MDedge ObGyn

Pregnant patients with COVID-19 infections were more likely to experience severe disease if they had preexisting comorbidities, such as chronic hypertension, asthma, or pregestational diabetes, according to findings from a new study presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The study included outcomes for the largest multistate cohort of pregnant patients with COVID-19 outside of what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is tracking. Its findings also mirrored those of a multicenter, retrospective study in Washington state, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. That study also found that pregnant patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were more likely to have comorbidities, and both studies found an increased likelihood of preterm birth among pregnant patients with severe or critical disease.
 

Disease severity linked to risk of perinatal complications

In the abstract presented at the SMFM meeting, more severe disease was associated with older age and a higher median body mass index, as seen in the general population, but the researchers found no differences in disease severity occurred by race or ethnicity, Torri D. Metz, MD, of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, told attendees of the conference. The researchers also found that perinatal complications were more prevalent in those with severe or critical COVID-19 disease but not in those with mild or moderate disease. Vertical COVID-19 transmission from mother to child was rare.

The observational study included all patients who had a singleton pregnancy, had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and delivered between March 1 and July 31, 2020, at one of the 33 U.S. hospitals in the NICHD Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, spread across 14 states. The researchers used electronic medical records to determine incidence of cesarean delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks), maternal death, infant death, and positive infant COVID-19 test. They tracked mothers through 6 weeks post partum and newborns through delivery hospitalization.

Of 1,291 patients in the cohort, 1,219 received their first positive COVID-19 test during pregnancy. The others tested positive while in the hospital for delivery or within a month and a half after discharge. Limiting their analysis to those who developed COVID-19 while pregnant prior to delivery, nearly half (47%) were asymptomatic.

The disease was mild in 27%, moderate in 14%, severe in 8%, and critical in 4%. The researchers used the National Institutes of Health classifications for severity and included deaths in the critical group. The most common symptom was a cough, reported by a third of the patients (34%). Four of six maternal deaths that occurred were caused by COVID-19.

Compared with an average age of 28 in those without symptoms, the mean age was 29 in those with mild/moderate disease and 30 in those with severe/critical disease (P = .006). Similarly, the mean BMI was 28.3 in asymptomatic patients, 29 in those with mild/moderate disease, and 32.3 in those with severe/critical disease (P < .001). Despite a diverse cohort – 53% Hispanic, 23% Black, and 15% White – the researches found no racial/ethnic trends in disease severity.

Patients who had asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, pregestational diabetes, chronic hypertension, chronic liver disease, or a seizure disorder were all significantly more likely to have critical/severe disease than mild/moderate disease, and more likely to have mild/moderate disease than asymptomatic (P values ranged from < .001 to .02).

The mothers with critical or severe illness were 1.6 times more likely to have cesarean births and to have hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and they were twice as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage (P < .001; P = .007). Those with mild or moderate disease, however, had no increased risks for perinatal complications over asymptomatic patients.

Critical or severe illness was also associated with more than triple the risk of preterm birth (adjusted risk ratio, 3.6; P < .001). Newborns of mothers with critical or severe illness also had three times greater risk of neonatal ICU admission (ARR, 3.1; P <. 001) and weighed an average 385 g less than newborns of asymptomatic mothers. COVID-19 rate among infants was only 1% during delivery hospitalization.

Since the study cutoff was July 30 and COVID infections only became prevalent in March, the researchers were unable to evaluate women for outcomes resulting from COVID infections in early pregnancy, such as congenital anomalies or early miscarriage, Dr. Metz said. In addition, since many of the sites are urban centers, the data may not be generalizable to rural areas.

Peter S. Bernstein, MD, MPH, of Montefiore Medical Center, New York, asked whether the increased cesarean deliveries and preterm births in the group of women with severe disease were caused by usual obstetric causes or the treatment of COVID-19 infection. Dr. Metz said the vast majority of preterm deliveries were indicated, but only a small proportion were induced for COVID-19 alone. “A lot had hypertensive disorders of pregnancies or PPROM, so it’s partly driven by the infection itself but also partly driven by some of those perinatal complications,” she said.
 

Similar findings in Washington

In the Washington study, among 240 pregnant patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection between March 1 and July 30, 2020, 1 in 11 developed severe or critical disease, and 1 in 10 were hospitalized. The pregnant patients had more than triple the risk of hospitalization compared with adults of similar ages in the general population (10% vs. 2.8%; rate ratio, 3.5). Similar to the multistate NICHD study, women were more likely to be hospitalized if they had asthma, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, autoimmune disease, or class III obesity.

Three mothers died of COVID-19, resulting in a case fatality rate 13.6 times greater than nonpregnant patients with COVID-19 in the general population. The absolute difference in the rate was 1.2%. As seen in the NICHD study, preterm birth was more common in mothers with severe or critical COVID-19. Nearly half (45.4%) of mothers with severe or critical COVID-19 delivered preterm compared to 5.2% in those with mild COVID-19 (P < .001).

“Our finding that deaths in pregnant patients contributed disproportionately to deaths from COVID-19 among 20- to 39-year-olds in Washington state is similar to what was observed during the influenza A virus H1N1 2009 pandemic,” Erica M. Lokken, PhD, MS, of the departments of global health and ob.gyn. at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in the Washington study. But they noted that it took 8 months into the pandemic before pregnant patients were identified as a high-risk group for COVID-19.

“Given the similarity in clinical course between COVID-19 and IAV H1N1 2009 with an increased risk for mortality during pregnancy and the postpartum period, we strongly recommend that pregnant patients should be considered a high-risk population to novel highly pathogenic respiratory viruses until proven otherwise by population-based studies with good ascertainment of pregnancy status,” they wrote.

Judette Louis, MD, MPH, associate professor of ob.gyn. and department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview that the findings in these studies were fairly expected, but it’s important to have data from such a large cohort as the one presented at SMFM.

“It confirmed that those who had severe disease were more likely to have chronic medical conditions, mirroring what we saw in the general population who isn’t pregnant,” Dr. Louis said. “I thought this was very crucial because as pregnant women are trying to decide whether they should get the COVID vaccine, this provides support to say that if you’re pregnant, you’re more likely to have severe disease [if you have] other chronic medical conditions.”

The findings also confirm the importance of pregnant people taking precautions to avoid infection.

“Even though these individuals are, as a group, in an age cohort that mostly has asymptomatic disease, for some of them, it results in severe disease and even maternal death,” she said. “They should still take it seriously if they’re pregnant.”

The SMFM abstract study was funded by the NICHD. The Washington study was funded by the University of Washington Population Health Initiative, the National Institutes of Health, and philanthropic gift funds. One coauthor of the Washington study is on a Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline advisory board for immunizations. No other authors or individuals interviewed reported any disclosures.

Pregnant patients with COVID-19 infections were more likely to experience severe disease if they had preexisting comorbidities, such as chronic hypertension, asthma, or pregestational diabetes, according to findings from a new study presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The study included outcomes for the largest multistate cohort of pregnant patients with COVID-19 outside of what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is tracking. Its findings also mirrored those of a multicenter, retrospective study in Washington state, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. That study also found that pregnant patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were more likely to have comorbidities, and both studies found an increased likelihood of preterm birth among pregnant patients with severe or critical disease.
 

Disease severity linked to risk of perinatal complications

In the abstract presented at the SMFM meeting, more severe disease was associated with older age and a higher median body mass index, as seen in the general population, but the researchers found no differences in disease severity occurred by race or ethnicity, Torri D. Metz, MD, of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, told attendees of the conference. The researchers also found that perinatal complications were more prevalent in those with severe or critical COVID-19 disease but not in those with mild or moderate disease. Vertical COVID-19 transmission from mother to child was rare.

The observational study included all patients who had a singleton pregnancy, had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and delivered between March 1 and July 31, 2020, at one of the 33 U.S. hospitals in the NICHD Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, spread across 14 states. The researchers used electronic medical records to determine incidence of cesarean delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks), maternal death, infant death, and positive infant COVID-19 test. They tracked mothers through 6 weeks post partum and newborns through delivery hospitalization.

Of 1,291 patients in the cohort, 1,219 received their first positive COVID-19 test during pregnancy. The others tested positive while in the hospital for delivery or within a month and a half after discharge. Limiting their analysis to those who developed COVID-19 while pregnant prior to delivery, nearly half (47%) were asymptomatic.

The disease was mild in 27%, moderate in 14%, severe in 8%, and critical in 4%. The researchers used the National Institutes of Health classifications for severity and included deaths in the critical group. The most common symptom was a cough, reported by a third of the patients (34%). Four of six maternal deaths that occurred were caused by COVID-19.

Compared with an average age of 28 in those without symptoms, the mean age was 29 in those with mild/moderate disease and 30 in those with severe/critical disease (P = .006). Similarly, the mean BMI was 28.3 in asymptomatic patients, 29 in those with mild/moderate disease, and 32.3 in those with severe/critical disease (P < .001). Despite a diverse cohort – 53% Hispanic, 23% Black, and 15% White – the researches found no racial/ethnic trends in disease severity.

Patients who had asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, pregestational diabetes, chronic hypertension, chronic liver disease, or a seizure disorder were all significantly more likely to have critical/severe disease than mild/moderate disease, and more likely to have mild/moderate disease than asymptomatic (P values ranged from < .001 to .02).

The mothers with critical or severe illness were 1.6 times more likely to have cesarean births and to have hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and they were twice as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage (P < .001; P = .007). Those with mild or moderate disease, however, had no increased risks for perinatal complications over asymptomatic patients.

Critical or severe illness was also associated with more than triple the risk of preterm birth (adjusted risk ratio, 3.6; P < .001). Newborns of mothers with critical or severe illness also had three times greater risk of neonatal ICU admission (ARR, 3.1; P <. 001) and weighed an average 385 g less than newborns of asymptomatic mothers. COVID-19 rate among infants was only 1% during delivery hospitalization.

Since the study cutoff was July 30 and COVID infections only became prevalent in March, the researchers were unable to evaluate women for outcomes resulting from COVID infections in early pregnancy, such as congenital anomalies or early miscarriage, Dr. Metz said. In addition, since many of the sites are urban centers, the data may not be generalizable to rural areas.

Peter S. Bernstein, MD, MPH, of Montefiore Medical Center, New York, asked whether the increased cesarean deliveries and preterm births in the group of women with severe disease were caused by usual obstetric causes or the treatment of COVID-19 infection. Dr. Metz said the vast majority of preterm deliveries were indicated, but only a small proportion were induced for COVID-19 alone. “A lot had hypertensive disorders of pregnancies or PPROM, so it’s partly driven by the infection itself but also partly driven by some of those perinatal complications,” she said.
 

Similar findings in Washington

In the Washington study, among 240 pregnant patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection between March 1 and July 30, 2020, 1 in 11 developed severe or critical disease, and 1 in 10 were hospitalized. The pregnant patients had more than triple the risk of hospitalization compared with adults of similar ages in the general population (10% vs. 2.8%; rate ratio, 3.5). Similar to the multistate NICHD study, women were more likely to be hospitalized if they had asthma, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, autoimmune disease, or class III obesity.

Three mothers died of COVID-19, resulting in a case fatality rate 13.6 times greater than nonpregnant patients with COVID-19 in the general population. The absolute difference in the rate was 1.2%. As seen in the NICHD study, preterm birth was more common in mothers with severe or critical COVID-19. Nearly half (45.4%) of mothers with severe or critical COVID-19 delivered preterm compared to 5.2% in those with mild COVID-19 (P < .001).

