors.

In the company’s “luMIERE” trial, subjects will be infused with 68Ga-FAP-2286 to image the tumor. Once uptake is confirmed, they’ll be infused with 177Lu-FAP-2286 for treatment.

The two-step process – uptake confirmation, then treatment – is dubbed “theranostics” and is the standard approach for radiopharmaceutical therapy, Dr. Calais said.

His own team is working to confirm that imaging accurately reflects FAP expression in tumors by comparing preoperative imaging results with FAP expression on surgical specimens. So far, his team has found that they are strongly correlated.

FAPI PET imaging research is much farther along than therapeutic applications, with almost 200 research articles listed on PubMed in 2021, up from just 3 in 2018. One 2019 paper reported “remarkably high uptake and image contrast” across 28 cancers in 80 patients, including breast, esophagus, lung, pancreatic, head-neck, and colorectal tumors.

Imaging studies so far have tended to be small, with many currently focused on identifying the optimal molecule for targeting FAP and the best positron emitter to combine with it.

FAPI tracers are not available yet commercially, so researchers are creating them themselves. One team recently reported it’s recipe for automated synthesis using commercially available synthesis modules.

Sofie, a maker of FDG and other tracers, hopes to change that and is working to bring FAP tracers to market. The company announced in November 2021 a phase 2 study of 68Ga FAPI-46 to image pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. It’s the first step in a broader development program for oncologic and nononcologic indications, Sofie said in a press release.

Dr. Calais sees potential for indications where FAPI has already outperformed FDG in the literature, particularly for gastrointestinal cancers. He doesn’t think it will ever replace FDG for indications such as lymphoma, where it “works perfectly well.”

“On the other hand, you have lesions located in a tissue that has some background level” of FDG uptake. “These things are okay with FDG, but I think maybe FAP can help” because of the improved signal-to-noise ratio, Dr. Calais commented. Unlike FDG, “you mostly never see background uptake with FAP-imaging agents,” he said.

Other pluses include quicker distribution throughout the body than FDG, so scan times are shorter, and also patients do not need to fast beforehand.

Dr. Calais predicts that FAPI tracers will reach the market within 5 years.

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

A new tracer for use in PET imaging can detect more metastases in patients with cancer than the standard tracer, leading to predictions of a “paradigm shift” in this field.

The new tracer, 68Ga-FAPI (fibroblast activation protein inhibitor), detected more metastases in patients with lung cancer than the standard tracer, 18F-FDG (fluorodeoxyglucose), which has been in use for years.

The study by Chinese researchers was published in Radiology.

The team imaged 34 lung cancer patients with both 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG. Performance was similar for primary tumors and for lung, liver, and adrenal gland metastases. However, FAPI imaging detected more metastases in the lymph nodes (356 vs. 320), brain (23 vs. 10), bone (109 vs. 91), and pleura (66 vs. 35). However, neither modality outperformed MRI for brain metastases, the researchers note.

An accompanying editorial concluded that 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT scanning marks “an important paradigm shift to more specific identification and characterization of a variety of cancers.”

“This may also mark the arrival of a new era in nuclear medicine where molecular imaging helps visualize and characterize the entire tumor burden in one setting,” write editorialists Francine Jacobson, MD, and Annick Van den Abbeele, MD, from Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Dana Farber Cancer Center, in Boston.

This study was the one of the latest in a fast-growing body of literature reporting that tracers targeting FAP with a small-molecule inhibitor (FAPI) outperform FDG tracers, not just in lung cancer but across a broad range of cancers, including breast, hepatic, gastrointestinal, head-neck, gynecologic, and many other tumor types.

The possibilities aren’t limited to imaging, either. Several companies are planning trials to target FAP with radiopharmaceuticals.

FAP is associated with wound repair and is highly expressed by the fibroblasts tightly packed in with cancer cells, particularly in stroma-dense tumors. FAP is rarely expressed by healthy tissue.

The underlying idea is to deliver a radionuclide to cancer-associated fibroblasts, using either a positron emitter, such as gallium-68 (68Ga), for PET imaging or a beta particle or other short-radiation emitter to kill nearby cancer cells as part of treatment.

Targeting FAP holds the promise of PET imaging that is more selective for cancer than FDG. FDG resolution depends on glucose uptake, which is high in active tumors but is also high in inflamed tissues as well as in the brain, gastrointestinal tract, and other areas. Uptake by background tissue can make it difficult to distinguish tumors from their surroundings. FDG uptake can also be lower in small and indolent tumors.

On the therapy side, there’s hope that FAP targeting will lead to radiopharmaceuticals that work across tumor types, not just in specific cancers.
 

High interest in FAP

Overall, FAP “is a target of high interest for the whole medical oncology community. The preliminary data are good, but this will take a while” to get to market, said Jeremie Calais, MD, a nuclear medicine specialist and FAP researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Interest in FAP as a radiopharmaceutical target is being driven by the success of two agents that have served as a kind of proof of concept, Dr. Calais said.

The first is Novartis’s 177Lu-PSMA-617, which was granted priority review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in September 2021 following phase 3 results that showed a progression-free survival benefit of about 5 months when added to standard of care for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, as well as an overall survival benefit of 4 months.

PSMA-617 binds prostate cancer cells that express prostate-specific membrane antigen. The lutetium-177 (177Lu) bombards them with beta particles and gamma radiation.

FAP researchers are also encouraged by the success of 177Lu dotatate (Lutathera), from Advanced Accelerator Applications, which delivers the radionucleotide to gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors that express somatostatin receptors.

The FDA approved this agent in 2018 in part on the basis of phase 3 results that found a 20-month progression-free survival of 65.2% when Lutathera was added to octreotide for metastatic disease vs. 10.8% when it wasn’t.

Novartis is now looking into developing FAP-targeted radiopharmaceuticals, along with Clovis and Point Biopharma, among others.

“That’s the key goal” of industry research, “more so than FAP as a diagnostic tool,” Dr. Calais commented to this news organization. There’s “huge potential” if it works out, he said, in part because it won’t be limited to one tumor type.

Clovis recently launched a phase 1/2 trial of its candidate, 177Lu-FAP-2286, for advanced/metastatic solid tumors.

In the company’s “luMIERE” trial, subjects will be infused with 68Ga-FAP-2286 to image the tumor. Once uptake is confirmed, they’ll be infused with 177Lu-FAP-2286 for treatment.

The two-step process – uptake confirmation, then treatment – is dubbed “theranostics” and is the standard approach for radiopharmaceutical therapy, Dr. Calais said.

His own team is working to confirm that imaging accurately reflects FAP expression in tumors by comparing preoperative imaging results with FAP expression on surgical specimens. So far, his team has found that they are strongly correlated.

FAPI PET imaging research is much farther along than therapeutic applications, with almost 200 research articles listed on PubMed in 2021, up from just 3 in 2018. One 2019 paper reported “remarkably high uptake and image contrast” across 28 cancers in 80 patients, including breast, esophagus, lung, pancreatic, head-neck, and colorectal tumors.

Imaging studies so far have tended to be small, with many currently focused on identifying the optimal molecule for targeting FAP and the best positron emitter to combine with it.

FAPI tracers are not available yet commercially, so researchers are creating them themselves. One team recently reported it’s recipe for automated synthesis using commercially available synthesis modules.

Sofie, a maker of FDG and other tracers, hopes to change that and is working to bring FAP tracers to market. The company announced in November 2021 a phase 2 study of 68Ga FAPI-46 to image pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. It’s the first step in a broader development program for oncologic and nononcologic indications, Sofie said in a press release.

Dr. Calais sees potential for indications where FAPI has already outperformed FDG in the literature, particularly for gastrointestinal cancers. He doesn’t think it will ever replace FDG for indications such as lymphoma, where it “works perfectly well.”

“On the other hand, you have lesions located in a tissue that has some background level” of FDG uptake. “These things are okay with FDG, but I think maybe FAP can help” because of the improved signal-to-noise ratio, Dr. Calais commented. Unlike FDG, “you mostly never see background uptake with FAP-imaging agents,” he said.

Other pluses include quicker distribution throughout the body than FDG, so scan times are shorter, and also patients do not need to fast beforehand.

Dr. Calais predicts that FAPI tracers will reach the market within 5 years.

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

Members of the LGBTQ community who give birth appear to have a greater risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and postpartum hemorrhage, according to new research presented at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“Our study found that birthing patients in likely sexual and gender minority partnerships experienced disparities in clinical outcomes,” Stephanie Leonard, PhD, an epidemiology and biostatistics instructor at the Stanford (Calif.) University division of maternal-fetal medicine and obstetrics, told attendees at the meeting. The disparities are likely because of various social determinants and possibly higher use of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The findings establish “how these are significant disparities that have been largely overlooked and set the groundwork for doing further research on maybe ways that we can improve the inclusivity of obstetric care.”

Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research, said the findings were “overall unfortunate but not surprising given the existing studies looking at LGBTQ patients and their poorer health outcomes, largely due to lack of access to health care and discrimination in the health care setting.”

Dr. Leonard described the societal, interpersonal, and individual factors that can contribute to health disparities among gender and sexual minority patients.

“At the societal level, there are expectations of what it means to be pregnant, to give birth, and to be a parent. At the community level, there’s the clinical care environment, and at the interpersonal level, there’s an obstetrician’s relationship with the patient,” Dr. Leonard said. “At the individual level, most notably is minority stress, the biological effects of the chronic experience of discrimination.”

It has historically been difficult to collect data on this patient population, but a change in the design of the California birth certificate made it possible to gather more data than previously possible. The updated California birth certificate, issued in 2016, allows the parent not giving birth to check off whether they are the child’s mother, father, parent, or “not specified” instead of defaulting to “father.” In addition, the parent giving birth can select mother, father, parent or not specified instead of being “mother” by default.

The researchers classified sexual and gender minority (SGM) partnerships as those in which the parent giving birth was identified as the father and those where both parents were identified as mothers. Non-SGM minority partnerships were those in which the birthing parent was identified as the mother and the nonbirthing parent was identified as the father.

The population-based cohort study included data from all live birth hospitalizations from 2016-2019 in California, whose annual births represent one in eight babies born each year in the United States. The population of SGM patients different significantly from the non-SGM population in nearly every demographic and clinical factor except rates of pre-existing diabetes. For example, 42% of the SGM birthing patients were age 35 or older, compared with 23% of the non-SGM patients.

SGM patients were more likely to be born in the United States, were more likely to be White, and were less likely to be Asian or Hispanic. SGM patients had higher education levels and were more likely to have private insurance. They were also more likely to be nulliparous and have chronic hypertension. Average body mass index for SGM patients was 33 kg/m², compared with 30 for non-SGM patients. SGM patients were also much more likely to have multifetal gestation: 7.1% of SGM patients versus 1.5% of non-SGM patients.

In terms of clinical outcomes, 14% of SGM patients had hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, compared with 8% of non-SGM patients. Before adjustment for potential confounders, SGM patients were also twice as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage (8% vs. 4% in non-SGM patients) and postterm birth at 42-44 weeks (0.6% vs 0.3% in non-SGM patients).

“Having increased postterm birth is a matter of declining induction of labor, as it is recommended to have an induction by 41 weeks of gestation in general,” Dr. Mei said in an interview. “It is also possible this patient cohort faces more barriers in access to care and possible discrimination as sexual/gender minority patients.”

Rates of severe preeclampsia, induction of labor, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, low birth weight, and a low Apgar score were also higher among SGM patients, but these associations were no longer significant after adjustment for age, education, payment method, parity, prepregnancy weight, comorbidities, and multifetal gestation. The difference in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, postpartum hemorrhage, and postterm birth remained statistically significant after adjustment.

Past research has shown that only about a third of cisgender female same-sex marriages used ART, so the disparities cannot be completely explained by ART use, Dr. Leonard said.

“I think the main drivers are structural disparities,” Dr. Leonard said. “Every obstetric clinic is focused in a way that’s about mother-father, and many people who don’t feel like they fit into that paradigm feel excluded and disengage with health care.”

Elliott Main, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford University and coauthor of the study noted that discrimination and stigma likely play a substantial role in the disparities.

“Sexual and/or gender minority people face this discrimination at structural and interpersonal levels on a regular basis, which can lead to chronic stress and its harmful physical effects as well as lower-quality health care,” Dr. Main said in an interview.

Another coauthor, Juno Obedin-Maliver, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford, emphasized how much room for improvement exists in care for SGM obstetric patients.

“We hope that this study brings needed attention to the disparities in perinatal health experienced by sexual and/or gender minority people,” Dr. Obedin-Maliver said. “There is much we can do to better understand the family building goals of sexual and/or gender minority people and help those to be achieved with healthy outcomes for parents and their children.”

One limitation of the study is that it’s possible to misclassify individuals using the birth certificate data, and not everyone may be comfortable selecting the box that accurately represents their identity, particularly if they aren’t “out” or fear discrimination or stigma, so the population may underrepresent the actual numbers of sexual and gender minority individuals giving birth. Dr. Mei added that it would be helpful to see data on neonatal ICU admissions and use of ART.