“Our finding that deaths in pregnant patients contributed disproportionately to deaths from COVID-19 among 20- to 39-year-olds in Washington state is similar to what was observed during the influenza A virus H1N1 2009 pandemic,” Erica M. Lokken, PhD, MS, of the departments of global health and ob.gyn. at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in the Washington study. But they noted that it took 8 months into the pandemic before pregnant patients were identified as a high-risk group for COVID-19.

“Given the similarity in clinical course between COVID-19 and IAV H1N1 2009 with an increased risk for mortality during pregnancy and the postpartum period, we strongly recommend that pregnant patients should be considered a high-risk population to novel highly pathogenic respiratory viruses until proven otherwise by population-based studies with good ascertainment of pregnancy status,” they wrote.

Judette Louis, MD, MPH, associate professor of ob.gyn. and department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview that the findings in these studies were fairly expected, but it’s important to have data from such a large cohort as the one presented at SMFM.

“It confirmed that those who had severe disease were more likely to have chronic medical conditions, mirroring what we saw in the general population who isn’t pregnant,” Dr. Louis said. “I thought this was very crucial because as pregnant women are trying to decide whether they should get the COVID vaccine, this provides support to say that if you’re pregnant, you’re more likely to have severe disease [if you have] other chronic medical conditions.”

The findings also confirm the importance of pregnant people taking precautions to avoid infection.

“Even though these individuals are, as a group, in an age cohort that mostly has asymptomatic disease, for some of them, it results in severe disease and even maternal death,” she said. “They should still take it seriously if they’re pregnant.”

The SMFM abstract study was funded by the NICHD. The Washington study was funded by the University of Washington Population Health Initiative, the National Institutes of Health, and philanthropic gift funds. One coauthor of the Washington study is on a Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline advisory board for immunizations. No other authors or individuals interviewed reported any disclosures.

Pregnant patients with COVID-19 infections were more likely to experience severe disease if they had preexisting comorbidities, such as chronic hypertension, asthma, or pregestational diabetes, according to findings from a new study presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The study included outcomes for the largest multistate cohort of pregnant patients with COVID-19 outside of what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is tracking. Its findings also mirrored those of a multicenter, retrospective study in Washington state, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. That study also found that pregnant patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were more likely to have comorbidities, and both studies found an increased likelihood of preterm birth among pregnant patients with severe or critical disease.
 

Disease severity linked to risk of perinatal complications

In the abstract presented at the SMFM meeting, more severe disease was associated with older age and a higher median body mass index, as seen in the general population, but the researchers found no differences in disease severity occurred by race or ethnicity, Torri D. Metz, MD, of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, told attendees of the conference. The researchers also found that perinatal complications were more prevalent in those with severe or critical COVID-19 disease but not in those with mild or moderate disease. Vertical COVID-19 transmission from mother to child was rare.

The observational study included all patients who had a singleton pregnancy, had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and delivered between March 1 and July 31, 2020, at one of the 33 U.S. hospitals in the NICHD Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, spread across 14 states. The researchers used electronic medical records to determine incidence of cesarean delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks), maternal death, infant death, and positive infant COVID-19 test. They tracked mothers through 6 weeks post partum and newborns through delivery hospitalization.

Of 1,291 patients in the cohort, 1,219 received their first positive COVID-19 test during pregnancy. The others tested positive while in the hospital for delivery or within a month and a half after discharge. Limiting their analysis to those who developed COVID-19 while pregnant prior to delivery, nearly half (47%) were asymptomatic.

The disease was mild in 27%, moderate in 14%, severe in 8%, and critical in 4%. The researchers used the National Institutes of Health classifications for severity and included deaths in the critical group. The most common symptom was a cough, reported by a third of the patients (34%). Four of six maternal deaths that occurred were caused by COVID-19.

Compared with an average age of 28 in those without symptoms, the mean age was 29 in those with mild/moderate disease and 30 in those with severe/critical disease (P = .006). Similarly, the mean BMI was 28.3 in asymptomatic patients, 29 in those with mild/moderate disease, and 32.3 in those with severe/critical disease (P < .001). Despite a diverse cohort – 53% Hispanic, 23% Black, and 15% White – the researches found no racial/ethnic trends in disease severity.

Patients who had asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, pregestational diabetes, chronic hypertension, chronic liver disease, or a seizure disorder were all significantly more likely to have critical/severe disease than mild/moderate disease, and more likely to have mild/moderate disease than asymptomatic (P values ranged from < .001 to .02).

The mothers with critical or severe illness were 1.6 times more likely to have cesarean births and to have hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and they were twice as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage (P < .001; P = .007). Those with mild or moderate disease, however, had no increased risks for perinatal complications over asymptomatic patients.

Critical or severe illness was also associated with more than triple the risk of preterm birth (adjusted risk ratio, 3.6; P < .001). Newborns of mothers with critical or severe illness also had three times greater risk of neonatal ICU admission (ARR, 3.1; P <. 001) and weighed an average 385 g less than newborns of asymptomatic mothers. COVID-19 rate among infants was only 1% during delivery hospitalization.

Since the study cutoff was July 30 and COVID infections only became prevalent in March, the researchers were unable to evaluate women for outcomes resulting from COVID infections in early pregnancy, such as congenital anomalies or early miscarriage, Dr. Metz said. In addition, since many of the sites are urban centers, the data may not be generalizable to rural areas.

Peter S. Bernstein, MD, MPH, of Montefiore Medical Center, New York, asked whether the increased cesarean deliveries and preterm births in the group of women with severe disease were caused by usual obstetric causes or the treatment of COVID-19 infection. Dr. Metz said the vast majority of preterm deliveries were indicated, but only a small proportion were induced for COVID-19 alone. “A lot had hypertensive disorders of pregnancies or PPROM, so it’s partly driven by the infection itself but also partly driven by some of those perinatal complications,” she said.
 

Similar findings in Washington

In the Washington study, among 240 pregnant patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection between March 1 and July 30, 2020, 1 in 11 developed severe or critical disease, and 1 in 10 were hospitalized. The pregnant patients had more than triple the risk of hospitalization compared with adults of similar ages in the general population (10% vs. 2.8%; rate ratio, 3.5). Similar to the multistate NICHD study, women were more likely to be hospitalized if they had asthma, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, autoimmune disease, or class III obesity.

Three mothers died of COVID-19, resulting in a case fatality rate 13.6 times greater than nonpregnant patients with COVID-19 in the general population. The absolute difference in the rate was 1.2%. As seen in the NICHD study, preterm birth was more common in mothers with severe or critical COVID-19. Nearly half (45.4%) of mothers with severe or critical COVID-19 delivered preterm compared to 5.2% in those with mild COVID-19 (P < .001).

“Our finding that deaths in pregnant patients contributed disproportionately to deaths from COVID-19 among 20- to 39-year-olds in Washington state is similar to what was observed during the influenza A virus H1N1 2009 pandemic,” Erica M. Lokken, PhD, MS, of the departments of global health and ob.gyn. at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in the Washington study. But they noted that it took 8 months into the pandemic before pregnant patients were identified as a high-risk group for COVID-19.

“Given the similarity in clinical course between COVID-19 and IAV H1N1 2009 with an increased risk for mortality during pregnancy and the postpartum period, we strongly recommend that pregnant patients should be considered a high-risk population to novel highly pathogenic respiratory viruses until proven otherwise by population-based studies with good ascertainment of pregnancy status,” they wrote.

Judette Louis, MD, MPH, associate professor of ob.gyn. and department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview that the findings in these studies were fairly expected, but it’s important to have data from such a large cohort as the one presented at SMFM.

“It confirmed that those who had severe disease were more likely to have chronic medical conditions, mirroring what we saw in the general population who isn’t pregnant,” Dr. Louis said. “I thought this was very crucial because as pregnant women are trying to decide whether they should get the COVID vaccine, this provides support to say that if you’re pregnant, you’re more likely to have severe disease [if you have] other chronic medical conditions.”

The findings also confirm the importance of pregnant people taking precautions to avoid infection.

“Even though these individuals are, as a group, in an age cohort that mostly has asymptomatic disease, for some of them, it results in severe disease and even maternal death,” she said. “They should still take it seriously if they’re pregnant.”

The SMFM abstract study was funded by the NICHD. The Washington study was funded by the University of Washington Population Health Initiative, the National Institutes of Health, and philanthropic gift funds. One coauthor of the Washington study is on a Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline advisory board for immunizations. No other authors or individuals interviewed reported any disclosures.

Elevated vaginal pH at the time of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 diagnosis may be a useful marker of CIN 2 persistence/progression, as well as the rate of persistence/progression in HIV-positive women, new research suggests.

“We analyzed data from the Women’s Interagency HIV Study [WIHS], an observational, longitudinal cohort of women with and without HIV to determine factors that may influence CIN 2 natural history,” said Kate Michel, PhD, MPH, of Georgetown University, Washington. She presented the results at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

As previous data have shown a high incidence of CIN 2 progression among women with HIV, the researchers evaluated the role of human papillomavirus (HPV) type, local immune response, and markers of the cervicovaginal microbiome on the risk of CIN 2 persistence/progression.

Within the cohort, follow-up visits occur every 6 months, and clinical data is collected via questionnaires, physical and gynecologic exams, and biological samples. As no specific treatment is offered in the WIHS, treatment for cervical abnormalities is abstracted from medical records.

In the present study, Dr. Michel and colleagues selected up to four banked cervicovaginal lavage (CVL) samples per woman, with the first sample selected 6-12 months prior to CIN 2 diagnosis, the second at CIN 2 diagnosis, the third between CIN 2 diagnosis and outcome, and the fourth at the outcome visit.

The investigators performed HPV typing and muiltiplex immune mediator testing on each CVL sample. Lab results from WIHS core testing were also extracted, including plasma CD4+ T-cell count and HIV viral load, as well as vaginal pH and Nugent’s score.

Study outcomes included persistence/progression and regression, defined as a subsequent CIN 2 or CIN 3 diagnosis and subsequent CIN 1 or normal diagnosis, respectively. Logistic regression models were used to determine CIN 2 regression versus persistence/progression.
 

Results

A total of 337 samples were obtained and 94 women were included in the analysis. Key demographic and behavioral factor were similar at CIN 2 diagnosis.

The majority of participants were African American (53.2%) and on antiretroviral therapy (66.0%). The most prevalent high-risk types were HPV-58 (18.4%) and HPV-16 (17.5%).

After a median 12.5 years of follow-up, 33 participants (35.1%) with incident CIN 2 had a subsequent CIN 2/CIN 3 diagnosis and those who regressed had a higher CD4 T-cell count at CIN 2 diagnosis (P = .02).

Each subsequent high-risk HPV type identified at the pre–CIN 2 visit was associated with higher odds of CIN2 persistence/progression (odds ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-4.50).

Bacterial vaginosis (adjusted OR, 5.08; 95% CI, 1.30-19.94) and vaginal pH (aOR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.15-4.50) at the CIN 2 diagnosis visit were each associated with increased odds of CIN 2 persistence/progression.

Vaginal pH greater than 4.5 at CIN 2 diagnosis was also associated with unadjusted time to CIN 2 persistence/progression (log rank P = .002) and an increased rate of CIN 2 persistence/progression (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.26-8.99).

Furthermore, among participants who did not receive CIN 2 treatment, vaginal pH remained associated with greater odds of CIN 2 persistence/progression (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.19-5.13). Cervicovaginal immune mediator levels were not associated with CIN 2 persistence/progression.

“The most striking finding from this work was that vaginal pH was associated with higher odds of, quicker time to, and increased hazard of CIN 2 persistence/progression,” Dr. Michel said. “We postulate this effect is mediated by the cervical microbiome, but more work is needed to establish the exact mechanism.”

“It would be interesting to test whether this association might be explained by different vaginal cleaning techniques, such as douching,” said moderator Ronald T. Mitsuyasu, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

“We’re currently working on an analysis of cervicovaginal bacterial species to explore the microbiome in more detail,” Dr. Michel concluded.

Dr. Michel disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by multiple sources, including the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Cancer Institute, and the Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science.

Elevated vaginal pH at the time of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 diagnosis may be a useful marker of CIN 2 persistence/progression, as well as the rate of persistence/progression in HIV-positive women, new research suggests.

“We analyzed data from the Women’s Interagency HIV Study [WIHS], an observational, longitudinal cohort of women with and without HIV to determine factors that may influence CIN 2 natural history,” said Kate Michel, PhD, MPH, of Georgetown University, Washington. She presented the results at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

As previous data have shown a high incidence of CIN 2 progression among women with HIV, the researchers evaluated the role of human papillomavirus (HPV) type, local immune response, and markers of the cervicovaginal microbiome on the risk of CIN 2 persistence/progression.

Within the cohort, follow-up visits occur every 6 months, and clinical data is collected via questionnaires, physical and gynecologic exams, and biological samples. As no specific treatment is offered in the WIHS, treatment for cervical abnormalities is abstracted from medical records.

In the present study, Dr. Michel and colleagues selected up to four banked cervicovaginal lavage (CVL) samples per woman, with the first sample selected 6-12 months prior to CIN 2 diagnosis, the second at CIN 2 diagnosis, the third between CIN 2 diagnosis and outcome, and the fourth at the outcome visit.

The investigators performed HPV typing and muiltiplex immune mediator testing on each CVL sample. Lab results from WIHS core testing were also extracted, including plasma CD4+ T-cell count and HIV viral load, as well as vaginal pH and Nugent’s score.

Study outcomes included persistence/progression and regression, defined as a subsequent CIN 2 or CIN 3 diagnosis and subsequent CIN 1 or normal diagnosis, respectively. Logistic regression models were used to determine CIN 2 regression versus persistence/progression.
 

Results

A total of 337 samples were obtained and 94 women were included in the analysis. Key demographic and behavioral factor were similar at CIN 2 diagnosis.

The majority of participants were African American (53.2%) and on antiretroviral therapy (66.0%). The most prevalent high-risk types were HPV-58 (18.4%) and HPV-16 (17.5%).

After a median 12.5 years of follow-up, 33 participants (35.1%) with incident CIN 2 had a subsequent CIN 2/CIN 3 diagnosis and those who regressed had a higher CD4 T-cell count at CIN 2 diagnosis (P = .02).

Each subsequent high-risk HPV type identified at the pre–CIN 2 visit was associated with higher odds of CIN2 persistence/progression (odds ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-4.50).

Bacterial vaginosis (adjusted OR, 5.08; 95% CI, 1.30-19.94) and vaginal pH (aOR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.15-4.50) at the CIN 2 diagnosis visit were each associated with increased odds of CIN 2 persistence/progression.

Vaginal pH greater than 4.5 at CIN 2 diagnosis was also associated with unadjusted time to CIN 2 persistence/progression (log rank P = .002) and an increased rate of CIN 2 persistence/progression (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.26-8.99).

Furthermore, among participants who did not receive CIN 2 treatment, vaginal pH remained associated with greater odds of CIN 2 persistence/progression (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.19-5.13). Cervicovaginal immune mediator levels were not associated with CIN 2 persistence/progression.

“The most striking finding from this work was that vaginal pH was associated with higher odds of, quicker time to, and increased hazard of CIN 2 persistence/progression,” Dr. Michel said. “We postulate this effect is mediated by the cervical microbiome, but more work is needed to establish the exact mechanism.”

“It would be interesting to test whether this association might be explained by different vaginal cleaning techniques, such as douching,” said moderator Ronald T. Mitsuyasu, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

“We’re currently working on an analysis of cervicovaginal bacterial species to explore the microbiome in more detail,” Dr. Michel concluded.

Dr. Michel disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by multiple sources, including the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Cancer Institute, and the Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science.

Elevated vaginal pH at the time of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 diagnosis may be a useful marker of CIN 2 persistence/progression, as well as the rate of persistence/progression in HIV-positive women, new research suggests.

“We analyzed data from the Women’s Interagency HIV Study [WIHS], an observational, longitudinal cohort of women with and without HIV to determine factors that may influence CIN 2 natural history,” said Kate Michel, PhD, MPH, of Georgetown University, Washington. She presented the results at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

As previous data have shown a high incidence of CIN 2 progression among women with HIV, the researchers evaluated the role of human papillomavirus (HPV) type, local immune response, and markers of the cervicovaginal microbiome on the risk of CIN 2 persistence/progression.

Within the cohort, follow-up visits occur every 6 months, and clinical data is collected via questionnaires, physical and gynecologic exams, and biological samples. As no specific treatment is offered in the WIHS, treatment for cervical abnormalities is abstracted from medical records.

In the present study, Dr. Michel and colleagues selected up to four banked cervicovaginal lavage (CVL) samples per woman, with the first sample selected 6-12 months prior to CIN 2 diagnosis, the second at CIN 2 diagnosis, the third between CIN 2 diagnosis and outcome, and the fourth at the outcome visit.

The investigators performed HPV typing and muiltiplex immune mediator testing on each CVL sample. Lab results from WIHS core testing were also extracted, including plasma CD4+ T-cell count and HIV viral load, as well as vaginal pH and Nugent’s score.

Study outcomes included persistence/progression and regression, defined as a subsequent CIN 2 or CIN 3 diagnosis and subsequent CIN 1 or normal diagnosis, respectively. Logistic regression models were used to determine CIN 2 regression versus persistence/progression.
 

Results

A total of 337 samples were obtained and 94 women were included in the analysis. Key demographic and behavioral factor were similar at CIN 2 diagnosis.

The majority of participants were African American (53.2%) and on antiretroviral therapy (66.0%). The most prevalent high-risk types were HPV-58 (18.4%) and HPV-16 (17.5%).

After a median 12.5 years of follow-up, 33 participants (35.1%) with incident CIN 2 had a subsequent CIN 2/CIN 3 diagnosis and those who regressed had a higher CD4 T-cell count at CIN 2 diagnosis (P = .02).

Each subsequent high-risk HPV type identified at the pre–CIN 2 visit was associated with higher odds of CIN2 persistence/progression (odds ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-4.50).

Bacterial vaginosis (adjusted OR, 5.08; 95% CI, 1.30-19.94) and vaginal pH (aOR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.15-4.50) at the CIN 2 diagnosis visit were each associated with increased odds of CIN 2 persistence/progression.

Vaginal pH greater than 4.5 at CIN 2 diagnosis was also associated with unadjusted time to CIN 2 persistence/progression (log rank P = .002) and an increased rate of CIN 2 persistence/progression (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.26-8.99).

Furthermore, among participants who did not receive CIN 2 treatment, vaginal pH remained associated with greater odds of CIN 2 persistence/progression (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.19-5.13). Cervicovaginal immune mediator levels were not associated with CIN 2 persistence/progression.

“The most striking finding from this work was that vaginal pH was associated with higher odds of, quicker time to, and increased hazard of CIN 2 persistence/progression,” Dr. Michel said. “We postulate this effect is mediated by the cervical microbiome, but more work is needed to establish the exact mechanism.”

“It would be interesting to test whether this association might be explained by different vaginal cleaning techniques, such as douching,” said moderator Ronald T. Mitsuyasu, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

“We’re currently working on an analysis of cervicovaginal bacterial species to explore the microbiome in more detail,” Dr. Michel concluded.

Dr. Michel disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by multiple sources, including the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Cancer Institute, and the Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science.

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

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

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

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

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

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

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for patients taking osteoporosis medications, according to joint guidance from six endocrine and osteoporosis societies and foundations.

They noted, though, that some timing modifications with certain medications should be considered to help distinguish between adverse events from the medication versus the vaccine.

The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research “is an international organization, so we brought together our sister societies that have a vested interested in bone health. Vaccination is happening worldwide, and we wanted to present a united front and united recommendations about how to handle osteoporosis medications appropriately during vaccination,” said Suzanne Jan De Beur, MD, who is president of ASBMR and an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

There has been quite a lot of concern from the community about vaccine and medications, from both physicians and patients wondering whether treatments and vaccines should occur in a certain order, and whether there should be a time gap between the two, said Dr. Jan De Beur. “There was a dearth of information about the best practices for osteoporosis treatment management during vaccination, and we didn’t want people missing their opportunity for a vaccine, and we also didn’t want them unnecessarily delaying their osteoporosis treatment.”

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the risk or severity of COVID-19 disease, nor do they appear to change the disease course. Osteoporosis itself does not appear associated with increased risk of infection or severe outcomes, so patients with osteoporosis do not need to be prioritized for vaccination based on that condition alone.

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the safety or efficacy of vaccination, but given that vaccine availability is currently inconsistent, patients may need to make temporary changes to their osteoporosis regimens to ensure they can receive vaccine when it is available, such as ensuring a delay between medication and vaccination injections.

A key reason for a delay between injectable or infusion medications and a vaccine is to distinguish between adverse events that could occur, so that an adverse reaction to vaccine isn’t mistaken for an adverse reaction to a drug. Nevertheless, the real world is messy. Dr. Jan De Beur noted a recent patient who arrived at her clinic for an injectable treatment who had just received a COVID-19 vaccination that morning. “We decided to put the injection in the other arm, rather than reschedule the person and put them through the risk of coming back. We could distinguish between injection-site reactions, at least,” she said.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

No changes should be made to general bone health therapies, such as calcium and vitamin D supplementation, weight-bearing exercises, and maintenance of a balanced diet.

The guidance includes some recommendations for specific osteoporosis medications.

• Oral bisphosphonates: Alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate should be continued.
• Intravenous bisphosphonates: a 7-day interval (4-day minimum) is recommended between intravenous bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid and ibandronate) infusion and COVID-19 vaccination in order to distinguish potential autoimmune or inflammatory reactions that could be attributable to either intravenous bisphosphonate or the vaccine.
• Denosumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between denosumab infusion and COVID-19 vaccination to account for injection-site reactions. Another option is to have denosumab injected into the contralateral arm or another site like the abdomen or upper thigh, if spacing the injections is not possible. In any case, denosumab injections should be performed within 7 months of the previous dose.
• Teriparatide and abaloparatide should be continued.
• Romosozumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between a romosozumab injection and COVID-19 vaccine, or romosozumab can be injected in the abdomen (with the exception of a 2-inch area around the naval) or thigh if spacing is not possible.
• Raloxifene should be continued in patients receiving COVID-19 vaccination.

Guidance signatories include ASBMR, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Dr. Jan De Beur has no relevant financial disclosures.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for patients taking osteoporosis medications, according to joint guidance from six endocrine and osteoporosis societies and foundations.

They noted, though, that some timing modifications with certain medications should be considered to help distinguish between adverse events from the medication versus the vaccine.

The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research “is an international organization, so we brought together our sister societies that have a vested interested in bone health. Vaccination is happening worldwide, and we wanted to present a united front and united recommendations about how to handle osteoporosis medications appropriately during vaccination,” said Suzanne Jan De Beur, MD, who is president of ASBMR and an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

There has been quite a lot of concern from the community about vaccine and medications, from both physicians and patients wondering whether treatments and vaccines should occur in a certain order, and whether there should be a time gap between the two, said Dr. Jan De Beur. “There was a dearth of information about the best practices for osteoporosis treatment management during vaccination, and we didn’t want people missing their opportunity for a vaccine, and we also didn’t want them unnecessarily delaying their osteoporosis treatment.”