It’s difficult to say how generalizable the findings are, Dr. Mei said. “It is possible the findings would be more exaggerated in the rest of the country outside of California, if we assume there is potentially lower health access and more stigma.” The fact that California offers different gender options for the birthing and nonbirthing parent is, by itself, an indication of a potentially more accepting social environment than might be found in other states.

”The take-home message is that this patient population is higher risk, likely partially due to baseline increased risk factors, such as older maternal age and likely use of ART, and partially due to possible lack of health access and stigma,” Dr. Mei said. “Health care providers should be notably cognizant of these increased risks, particularly in the psychosocial context and make efforts to reduce those burdens as much as possible.”

The research was funded by the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute. Dr. Obedin-Maliver has consulted for Sage Therapeutics, Ibis Reproductive Health, and Hims. Dr. Mei and the other authors had no disclosures.

Members of the LGBTQ community who give birth appear to have a greater risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and postpartum hemorrhage, according to new research presented at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“Our study found that birthing patients in likely sexual and gender minority partnerships experienced disparities in clinical outcomes,” Stephanie Leonard, PhD, an epidemiology and biostatistics instructor at the Stanford (Calif.) University division of maternal-fetal medicine and obstetrics, told attendees at the meeting. The disparities are likely because of various social determinants and possibly higher use of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The findings establish “how these are significant disparities that have been largely overlooked and set the groundwork for doing further research on maybe ways that we can improve the inclusivity of obstetric care.”

Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research, said the findings were “overall unfortunate but not surprising given the existing studies looking at LGBTQ patients and their poorer health outcomes, largely due to lack of access to health care and discrimination in the health care setting.”

Dr. Leonard described the societal, interpersonal, and individual factors that can contribute to health disparities among gender and sexual minority patients.

“At the societal level, there are expectations of what it means to be pregnant, to give birth, and to be a parent. At the community level, there’s the clinical care environment, and at the interpersonal level, there’s an obstetrician’s relationship with the patient,” Dr. Leonard said. “At the individual level, most notably is minority stress, the biological effects of the chronic experience of discrimination.”

It has historically been difficult to collect data on this patient population, but a change in the design of the California birth certificate made it possible to gather more data than previously possible. The updated California birth certificate, issued in 2016, allows the parent not giving birth to check off whether they are the child’s mother, father, parent, or “not specified” instead of defaulting to “father.” In addition, the parent giving birth can select mother, father, parent or not specified instead of being “mother” by default.

The researchers classified sexual and gender minority (SGM) partnerships as those in which the parent giving birth was identified as the father and those where both parents were identified as mothers. Non-SGM minority partnerships were those in which the birthing parent was identified as the mother and the nonbirthing parent was identified as the father.

The population-based cohort study included data from all live birth hospitalizations from 2016-2019 in California, whose annual births represent one in eight babies born each year in the United States. The population of SGM patients different significantly from the non-SGM population in nearly every demographic and clinical factor except rates of pre-existing diabetes. For example, 42% of the SGM birthing patients were age 35 or older, compared with 23% of the non-SGM patients.

SGM patients were more likely to be born in the United States, were more likely to be White, and were less likely to be Asian or Hispanic. SGM patients had higher education levels and were more likely to have private insurance. They were also more likely to be nulliparous and have chronic hypertension. Average body mass index for SGM patients was 33 kg/m², compared with 30 for non-SGM patients. SGM patients were also much more likely to have multifetal gestation: 7.1% of SGM patients versus 1.5% of non-SGM patients.

In terms of clinical outcomes, 14% of SGM patients had hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, compared with 8% of non-SGM patients. Before adjustment for potential confounders, SGM patients were also twice as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage (8% vs. 4% in non-SGM patients) and postterm birth at 42-44 weeks (0.6% vs 0.3% in non-SGM patients).

“Having increased postterm birth is a matter of declining induction of labor, as it is recommended to have an induction by 41 weeks of gestation in general,” Dr. Mei said in an interview. “It is also possible this patient cohort faces more barriers in access to care and possible discrimination as sexual/gender minority patients.”

Rates of severe preeclampsia, induction of labor, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, low birth weight, and a low Apgar score were also higher among SGM patients, but these associations were no longer significant after adjustment for age, education, payment method, parity, prepregnancy weight, comorbidities, and multifetal gestation. The difference in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, postpartum hemorrhage, and postterm birth remained statistically significant after adjustment.

Past research has shown that only about a third of cisgender female same-sex marriages used ART, so the disparities cannot be completely explained by ART use, Dr. Leonard said.

“I think the main drivers are structural disparities,” Dr. Leonard said. “Every obstetric clinic is focused in a way that’s about mother-father, and many people who don’t feel like they fit into that paradigm feel excluded and disengage with health care.”

Elliott Main, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford University and coauthor of the study noted that discrimination and stigma likely play a substantial role in the disparities.

“Sexual and/or gender minority people face this discrimination at structural and interpersonal levels on a regular basis, which can lead to chronic stress and its harmful physical effects as well as lower-quality health care,” Dr. Main said in an interview.

Another coauthor, Juno Obedin-Maliver, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford, emphasized how much room for improvement exists in care for SGM obstetric patients.

“We hope that this study brings needed attention to the disparities in perinatal health experienced by sexual and/or gender minority people,” Dr. Obedin-Maliver said. “There is much we can do to better understand the family building goals of sexual and/or gender minority people and help those to be achieved with healthy outcomes for parents and their children.”

One limitation of the study is that it’s possible to misclassify individuals using the birth certificate data, and not everyone may be comfortable selecting the box that accurately represents their identity, particularly if they aren’t “out” or fear discrimination or stigma, so the population may underrepresent the actual numbers of sexual and gender minority individuals giving birth. Dr. Mei added that it would be helpful to see data on neonatal ICU admissions and use of ART.

It’s difficult to say how generalizable the findings are, Dr. Mei said. “It is possible the findings would be more exaggerated in the rest of the country outside of California, if we assume there is potentially lower health access and more stigma.” The fact that California offers different gender options for the birthing and nonbirthing parent is, by itself, an indication of a potentially more accepting social environment than might be found in other states.

”The take-home message is that this patient population is higher risk, likely partially due to baseline increased risk factors, such as older maternal age and likely use of ART, and partially due to possible lack of health access and stigma,” Dr. Mei said. “Health care providers should be notably cognizant of these increased risks, particularly in the psychosocial context and make efforts to reduce those burdens as much as possible.”

The research was funded by the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute. Dr. Obedin-Maliver has consulted for Sage Therapeutics, Ibis Reproductive Health, and Hims. Dr. Mei and the other authors had no disclosures.

Members of the LGBTQ community who give birth appear to have a greater risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and postpartum hemorrhage, according to new research presented at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“Our study found that birthing patients in likely sexual and gender minority partnerships experienced disparities in clinical outcomes,” Stephanie Leonard, PhD, an epidemiology and biostatistics instructor at the Stanford (Calif.) University division of maternal-fetal medicine and obstetrics, told attendees at the meeting. The disparities are likely because of various social determinants and possibly higher use of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The findings establish “how these are significant disparities that have been largely overlooked and set the groundwork for doing further research on maybe ways that we can improve the inclusivity of obstetric care.”

Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research, said the findings were “overall unfortunate but not surprising given the existing studies looking at LGBTQ patients and their poorer health outcomes, largely due to lack of access to health care and discrimination in the health care setting.”

Dr. Leonard described the societal, interpersonal, and individual factors that can contribute to health disparities among gender and sexual minority patients.

“At the societal level, there are expectations of what it means to be pregnant, to give birth, and to be a parent. At the community level, there’s the clinical care environment, and at the interpersonal level, there’s an obstetrician’s relationship with the patient,” Dr. Leonard said. “At the individual level, most notably is minority stress, the biological effects of the chronic experience of discrimination.”

It has historically been difficult to collect data on this patient population, but a change in the design of the California birth certificate made it possible to gather more data than previously possible. The updated California birth certificate, issued in 2016, allows the parent not giving birth to check off whether they are the child’s mother, father, parent, or “not specified” instead of defaulting to “father.” In addition, the parent giving birth can select mother, father, parent or not specified instead of being “mother” by default.

The researchers classified sexual and gender minority (SGM) partnerships as those in which the parent giving birth was identified as the father and those where both parents were identified as mothers. Non-SGM minority partnerships were those in which the birthing parent was identified as the mother and the nonbirthing parent was identified as the father.

The population-based cohort study included data from all live birth hospitalizations from 2016-2019 in California, whose annual births represent one in eight babies born each year in the United States. The population of SGM patients different significantly from the non-SGM population in nearly every demographic and clinical factor except rates of pre-existing diabetes. For example, 42% of the SGM birthing patients were age 35 or older, compared with 23% of the non-SGM patients.

SGM patients were more likely to be born in the United States, were more likely to be White, and were less likely to be Asian or Hispanic. SGM patients had higher education levels and were more likely to have private insurance. They were also more likely to be nulliparous and have chronic hypertension. Average body mass index for SGM patients was 33 kg/m², compared with 30 for non-SGM patients. SGM patients were also much more likely to have multifetal gestation: 7.1% of SGM patients versus 1.5% of non-SGM patients.

In terms of clinical outcomes, 14% of SGM patients had hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, compared with 8% of non-SGM patients. Before adjustment for potential confounders, SGM patients were also twice as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage (8% vs. 4% in non-SGM patients) and postterm birth at 42-44 weeks (0.6% vs 0.3% in non-SGM patients).

“Having increased postterm birth is a matter of declining induction of labor, as it is recommended to have an induction by 41 weeks of gestation in general,” Dr. Mei said in an interview. “It is also possible this patient cohort faces more barriers in access to care and possible discrimination as sexual/gender minority patients.”

Rates of severe preeclampsia, induction of labor, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, low birth weight, and a low Apgar score were also higher among SGM patients, but these associations were no longer significant after adjustment for age, education, payment method, parity, prepregnancy weight, comorbidities, and multifetal gestation. The difference in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, postpartum hemorrhage, and postterm birth remained statistically significant after adjustment.

Past research has shown that only about a third of cisgender female same-sex marriages used ART, so the disparities cannot be completely explained by ART use, Dr. Leonard said.

“I think the main drivers are structural disparities,” Dr. Leonard said. “Every obstetric clinic is focused in a way that’s about mother-father, and many people who don’t feel like they fit into that paradigm feel excluded and disengage with health care.”

Elliott Main, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford University and coauthor of the study noted that discrimination and stigma likely play a substantial role in the disparities.

“Sexual and/or gender minority people face this discrimination at structural and interpersonal levels on a regular basis, which can lead to chronic stress and its harmful physical effects as well as lower-quality health care,” Dr. Main said in an interview.

Another coauthor, Juno Obedin-Maliver, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford, emphasized how much room for improvement exists in care for SGM obstetric patients.

“We hope that this study brings needed attention to the disparities in perinatal health experienced by sexual and/or gender minority people,” Dr. Obedin-Maliver said. “There is much we can do to better understand the family building goals of sexual and/or gender minority people and help those to be achieved with healthy outcomes for parents and their children.”

One limitation of the study is that it’s possible to misclassify individuals using the birth certificate data, and not everyone may be comfortable selecting the box that accurately represents their identity, particularly if they aren’t “out” or fear discrimination or stigma, so the population may underrepresent the actual numbers of sexual and gender minority individuals giving birth. Dr. Mei added that it would be helpful to see data on neonatal ICU admissions and use of ART.

It’s difficult to say how generalizable the findings are, Dr. Mei said. “It is possible the findings would be more exaggerated in the rest of the country outside of California, if we assume there is potentially lower health access and more stigma.” The fact that California offers different gender options for the birthing and nonbirthing parent is, by itself, an indication of a potentially more accepting social environment than might be found in other states.

”The take-home message is that this patient population is higher risk, likely partially due to baseline increased risk factors, such as older maternal age and likely use of ART, and partially due to possible lack of health access and stigma,” Dr. Mei said. “Health care providers should be notably cognizant of these increased risks, particularly in the psychosocial context and make efforts to reduce those burdens as much as possible.”

The research was funded by the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute. Dr. Obedin-Maliver has consulted for Sage Therapeutics, Ibis Reproductive Health, and Hims. Dr. Mei and the other authors had no disclosures.

Sugary beverages – juice, soda, decadent lattes, sports drinks, and more – are the leading source of both calories and added sugar in the American diet, according to the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. But new research published in PLoS Medicine has found that picture warnings on soda containers or juice boxes could discourage parents from buying those unhealthful products.

The new study, from researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that parents were 17% less likely to buy sugary drinks for their children when the beverages had the graphical – and graphic – warnings on the products.

Dreamstime

The researchers turned a laboratory setting into a “minimart,” and parents were told to choose one drink and snack for their children, along with one household item (to disguise the purpose of the study).

Some parents were presented with sweetened drinks with images on the products reflecting type 2 diabetes and heart damage. Others were shown sugary drinks with a barcode label and no picture warning.

Forty-five percent of parents chose sugary drinks for their children when the products had no picture warning, but only 28% of parents chose sugary beverages with the cautionary images.

“When people make choices about what food to buy, they are juggling dozens of factors, like taste, cost, and advertising, and are looking at many products at once,” said Lindsey Smith Taillie, PhD, a nutrition researcher and the senior author of the paper.

“Showing that warnings can cut through the noise of everything else that’s happening in a food store is powerful evidence that they would help reduce sugary drink purchases in the real world.”

Children are particularly prone to overindulging on sugar, largely due to companies’ frequent marketing displays of pleasurable-looking and seemingly “thirst-quenching” sweet beverages.

Drink packaging also can be misleading.

Fruits and vegetables displayed on the front of many beverages often lead parents to buy what they believe are “healthy” options, when these drinks could be packed with sugar, according to a study published online Jan. 22 in the journal Appetite.

Parents are often “doing the best with what information they have,” so more education about nutrition, through picture warning labels, for example, would make a difference, said Caroline Fausel, a paleo food blogger, podcaster, and author of “Prep, Cook, Freeze: A Paleo Meal Planning Cookbook.”
 

Healthier choices on the rise

The American Beverage Association, an industry trade group, shared the current steps that major companies are taking to help lower Americans’ sugar intake.

Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and Keurig Dr Pepper joined forces in 2014 to create the Balance Calories Initiative, which aims to reduce beverage calories in the national diet.

Coca-Cola now offers 250 beverages with zero to low calories, and Keurig Dr Pepper has 158 products with 40 calories or less. Pepsi sells 7.5-ounce mini-cans, along with various other sizes, to encourage portion control.

“Beverage companies are fully transparent about the calories and sugar in our products, and we are offering more choices with less sugar than ever before,” William Dermody, vice president of media and public affairs for the American Beverage Association, said in a statement. “We agree that too much sugar is not good for anyone, and clear information about beverages is most helpful to consumers.”

Other big companies also are taking strides to lower sugar content in their products.

Kraft Heinz, which owns the popular line of Capri Sun drinks, has publicly shared its efforts to ramp up the nutritional value of its products.

The company has a goal to slash 60 million pounds of total sugar in Kraft Heinz products globally by 2025.

“As more people become aware of the harm that excessive sugar can cause in the body, my hope is that they continue to choose healthier alternatives,” Ms. Fausel said.
 

Creating new patterns

For children who consume sweetened juices and sodas regularly, the transition to healthier options might be challenging at first.

“Change can involve tantrums and unhappiness, and right now parents are at their max living pandemic parenting life,” said Jennifer Anderson, a registered dietitian and CEO of Kids Eat in Color, LLC, a resource for improving child nutrition and health through innovative education, meal plans, and tools. “Kids can get used to having sugary drinks, and they don’t want to give them up.”

One way to help make the switch is by having only water and milk as options while children are up and about, a technique that works particularly well for younger children, she said.

“This sort of ‘quiet restriction’ helps kids learn to love the healthier option without feeling deprived,” Ms. Anderson said. “They will eventually learn about juice, soda, chocolate milk, sports drinks, and more, but you can let them learn about those foods at a slower pace when you rarely or don’t serve them at home.”

The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sugary beverages – juice, soda, decadent lattes, sports drinks, and more – are the leading source of both calories and added sugar in the American diet, according to the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. But new research published in PLoS Medicine has found that picture warnings on soda containers or juice boxes could discourage parents from buying those unhealthful products.

The new study, from researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that parents were 17% less likely to buy sugary drinks for their children when the beverages had the graphical – and graphic – warnings on the products.

Dreamstime

The researchers turned a laboratory setting into a “minimart,” and parents were told to choose one drink and snack for their children, along with one household item (to disguise the purpose of the study).

Some parents were presented with sweetened drinks with images on the products reflecting type 2 diabetes and heart damage. Others were shown sugary drinks with a barcode label and no picture warning.

Forty-five percent of parents chose sugary drinks for their children when the products had no picture warning, but only 28% of parents chose sugary beverages with the cautionary images.

“When people make choices about what food to buy, they are juggling dozens of factors, like taste, cost, and advertising, and are looking at many products at once,” said Lindsey Smith Taillie, PhD, a nutrition researcher and the senior author of the paper.

“Showing that warnings can cut through the noise of everything else that’s happening in a food store is powerful evidence that they would help reduce sugary drink purchases in the real world.”

Children are particularly prone to overindulging on sugar, largely due to companies’ frequent marketing displays of pleasurable-looking and seemingly “thirst-quenching” sweet beverages.

Drink packaging also can be misleading.

Fruits and vegetables displayed on the front of many beverages often lead parents to buy what they believe are “healthy” options, when these drinks could be packed with sugar, according to a study published online Jan. 22 in the journal Appetite.

Parents are often “doing the best with what information they have,” so more education about nutrition, through picture warning labels, for example, would make a difference, said Caroline Fausel, a paleo food blogger, podcaster, and author of “Prep, Cook, Freeze: A Paleo Meal Planning Cookbook.”
 

Healthier choices on the rise

The American Beverage Association, an industry trade group, shared the current steps that major companies are taking to help lower Americans’ sugar intake.

Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and Keurig Dr Pepper joined forces in 2014 to create the Balance Calories Initiative, which aims to reduce beverage calories in the national diet.

Coca-Cola now offers 250 beverages with zero to low calories, and Keurig Dr Pepper has 158 products with 40 calories or less. Pepsi sells 7.5-ounce mini-cans, along with various other sizes, to encourage portion control.

“Beverage companies are fully transparent about the calories and sugar in our products, and we are offering more choices with less sugar than ever before,” William Dermody, vice president of media and public affairs for the American Beverage Association, said in a statement. “We agree that too much sugar is not good for anyone, and clear information about beverages is most helpful to consumers.”

Other big companies also are taking strides to lower sugar content in their products.

Kraft Heinz, which owns the popular line of Capri Sun drinks, has publicly shared its efforts to ramp up the nutritional value of its products.

The company has a goal to slash 60 million pounds of total sugar in Kraft Heinz products globally by 2025.

“As more people become aware of the harm that excessive sugar can cause in the body, my hope is that they continue to choose healthier alternatives,” Ms. Fausel said.
 

Creating new patterns

For children who consume sweetened juices and sodas regularly, the transition to healthier options might be challenging at first.

“Change can involve tantrums and unhappiness, and right now parents are at their max living pandemic parenting life,” said Jennifer Anderson, a registered dietitian and CEO of Kids Eat in Color, LLC, a resource for improving child nutrition and health through innovative education, meal plans, and tools. “Kids can get used to having sugary drinks, and they don’t want to give them up.”

One way to help make the switch is by having only water and milk as options while children are up and about, a technique that works particularly well for younger children, she said.

“This sort of ‘quiet restriction’ helps kids learn to love the healthier option without feeling deprived,” Ms. Anderson said. “They will eventually learn about juice, soda, chocolate milk, sports drinks, and more, but you can let them learn about those foods at a slower pace when you rarely or don’t serve them at home.”

The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sugary beverages – juice, soda, decadent lattes, sports drinks, and more – are the leading source of both calories and added sugar in the American diet, according to the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. But new research published in PLoS Medicine has found that picture warnings on soda containers or juice boxes could discourage parents from buying those unhealthful products.

The new study, from researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that parents were 17% less likely to buy sugary drinks for their children when the beverages had the graphical – and graphic – warnings on the products.

Dreamstime

The researchers turned a laboratory setting into a “minimart,” and parents were told to choose one drink and snack for their children, along with one household item (to disguise the purpose of the study).

Some parents were presented with sweetened drinks with images on the products reflecting type 2 diabetes and heart damage. Others were shown sugary drinks with a barcode label and no picture warning.

Forty-five percent of parents chose sugary drinks for their children when the products had no picture warning, but only 28% of parents chose sugary beverages with the cautionary images.

“When people make choices about what food to buy, they are juggling dozens of factors, like taste, cost, and advertising, and are looking at many products at once,” said Lindsey Smith Taillie, PhD, a nutrition researcher and the senior author of the paper.

“Showing that warnings can cut through the noise of everything else that’s happening in a food store is powerful evidence that they would help reduce sugary drink purchases in the real world.”

Children are particularly prone to overindulging on sugar, largely due to companies’ frequent marketing displays of pleasurable-looking and seemingly “thirst-quenching” sweet beverages.

Drink packaging also can be misleading.

Fruits and vegetables displayed on the front of many beverages often lead parents to buy what they believe are “healthy” options, when these drinks could be packed with sugar, according to a study published online Jan. 22 in the journal Appetite.

Parents are often “doing the best with what information they have,” so more education about nutrition, through picture warning labels, for example, would make a difference, said Caroline Fausel, a paleo food blogger, podcaster, and author of “Prep, Cook, Freeze: A Paleo Meal Planning Cookbook.”
 

Healthier choices on the rise

The American Beverage Association, an industry trade group, shared the current steps that major companies are taking to help lower Americans’ sugar intake.

Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and Keurig Dr Pepper joined forces in 2014 to create the Balance Calories Initiative, which aims to reduce beverage calories in the national diet.

Coca-Cola now offers 250 beverages with zero to low calories, and Keurig Dr Pepper has 158 products with 40 calories or less. Pepsi sells 7.5-ounce mini-cans, along with various other sizes, to encourage portion control.

“Beverage companies are fully transparent about the calories and sugar in our products, and we are offering more choices with less sugar than ever before,” William Dermody, vice president of media and public affairs for the American Beverage Association, said in a statement. “We agree that too much sugar is not good for anyone, and clear information about beverages is most helpful to consumers.”

Other big companies also are taking strides to lower sugar content in their products.

Kraft Heinz, which owns the popular line of Capri Sun drinks, has publicly shared its efforts to ramp up the nutritional value of its products.

The company has a goal to slash 60 million pounds of total sugar in Kraft Heinz products globally by 2025.

“As more people become aware of the harm that excessive sugar can cause in the body, my hope is that they continue to choose healthier alternatives,” Ms. Fausel said.
 

Creating new patterns

For children who consume sweetened juices and sodas regularly, the transition to healthier options might be challenging at first.

“Change can involve tantrums and unhappiness, and right now parents are at their max living pandemic parenting life,” said Jennifer Anderson, a registered dietitian and CEO of Kids Eat in Color, LLC, a resource for improving child nutrition and health through innovative education, meal plans, and tools. “Kids can get used to having sugary drinks, and they don’t want to give them up.”

One way to help make the switch is by having only water and milk as options while children are up and about, a technique that works particularly well for younger children, she said.

“This sort of ‘quiet restriction’ helps kids learn to love the healthier option without feeling deprived,” Ms. Anderson said. “They will eventually learn about juice, soda, chocolate milk, sports drinks, and more, but you can let them learn about those foods at a slower pace when you rarely or don’t serve them at home.”

The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In this Update, the authors discuss 2 important areas that impact fertility. First, with in vitro fertilization (IVF), successful implantation that leads to live birth requires a normal embryo and a receptive endometrium. While research using advanced molecular array technology has resulted in a clinical test to identify the optimal window of implantation, recent evidence has questioned its clinical effectiveness. Second, recognizing the importance of endometriosis—a common disease with high burden that causes pain, infertility, and other symptoms—the World Health Organization (WHO) last year published an informative fact sheet that highlights the diagnosis, treatment options, and challenges of this significant disease.

Endometrial receptivity array and the quest for optimal endometrial preparation prior to embryo transfer in IVF

Bergin K, Eliner Y, Duvall DW Jr, et al. The use of propensity score matching to assess the benefit of the endometrial receptivity analysis in frozen embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2021;116:396-403.

Riestenberg C, Kroener L, Quinn M, et al. Routine endometrial receptivity array in first embryo transfer cycles does not improve live birth rate. Fertil Steril. 2021;115:1001-1006.

Doyle N, Jahandideh S, Hill MJ, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing live birth from single euploid frozen blastocyst transfer using standardized timing versus timing by endometrial receptivity analysis. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(suppl):e101.

A successful pregnancy requires optimal crosstalk between the embryo and the endometrium. Over the past several decades, research efforts to improve IVF outcomes have been focused mainly on the embryo factor and methods to improve embryo selection, such as extended culture to blastocyst, time-lapse imaging (morphokinetic assessment), and more notably, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). However, the other half of the equation, the endometrium, has not garnered the attention that it deserves. Effort has therefore been renewed to optimize the endometrial factor by better diagnosing and treating various forms of endometrial dysfunction that could lead to infertility in general and lack of success with IVF and euploid embryo transfers in particular.

Historical background on endometrial function

Progesterone has long been recognized as the main effector that transforms the estrogen-primed endometrium into a receptive state that results in successful embryo implantation. Progesterone exposure is required at appropriate levels and duration before the endometrium becomes receptive to the embryo. If implantation does not occur soon after the endometrium has attained receptive status (7–10 days after ovulation), further progesterone exposure results in progression of endometrial changes that no longer permit successful implantation.

As early as the 1950s, “luteal phase deficiency” was defined as due to inadequate progesterone secretion and resulted in a short luteal phase. In the 1970s, histologic “dating” of the endometrium became the gold standard for diagnosing luteal phase defects; this relied on a classic histologic appearance of secretory phase endometrium and its changes throughout the luteal phase. Subsequently, however, results of prospective randomized controlled trials published in 2004 cast significant doubt on the accuracy and reproducibility of these endometrial biopsies and did not show any clinical diagnostic benefit or correlation with pregnancy outcomes.