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the risk or severity of COVID-19 disease, nor do they appear to change the disease course. Osteoporosis itself does not appear associated with increased risk of infection or severe outcomes, so patients with osteoporosis do not need to be prioritized for vaccination based on that condition alone.

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the safety or efficacy of vaccination, but given that vaccine availability is currently inconsistent, patients may need to make temporary changes to their osteoporosis regimens to ensure they can receive vaccine when it is available, such as ensuring a delay between medication and vaccination injections.

A key reason for a delay between injectable or infusion medications and a vaccine is to distinguish between adverse events that could occur, so that an adverse reaction to vaccine isn’t mistaken for an adverse reaction to a drug. Nevertheless, the real world is messy. Dr. Jan De Beur noted a recent patient who arrived at her clinic for an injectable treatment who had just received a COVID-19 vaccination that morning. “We decided to put the injection in the other arm, rather than reschedule the person and put them through the risk of coming back. We could distinguish between injection-site reactions, at least,” she said.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

No changes should be made to general bone health therapies, such as calcium and vitamin D supplementation, weight-bearing exercises, and maintenance of a balanced diet.

The guidance includes some recommendations for specific osteoporosis medications.

• Oral bisphosphonates: Alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate should be continued.
• Intravenous bisphosphonates: a 7-day interval (4-day minimum) is recommended between intravenous bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid and ibandronate) infusion and COVID-19 vaccination in order to distinguish potential autoimmune or inflammatory reactions that could be attributable to either intravenous bisphosphonate or the vaccine.
• Denosumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between denosumab infusion and COVID-19 vaccination to account for injection-site reactions. Another option is to have denosumab injected into the contralateral arm or another site like the abdomen or upper thigh, if spacing the injections is not possible. In any case, denosumab injections should be performed within 7 months of the previous dose.
• Teriparatide and abaloparatide should be continued.
• Romosozumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between a romosozumab injection and COVID-19 vaccine, or romosozumab can be injected in the abdomen (with the exception of a 2-inch area around the naval) or thigh if spacing is not possible.
• Raloxifene should be continued in patients receiving COVID-19 vaccination.

Guidance signatories include ASBMR, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Dr. Jan De Beur has no relevant financial disclosures.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for patients taking osteoporosis medications, according to joint guidance from six endocrine and osteoporosis societies and foundations.

They noted, though, that some timing modifications with certain medications should be considered to help distinguish between adverse events from the medication versus the vaccine.

The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research “is an international organization, so we brought together our sister societies that have a vested interested in bone health. Vaccination is happening worldwide, and we wanted to present a united front and united recommendations about how to handle osteoporosis medications appropriately during vaccination,” said Suzanne Jan De Beur, MD, who is president of ASBMR and an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

There has been quite a lot of concern from the community about vaccine and medications, from both physicians and patients wondering whether treatments and vaccines should occur in a certain order, and whether there should be a time gap between the two, said Dr. Jan De Beur. “There was a dearth of information about the best practices for osteoporosis treatment management during vaccination, and we didn’t want people missing their opportunity for a vaccine, and we also didn’t want them unnecessarily delaying their osteoporosis treatment.”

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the risk or severity of COVID-19 disease, nor do they appear to change the disease course. Osteoporosis itself does not appear associated with increased risk of infection or severe outcomes, so patients with osteoporosis do not need to be prioritized for vaccination based on that condition alone.

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the safety or efficacy of vaccination, but given that vaccine availability is currently inconsistent, patients may need to make temporary changes to their osteoporosis regimens to ensure they can receive vaccine when it is available, such as ensuring a delay between medication and vaccination injections.

A key reason for a delay between injectable or infusion medications and a vaccine is to distinguish between adverse events that could occur, so that an adverse reaction to vaccine isn’t mistaken for an adverse reaction to a drug. Nevertheless, the real world is messy. Dr. Jan De Beur noted a recent patient who arrived at her clinic for an injectable treatment who had just received a COVID-19 vaccination that morning. “We decided to put the injection in the other arm, rather than reschedule the person and put them through the risk of coming back. We could distinguish between injection-site reactions, at least,” she said.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

No changes should be made to general bone health therapies, such as calcium and vitamin D supplementation, weight-bearing exercises, and maintenance of a balanced diet.

The guidance includes some recommendations for specific osteoporosis medications.

• Oral bisphosphonates: Alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate should be continued.
• Intravenous bisphosphonates: a 7-day interval (4-day minimum) is recommended between intravenous bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid and ibandronate) infusion and COVID-19 vaccination in order to distinguish potential autoimmune or inflammatory reactions that could be attributable to either intravenous bisphosphonate or the vaccine.
• Denosumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between denosumab infusion and COVID-19 vaccination to account for injection-site reactions. Another option is to have denosumab injected into the contralateral arm or another site like the abdomen or upper thigh, if spacing the injections is not possible. In any case, denosumab injections should be performed within 7 months of the previous dose.
• Teriparatide and abaloparatide should be continued.
• Romosozumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between a romosozumab injection and COVID-19 vaccine, or romosozumab can be injected in the abdomen (with the exception of a 2-inch area around the naval) or thigh if spacing is not possible.
• Raloxifene should be continued in patients receiving COVID-19 vaccination.

Guidance signatories include ASBMR, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Dr. Jan De Beur has no relevant financial disclosures.

Being obese and pregnant raises the risk for cardiac complications in women with preexisting heart disease, new research suggests, highlighting the need for earlier interventions in this high-risk population.

The analysis of 790 pregnancies revealed that 23% of women with obesity, defined as body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2, had a cardiac event during pregnancy versus 14% of women with normal body weight (P = .006).

The difference was driven largely by an increase in heart failure (8% vs. 3%; P = .02), although arrhythmias also trended higher in obese women (14% vs. 10%; P = .19).

Nearly half of the women with obesity and a cardiac event presented in the postpartum period (47%).

In multivariate analysis, both obesity and Canadian Cardiac Disease in Pregnancy Study (CARPREG) II risk score were independent predictors of cardiac events (odds ratios for both, 1.7), the investigators, led by Birgit Pfaller, MD, University of Toronto, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Although obesity has been linked to worse pregnancy outcomes and higher cardiovascular risk after delivery in the general population, the authors noted that this is the first study to examine its effect on outcomes in women with heart disease.

“We wanted to look at this high-risk group of women that had preexisting heart disease, but in addition had obesity, to try and find out if there was a kind of double hit for these women – and that, in the end, is what we found. It’s not just simply having heart disease, not simply having obesity, but the combination that’s problematic,” senior author and cardiologist Candice Silversides, MD, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The findings are concerning given the rising prevalence of obesity worldwide. National data from 2018 show that slightly more than half of women who gave birth in the United States were significantly overweight or obese before becoming pregnant.

Similarly, in the present analysis of 600 women in the CARPREG study who gave birth from 2004 to 2014, nearly 1 in 5 pregnancies (19%) occurred in women with obesity and 25% were in overweight women.

Obese women were significantly more likely than those without obesity to have coronary artery disease (6% vs. 2%), cardiomyopathies (19% vs. 8%) and left ventricular dysfunction (19% vs. 12%) and to be hypertensive or have a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (13% vs. 3%).

Preeclampsia developed in 32 women during the index pregnancy and 69% of these women were obese or overweight. Cardiac event rates were similar in women with or without preeclampsia but trended higher in women with preeclampsia with versus without obesity (36% vs. 14%; P = .20).

The ill effects of obesity were also reflected in fetal and neonatal events. Overall, 43% of women with obesity and 33% of normal-weight women had at least one fetal event (P = .02), with higher rates of preterm birth (19% vs. 10%; P = .005) and respiratory distress syndrome (8% vs. 3%; P = .02) in women with obesity. Congenital cardiac malformations were present in 6% of women in both groups.

Taken together, the composite of cardiac events, preeclampsia, or fetal events was significantly more common in women with obesity than in normal-weight women (56% vs. 41%; P = .002).

“We’ve spent the last number of years trying to research and understand what the drivers of these adverse outcomes are in this high-risk pregnant cohort, but on a bigger picture the real issue is how do we start intervening in a meaningful way,” Dr. Silversides said.

Like many in the burgeoning field of cardio-obstetrics, the team proposed a multidisciplinary approach that stresses preconception counseling, educating pregnant women with heart disease and obesity about their risks, ensuring that dietary advice, weight-gain recommendations, and comorbidities are addressed as part of routine care, and providing postpartum surveillance.

Preconception screening “has been the recommendation for a long, long time; it’s just that it doesn’t always happen in reality,” she said. “Many pregnancies aren’t planned and not all women are filtered into preconception counseling. So sometimes you’ll do it at the first antenatal visit and try to ensure women are educated but optimally you want to do it well in advance of pregnancy.”

Part of that preconception counseling “should also include giving them appropriate advice for contraception, if what they want to do is avoid pregnancy,” added Dr. Silversides.

Garima Sharma, MD, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial that the adverse events observed in this high-risk cohort have “important implications for cardio-obstetricians and should be incorporated in routine prepregnancy and antenatal counseling, monitoring, and risk stratification for women with existing cardiovascular disease.”

They pointed to a paucity of data incorporating maternal prepregnancy obesity and gestational weight gain in risk prediction and called for larger population-based studies on the additive impact of obesity severity on predicting adverse cardiac events in women with existing cardiovascular disease.

Randomized trials are also urgently needed to evaluate the effect of nutritional and behavioral interventions in pregnancy on short- and long-term outcomes in mother and child.

“As the obesity epidemic continues to grow and public health interventions promoting lifestyle changes for obesity management remain a major challenge, maternal obesity may prove to be the ‘Achilles’ heel’ of sustainable national efforts to reduce maternal mortality and improve health equity. This is a call to action,” Dr. Sharma and colleagues concluded.

The investigators noted that the study was conducted at a single center and used self-reported pregnancy weight collected at the first antenatal visit, which may have underestimated obesity rates. Other limitations are that weight changes over the course of pregnancy were not studied and there was a limited number of women with a body mass index of 40 or higher.

The study was supported by a grant from the Allan E. Tiffin Trust, Toronto General and Western Hospital Foundation, and by a donation from Mrs. Josephine Rogers, Toronto General Hospital. Dr. Silversides is supported by the Miles Nadal Chair in Pregnancy and Heart Disease. Dr. Sharma and colleagues disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Being obese and pregnant raises the risk for cardiac complications in women with preexisting heart disease, new research suggests, highlighting the need for earlier interventions in this high-risk population.

The analysis of 790 pregnancies revealed that 23% of women with obesity, defined as body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2, had a cardiac event during pregnancy versus 14% of women with normal body weight (P = .006).

The difference was driven largely by an increase in heart failure (8% vs. 3%; P = .02), although arrhythmias also trended higher in obese women (14% vs. 10%; P = .19).

Nearly half of the women with obesity and a cardiac event presented in the postpartum period (47%).

In multivariate analysis, both obesity and Canadian Cardiac Disease in Pregnancy Study (CARPREG) II risk score were independent predictors of cardiac events (odds ratios for both, 1.7), the investigators, led by Birgit Pfaller, MD, University of Toronto, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Although obesity has been linked to worse pregnancy outcomes and higher cardiovascular risk after delivery in the general population, the authors noted that this is the first study to examine its effect on outcomes in women with heart disease.