21st century advances: Endometrial dating 2.0

A decade later, with the advancement of molecular biology tools such as microarray technology, researchers were able to study endometrial gene expression patterns at different stages of the menstrual cycle. They identified different phases of endometrial development with molecular profiles, or “signatures,” for the luteal phase, endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, and uterine fibroids.

In 2013, researchers in Spain introduced a diagnostic test called endometrial receptivity array (ERA) with the stated goal of being able to temporally define the receptive endometrium and identify prereceptive as well as postreceptive states.¹ In other words, instead of the histologic dating of the endometrium used in the 1970s, it represented “molecular dating” of the endometrium. Although the initial studies were conducted among women who experienced prior unsuccessful embryo transfers (the so-called recurrent implantation failure, or RIF), the test’s scope was subsequently expanded to include any individual planning on a frozen embryo transfer (FET), regardless of any prior attempts. The term personalized embryo transfer (pET) was coined to suggest the ability to define the best time (up to hours) for embryo transfers on an individual basis. Despite lack of independent validation studies, ERA was then widely adopted by many clinicians (and requested by some patients) with the hope of improving IVF outcomes.

However, not unlike many other novel innovations in assisted reproductive technology, ERA regrettably did not withstand the test of time. Three independent studies in 2021, 1 randomized clinical trial and 2 observational cohort studies, did not show any benefit with regard to implantation rates, pregnancy rates, or live birth rates when ERA was performed in the general infertility population.^2-4

Continue to: Study results...

Study results

The cohort study that matched 133 ERA patients with 353 non-ERA patients showed live birth rates of 49.62% for the ERA group and 54.96% for the non-ERA group (odds ratio [OR], 0.8074; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5424–1.2018).² Of note, no difference occurred between subgroups based on the prior number of FETs or the receptivity status (TABLE 1).

Another cohort study from the University of California, Los Angeles, published in 2021 analyzed 228 single euploid FET cycles.³ This study did not show any benefit for routine ERA testing, with a live birth rate of 56.6% in the non-ERA group and 56.5% in the ERA group.

Still, the most convincing evidence for the lack of benefit from routine ERA was noted from the results of the randomized clinical trial.⁴ A total of 767 patients were randomly allocated, 381 to the ERA group and 386 to the control group. There was no difference in ongoing pregnancy rates between the 2 groups. Perhaps more important, even after limiting the analysis to individuals with a nonreceptive ERA result, there was no difference in ongoing pregnancy rates between the 2 groups: 62.5% in the control group (default timing of transfer) and 55.5% in the study group (transfer timing adjusted based on ERA) (rate ratio [RR], 0.9; 95% CI, 0.70–1.14).

ERA usefulness is unsupported in general infertility population

The studies discussed collectively suggest with a high degree of certainty that there is no indication for routine ERA testing in the general infertility population prior to frozen embryo transfers.

Although these studies all were conducted in the general infertility population and did not specifically evaluate the performance of ERA in women with recurrent pregnancy loss or recurrent implantation failure, it is important to acknowledge that if ERA were truly able to define the window of receptivity, one would expect a lower implantation rate if the embryos were transferred outside of the window suggested by the ERA. This was not the case in these studies, as they all showed equivalent pregnancy rates in the control (nonadjusted) groups even when ERA suggested a nonreceptive status.

This observation seriously questions the validity of ERA regarding its ability to temporally define the window of receptivity. On the other hand, as stated earlier, there is still a possibility for ERA to be beneficial for a small subgroup of patients whose window of receptivity may not be as wide as expected in the general population. The challenging question would be how best to identify the particular group with a narrow, or displaced, window of receptivity.

Continue to: WHO raises awareness of endometriosis burden and...

WHO raises awareness of endometriosis burden and highlights need to address diagnosis and treatment for women’s reproductive health

World Health Organization. Endometriosis fact sheet. March 31, 2021. https://www.who.int/news-room /fact-sheets/detail/endometriosis. Accessed January 3, 2022.

The WHO published its first fact sheet on endometriosis in March 2021, recognizing endometriosis as a severe disease that affects almost 190 million women with life-impacting pain, infertility, other symptoms, and especially with chronic, significant emotional sequelae (TABLE 2).⁵ The disease’s variable and broad symptoms result in a lack of awareness and diagnosis by both women and health care providers, especially in low- and middle-income countries and in disadvantaged populations in developed countries. Increased awareness to promote earlier diagnosis, improved training for better management, expanded research for greater understanding, and policies that increase access to quality care are needed to ensure the reproductive health and rights of tens of millions of women with endometriosis.

Endometriosis characteristics and symptoms

Endometriosis is characterized by the presence of tissue resembling endometrium outside the uterus, where it causes a chronic inflammatory reaction that may result in the formation of scar tissue. Endometriotic lesions may be superficial, cystic ovarian endometriomas, or deep lesions, causing a myriad of pain and related symptoms.^6.7

Chronic pain may occur because pain centers in the brain become hyperresponsive over time (central sensitization); this can occur at any point throughout the life course of endometriosis, even when endometriosis lesions are no longer visible. Sometimes, endometriosis is asymptomatic. In addition, endometriosis can cause infertility through anatomic distortion and inflammatory, endocrinologic, and other pathways.

The origins of endometriosis are thought to be multifactorial and include retrograde menstruation, cellular metaplasia, and/or stem cells that spread through blood and lymphatic vessels. Endometriosis is estrogen dependent, but lesion growth also is affected by altered or impaired immunity, localized complex hormonal influences, genetics, and possibly environmental contaminants.

Impact on public health and reproductive rights

Endometriosis has significant social, public health, and economic implications. It can decrease quality of life and prevent girls and women from attending work or school.⁸ Painful sex can affect sexual health. The WHO states that, “Addressing endometriosis will empower those affected by it, by supporting their human right to the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health, quality of life, and overall well-being.”⁵

At present, no known way is available to prevent or cure endometriosis. Early diagnosis and treatment, however, may slow or halt its natural progression and associated symptoms.

Diagnostic steps and treatment options

Early suspicion of endometriosis is the most important factor, followed by a careful history of menstrual symptoms and chronic pelvic pain, early referral to specialists for ultrasonography or other imaging, and sometimes surgical or laparoscopic visualization. Empirical treatment can be begun without histologic or laparoscopic confirmation.

Endometriosis can be treated with medications and/or surgery depending on symptoms, lesions, desired outcome, and patient choice.^5,6 Common therapies include contraceptive steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and analgesics. Medical treatments focus on either lowering estrogen or increasing progesterone levels.

Surgery can remove endometriosis lesions, adhesions, and scar tissue. However, success in reducing pain symptoms and increasing pregnancy rates often depends on the extent of disease.

For infertility due to endometriosis, treatment options include laparoscopic surgical removal of endometriosis, ovarian stimulation with intrauterine insemination (IUI), and IVF. Multidisciplinary treatment addressing different symptoms and overall health often requires referral to pain experts and other specialists.⁹

The WHO perspective on endometriosis

Recognizing the importance of endometriosis and its impact on people’s sexual and reproductive health, quality of life, and overall well-being, the WHO is taking action to improve awareness, diagnosis, and treatment of endometriosis (TABLE 3).⁵ ●

In this Update, the authors discuss 2 important areas that impact fertility. First, with in vitro fertilization (IVF), successful implantation that leads to live birth requires a normal embryo and a receptive endometrium. While research using advanced molecular array technology has resulted in a clinical test to identify the optimal window of implantation, recent evidence has questioned its clinical effectiveness. Second, recognizing the importance of endometriosis—a common disease with high burden that causes pain, infertility, and other symptoms—the World Health Organization (WHO) last year published an informative fact sheet that highlights the diagnosis, treatment options, and challenges of this significant disease.

Endometrial receptivity array and the quest for optimal endometrial preparation prior to embryo transfer in IVF

Bergin K, Eliner Y, Duvall DW Jr, et al. The use of propensity score matching to assess the benefit of the endometrial receptivity analysis in frozen embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2021;116:396-403.

Riestenberg C, Kroener L, Quinn M, et al. Routine endometrial receptivity array in first embryo transfer cycles does not improve live birth rate. Fertil Steril. 2021;115:1001-1006.

Doyle N, Jahandideh S, Hill MJ, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing live birth from single euploid frozen blastocyst transfer using standardized timing versus timing by endometrial receptivity analysis. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(suppl):e101.

A successful pregnancy requires optimal crosstalk between the embryo and the endometrium. Over the past several decades, research efforts to improve IVF outcomes have been focused mainly on the embryo factor and methods to improve embryo selection, such as extended culture to blastocyst, time-lapse imaging (morphokinetic assessment), and more notably, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). However, the other half of the equation, the endometrium, has not garnered the attention that it deserves. Effort has therefore been renewed to optimize the endometrial factor by better diagnosing and treating various forms of endometrial dysfunction that could lead to infertility in general and lack of success with IVF and euploid embryo transfers in particular.

Historical background on endometrial function

Progesterone has long been recognized as the main effector that transforms the estrogen-primed endometrium into a receptive state that results in successful embryo implantation. Progesterone exposure is required at appropriate levels and duration before the endometrium becomes receptive to the embryo. If implantation does not occur soon after the endometrium has attained receptive status (7–10 days after ovulation), further progesterone exposure results in progression of endometrial changes that no longer permit successful implantation.

As early as the 1950s, “luteal phase deficiency” was defined as due to inadequate progesterone secretion and resulted in a short luteal phase. In the 1970s, histologic “dating” of the endometrium became the gold standard for diagnosing luteal phase defects; this relied on a classic histologic appearance of secretory phase endometrium and its changes throughout the luteal phase. Subsequently, however, results of prospective randomized controlled trials published in 2004 cast significant doubt on the accuracy and reproducibility of these endometrial biopsies and did not show any clinical diagnostic benefit or correlation with pregnancy outcomes.

21st century advances: Endometrial dating 2.0

A decade later, with the advancement of molecular biology tools such as microarray technology, researchers were able to study endometrial gene expression patterns at different stages of the menstrual cycle. They identified different phases of endometrial development with molecular profiles, or “signatures,” for the luteal phase, endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, and uterine fibroids.

In 2013, researchers in Spain introduced a diagnostic test called endometrial receptivity array (ERA) with the stated goal of being able to temporally define the receptive endometrium and identify prereceptive as well as postreceptive states.¹ In other words, instead of the histologic dating of the endometrium used in the 1970s, it represented “molecular dating” of the endometrium. Although the initial studies were conducted among women who experienced prior unsuccessful embryo transfers (the so-called recurrent implantation failure, or RIF), the test’s scope was subsequently expanded to include any individual planning on a frozen embryo transfer (FET), regardless of any prior attempts. The term personalized embryo transfer (pET) was coined to suggest the ability to define the best time (up to hours) for embryo transfers on an individual basis. Despite lack of independent validation studies, ERA was then widely adopted by many clinicians (and requested by some patients) with the hope of improving IVF outcomes.

However, not unlike many other novel innovations in assisted reproductive technology, ERA regrettably did not withstand the test of time. Three independent studies in 2021, 1 randomized clinical trial and 2 observational cohort studies, did not show any benefit with regard to implantation rates, pregnancy rates, or live birth rates when ERA was performed in the general infertility population.^2-4

Continue to: Study results...

Study results

The cohort study that matched 133 ERA patients with 353 non-ERA patients showed live birth rates of 49.62% for the ERA group and 54.96% for the non-ERA group (odds ratio [OR], 0.8074; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5424–1.2018).² Of note, no difference occurred between subgroups based on the prior number of FETs or the receptivity status (TABLE 1).

Another cohort study from the University of California, Los Angeles, published in 2021 analyzed 228 single euploid FET cycles.³ This study did not show any benefit for routine ERA testing, with a live birth rate of 56.6% in the non-ERA group and 56.5% in the ERA group.

Still, the most convincing evidence for the lack of benefit from routine ERA was noted from the results of the randomized clinical trial.⁴ A total of 767 patients were randomly allocated, 381 to the ERA group and 386 to the control group. There was no difference in ongoing pregnancy rates between the 2 groups. Perhaps more important, even after limiting the analysis to individuals with a nonreceptive ERA result, there was no difference in ongoing pregnancy rates between the 2 groups: 62.5% in the control group (default timing of transfer) and 55.5% in the study group (transfer timing adjusted based on ERA) (rate ratio [RR], 0.9; 95% CI, 0.70–1.14).

ERA usefulness is unsupported in general infertility population

The studies discussed collectively suggest with a high degree of certainty that there is no indication for routine ERA testing in the general infertility population prior to frozen embryo transfers.

Although these studies all were conducted in the general infertility population and did not specifically evaluate the performance of ERA in women with recurrent pregnancy loss or recurrent implantation failure, it is important to acknowledge that if ERA were truly able to define the window of receptivity, one would expect a lower implantation rate if the embryos were transferred outside of the window suggested by the ERA. This was not the case in these studies, as they all showed equivalent pregnancy rates in the control (nonadjusted) groups even when ERA suggested a nonreceptive status.

This observation seriously questions the validity of ERA regarding its ability to temporally define the window of receptivity. On the other hand, as stated earlier, there is still a possibility for ERA to be beneficial for a small subgroup of patients whose window of receptivity may not be as wide as expected in the general population. The challenging question would be how best to identify the particular group with a narrow, or displaced, window of receptivity.

Continue to: WHO raises awareness of endometriosis burden and...

WHO raises awareness of endometriosis burden and highlights need to address diagnosis and treatment for women’s reproductive health

World Health Organization. Endometriosis fact sheet. March 31, 2021. https://www.who.int/news-room /fact-sheets/detail/endometriosis. Accessed January 3, 2022.

The WHO published its first fact sheet on endometriosis in March 2021, recognizing endometriosis as a severe disease that affects almost 190 million women with life-impacting pain, infertility, other symptoms, and especially with chronic, significant emotional sequelae (TABLE 2).⁵ The disease’s variable and broad symptoms result in a lack of awareness and diagnosis by both women and health care providers, especially in low- and middle-income countries and in disadvantaged populations in developed countries. Increased awareness to promote earlier diagnosis, improved training for better management, expanded research for greater understanding, and policies that increase access to quality care are needed to ensure the reproductive health and rights of tens of millions of women with endometriosis.

Endometriosis characteristics and symptoms

Endometriosis is characterized by the presence of tissue resembling endometrium outside the uterus, where it causes a chronic inflammatory reaction that may result in the formation of scar tissue. Endometriotic lesions may be superficial, cystic ovarian endometriomas, or deep lesions, causing a myriad of pain and related symptoms.^6.7

Chronic pain may occur because pain centers in the brain become hyperresponsive over time (central sensitization); this can occur at any point throughout the life course of endometriosis, even when endometriosis lesions are no longer visible. Sometimes, endometriosis is asymptomatic. In addition, endometriosis can cause infertility through anatomic distortion and inflammatory, endocrinologic, and other pathways.

The origins of endometriosis are thought to be multifactorial and include retrograde menstruation, cellular metaplasia, and/or stem cells that spread through blood and lymphatic vessels. Endometriosis is estrogen dependent, but lesion growth also is affected by altered or impaired immunity, localized complex hormonal influences, genetics, and possibly environmental contaminants.

Impact on public health and reproductive rights

Endometriosis has significant social, public health, and economic implications. It can decrease quality of life and prevent girls and women from attending work or school.⁸ Painful sex can affect sexual health. The WHO states that, “Addressing endometriosis will empower those affected by it, by supporting their human right to the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health, quality of life, and overall well-being.”⁵

At present, no known way is available to prevent or cure endometriosis. Early diagnosis and treatment, however, may slow or halt its natural progression and associated symptoms.

Diagnostic steps and treatment options

Early suspicion of endometriosis is the most important factor, followed by a careful history of menstrual symptoms and chronic pelvic pain, early referral to specialists for ultrasonography or other imaging, and sometimes surgical or laparoscopic visualization. Empirical treatment can be begun without histologic or laparoscopic confirmation.

Endometriosis can be treated with medications and/or surgery depending on symptoms, lesions, desired outcome, and patient choice.^5,6 Common therapies include contraceptive steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and analgesics. Medical treatments focus on either lowering estrogen or increasing progesterone levels.

Surgery can remove endometriosis lesions, adhesions, and scar tissue. However, success in reducing pain symptoms and increasing pregnancy rates often depends on the extent of disease.

For infertility due to endometriosis, treatment options include laparoscopic surgical removal of endometriosis, ovarian stimulation with intrauterine insemination (IUI), and IVF. Multidisciplinary treatment addressing different symptoms and overall health often requires referral to pain experts and other specialists.⁹

The WHO perspective on endometriosis

Recognizing the importance of endometriosis and its impact on people’s sexual and reproductive health, quality of life, and overall well-being, the WHO is taking action to improve awareness, diagnosis, and treatment of endometriosis (TABLE 3).⁵ ●

In this Update, the authors discuss 2 important areas that impact fertility. First, with in vitro fertilization (IVF), successful implantation that leads to live birth requires a normal embryo and a receptive endometrium. While research using advanced molecular array technology has resulted in a clinical test to identify the optimal window of implantation, recent evidence has questioned its clinical effectiveness. Second, recognizing the importance of endometriosis—a common disease with high burden that causes pain, infertility, and other symptoms—the World Health Organization (WHO) last year published an informative fact sheet that highlights the diagnosis, treatment options, and challenges of this significant disease.

Endometrial receptivity array and the quest for optimal endometrial preparation prior to embryo transfer in IVF

Bergin K, Eliner Y, Duvall DW Jr, et al. The use of propensity score matching to assess the benefit of the endometrial receptivity analysis in frozen embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2021;116:396-403.

Riestenberg C, Kroener L, Quinn M, et al. Routine endometrial receptivity array in first embryo transfer cycles does not improve live birth rate. Fertil Steril. 2021;115:1001-1006.

Doyle N, Jahandideh S, Hill MJ, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing live birth from single euploid frozen blastocyst transfer using standardized timing versus timing by endometrial receptivity analysis. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(suppl):e101.

A successful pregnancy requires optimal crosstalk between the embryo and the endometrium. Over the past several decades, research efforts to improve IVF outcomes have been focused mainly on the embryo factor and methods to improve embryo selection, such as extended culture to blastocyst, time-lapse imaging (morphokinetic assessment), and more notably, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). However, the other half of the equation, the endometrium, has not garnered the attention that it deserves. Effort has therefore been renewed to optimize the endometrial factor by better diagnosing and treating various forms of endometrial dysfunction that could lead to infertility in general and lack of success with IVF and euploid embryo transfers in particular.

Historical background on endometrial function

Progesterone has long been recognized as the main effector that transforms the estrogen-primed endometrium into a receptive state that results in successful embryo implantation. Progesterone exposure is required at appropriate levels and duration before the endometrium becomes receptive to the embryo. If implantation does not occur soon after the endometrium has attained receptive status (7–10 days after ovulation), further progesterone exposure results in progression of endometrial changes that no longer permit successful implantation.

As early as the 1950s, “luteal phase deficiency” was defined as due to inadequate progesterone secretion and resulted in a short luteal phase. In the 1970s, histologic “dating” of the endometrium became the gold standard for diagnosing luteal phase defects; this relied on a classic histologic appearance of secretory phase endometrium and its changes throughout the luteal phase. Subsequently, however, results of prospective randomized controlled trials published in 2004 cast significant doubt on the accuracy and reproducibility of these endometrial biopsies and did not show any clinical diagnostic benefit or correlation with pregnancy outcomes.

21st century advances: Endometrial dating 2.0

A decade later, with the advancement of molecular biology tools such as microarray technology, researchers were able to study endometrial gene expression patterns at different stages of the menstrual cycle. They identified different phases of endometrial development with molecular profiles, or “signatures,” for the luteal phase, endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, and uterine fibroids.

In 2013, researchers in Spain introduced a diagnostic test called endometrial receptivity array (ERA) with the stated goal of being able to temporally define the receptive endometrium and identify prereceptive as well as postreceptive states.¹ In other words, instead of the histologic dating of the endometrium used in the 1970s, it represented “molecular dating” of the endometrium. Although the initial studies were conducted among women who experienced prior unsuccessful embryo transfers (the so-called recurrent implantation failure, or RIF), the test’s scope was subsequently expanded to include any individual planning on a frozen embryo transfer (FET), regardless of any prior attempts. The term personalized embryo transfer (pET) was coined to suggest the ability to define the best time (up to hours) for embryo transfers on an individual basis. Despite lack of independent validation studies, ERA was then widely adopted by many clinicians (and requested by some patients) with the hope of improving IVF outcomes.

However, not unlike many other novel innovations in assisted reproductive technology, ERA regrettably did not withstand the test of time. Three independent studies in 2021, 1 randomized clinical trial and 2 observational cohort studies, did not show any benefit with regard to implantation rates, pregnancy rates, or live birth rates when ERA was performed in the general infertility population.^2-4

Continue to: Study results...

Study results

The cohort study that matched 133 ERA patients with 353 non-ERA patients showed live birth rates of 49.62% for the ERA group and 54.96% for the non-ERA group (odds ratio [OR], 0.8074; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5424–1.2018).² Of note, no difference occurred between subgroups based on the prior number of FETs or the receptivity status (TABLE 1).

Another cohort study from the University of California, Los Angeles, published in 2021 analyzed 228 single euploid FET cycles.³ This study did not show any benefit for routine ERA testing, with a live birth rate of 56.6% in the non-ERA group and 56.5% in the ERA group.

Still, the most convincing evidence for the lack of benefit from routine ERA was noted from the results of the randomized clinical trial.⁴ A total of 767 patients were randomly allocated, 381 to the ERA group and 386 to the control group. There was no difference in ongoing pregnancy rates between the 2 groups. Perhaps more important, even after limiting the analysis to individuals with a nonreceptive ERA result, there was no difference in ongoing pregnancy rates between the 2 groups: 62.5% in the control group (default timing of transfer) and 55.5% in the study group (transfer timing adjusted based on ERA) (rate ratio [RR], 0.9; 95% CI, 0.70–1.14).

ERA usefulness is unsupported in general infertility population

The studies discussed collectively suggest with a high degree of certainty that there is no indication for routine ERA testing in the general infertility population prior to frozen embryo transfers.

Although these studies all were conducted in the general infertility population and did not specifically evaluate the performance of ERA in women with recurrent pregnancy loss or recurrent implantation failure, it is important to acknowledge that if ERA were truly able to define the window of receptivity, one would expect a lower implantation rate if the embryos were transferred outside of the window suggested by the ERA. This was not the case in these studies, as they all showed equivalent pregnancy rates in the control (nonadjusted) groups even when ERA suggested a nonreceptive status.

This observation seriously questions the validity of ERA regarding its ability to temporally define the window of receptivity. On the other hand, as stated earlier, there is still a possibility for ERA to be beneficial for a small subgroup of patients whose window of receptivity may not be as wide as expected in the general population. The challenging question would be how best to identify the particular group with a narrow, or displaced, window of receptivity.

Continue to: WHO raises awareness of endometriosis burden and...

WHO raises awareness of endometriosis burden and highlights need to address diagnosis and treatment for women’s reproductive health

World Health Organization. Endometriosis fact sheet. March 31, 2021. https://www.who.int/news-room /fact-sheets/detail/endometriosis. Accessed January 3, 2022.

The WHO published its first fact sheet on endometriosis in March 2021, recognizing endometriosis as a severe disease that affects almost 190 million women with life-impacting pain, infertility, other symptoms, and especially with chronic, significant emotional sequelae (TABLE 2).⁵ The disease’s variable and broad symptoms result in a lack of awareness and diagnosis by both women and health care providers, especially in low- and middle-income countries and in disadvantaged populations in developed countries. Increased awareness to promote earlier diagnosis, improved training for better management, expanded research for greater understanding, and policies that increase access to quality care are needed to ensure the reproductive health and rights of tens of millions of women with endometriosis.

Endometriosis characteristics and symptoms

Endometriosis is characterized by the presence of tissue resembling endometrium outside the uterus, where it causes a chronic inflammatory reaction that may result in the formation of scar tissue. Endometriotic lesions may be superficial, cystic ovarian endometriomas, or deep lesions, causing a myriad of pain and related symptoms.^6.7

Chronic pain may occur because pain centers in the brain become hyperresponsive over time (central sensitization); this can occur at any point throughout the life course of endometriosis, even when endometriosis lesions are no longer visible. Sometimes, endometriosis is asymptomatic. In addition, endometriosis can cause infertility through anatomic distortion and inflammatory, endocrinologic, and other pathways.

The origins of endometriosis are thought to be multifactorial and include retrograde menstruation, cellular metaplasia, and/or stem cells that spread through blood and lymphatic vessels. Endometriosis is estrogen dependent, but lesion growth also is affected by altered or impaired immunity, localized complex hormonal influences, genetics, and possibly environmental contaminants.

Impact on public health and reproductive rights

Endometriosis has significant social, public health, and economic implications. It can decrease quality of life and prevent girls and women from attending work or school.⁸ Painful sex can affect sexual health. The WHO states that, “Addressing endometriosis will empower those affected by it, by supporting their human right to the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health, quality of life, and overall well-being.”⁵

At present, no known way is available to prevent or cure endometriosis. Early diagnosis and treatment, however, may slow or halt its natural progression and associated symptoms.

Diagnostic steps and treatment options

Early suspicion of endometriosis is the most important factor, followed by a careful history of menstrual symptoms and chronic pelvic pain, early referral to specialists for ultrasonography or other imaging, and sometimes surgical or laparoscopic visualization. Empirical treatment can be begun without histologic or laparoscopic confirmation.

Endometriosis can be treated with medications and/or surgery depending on symptoms, lesions, desired outcome, and patient choice.^5,6 Common therapies include contraceptive steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and analgesics. Medical treatments focus on either lowering estrogen or increasing progesterone levels.

Surgery can remove endometriosis lesions, adhesions, and scar tissue. However, success in reducing pain symptoms and increasing pregnancy rates often depends on the extent of disease.