“We wanted to look at this high-risk group of women that had preexisting heart disease, but in addition had obesity, to try and find out if there was a kind of double hit for these women – and that, in the end, is what we found. It’s not just simply having heart disease, not simply having obesity, but the combination that’s problematic,” senior author and cardiologist Candice Silversides, MD, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The findings are concerning given the rising prevalence of obesity worldwide. National data from 2018 show that slightly more than half of women who gave birth in the United States were significantly overweight or obese before becoming pregnant.

Similarly, in the present analysis of 600 women in the CARPREG study who gave birth from 2004 to 2014, nearly 1 in 5 pregnancies (19%) occurred in women with obesity and 25% were in overweight women.

Obese women were significantly more likely than those without obesity to have coronary artery disease (6% vs. 2%), cardiomyopathies (19% vs. 8%) and left ventricular dysfunction (19% vs. 12%) and to be hypertensive or have a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (13% vs. 3%).

Preeclampsia developed in 32 women during the index pregnancy and 69% of these women were obese or overweight. Cardiac event rates were similar in women with or without preeclampsia but trended higher in women with preeclampsia with versus without obesity (36% vs. 14%; P = .20).

The ill effects of obesity were also reflected in fetal and neonatal events. Overall, 43% of women with obesity and 33% of normal-weight women had at least one fetal event (P = .02), with higher rates of preterm birth (19% vs. 10%; P = .005) and respiratory distress syndrome (8% vs. 3%; P = .02) in women with obesity. Congenital cardiac malformations were present in 6% of women in both groups.

Taken together, the composite of cardiac events, preeclampsia, or fetal events was significantly more common in women with obesity than in normal-weight women (56% vs. 41%; P = .002).

“We’ve spent the last number of years trying to research and understand what the drivers of these adverse outcomes are in this high-risk pregnant cohort, but on a bigger picture the real issue is how do we start intervening in a meaningful way,” Dr. Silversides said.

Like many in the burgeoning field of cardio-obstetrics, the team proposed a multidisciplinary approach that stresses preconception counseling, educating pregnant women with heart disease and obesity about their risks, ensuring that dietary advice, weight-gain recommendations, and comorbidities are addressed as part of routine care, and providing postpartum surveillance.

Preconception screening “has been the recommendation for a long, long time; it’s just that it doesn’t always happen in reality,” she said. “Many pregnancies aren’t planned and not all women are filtered into preconception counseling. So sometimes you’ll do it at the first antenatal visit and try to ensure women are educated but optimally you want to do it well in advance of pregnancy.”

Part of that preconception counseling “should also include giving them appropriate advice for contraception, if what they want to do is avoid pregnancy,” added Dr. Silversides.

Garima Sharma, MD, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial that the adverse events observed in this high-risk cohort have “important implications for cardio-obstetricians and should be incorporated in routine prepregnancy and antenatal counseling, monitoring, and risk stratification for women with existing cardiovascular disease.”

They pointed to a paucity of data incorporating maternal prepregnancy obesity and gestational weight gain in risk prediction and called for larger population-based studies on the additive impact of obesity severity on predicting adverse cardiac events in women with existing cardiovascular disease.

Randomized trials are also urgently needed to evaluate the effect of nutritional and behavioral interventions in pregnancy on short- and long-term outcomes in mother and child.

“As the obesity epidemic continues to grow and public health interventions promoting lifestyle changes for obesity management remain a major challenge, maternal obesity may prove to be the ‘Achilles’ heel’ of sustainable national efforts to reduce maternal mortality and improve health equity. This is a call to action,” Dr. Sharma and colleagues concluded.

The investigators noted that the study was conducted at a single center and used self-reported pregnancy weight collected at the first antenatal visit, which may have underestimated obesity rates. Other limitations are that weight changes over the course of pregnancy were not studied and there was a limited number of women with a body mass index of 40 or higher.

The study was supported by a grant from the Allan E. Tiffin Trust, Toronto General and Western Hospital Foundation, and by a donation from Mrs. Josephine Rogers, Toronto General Hospital. Dr. Silversides is supported by the Miles Nadal Chair in Pregnancy and Heart Disease. Dr. Sharma and colleagues disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Being obese and pregnant raises the risk for cardiac complications in women with preexisting heart disease, new research suggests, highlighting the need for earlier interventions in this high-risk population.

The analysis of 790 pregnancies revealed that 23% of women with obesity, defined as body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2, had a cardiac event during pregnancy versus 14% of women with normal body weight (P = .006).

The difference was driven largely by an increase in heart failure (8% vs. 3%; P = .02), although arrhythmias also trended higher in obese women (14% vs. 10%; P = .19).

Nearly half of the women with obesity and a cardiac event presented in the postpartum period (47%).

In multivariate analysis, both obesity and Canadian Cardiac Disease in Pregnancy Study (CARPREG) II risk score were independent predictors of cardiac events (odds ratios for both, 1.7), the investigators, led by Birgit Pfaller, MD, University of Toronto, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Although obesity has been linked to worse pregnancy outcomes and higher cardiovascular risk after delivery in the general population, the authors noted that this is the first study to examine its effect on outcomes in women with heart disease.

“We wanted to look at this high-risk group of women that had preexisting heart disease, but in addition had obesity, to try and find out if there was a kind of double hit for these women – and that, in the end, is what we found. It’s not just simply having heart disease, not simply having obesity, but the combination that’s problematic,” senior author and cardiologist Candice Silversides, MD, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The findings are concerning given the rising prevalence of obesity worldwide. National data from 2018 show that slightly more than half of women who gave birth in the United States were significantly overweight or obese before becoming pregnant.

Similarly, in the present analysis of 600 women in the CARPREG study who gave birth from 2004 to 2014, nearly 1 in 5 pregnancies (19%) occurred in women with obesity and 25% were in overweight women.

Obese women were significantly more likely than those without obesity to have coronary artery disease (6% vs. 2%), cardiomyopathies (19% vs. 8%) and left ventricular dysfunction (19% vs. 12%) and to be hypertensive or have a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (13% vs. 3%).

Preeclampsia developed in 32 women during the index pregnancy and 69% of these women were obese or overweight. Cardiac event rates were similar in women with or without preeclampsia but trended higher in women with preeclampsia with versus without obesity (36% vs. 14%; P = .20).

The ill effects of obesity were also reflected in fetal and neonatal events. Overall, 43% of women with obesity and 33% of normal-weight women had at least one fetal event (P = .02), with higher rates of preterm birth (19% vs. 10%; P = .005) and respiratory distress syndrome (8% vs. 3%; P = .02) in women with obesity. Congenital cardiac malformations were present in 6% of women in both groups.

Taken together, the composite of cardiac events, preeclampsia, or fetal events was significantly more common in women with obesity than in normal-weight women (56% vs. 41%; P = .002).

“We’ve spent the last number of years trying to research and understand what the drivers of these adverse outcomes are in this high-risk pregnant cohort, but on a bigger picture the real issue is how do we start intervening in a meaningful way,” Dr. Silversides said.

Like many in the burgeoning field of cardio-obstetrics, the team proposed a multidisciplinary approach that stresses preconception counseling, educating pregnant women with heart disease and obesity about their risks, ensuring that dietary advice, weight-gain recommendations, and comorbidities are addressed as part of routine care, and providing postpartum surveillance.

Preconception screening “has been the recommendation for a long, long time; it’s just that it doesn’t always happen in reality,” she said. “Many pregnancies aren’t planned and not all women are filtered into preconception counseling. So sometimes you’ll do it at the first antenatal visit and try to ensure women are educated but optimally you want to do it well in advance of pregnancy.”

Part of that preconception counseling “should also include giving them appropriate advice for contraception, if what they want to do is avoid pregnancy,” added Dr. Silversides.

Garima Sharma, MD, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial that the adverse events observed in this high-risk cohort have “important implications for cardio-obstetricians and should be incorporated in routine prepregnancy and antenatal counseling, monitoring, and risk stratification for women with existing cardiovascular disease.”

They pointed to a paucity of data incorporating maternal prepregnancy obesity and gestational weight gain in risk prediction and called for larger population-based studies on the additive impact of obesity severity on predicting adverse cardiac events in women with existing cardiovascular disease.

Randomized trials are also urgently needed to evaluate the effect of nutritional and behavioral interventions in pregnancy on short- and long-term outcomes in mother and child.

“As the obesity epidemic continues to grow and public health interventions promoting lifestyle changes for obesity management remain a major challenge, maternal obesity may prove to be the ‘Achilles’ heel’ of sustainable national efforts to reduce maternal mortality and improve health equity. This is a call to action,” Dr. Sharma and colleagues concluded.

The investigators noted that the study was conducted at a single center and used self-reported pregnancy weight collected at the first antenatal visit, which may have underestimated obesity rates. Other limitations are that weight changes over the course of pregnancy were not studied and there was a limited number of women with a body mass index of 40 or higher.

The study was supported by a grant from the Allan E. Tiffin Trust, Toronto General and Western Hospital Foundation, and by a donation from Mrs. Josephine Rogers, Toronto General Hospital. Dr. Silversides is supported by the Miles Nadal Chair in Pregnancy and Heart Disease. Dr. Sharma and colleagues disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

BraunS/Getty Images

Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.

The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.

Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.

“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).

“This should be an area for future research,” he added.

The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.

Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
 

Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis

Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:

• 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
• 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
• 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
• 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..

For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
 

The ‘why’ remains unknown

The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”

Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.

In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.

“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
 

‘An important study’

“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.

The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.

“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.

Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”

Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.

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

Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

BraunS/Getty Images

Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.

The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.

Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.

“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).

“This should be an area for future research,” he added.

The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.

Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
 

Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis

Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:

• 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
• 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
• 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
• 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..

For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
 

The ‘why’ remains unknown

The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”

Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.

In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.

“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
 

‘An important study’

“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.

The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.

“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.

Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”

Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.

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

Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

BraunS/Getty Images

Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.

The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.

Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.

“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).

“This should be an area for future research,” he added.

The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.

Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
 

Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis

Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:

• 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
• 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
• 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
• 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..

For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
 

The ‘why’ remains unknown

The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”

Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.

In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.

“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
 

‘An important study’

“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.

The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.

“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.

Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”

Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.

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

Bremelanotide, a Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for acquired, generalized hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in premenopausal women, may be of limited use, suggests Glen I. Spielmans, PhD, in a new analysis paper.

Dr. Spielmans, professor of psychology at Metropolitan State University in Saint Paul, Minn., examined data from the FDA application for bremelanotide, clinicaltrials.gov entries for two phase 3 trials of the drug, and a 2019 article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology that described results from the 24-week trials.

In Dr. Speilman’s analysis, which was published online March 7 in the Journal of Sex Research, he notes that 42.1% of trial participants who received bremelanotide did not complete the trial, compared with 20.48% of participants who received placebo.

Of those who completed the study, 87.22% who received placebo wanted to continue treatment in an open-label extension, compared with 69.97% who received bremelanotide, he wrote.

Women “should be aware of the small degree of bremelanotide’s efficacy, that the protocol-specified outcomes of bremelanotide are mostly unknown, and that participants would rather take a placebo than bremelanotide,” Dr. Spielmans said.

Anita H. Clayton, MD, an author of the Obstetrics & Gynecology paper addressed in Dr. Spielmans’ analysis, says the Journal of Sex Research article does not provide new information and is a disservice to women because it questions accurate scientific data.