For infertility due to endometriosis, treatment options include laparoscopic surgical removal of endometriosis, ovarian stimulation with intrauterine insemination (IUI), and IVF. Multidisciplinary treatment addressing different symptoms and overall health often requires referral to pain experts and other specialists.⁹

The WHO perspective on endometriosis

Recognizing the importance of endometriosis and its impact on people’s sexual and reproductive health, quality of life, and overall well-being, the WHO is taking action to improve awareness, diagnosis, and treatment of endometriosis (TABLE 3).⁵ ●

CASE Embryo mix-up with 2 couples

A lawsuit was recently filed in California by a couple after the woman carried and gave birth to “the wrong child.” This was the second full-term pregnancy for the couple. The couple had undergone an unsuccessful in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle in October 2018. The next IVF cycle in 2019 led to the birth of a daughter on September 24, 2019, who is the subject of this case.¹

At the time of birth, the couple suspected something was wrong because the baby had “jet-black hair and a complexion that was darker” than their complexions. The couple eventually obtained a DNA test, which confirmed in November 2019 that this was not their biological child.¹

A few weeks later, they learned that another woman who went to the same IVF clinic gave birth to a female baby 1 week after their daughter was born. Similarly, that baby did not resemble the parents, and DNA testing confirmed the baby belonged to the first couple. The couples ultimately exchanged the babies.¹

The legal claim filed against the IVF center and its owner (an obstetrician) was for breach of contract, medical malpractice, and infliction of emotional distress, including experiencing “disassociation” on the part of the couple(s). Each couple felt they did not get to experience the birth of their biological child, and, of course there was considerable distress in the process of learning that the child was not theirs and exchanging the birth child for the biological child. In addition, the couple who filed the suit had another child (now age 7 years), who begged them to keep the baby to whom they gave birth. The couple also reported experiencing panic attacks as a result of the events.¹

Medical considerations

As of 2018, more than 8 million IVF babies had been born, with the first in 1978 in the United Kingdom.² Advances in science and technology have improved the process. Storage tanks now have alarms and several safeguards to monitor the level of liquid nitrogen and immediately notify key personnel if levels are low (FIGURES 1 and 2). Preimplantation genetic testing is also readily available to assess the embryo prior to transfer into the uterus and identify various genetic problems.

Guidelines for embryo straw labelling are provided by the College of American Pathologists and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) also provides guidelines. When an error occurs, disclosure is recommended and ethical and legal counsel should be involved. Failing to disclose can lead to professional penalties.⁴

Unfortunately, despite these advances and guidelines, embryo mix-ups like the one in the above case do occur and receive public notice (See “Cross country embryo mix-up cases”).^5,6 A report from the University of Nevada assessed liability for embryo mix-ups in US fertility practices from 2000 to 2020.⁷ They evaluated 184,015 IVF cycles with 176 claims. Payments were made to plaintiffs in 21 cases, resulting in $15 million of awarded damages (average award was $199,188).⁷ The most common problem was in the embryology laboratory with an overall incidence of 0.03% of the total number of IVF cycles.⁷ To avoid damages, the authors emphasized the importance of following labeling guidelines when storing embryos, considering a 2-step read-back method prior to embryo transfer, and offering genetic testing when a discrepancy is noted in the record (TABLE).⁷

Other medical liability considerations

Embryo mix-ups are not the only source of problems and potential liability in IVF. At the 2021 Association of Sexual and Reproductive Medicine Annual Meeting, Applebaum et al presented results from a comprehensive review of malpractice litigation involving IVF in the United States.⁸ Using the legal database NEXIS Uni they identified 50 cases between 1986 and 2020 (32% of which were filed in New York state). Common thematic elements among patient allegations were embryology errors (eg, lost or destroyed embryos or incorrect sperm or egg donor), errors in preimplantation genetics, surgical or medical errors/complications, or misdiagnosis (eg, sexually transmitted disease screening or malignancy).⁸ Overall, the most common plaintiff complaint was negligence (26 cases) due to informed consent–related issues (9 cases), wrongful life or birth (9 cases), or negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress (5 cases).⁸

In 48% of cases, the verdict was in favor of the defendant; it was for the plaintiff in 36% of cases and ongoing proceedings or partial judgement accounted for the remaining cases.⁸ Damages ranged from $4,171.45 to $50 million. The authors emphasized specific defense strategies, including the importance of careful labeling and handling of embryos, prompt disclosure when an error does occur, and awareness of the specific state statute(s) of limitations for medical malpractice claims.⁸

Continue to: Legal considerations...

 

 

Legal considerations

The case at the beginning of this article is a “mix-up” case, in which an IVF center implanted the wrong embryo, resulting in the birth parents not being the biological parents.¹ As in that case, there may be (but are not always)^6,9 2 mix-ups, so that 2 couples have each other’s biological children. These cases may go unnoticed by the birth parent if the physical appearance is not unexpected and the parents never do genetic testing, or if the IVF center does not discover the error and inform the parents. Infrequently the cases make the news or the courts.^10,11

News accounts are not trials, and we do not suggest that all the facts discussed in news reports on the case described here are complete—or even accurate in the details reported. They are generally 1-sided, so there are other perspectives. To consider the legal issues, however, we will assume for discussion only that the facts are as they have been reported in the news coverage—with the understanding that the discovery and trial processes would undoubtedly bring to light many other important facts or corrections.

Negligence

Although there are several potential bases for liability (ie, contract or warranty claims, a form of product liability/defect) in mix-up and other artificial reproductive technology (ART), negligence or malpractice seem most likely.¹² “Negligence” here is intended to be simple negligence but may also include gross negligence or recklessness.

Although the incidence of errors in ART is unknown, there is limited evidence that suggests it is not a rare event. One study suggested >20% of fertility clinics knew of errors in processing or handling donor samples and embryos for implantation.¹³ Another study in the United Kingdom found that 1 in 1,000 IVF embryos were implanted in the wrong woman.¹⁴

Was there negligence? The first question in a malpractice or negligence-type action is, was there a professional relationship between the plaintiff who is claiming harm and the professional or organization defendant? The next question is whether the defendant was reasonably careful given the circumstances—that is, did the physician meet the “standard of care”? This is sometimes described as whether the professional’s actions would be acceptable (ie, reasonably prudent within the profession or specialty). If there was negligence, then the next question is, did that negligence cause an injury to the plaintiff?¹⁵

Determining the standard of care. The nature of the expected standard of care is dependent, in part, on the potential consequences of an error. For example, the care required when there is a significant risk of death from an error would be considerably more cautious than for an error that might result in small property damage. In this case study, a mix-up error is likely to be less severe than death, but is very substantial in terms of emotional harm and disruption. Thus, considerable care and attention would be expected to avoid these errors. They should be a “never” event. Institutions and physicians should give considerable attention to their processes and procedures to avoid the possibility of a mix-up error.¹⁶

Where did the negligence occur? There is an old tort doctrine “Res ipsa loquitor” (RIL) that means, “The thing speaks for itself.” Although there are several technical rules around the application of RIL as a presumption of negligence, it comes down to the proposition that some injuries do not occur without negligence. A traditional medical example is the sponge left in a patient during surgery—ordinarily that does not happen without some negligence. For RIL to be applied, usually the mechanism by which the injury occurred had to be under the control of the defendant (or the agents of the defendant).

The “mix-up” of embryos is an example of the kind of error that would not likely occur without negligence.¹⁷ But the embryo may not be in the exclusive control of any 1 institution. For example, the mistake could be made by the IVF center (or its employees), a separate facility that has processed or cryogenically stored the genetic materials, and independent physicians (not employees or agents of the center). Therefore, it is necessary to pinpoint where the negligence occurred and who is legally responsible. In some cases, a health care provider must take steps to ensure that its contractors have sufficient safeguards to avoid unnecessary harms. For example, an IVF center that uses an external cryogenic storage facility may have some obligation to know that the genetic material returned to the center is the same material that the center provided the storage facility in the first place and is properly identified.¹⁸

Assessing damages

From the facts as we have them, it appears that there must have been negligence that caused the mix-up of the embryos in the original case. It also appears reasonably clear that the negligence resulted in harm to both sets of parents and their families. This would suggest that the families should recover substantial damages. But that, somewhat surprisingly, may not be the case.¹⁹ Several legal principles may limit the availability or size of damages in mix-up cases. Also, it is worth remembering that there are differences in how states treat the different types of damages in these cases. Although the case was filed in California, we’ll take a more national view of the damages issue.

Not all harm is treated as equal. The first problem facing plaintiffs in mix-up cases may be the fact that they have suffered only emotional harm, without any physical injury. Traditionally, the courts have been reluctant to allow recovery in negligence for purely emotional injuries. Also “intentional” infliction of emotional distress does permit financial recovery, but generally “negligent” infliction of emotional harm traditionally has not. In part, this was because of the fear of unwarranted (and difficult-to-assess) claims of emotional harm that are not related to a physical harm. Some states developed a “zone of danger” exception (eg, where someone was almost hit by a car) or allowed some emotional injury recovery if there were “physical manifestations” of the emotional harm. In short, depending on the state’s rules, negligence that causes purely emotional harm may not be compensable.²⁰

State-based malpractice “caps.” Another limitation on emotional injuries is the “caps” on malpractice damages enacted by several states (including California, where this mix-up case occurred). Therefore, if a mix-up case is determined to be a malpractice case under state law, emotional suffering damages (which are non-economic damages) may be limited to the cap—$250,000 in California, for example—even if the state allows damages for emotional injuries without physical injuries.

The rare exception. Very careless labeling or handling of the identity of the embryo could at the extreme be considered gross negligence or recklessness. There are relatively inexpensive and easy procedures that could easily avoid what is likely to be significant harm to families (including emotional upset).²¹ Institutions that callously fail to use those procedures might be seen by some courts as reckless, or in outrageous cases, even intentional. An example would be the University of California Irvine Center for Reproductive Health case, in which physicians intentionally (without consent) used patients’ ova, fertilized them, and then implanted them in other patients, with at least 15 births, many lawsuits, and multimillion dollar settlements.²² In “intentional” cases, limitations on emotional injuries would usually not be major barriers to recovery of damages. However, those are legal stretches, and recovery is the exception rather than the rule.²³

Continue to: Additional legal concerns with IVF...

Additional legal concerns with IVF

Reproduction negligence cases include a large range of errors and injuries—not just embryo mix-ups. Courts have struggled with when it is appropriate to allow damages, even when there have been clear injuries. For the most part courts have been reluctant to find liability in many areas of new IVF technology.¹² One problem in determining how to assess damages is determining how incidental benefits should be used to offset some or all of the damages. For example, how should the joy of having a child offset the costs of raising the child?

There are more than a dozen kinds of current and likely future claims arising from problems with ART. It is tempting to conclude, “Oh, what a tangled legal web we weave when first we practice to artificially conceive.” There are various groupings of such claims, with several examples of cases presented in this article. It is not possible to consider those in detail in this article. As a general proposition, however, “our legal system treats wrongfully disrupted plans concerning reproduction like one of those life adversities that people are expected to abide without remedy.”²⁴

This is not to say, however, that there is no compensation for IVF-related injuries. Applebaum and colleagues found more than 100 cases in the 35 years covered by the study (1984-2020).⁸ However, only 50 of those cases fit the criteria for inclusion in their data. The successful cases for the plaintiffs involved medical or surgical error, while it appeared that various forms of wrongful life or birth were much less successful. It would be a mistake to conclude from these data that there are not, and will not be, meaningful risks of liability in the areas of IVF and ART more generally.

First, claims that fit with existing legal doctrine are producing liability. About half of the claims (25 over the 34 years) examined by Applebaum et al resulted in liability. Admittedly, that number was small because ART use was increasing. Where the claims fit well-recognized legal forms of damages and forms of action (primarily negligence), the liability could be substantial. A remarkable example of this is the case of Wuth v Lab. Corp (see “Liability for genetic testing errors”),²⁵ which was the largest verdict ($50 million) in the Applebaum and colleagues’ study.⁸ The large verdict was due to the failure of the testing company and a medical center to properly perform and assess a genetic test, which resulted in the birth of a child with an unbalanced chromosome translocation.^8,25 The child’s serious disabilities would require a great deal of expensive care. Although the jury held the testing laboratory and medical center liable, they did not find liability against the physician.²⁵ Ultimately, this case would be considered a failure of genetic testing rather than an IVF case.

Future challenges

The future is likely to bring substantially expanded IVF/ART liability for several reasons. ART is becoming more common. Although courts have struggled with how to apply existing liability rules to the new technologies and related novel legal claims, the absence of established legal principles into which IVF injuries fit will not last forever. The legal system eventually finds ways of adjusting old rules or adopting new ones to cover injuries from new technology.