Measuring outcomes in HSDD is an evolving field, Dr. Clayton, a psychiatrist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, said in an interview. Initial FDA guidance relied on satisfying sexual events as an outcome measure, but this measure was derived from erectile dysfunction studies and is not necessarily adequate for assessing HSDD, she said. The FDA and drug developers agreed to use the desire subscale of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI-D) as a coprimary outcome measure instead, she noted.
 

Dr. Spielmans’ critique of Obstetrics & Gynecology paper

The article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology reporting bremelanotide trial results was noteworthy, although the various issues involved can be seen in reports about other drug trials, Dr. Spielmans said in an interview.

“It is well-established that journal articles reporting clinical trial data overstate benefits and understate harms,” he continued. In this case, “the very incomplete data reporting, reliance on many post-hoc measures of questionable validity, hiding the concerning number of dropouts due to adverse events, and putting a positive spin on efficacy and tolerability is both remarkable and highly problematic,” Dr. Spielmans said.
 

Dr. Clayton’s reaction

Data about dropout rates due to adverse events have been reported and presented at national meetings, she said in an interview. In addition, a questionnaire found that bremelanotide was superior to placebo in terms of patients feeling that the treatment had provided clinically meaningful benefit, Dr. Clayton said.

The available information enables patients to make informed treatment decisions, Dr. Clayton continued. “There is really this sexist attitude of women needing protection from their own decisions,” she said.
 

Diagnosing and treating HSDD

Eight of 11 efficacy outcomes in the clinicaltrials.gov study protocols for bremelanotide were not reported in the Obstetrics & Gynecology article in a way that was consistent with the protocols, Dr. Spielmans said. Changing a coprimary outcome to the key secondary outcome “occurred over a year after the trials had begun,” and the authors of the journal article “did not mention that this change occurred,” Dr. Spielmans wrote.

For the coprimary outcome measures of mean change on FSFI-D and Female Sexual Distress Scale–Desire/Arousal/Orgasm #13, “bremelanotide offers modest benefits over placebo,” Dr. Spielmans reported.

In addition to outlining his concerns about transparency in the reporting of trial data and raising questions about the outcome measures used in the Obstetrics & Gynecology article, Dr. Spielmans wrote that the diagnosis of HSDD is problematic.

“The lack of specifying symptom duration, questionable validity for the lack of sexual fantasies as a diagnostic criterion, difficulty in disentangling individual sexual problems from relational problems, and the failure to consider cultural influence (including the pressure on women to satisfy the sexual desires of their male partners) in the experience of sexuality all render HSDD as a problematic entity,” Dr. Spielmans wrote.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders replaced HSDD and female sexual arousal disorder with the combined condition female sexual interest/arousal disorder. HSDD is in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases and can be applied to men or women, Dr. Spielmans said.
 

FDA acknowledged HSDD as an unmet medical need

Dr. Clayton pointed out that HSDD was described decades ago and the FDA acknowledged it as an unmet medical need, and she expressed dissatisfaction with the fact the hypoactive sexual desire disorder appears with quotation marks around it in the title of Dr. Spielmans’ article. This way of presenting HSDD indicates that “the author has no concept of sexual health or sexual dysfunction,” Dr. Clayton said. “Basically this is sort of a dramatic tool, I think, to act like this is not a real disorder,” she added.

Carl Spana, PhD, CEO and president of Palatin Technologies, the developer of bremelanotide, defined the article in the Journal of Sex Research as a “retrospective meta-analysis, and not a re-analysis of the data.

“As a meta-analysis, it is open to various interpretations and reflects the author’s interpretations, which appear to have clear biases,” Dr. Spana said in an interview. “We believe several of this author’s interpretations are contrary to the FDA’s positive assessment that led to Vyleesi’s approval as a safe and effective treatment for women suffering from hypoactive sexual desire disorder.”

The author is unaware of the validation that was conducted at the direction of the FDA to establish clinically meaningful cutoffs for patient-reported outcomes and to establish metrics that define clinical benefit, Dr. Spana said

“Vyleesi was approved by the FDA after a thorough analysis of data from two well-controlled phase 3 clinical studies and multiple clinical and preclinical safety studies,” he said. “The analyses in the New Drug Application were prespecified and conducted according to a statistical analysis plan that the sponsor and FDA agreed to prior to database lock.”

Dr. Spielmans disclosed holdings in Vanguard Healthcare, a mutual fund that invests in pharmaceutical firms. Dr. Clayton has received financial support from Palatin and AMAG Pharmaceuticals, the companies that developed bremelanotide, in previous years.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Bremelanotide, a Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for acquired, generalized hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in premenopausal women, may be of limited use, suggests Glen I. Spielmans, PhD, in a new analysis paper.

Dr. Spielmans, professor of psychology at Metropolitan State University in Saint Paul, Minn., examined data from the FDA application for bremelanotide, clinicaltrials.gov entries for two phase 3 trials of the drug, and a 2019 article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology that described results from the 24-week trials.

In Dr. Speilman’s analysis, which was published online March 7 in the Journal of Sex Research, he notes that 42.1% of trial participants who received bremelanotide did not complete the trial, compared with 20.48% of participants who received placebo.

Of those who completed the study, 87.22% who received placebo wanted to continue treatment in an open-label extension, compared with 69.97% who received bremelanotide, he wrote.

Women “should be aware of the small degree of bremelanotide’s efficacy, that the protocol-specified outcomes of bremelanotide are mostly unknown, and that participants would rather take a placebo than bremelanotide,” Dr. Spielmans said.

Anita H. Clayton, MD, an author of the Obstetrics & Gynecology paper addressed in Dr. Spielmans’ analysis, says the Journal of Sex Research article does not provide new information and is a disservice to women because it questions accurate scientific data.

Measuring outcomes in HSDD is an evolving field, Dr. Clayton, a psychiatrist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, said in an interview. Initial FDA guidance relied on satisfying sexual events as an outcome measure, but this measure was derived from erectile dysfunction studies and is not necessarily adequate for assessing HSDD, she said. The FDA and drug developers agreed to use the desire subscale of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI-D) as a coprimary outcome measure instead, she noted.
 

Dr. Spielmans’ critique of Obstetrics & Gynecology paper

The article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology reporting bremelanotide trial results was noteworthy, although the various issues involved can be seen in reports about other drug trials, Dr. Spielmans said in an interview.

“It is well-established that journal articles reporting clinical trial data overstate benefits and understate harms,” he continued. In this case, “the very incomplete data reporting, reliance on many post-hoc measures of questionable validity, hiding the concerning number of dropouts due to adverse events, and putting a positive spin on efficacy and tolerability is both remarkable and highly problematic,” Dr. Spielmans said.
 

Dr. Clayton’s reaction

Data about dropout rates due to adverse events have been reported and presented at national meetings, she said in an interview. In addition, a questionnaire found that bremelanotide was superior to placebo in terms of patients feeling that the treatment had provided clinically meaningful benefit, Dr. Clayton said.

The available information enables patients to make informed treatment decisions, Dr. Clayton continued. “There is really this sexist attitude of women needing protection from their own decisions,” she said.
 

Diagnosing and treating HSDD

Eight of 11 efficacy outcomes in the clinicaltrials.gov study protocols for bremelanotide were not reported in the Obstetrics & Gynecology article in a way that was consistent with the protocols, Dr. Spielmans said. Changing a coprimary outcome to the key secondary outcome “occurred over a year after the trials had begun,” and the authors of the journal article “did not mention that this change occurred,” Dr. Spielmans wrote.

For the coprimary outcome measures of mean change on FSFI-D and Female Sexual Distress Scale–Desire/Arousal/Orgasm #13, “bremelanotide offers modest benefits over placebo,” Dr. Spielmans reported.

In addition to outlining his concerns about transparency in the reporting of trial data and raising questions about the outcome measures used in the Obstetrics & Gynecology article, Dr. Spielmans wrote that the diagnosis of HSDD is problematic.

“The lack of specifying symptom duration, questionable validity for the lack of sexual fantasies as a diagnostic criterion, difficulty in disentangling individual sexual problems from relational problems, and the failure to consider cultural influence (including the pressure on women to satisfy the sexual desires of their male partners) in the experience of sexuality all render HSDD as a problematic entity,” Dr. Spielmans wrote.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders replaced HSDD and female sexual arousal disorder with the combined condition female sexual interest/arousal disorder. HSDD is in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases and can be applied to men or women, Dr. Spielmans said.
 

FDA acknowledged HSDD as an unmet medical need

Dr. Clayton pointed out that HSDD was described decades ago and the FDA acknowledged it as an unmet medical need, and she expressed dissatisfaction with the fact the hypoactive sexual desire disorder appears with quotation marks around it in the title of Dr. Spielmans’ article. This way of presenting HSDD indicates that “the author has no concept of sexual health or sexual dysfunction,” Dr. Clayton said. “Basically this is sort of a dramatic tool, I think, to act like this is not a real disorder,” she added.

Carl Spana, PhD, CEO and president of Palatin Technologies, the developer of bremelanotide, defined the article in the Journal of Sex Research as a “retrospective meta-analysis, and not a re-analysis of the data.

“As a meta-analysis, it is open to various interpretations and reflects the author’s interpretations, which appear to have clear biases,” Dr. Spana said in an interview. “We believe several of this author’s interpretations are contrary to the FDA’s positive assessment that led to Vyleesi’s approval as a safe and effective treatment for women suffering from hypoactive sexual desire disorder.”

The author is unaware of the validation that was conducted at the direction of the FDA to establish clinically meaningful cutoffs for patient-reported outcomes and to establish metrics that define clinical benefit, Dr. Spana said

“Vyleesi was approved by the FDA after a thorough analysis of data from two well-controlled phase 3 clinical studies and multiple clinical and preclinical safety studies,” he said. “The analyses in the New Drug Application were prespecified and conducted according to a statistical analysis plan that the sponsor and FDA agreed to prior to database lock.”

Dr. Spielmans disclosed holdings in Vanguard Healthcare, a mutual fund that invests in pharmaceutical firms. Dr. Clayton has received financial support from Palatin and AMAG Pharmaceuticals, the companies that developed bremelanotide, in previous years.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Bremelanotide, a Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for acquired, generalized hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in premenopausal women, may be of limited use, suggests Glen I. Spielmans, PhD, in a new analysis paper.

Dr. Spielmans, professor of psychology at Metropolitan State University in Saint Paul, Minn., examined data from the FDA application for bremelanotide, clinicaltrials.gov entries for two phase 3 trials of the drug, and a 2019 article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology that described results from the 24-week trials.

In Dr. Speilman’s analysis, which was published online March 7 in the Journal of Sex Research, he notes that 42.1% of trial participants who received bremelanotide did not complete the trial, compared with 20.48% of participants who received placebo.

Of those who completed the study, 87.22% who received placebo wanted to continue treatment in an open-label extension, compared with 69.97% who received bremelanotide, he wrote.

Women “should be aware of the small degree of bremelanotide’s efficacy, that the protocol-specified outcomes of bremelanotide are mostly unknown, and that participants would rather take a placebo than bremelanotide,” Dr. Spielmans said.

Anita H. Clayton, MD, an author of the Obstetrics & Gynecology paper addressed in Dr. Spielmans’ analysis, says the Journal of Sex Research article does not provide new information and is a disservice to women because it questions accurate scientific data.

Measuring outcomes in HSDD is an evolving field, Dr. Clayton, a psychiatrist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, said in an interview. Initial FDA guidance relied on satisfying sexual events as an outcome measure, but this measure was derived from erectile dysfunction studies and is not necessarily adequate for assessing HSDD, she said. The FDA and drug developers agreed to use the desire subscale of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI-D) as a coprimary outcome measure instead, she noted.
 