Although IVF injuries that most people feel deserve compensation currently are not cognizable in law, that will undoubtedly change. Either the courts will find new ways of assessing ART claims, or state legislatures and Congress will step in with legislation. To date, Congress has been relatively “hands off” on the ART processes, with the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 being a notable exception.²⁴ This law requires ART programs to report success rates and directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to publish reported success rates and laboratory incidents. It also establishes a model state laboratory certification program.²⁴ The CDC has an outline of the work under the statute,²⁶ as well as state-specific data regarding ART²⁷ and lists of publications in key areas.²⁸ In addition there are various state laws related to recordkeeping, donor qualifications, licensing, and family law issues.²⁹ Ultimately, physicians, scientists, and legal professionals can perform a valuable role in helping to fashion IVF liability principles that are workable and reasonable, that will not interfere with the progress of medicine, and that will ensure that those injured through carelessness or bad medicine receive compensation. ●

CASE Embryo mix-up with 2 couples

A lawsuit was recently filed in California by a couple after the woman carried and gave birth to “the wrong child.” This was the second full-term pregnancy for the couple. The couple had undergone an unsuccessful in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle in October 2018. The next IVF cycle in 2019 led to the birth of a daughter on September 24, 2019, who is the subject of this case.¹

At the time of birth, the couple suspected something was wrong because the baby had “jet-black hair and a complexion that was darker” than their complexions. The couple eventually obtained a DNA test, which confirmed in November 2019 that this was not their biological child.¹

A few weeks later, they learned that another woman who went to the same IVF clinic gave birth to a female baby 1 week after their daughter was born. Similarly, that baby did not resemble the parents, and DNA testing confirmed the baby belonged to the first couple. The couples ultimately exchanged the babies.¹

The legal claim filed against the IVF center and its owner (an obstetrician) was for breach of contract, medical malpractice, and infliction of emotional distress, including experiencing “disassociation” on the part of the couple(s). Each couple felt they did not get to experience the birth of their biological child, and, of course there was considerable distress in the process of learning that the child was not theirs and exchanging the birth child for the biological child. In addition, the couple who filed the suit had another child (now age 7 years), who begged them to keep the baby to whom they gave birth. The couple also reported experiencing panic attacks as a result of the events.¹

Medical considerations

As of 2018, more than 8 million IVF babies had been born, with the first in 1978 in the United Kingdom.² Advances in science and technology have improved the process. Storage tanks now have alarms and several safeguards to monitor the level of liquid nitrogen and immediately notify key personnel if levels are low (FIGURES 1 and 2). Preimplantation genetic testing is also readily available to assess the embryo prior to transfer into the uterus and identify various genetic problems.

Guidelines for embryo straw labelling are provided by the College of American Pathologists and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) also provides guidelines. When an error occurs, disclosure is recommended and ethical and legal counsel should be involved. Failing to disclose can lead to professional penalties.⁴

Unfortunately, despite these advances and guidelines, embryo mix-ups like the one in the above case do occur and receive public notice (See “Cross country embryo mix-up cases”).^5,6 A report from the University of Nevada assessed liability for embryo mix-ups in US fertility practices from 2000 to 2020.⁷ They evaluated 184,015 IVF cycles with 176 claims. Payments were made to plaintiffs in 21 cases, resulting in $15 million of awarded damages (average award was $199,188).⁷ The most common problem was in the embryology laboratory with an overall incidence of 0.03% of the total number of IVF cycles.⁷ To avoid damages, the authors emphasized the importance of following labeling guidelines when storing embryos, considering a 2-step read-back method prior to embryo transfer, and offering genetic testing when a discrepancy is noted in the record (TABLE).⁷

Other medical liability considerations

Embryo mix-ups are not the only source of problems and potential liability in IVF. At the 2021 Association of Sexual and Reproductive Medicine Annual Meeting, Applebaum et al presented results from a comprehensive review of malpractice litigation involving IVF in the United States.⁸ Using the legal database NEXIS Uni they identified 50 cases between 1986 and 2020 (32% of which were filed in New York state). Common thematic elements among patient allegations were embryology errors (eg, lost or destroyed embryos or incorrect sperm or egg donor), errors in preimplantation genetics, surgical or medical errors/complications, or misdiagnosis (eg, sexually transmitted disease screening or malignancy).⁸ Overall, the most common plaintiff complaint was negligence (26 cases) due to informed consent–related issues (9 cases), wrongful life or birth (9 cases), or negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress (5 cases).⁸

In 48% of cases, the verdict was in favor of the defendant; it was for the plaintiff in 36% of cases and ongoing proceedings or partial judgement accounted for the remaining cases.⁸ Damages ranged from $4,171.45 to $50 million. The authors emphasized specific defense strategies, including the importance of careful labeling and handling of embryos, prompt disclosure when an error does occur, and awareness of the specific state statute(s) of limitations for medical malpractice claims.⁸

Continue to: Legal considerations...

 

 

Legal considerations

The case at the beginning of this article is a “mix-up” case, in which an IVF center implanted the wrong embryo, resulting in the birth parents not being the biological parents.¹ As in that case, there may be (but are not always)^6,9 2 mix-ups, so that 2 couples have each other’s biological children. These cases may go unnoticed by the birth parent if the physical appearance is not unexpected and the parents never do genetic testing, or if the IVF center does not discover the error and inform the parents. Infrequently the cases make the news or the courts.^10,11

News accounts are not trials, and we do not suggest that all the facts discussed in news reports on the case described here are complete—or even accurate in the details reported. They are generally 1-sided, so there are other perspectives. To consider the legal issues, however, we will assume for discussion only that the facts are as they have been reported in the news coverage—with the understanding that the discovery and trial processes would undoubtedly bring to light many other important facts or corrections.

Negligence

Although there are several potential bases for liability (ie, contract or warranty claims, a form of product liability/defect) in mix-up and other artificial reproductive technology (ART), negligence or malpractice seem most likely.¹² “Negligence” here is intended to be simple negligence but may also include gross negligence or recklessness.

Although the incidence of errors in ART is unknown, there is limited evidence that suggests it is not a rare event. One study suggested >20% of fertility clinics knew of errors in processing or handling donor samples and embryos for implantation.¹³ Another study in the United Kingdom found that 1 in 1,000 IVF embryos were implanted in the wrong woman.¹⁴

Was there negligence? The first question in a malpractice or negligence-type action is, was there a professional relationship between the plaintiff who is claiming harm and the professional or organization defendant? The next question is whether the defendant was reasonably careful given the circumstances—that is, did the physician meet the “standard of care”? This is sometimes described as whether the professional’s actions would be acceptable (ie, reasonably prudent within the profession or specialty). If there was negligence, then the next question is, did that negligence cause an injury to the plaintiff?¹⁵

Determining the standard of care. The nature of the expected standard of care is dependent, in part, on the potential consequences of an error. For example, the care required when there is a significant risk of death from an error would be considerably more cautious than for an error that might result in small property damage. In this case study, a mix-up error is likely to be less severe than death, but is very substantial in terms of emotional harm and disruption. Thus, considerable care and attention would be expected to avoid these errors. They should be a “never” event. Institutions and physicians should give considerable attention to their processes and procedures to avoid the possibility of a mix-up error.¹⁶

Where did the negligence occur? There is an old tort doctrine “Res ipsa loquitor” (RIL) that means, “The thing speaks for itself.” Although there are several technical rules around the application of RIL as a presumption of negligence, it comes down to the proposition that some injuries do not occur without negligence. A traditional medical example is the sponge left in a patient during surgery—ordinarily that does not happen without some negligence. For RIL to be applied, usually the mechanism by which the injury occurred had to be under the control of the defendant (or the agents of the defendant).

The “mix-up” of embryos is an example of the kind of error that would not likely occur without negligence.¹⁷ But the embryo may not be in the exclusive control of any 1 institution. For example, the mistake could be made by the IVF center (or its employees), a separate facility that has processed or cryogenically stored the genetic materials, and independent physicians (not employees or agents of the center). Therefore, it is necessary to pinpoint where the negligence occurred and who is legally responsible. In some cases, a health care provider must take steps to ensure that its contractors have sufficient safeguards to avoid unnecessary harms. For example, an IVF center that uses an external cryogenic storage facility may have some obligation to know that the genetic material returned to the center is the same material that the center provided the storage facility in the first place and is properly identified.¹⁸

Assessing damages

From the facts as we have them, it appears that there must have been negligence that caused the mix-up of the embryos in the original case. It also appears reasonably clear that the negligence resulted in harm to both sets of parents and their families. This would suggest that the families should recover substantial damages. But that, somewhat surprisingly, may not be the case.¹⁹ Several legal principles may limit the availability or size of damages in mix-up cases. Also, it is worth remembering that there are differences in how states treat the different types of damages in these cases. Although the case was filed in California, we’ll take a more national view of the damages issue.

Not all harm is treated as equal. The first problem facing plaintiffs in mix-up cases may be the fact that they have suffered only emotional harm, without any physical injury. Traditionally, the courts have been reluctant to allow recovery in negligence for purely emotional injuries. Also “intentional” infliction of emotional distress does permit financial recovery, but generally “negligent” infliction of emotional harm traditionally has not. In part, this was because of the fear of unwarranted (and difficult-to-assess) claims of emotional harm that are not related to a physical harm. Some states developed a “zone of danger” exception (eg, where someone was almost hit by a car) or allowed some emotional injury recovery if there were “physical manifestations” of the emotional harm. In short, depending on the state’s rules, negligence that causes purely emotional harm may not be compensable.²⁰

State-based malpractice “caps.” Another limitation on emotional injuries is the “caps” on malpractice damages enacted by several states (including California, where this mix-up case occurred). Therefore, if a mix-up case is determined to be a malpractice case under state law, emotional suffering damages (which are non-economic damages) may be limited to the cap—$250,000 in California, for example—even if the state allows damages for emotional injuries without physical injuries.

The rare exception. Very careless labeling or handling of the identity of the embryo could at the extreme be considered gross negligence or recklessness. There are relatively inexpensive and easy procedures that could easily avoid what is likely to be significant harm to families (including emotional upset).²¹ Institutions that callously fail to use those procedures might be seen by some courts as reckless, or in outrageous cases, even intentional. An example would be the University of California Irvine Center for Reproductive Health case, in which physicians intentionally (without consent) used patients’ ova, fertilized them, and then implanted them in other patients, with at least 15 births, many lawsuits, and multimillion dollar settlements.²² In “intentional” cases, limitations on emotional injuries would usually not be major barriers to recovery of damages. However, those are legal stretches, and recovery is the exception rather than the rule.²³

Continue to: Additional legal concerns with IVF...

Additional legal concerns with IVF

Reproduction negligence cases include a large range of errors and injuries—not just embryo mix-ups. Courts have struggled with when it is appropriate to allow damages, even when there have been clear injuries. For the most part courts have been reluctant to find liability in many areas of new IVF technology.¹² One problem in determining how to assess damages is determining how incidental benefits should be used to offset some or all of the damages. For example, how should the joy of having a child offset the costs of raising the child?

There are more than a dozen kinds of current and likely future claims arising from problems with ART. It is tempting to conclude, “Oh, what a tangled legal web we weave when first we practice to artificially conceive.” There are various groupings of such claims, with several examples of cases presented in this article. It is not possible to consider those in detail in this article. As a general proposition, however, “our legal system treats wrongfully disrupted plans concerning reproduction like one of those life adversities that people are expected to abide without remedy.”²⁴

This is not to say, however, that there is no compensation for IVF-related injuries. Applebaum and colleagues found more than 100 cases in the 35 years covered by the study (1984-2020).⁸ However, only 50 of those cases fit the criteria for inclusion in their data. The successful cases for the plaintiffs involved medical or surgical error, while it appeared that various forms of wrongful life or birth were much less successful. It would be a mistake to conclude from these data that there are not, and will not be, meaningful risks of liability in the areas of IVF and ART more generally.

First, claims that fit with existing legal doctrine are producing liability. About half of the claims (25 over the 34 years) examined by Applebaum et al resulted in liability. Admittedly, that number was small because ART use was increasing. Where the claims fit well-recognized legal forms of damages and forms of action (primarily negligence), the liability could be substantial. A remarkable example of this is the case of Wuth v Lab. Corp (see “Liability for genetic testing errors”),²⁵ which was the largest verdict ($50 million) in the Applebaum and colleagues’ study.⁸ The large verdict was due to the failure of the testing company and a medical center to properly perform and assess a genetic test, which resulted in the birth of a child with an unbalanced chromosome translocation.^8,25 The child’s serious disabilities would require a great deal of expensive care. Although the jury held the testing laboratory and medical center liable, they did not find liability against the physician.²⁵ Ultimately, this case would be considered a failure of genetic testing rather than an IVF case.

Future challenges

The future is likely to bring substantially expanded IVF/ART liability for several reasons. ART is becoming more common. Although courts have struggled with how to apply existing liability rules to the new technologies and related novel legal claims, the absence of established legal principles into which IVF injuries fit will not last forever. The legal system eventually finds ways of adjusting old rules or adopting new ones to cover injuries from new technology.