Dr. Spielmans’ critique of Obstetrics & Gynecology paper

The article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology reporting bremelanotide trial results was noteworthy, although the various issues involved can be seen in reports about other drug trials, Dr. Spielmans said in an interview.

“It is well-established that journal articles reporting clinical trial data overstate benefits and understate harms,” he continued. In this case, “the very incomplete data reporting, reliance on many post-hoc measures of questionable validity, hiding the concerning number of dropouts due to adverse events, and putting a positive spin on efficacy and tolerability is both remarkable and highly problematic,” Dr. Spielmans said.
 

Dr. Clayton’s reaction

Data about dropout rates due to adverse events have been reported and presented at national meetings, she said in an interview. In addition, a questionnaire found that bremelanotide was superior to placebo in terms of patients feeling that the treatment had provided clinically meaningful benefit, Dr. Clayton said.

The available information enables patients to make informed treatment decisions, Dr. Clayton continued. “There is really this sexist attitude of women needing protection from their own decisions,” she said.
 

Diagnosing and treating HSDD

Eight of 11 efficacy outcomes in the clinicaltrials.gov study protocols for bremelanotide were not reported in the Obstetrics & Gynecology article in a way that was consistent with the protocols, Dr. Spielmans said. Changing a coprimary outcome to the key secondary outcome “occurred over a year after the trials had begun,” and the authors of the journal article “did not mention that this change occurred,” Dr. Spielmans wrote.

For the coprimary outcome measures of mean change on FSFI-D and Female Sexual Distress Scale–Desire/Arousal/Orgasm #13, “bremelanotide offers modest benefits over placebo,” Dr. Spielmans reported.

In addition to outlining his concerns about transparency in the reporting of trial data and raising questions about the outcome measures used in the Obstetrics & Gynecology article, Dr. Spielmans wrote that the diagnosis of HSDD is problematic.

“The lack of specifying symptom duration, questionable validity for the lack of sexual fantasies as a diagnostic criterion, difficulty in disentangling individual sexual problems from relational problems, and the failure to consider cultural influence (including the pressure on women to satisfy the sexual desires of their male partners) in the experience of sexuality all render HSDD as a problematic entity,” Dr. Spielmans wrote.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders replaced HSDD and female sexual arousal disorder with the combined condition female sexual interest/arousal disorder. HSDD is in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases and can be applied to men or women, Dr. Spielmans said.
 

FDA acknowledged HSDD as an unmet medical need

Dr. Clayton pointed out that HSDD was described decades ago and the FDA acknowledged it as an unmet medical need, and she expressed dissatisfaction with the fact the hypoactive sexual desire disorder appears with quotation marks around it in the title of Dr. Spielmans’ article. This way of presenting HSDD indicates that “the author has no concept of sexual health or sexual dysfunction,” Dr. Clayton said. “Basically this is sort of a dramatic tool, I think, to act like this is not a real disorder,” she added.

Carl Spana, PhD, CEO and president of Palatin Technologies, the developer of bremelanotide, defined the article in the Journal of Sex Research as a “retrospective meta-analysis, and not a re-analysis of the data.

“As a meta-analysis, it is open to various interpretations and reflects the author’s interpretations, which appear to have clear biases,” Dr. Spana said in an interview. “We believe several of this author’s interpretations are contrary to the FDA’s positive assessment that led to Vyleesi’s approval as a safe and effective treatment for women suffering from hypoactive sexual desire disorder.”

The author is unaware of the validation that was conducted at the direction of the FDA to establish clinically meaningful cutoffs for patient-reported outcomes and to establish metrics that define clinical benefit, Dr. Spana said

“Vyleesi was approved by the FDA after a thorough analysis of data from two well-controlled phase 3 clinical studies and multiple clinical and preclinical safety studies,” he said. “The analyses in the New Drug Application were prespecified and conducted according to a statistical analysis plan that the sponsor and FDA agreed to prior to database lock.”

Dr. Spielmans disclosed holdings in Vanguard Healthcare, a mutual fund that invests in pharmaceutical firms. Dr. Clayton has received financial support from Palatin and AMAG Pharmaceuticals, the companies that developed bremelanotide, in previous years.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Broadening the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with a one-step screening approach does not lead to significant differences in maternal or perinatal outcomes, compared with a two-step approach. Investigators reported these findings in the New England Journal of Medicine after testing the two screening methods in more than 23,000 pregnant women.

GDM affects 6%-25% of pregnant women, increasing the risk of neonatal death and stillborn births. It can also lead to serious complications such as fetal overgrowth. Clinical guidelines recommend GDM screening between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation to improve outcomes in mothers and infants. However, the scientific community has struggled to reach a consensus on testing approach.

For decades, clinicians used a two-step screening approach: a nonfasting 1-hour glucose challenge test and a longer 3-hour fasting oral glucose tolerance test to diagnose GDM; roughly 20% who test positive on this glucose challenge test require the second step. Results of a large study led to new diagnostic criteria on a one-step 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study “found a linear relationship with hyperglycemia and outcomes – the higher the glucose, the worse the outcomes,” said Teresa Hillier, MD, MS, an endocrinologist and investigator with Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Northwest and CHR-Hawaii. The International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) made a clinical recommendation on the one-step approach, now a common screening tool in the United States.
 

A focus on rare GDM outcomes

The IADPSG fasting one-step criteria typically identifies women with milder symptoms as having gestational diabetes, a factor expected to increase diagnosis rates by two- or threefold, said Dr. Hillier. “The unknown question was whether diagnosing and treating more women would be associated with any differences in any of the multiple GDM-associated outcomes for mother and baby.”

She and her colleagues conducted a large-scale randomized trial at two Kaiser sites to assess multiple maternal and perinatal outcomes including rare but important GDM-associated outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death between the two screening methods.

They randomized 23,792 pregnant women 1:1 to the one- or two-step gestational diabetes test at their first prenatal visit. Primary outcomes included diagnosis of gestational diabetes; large-for-gestational-age infants; primary cesarean section, and gestational hypertension or preeclampsia; and a composite perinatal outcome of any stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, or arm or hand nerve palsy related to birth injury.

Most participants (94%) completed screening, although there was lower adherence to screening in the one-step approach. The reasons for this aren’t entirely clear, said Dr. Hillier. Convenience may be a factor; patients have to fast for several hours to complete the one-step test, whereas the first test of the two-step screening approach can be done at any time of day, and most patients pass this test.

Corroborating HAPO’s results, twice as many women in the one-step group (16.5%) received a GDM diagnosis, compared with 8.5% in the two-step group (unadjusted relative risk, 1.94; 97.5% confidence interval, 1.79-2.11). However, for the other primary outcomes, investigators found no significant differences in incidences or unadjusted risks. Perinatal composite outcomes for the one- and two-step groups were 3.1% and 3.0%, respectively, and primary cesarean section outcomes were 24.0% and 24.6%.

In the one-step group, 8.9% experienced large-for-gestational-age infants outcomes, compared with 9.2% in the two-step group (RR, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.87-1.05). Among those diagnosed with gestational diabetes, similar percentages of women in the one- and two-step groups received insulin or hypoglycemic medication (42.6% and 45.6%, respectively).

Dr. Hillier and colleagues also reported comparable results among the two groups on safety outcomes and secondary outcomes such as macrosomia incidence, small-for-gestational-age infants, and factors such as neonatal hypoglycemia and respiratory distress.

“Although we did not find increased harms associated with the diagnosis and treatment of gestational diabetes in many more women with the one-step approach, some retrospective observational cohort studies have shown higher incidences of primary cesarean delivery and neonatal hypoglycemia with one-step screening after conversion from two-step protocols, with no substantive improvement in outcomes,” Dr. Hillier and colleagues noted.

The trial had several limitations. Adjustments made to address lower adherence to the one-step approach might not have accounted for all nonadherence differences. Another issue is the two sites didn’t use identical thresholds for the glucose challenge test in the two-step cohort. Demographically, the study lacked Black and American Indian representation.

“Moreover, the potential long-term benefits of increased diagnoses of gestational diabetes – such as the identification of more women at high risk for subsequent diabetes who might benefit from risk-reduction strategies – were not addressed by the trial,” Brian Casey, MD, wrote in a related editorial. Based on the study’s findings, “the perinatal benefits of the diagnosis of gestational diabetes with the use of the IADPSG single-step approach appear to be insufficient to justify the associated patient and health care costs of broadening the diagnosis” of GDM, added Dr. Casey, a professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

U.S. doctors unlikely to change behaviors

Most U.S. physicians favor the two-step method. This has been a huge controversy worldwide, with other countries pushing the United States to use the one-step method, Vincenzo Berghella, MD, a professor with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “I expect this study will increase the divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world,” since U.S. physicians will see no benefit to the one-step method, and continue to use the two-step method. 

It’s not surprising that GDM diagnosis incidence went up to 16.5% with the inclusion of the one-step test, compared with 8.5% with the two-step test, Dr. Berghella continued. What’s less clear, are the details of treatment among the 8% diagnosed to have GDM with the one-step test, but not the two-step test. 

These women were likely to have milder degrees of insulin resistance or GDM. Dr. Berghella, who has advocated in the past for the one-step approach, said it would be important to find out if these women, who test positive at the one-step test but would test negative at the two-step test, were treated properly with diet, exercise, and possibly insulin or other hypoglycemic agents for their mild degree of insulin resistance. The researchers concluded that expanding the definition of GDM through the one-step test didn’t make a difference. However, “it’s not just the test that will make the difference in maternal and baby outcomes, but the aggressive management of diabetes with diet, exercise, and medications as needed once that test comes back abnormal,” he said.

The randomized trial was a massive undertaking, said Dr. Hillier.

“We are still evaluating our future plans,” she added. Forthcoming subgroup analyses from the trial could further help inform clinical practice guidelines.

Dr. Hillier received a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to support this study. The investigators reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Broadening the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with a one-step screening approach does not lead to significant differences in maternal or perinatal outcomes, compared with a two-step approach. Investigators reported these findings in the New England Journal of Medicine after testing the two screening methods in more than 23,000 pregnant women.

GDM affects 6%-25% of pregnant women, increasing the risk of neonatal death and stillborn births. It can also lead to serious complications such as fetal overgrowth. Clinical guidelines recommend GDM screening between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation to improve outcomes in mothers and infants. However, the scientific community has struggled to reach a consensus on testing approach.

For decades, clinicians used a two-step screening approach: a nonfasting 1-hour glucose challenge test and a longer 3-hour fasting oral glucose tolerance test to diagnose GDM; roughly 20% who test positive on this glucose challenge test require the second step. Results of a large study led to new diagnostic criteria on a one-step 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study “found a linear relationship with hyperglycemia and outcomes – the higher the glucose, the worse the outcomes,” said Teresa Hillier, MD, MS, an endocrinologist and investigator with Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Northwest and CHR-Hawaii. The International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) made a clinical recommendation on the one-step approach, now a common screening tool in the United States.
 

A focus on rare GDM outcomes

The IADPSG fasting one-step criteria typically identifies women with milder symptoms as having gestational diabetes, a factor expected to increase diagnosis rates by two- or threefold, said Dr. Hillier. “The unknown question was whether diagnosing and treating more women would be associated with any differences in any of the multiple GDM-associated outcomes for mother and baby.”

She and her colleagues conducted a large-scale randomized trial at two Kaiser sites to assess multiple maternal and perinatal outcomes including rare but important GDM-associated outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death between the two screening methods.