Although IVF injuries that most people feel deserve compensation currently are not cognizable in law, that will undoubtedly change. Either the courts will find new ways of assessing ART claims, or state legislatures and Congress will step in with legislation. To date, Congress has been relatively “hands off” on the ART processes, with the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 being a notable exception.²⁴ This law requires ART programs to report success rates and directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to publish reported success rates and laboratory incidents. It also establishes a model state laboratory certification program.²⁴ The CDC has an outline of the work under the statute,²⁶ as well as state-specific data regarding ART²⁷ and lists of publications in key areas.²⁸ In addition there are various state laws related to recordkeeping, donor qualifications, licensing, and family law issues.²⁹ Ultimately, physicians, scientists, and legal professionals can perform a valuable role in helping to fashion IVF liability principles that are workable and reasonable, that will not interfere with the progress of medicine, and that will ensure that those injured through carelessness or bad medicine receive compensation. ●

CASE Embryo mix-up with 2 couples

A lawsuit was recently filed in California by a couple after the woman carried and gave birth to “the wrong child.” This was the second full-term pregnancy for the couple. The couple had undergone an unsuccessful in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle in October 2018. The next IVF cycle in 2019 led to the birth of a daughter on September 24, 2019, who is the subject of this case.¹

At the time of birth, the couple suspected something was wrong because the baby had “jet-black hair and a complexion that was darker” than their complexions. The couple eventually obtained a DNA test, which confirmed in November 2019 that this was not their biological child.¹

A few weeks later, they learned that another woman who went to the same IVF clinic gave birth to a female baby 1 week after their daughter was born. Similarly, that baby did not resemble the parents, and DNA testing confirmed the baby belonged to the first couple. The couples ultimately exchanged the babies.¹

The legal claim filed against the IVF center and its owner (an obstetrician) was for breach of contract, medical malpractice, and infliction of emotional distress, including experiencing “disassociation” on the part of the couple(s). Each couple felt they did not get to experience the birth of their biological child, and, of course there was considerable distress in the process of learning that the child was not theirs and exchanging the birth child for the biological child. In addition, the couple who filed the suit had another child (now age 7 years), who begged them to keep the baby to whom they gave birth. The couple also reported experiencing panic attacks as a result of the events.¹

Medical considerations

As of 2018, more than 8 million IVF babies had been born, with the first in 1978 in the United Kingdom.² Advances in science and technology have improved the process. Storage tanks now have alarms and several safeguards to monitor the level of liquid nitrogen and immediately notify key personnel if levels are low (FIGURES 1 and 2). Preimplantation genetic testing is also readily available to assess the embryo prior to transfer into the uterus and identify various genetic problems.

Guidelines for embryo straw labelling are provided by the College of American Pathologists and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) also provides guidelines. When an error occurs, disclosure is recommended and ethical and legal counsel should be involved. Failing to disclose can lead to professional penalties.⁴

Unfortunately, despite these advances and guidelines, embryo mix-ups like the one in the above case do occur and receive public notice (See “Cross country embryo mix-up cases”).^5,6 A report from the University of Nevada assessed liability for embryo mix-ups in US fertility practices from 2000 to 2020.⁷ They evaluated 184,015 IVF cycles with 176 claims. Payments were made to plaintiffs in 21 cases, resulting in $15 million of awarded damages (average award was $199,188).⁷ The most common problem was in the embryology laboratory with an overall incidence of 0.03% of the total number of IVF cycles.⁷ To avoid damages, the authors emphasized the importance of following labeling guidelines when storing embryos, considering a 2-step read-back method prior to embryo transfer, and offering genetic testing when a discrepancy is noted in the record (TABLE).⁷

Other medical liability considerations

Embryo mix-ups are not the only source of problems and potential liability in IVF. At the 2021 Association of Sexual and Reproductive Medicine Annual Meeting, Applebaum et al presented results from a comprehensive review of malpractice litigation involving IVF in the United States.⁸ Using the legal database NEXIS Uni they identified 50 cases between 1986 and 2020 (32% of which were filed in New York state). Common thematic elements among patient allegations were embryology errors (eg, lost or destroyed embryos or incorrect sperm or egg donor), errors in preimplantation genetics, surgical or medical errors/complications, or misdiagnosis (eg, sexually transmitted disease screening or malignancy).⁸ Overall, the most common plaintiff complaint was negligence (26 cases) due to informed consent–related issues (9 cases), wrongful life or birth (9 cases), or negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress (5 cases).⁸

In 48% of cases, the verdict was in favor of the defendant; it was for the plaintiff in 36% of cases and ongoing proceedings or partial judgement accounted for the remaining cases.⁸ Damages ranged from $4,171.45 to $50 million. The authors emphasized specific defense strategies, including the importance of careful labeling and handling of embryos, prompt disclosure when an error does occur, and awareness of the specific state statute(s) of limitations for medical malpractice claims.⁸

Continue to: Legal considerations...

 

 

Legal considerations

The case at the beginning of this article is a “mix-up” case, in which an IVF center implanted the wrong embryo, resulting in the birth parents not being the biological parents.¹ As in that case, there may be (but are not always)^6,9 2 mix-ups, so that 2 couples have each other’s biological children. These cases may go unnoticed by the birth parent if the physical appearance is not unexpected and the parents never do genetic testing, or if the IVF center does not discover the error and inform the parents. Infrequently the cases make the news or the courts.^10,11

News accounts are not trials, and we do not suggest that all the facts discussed in news reports on the case described here are complete—or even accurate in the details reported. They are generally 1-sided, so there are other perspectives. To consider the legal issues, however, we will assume for discussion only that the facts are as they have been reported in the news coverage—with the understanding that the discovery and trial processes would undoubtedly bring to light many other important facts or corrections.

Negligence

Although there are several potential bases for liability (ie, contract or warranty claims, a form of product liability/defect) in mix-up and other artificial reproductive technology (ART), negligence or malpractice seem most likely.¹² “Negligence” here is intended to be simple negligence but may also include gross negligence or recklessness.

Although the incidence of errors in ART is unknown, there is limited evidence that suggests it is not a rare event. One study suggested >20% of fertility clinics knew of errors in processing or handling donor samples and embryos for implantation.¹³ Another study in the United Kingdom found that 1 in 1,000 IVF embryos were implanted in the wrong woman.¹⁴

Was there negligence? The first question in a malpractice or negligence-type action is, was there a professional relationship between the plaintiff who is claiming harm and the professional or organization defendant? The next question is whether the defendant was reasonably careful given the circumstances—that is, did the physician meet the “standard of care”? This is sometimes described as whether the professional’s actions would be acceptable (ie, reasonably prudent within the profession or specialty). If there was negligence, then the next question is, did that negligence cause an injury to the plaintiff?¹⁵

Determining the standard of care. The nature of the expected standard of care is dependent, in part, on the potential consequences of an error. For example, the care required when there is a significant risk of death from an error would be considerably more cautious than for an error that might result in small property damage. In this case study, a mix-up error is likely to be less severe than death, but is very substantial in terms of emotional harm and disruption. Thus, considerable care and attention would be expected to avoid these errors. They should be a “never” event. Institutions and physicians should give considerable attention to their processes and procedures to avoid the possibility of a mix-up error.¹⁶

Where did the negligence occur? There is an old tort doctrine “Res ipsa loquitor” (RIL) that means, “The thing speaks for itself.” Although there are several technical rules around the application of RIL as a presumption of negligence, it comes down to the proposition that some injuries do not occur without negligence. A traditional medical example is the sponge left in a patient during surgery—ordinarily that does not happen without some negligence. For RIL to be applied, usually the mechanism by which the injury occurred had to be under the control of the defendant (or the agents of the defendant).

The “mix-up” of embryos is an example of the kind of error that would not likely occur without negligence.¹⁷ But the embryo may not be in the exclusive control of any 1 institution. For example, the mistake could be made by the IVF center (or its employees), a separate facility that has processed or cryogenically stored the genetic materials, and independent physicians (not employees or agents of the center). Therefore, it is necessary to pinpoint where the negligence occurred and who is legally responsible. In some cases, a health care provider must take steps to ensure that its contractors have sufficient safeguards to avoid unnecessary harms. For example, an IVF center that uses an external cryogenic storage facility may have some obligation to know that the genetic material returned to the center is the same material that the center provided the storage facility in the first place and is properly identified.¹⁸

Assessing damages

From the facts as we have them, it appears that there must have been negligence that caused the mix-up of the embryos in the original case. It also appears reasonably clear that the negligence resulted in harm to both sets of parents and their families. This would suggest that the families should recover substantial damages. But that, somewhat surprisingly, may not be the case.¹⁹ Several legal principles may limit the availability or size of damages in mix-up cases. Also, it is worth remembering that there are differences in how states treat the different types of damages in these cases. Although the case was filed in California, we’ll take a more national view of the damages issue.

Not all harm is treated as equal. The first problem facing plaintiffs in mix-up cases may be the fact that they have suffered only emotional harm, without any physical injury. Traditionally, the courts have been reluctant to allow recovery in negligence for purely emotional injuries. Also “intentional” infliction of emotional distress does permit financial recovery, but generally “negligent” infliction of emotional harm traditionally has not. In part, this was because of the fear of unwarranted (and difficult-to-assess) claims of emotional harm that are not related to a physical harm. Some states developed a “zone of danger” exception (eg, where someone was almost hit by a car) or allowed some emotional injury recovery if there were “physical manifestations” of the emotional harm. In short, depending on the state’s rules, negligence that causes purely emotional harm may not be compensable.²⁰

State-based malpractice “caps.” Another limitation on emotional injuries is the “caps” on malpractice damages enacted by several states (including California, where this mix-up case occurred). Therefore, if a mix-up case is determined to be a malpractice case under state law, emotional suffering damages (which are non-economic damages) may be limited to the cap—$250,000 in California, for example—even if the state allows damages for emotional injuries without physical injuries.

The rare exception. Very careless labeling or handling of the identity of the embryo could at the extreme be considered gross negligence or recklessness. There are relatively inexpensive and easy procedures that could easily avoid what is likely to be significant harm to families (including emotional upset).²¹ Institutions that callously fail to use those procedures might be seen by some courts as reckless, or in outrageous cases, even intentional. An example would be the University of California Irvine Center for Reproductive Health case, in which physicians intentionally (without consent) used patients’ ova, fertilized them, and then implanted them in other patients, with at least 15 births, many lawsuits, and multimillion dollar settlements.²² In “intentional” cases, limitations on emotional injuries would usually not be major barriers to recovery of damages. However, those are legal stretches, and recovery is the exception rather than the rule.²³

Continue to: Additional legal concerns with IVF...

Additional legal concerns with IVF

Reproduction negligence cases include a large range of errors and injuries—not just embryo mix-ups. Courts have struggled with when it is appropriate to allow damages, even when there have been clear injuries. For the most part courts have been reluctant to find liability in many areas of new IVF technology.¹² One problem in determining how to assess damages is determining how incidental benefits should be used to offset some or all of the damages. For example, how should the joy of having a child offset the costs of raising the child?

There are more than a dozen kinds of current and likely future claims arising from problems with ART. It is tempting to conclude, “Oh, what a tangled legal web we weave when first we practice to artificially conceive.” There are various groupings of such claims, with several examples of cases presented in this article. It is not possible to consider those in detail in this article. As a general proposition, however, “our legal system treats wrongfully disrupted plans concerning reproduction like one of those life adversities that people are expected to abide without remedy.”²⁴

This is not to say, however, that there is no compensation for IVF-related injuries. Applebaum and colleagues found more than 100 cases in the 35 years covered by the study (1984-2020).⁸ However, only 50 of those cases fit the criteria for inclusion in their data. The successful cases for the plaintiffs involved medical or surgical error, while it appeared that various forms of wrongful life or birth were much less successful. It would be a mistake to conclude from these data that there are not, and will not be, meaningful risks of liability in the areas of IVF and ART more generally.

First, claims that fit with existing legal doctrine are producing liability. About half of the claims (25 over the 34 years) examined by Applebaum et al resulted in liability. Admittedly, that number was small because ART use was increasing. Where the claims fit well-recognized legal forms of damages and forms of action (primarily negligence), the liability could be substantial. A remarkable example of this is the case of Wuth v Lab. Corp (see “Liability for genetic testing errors”),²⁵ which was the largest verdict ($50 million) in the Applebaum and colleagues’ study.⁸ The large verdict was due to the failure of the testing company and a medical center to properly perform and assess a genetic test, which resulted in the birth of a child with an unbalanced chromosome translocation.^8,25 The child’s serious disabilities would require a great deal of expensive care. Although the jury held the testing laboratory and medical center liable, they did not find liability against the physician.²⁵ Ultimately, this case would be considered a failure of genetic testing rather than an IVF case.

Future challenges

The future is likely to bring substantially expanded IVF/ART liability for several reasons. ART is becoming more common. Although courts have struggled with how to apply existing liability rules to the new technologies and related novel legal claims, the absence of established legal principles into which IVF injuries fit will not last forever. The legal system eventually finds ways of adjusting old rules or adopting new ones to cover injuries from new technology.

Although IVF injuries that most people feel deserve compensation currently are not cognizable in law, that will undoubtedly change. Either the courts will find new ways of assessing ART claims, or state legislatures and Congress will step in with legislation. To date, Congress has been relatively “hands off” on the ART processes, with the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 being a notable exception.²⁴ This law requires ART programs to report success rates and directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to publish reported success rates and laboratory incidents. It also establishes a model state laboratory certification program.²⁴ The CDC has an outline of the work under the statute,²⁶ as well as state-specific data regarding ART²⁷ and lists of publications in key areas.²⁸ In addition there are various state laws related to recordkeeping, donor qualifications, licensing, and family law issues.²⁹ Ultimately, physicians, scientists, and legal professionals can perform a valuable role in helping to fashion IVF liability principles that are workable and reasonable, that will not interfere with the progress of medicine, and that will ensure that those injured through carelessness or bad medicine receive compensation. ●