They randomized 23,792 pregnant women 1:1 to the one- or two-step gestational diabetes test at their first prenatal visit. Primary outcomes included diagnosis of gestational diabetes; large-for-gestational-age infants; primary cesarean section, and gestational hypertension or preeclampsia; and a composite perinatal outcome of any stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, or arm or hand nerve palsy related to birth injury.

Most participants (94%) completed screening, although there was lower adherence to screening in the one-step approach. The reasons for this aren’t entirely clear, said Dr. Hillier. Convenience may be a factor; patients have to fast for several hours to complete the one-step test, whereas the first test of the two-step screening approach can be done at any time of day, and most patients pass this test.

Corroborating HAPO’s results, twice as many women in the one-step group (16.5%) received a GDM diagnosis, compared with 8.5% in the two-step group (unadjusted relative risk, 1.94; 97.5% confidence interval, 1.79-2.11). However, for the other primary outcomes, investigators found no significant differences in incidences or unadjusted risks. Perinatal composite outcomes for the one- and two-step groups were 3.1% and 3.0%, respectively, and primary cesarean section outcomes were 24.0% and 24.6%.

In the one-step group, 8.9% experienced large-for-gestational-age infants outcomes, compared with 9.2% in the two-step group (RR, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.87-1.05). Among those diagnosed with gestational diabetes, similar percentages of women in the one- and two-step groups received insulin or hypoglycemic medication (42.6% and 45.6%, respectively).

Dr. Hillier and colleagues also reported comparable results among the two groups on safety outcomes and secondary outcomes such as macrosomia incidence, small-for-gestational-age infants, and factors such as neonatal hypoglycemia and respiratory distress.

“Although we did not find increased harms associated with the diagnosis and treatment of gestational diabetes in many more women with the one-step approach, some retrospective observational cohort studies have shown higher incidences of primary cesarean delivery and neonatal hypoglycemia with one-step screening after conversion from two-step protocols, with no substantive improvement in outcomes,” Dr. Hillier and colleagues noted.

The trial had several limitations. Adjustments made to address lower adherence to the one-step approach might not have accounted for all nonadherence differences. Another issue is the two sites didn’t use identical thresholds for the glucose challenge test in the two-step cohort. Demographically, the study lacked Black and American Indian representation.

“Moreover, the potential long-term benefits of increased diagnoses of gestational diabetes – such as the identification of more women at high risk for subsequent diabetes who might benefit from risk-reduction strategies – were not addressed by the trial,” Brian Casey, MD, wrote in a related editorial. Based on the study’s findings, “the perinatal benefits of the diagnosis of gestational diabetes with the use of the IADPSG single-step approach appear to be insufficient to justify the associated patient and health care costs of broadening the diagnosis” of GDM, added Dr. Casey, a professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

U.S. doctors unlikely to change behaviors

Most U.S. physicians favor the two-step method. This has been a huge controversy worldwide, with other countries pushing the United States to use the one-step method, Vincenzo Berghella, MD, a professor with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “I expect this study will increase the divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world,” since U.S. physicians will see no benefit to the one-step method, and continue to use the two-step method. 

It’s not surprising that GDM diagnosis incidence went up to 16.5% with the inclusion of the one-step test, compared with 8.5% with the two-step test, Dr. Berghella continued. What’s less clear, are the details of treatment among the 8% diagnosed to have GDM with the one-step test, but not the two-step test. 

These women were likely to have milder degrees of insulin resistance or GDM. Dr. Berghella, who has advocated in the past for the one-step approach, said it would be important to find out if these women, who test positive at the one-step test but would test negative at the two-step test, were treated properly with diet, exercise, and possibly insulin or other hypoglycemic agents for their mild degree of insulin resistance. The researchers concluded that expanding the definition of GDM through the one-step test didn’t make a difference. However, “it’s not just the test that will make the difference in maternal and baby outcomes, but the aggressive management of diabetes with diet, exercise, and medications as needed once that test comes back abnormal,” he said.

The randomized trial was a massive undertaking, said Dr. Hillier.

“We are still evaluating our future plans,” she added. Forthcoming subgroup analyses from the trial could further help inform clinical practice guidelines.

Dr. Hillier received a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to support this study. The investigators reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Broadening the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with a one-step screening approach does not lead to significant differences in maternal or perinatal outcomes, compared with a two-step approach. Investigators reported these findings in the New England Journal of Medicine after testing the two screening methods in more than 23,000 pregnant women.

GDM affects 6%-25% of pregnant women, increasing the risk of neonatal death and stillborn births. It can also lead to serious complications such as fetal overgrowth. Clinical guidelines recommend GDM screening between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation to improve outcomes in mothers and infants. However, the scientific community has struggled to reach a consensus on testing approach.

For decades, clinicians used a two-step screening approach: a nonfasting 1-hour glucose challenge test and a longer 3-hour fasting oral glucose tolerance test to diagnose GDM; roughly 20% who test positive on this glucose challenge test require the second step. Results of a large study led to new diagnostic criteria on a one-step 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study “found a linear relationship with hyperglycemia and outcomes – the higher the glucose, the worse the outcomes,” said Teresa Hillier, MD, MS, an endocrinologist and investigator with Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Northwest and CHR-Hawaii. The International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) made a clinical recommendation on the one-step approach, now a common screening tool in the United States.
 

A focus on rare GDM outcomes

The IADPSG fasting one-step criteria typically identifies women with milder symptoms as having gestational diabetes, a factor expected to increase diagnosis rates by two- or threefold, said Dr. Hillier. “The unknown question was whether diagnosing and treating more women would be associated with any differences in any of the multiple GDM-associated outcomes for mother and baby.”

She and her colleagues conducted a large-scale randomized trial at two Kaiser sites to assess multiple maternal and perinatal outcomes including rare but important GDM-associated outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death between the two screening methods.

They randomized 23,792 pregnant women 1:1 to the one- or two-step gestational diabetes test at their first prenatal visit. Primary outcomes included diagnosis of gestational diabetes; large-for-gestational-age infants; primary cesarean section, and gestational hypertension or preeclampsia; and a composite perinatal outcome of any stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, or arm or hand nerve palsy related to birth injury.

Most participants (94%) completed screening, although there was lower adherence to screening in the one-step approach. The reasons for this aren’t entirely clear, said Dr. Hillier. Convenience may be a factor; patients have to fast for several hours to complete the one-step test, whereas the first test of the two-step screening approach can be done at any time of day, and most patients pass this test.

Corroborating HAPO’s results, twice as many women in the one-step group (16.5%) received a GDM diagnosis, compared with 8.5% in the two-step group (unadjusted relative risk, 1.94; 97.5% confidence interval, 1.79-2.11). However, for the other primary outcomes, investigators found no significant differences in incidences or unadjusted risks. Perinatal composite outcomes for the one- and two-step groups were 3.1% and 3.0%, respectively, and primary cesarean section outcomes were 24.0% and 24.6%.

In the one-step group, 8.9% experienced large-for-gestational-age infants outcomes, compared with 9.2% in the two-step group (RR, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.87-1.05). Among those diagnosed with gestational diabetes, similar percentages of women in the one- and two-step groups received insulin or hypoglycemic medication (42.6% and 45.6%, respectively).

Dr. Hillier and colleagues also reported comparable results among the two groups on safety outcomes and secondary outcomes such as macrosomia incidence, small-for-gestational-age infants, and factors such as neonatal hypoglycemia and respiratory distress.

“Although we did not find increased harms associated with the diagnosis and treatment of gestational diabetes in many more women with the one-step approach, some retrospective observational cohort studies have shown higher incidences of primary cesarean delivery and neonatal hypoglycemia with one-step screening after conversion from two-step protocols, with no substantive improvement in outcomes,” Dr. Hillier and colleagues noted.

The trial had several limitations. Adjustments made to address lower adherence to the one-step approach might not have accounted for all nonadherence differences. Another issue is the two sites didn’t use identical thresholds for the glucose challenge test in the two-step cohort. Demographically, the study lacked Black and American Indian representation.

“Moreover, the potential long-term benefits of increased diagnoses of gestational diabetes – such as the identification of more women at high risk for subsequent diabetes who might benefit from risk-reduction strategies – were not addressed by the trial,” Brian Casey, MD, wrote in a related editorial. Based on the study’s findings, “the perinatal benefits of the diagnosis of gestational diabetes with the use of the IADPSG single-step approach appear to be insufficient to justify the associated patient and health care costs of broadening the diagnosis” of GDM, added Dr. Casey, a professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

U.S. doctors unlikely to change behaviors

Most U.S. physicians favor the two-step method. This has been a huge controversy worldwide, with other countries pushing the United States to use the one-step method, Vincenzo Berghella, MD, a professor with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “I expect this study will increase the divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world,” since U.S. physicians will see no benefit to the one-step method, and continue to use the two-step method. 

It’s not surprising that GDM diagnosis incidence went up to 16.5% with the inclusion of the one-step test, compared with 8.5% with the two-step test, Dr. Berghella continued. What’s less clear, are the details of treatment among the 8% diagnosed to have GDM with the one-step test, but not the two-step test. 

These women were likely to have milder degrees of insulin resistance or GDM. Dr. Berghella, who has advocated in the past for the one-step approach, said it would be important to find out if these women, who test positive at the one-step test but would test negative at the two-step test, were treated properly with diet, exercise, and possibly insulin or other hypoglycemic agents for their mild degree of insulin resistance. The researchers concluded that expanding the definition of GDM through the one-step test didn’t make a difference. However, “it’s not just the test that will make the difference in maternal and baby outcomes, but the aggressive management of diabetes with diet, exercise, and medications as needed once that test comes back abnormal,” he said.

The randomized trial was a massive undertaking, said Dr. Hillier.

“We are still evaluating our future plans,” she added. Forthcoming subgroup analyses from the trial could further help inform clinical practice guidelines.

Dr. Hillier received a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to support this study. The investigators reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

CASE Young woman with family history of breast cancer detects lump

Two weeks after noting a lump on her breast when her cat happened to jump on her in that spot, a 28-year-old woman (G0) went to her primary care provider. She was referred to her gynecologist; breast imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography were obtained, with microcalcifications noted. A fine needle aspiration diagnosed intraductal malignancy. The surgical breast tissue specimen was estrogen receptor (ER)- and progestogen receptor (PR)-positive and HER2-negative. Other tumor markers were obtained, including carcinoembryonic antigen, and tissue polypeptide specific antigen, p53, cathepsin D, cyclin E, and nestin, but results were not available.

With regard to family history, the woman’s mother and maternal grandmother had a history of breast cancer. The patient and her family underwent gene testing. The patient was found to be BRCA1- and BRCA2-positive; her mother was BRCA1-positive, an older sister was BRCA2-positive, and her grandmother was not tested.

The question arose in light of her family history as to why she was not tested for BRCA and appropriately counseled by her gynecologist prior to the cancer diagnosis. Litigation was initiated. While the case did not go forward regarding litigation, it is indeed a case in point. (Please note that this is a hypothetical case. It is based on a composite of several cases.)
 

Medical considerations

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer affecting women in the Western world.¹ Advances in clinical testing for gene mutations have escalated and allowed for identification of patients at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Along with these advances come professional liability risk. After looking at the medical considerations for BRCA1 and 2 testing, we will consider a number of important legal issues. In the view of some commentators, the failure to diagnose genetic mutations in patients predisposed to cancer is “poised to become the next wave of medical professional liability lawsuits.”²

BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes provide tumor suppressor proteins, and assessment for mutations is recommended for individuals at high risk for breast and/or ovarian cancer; mutations in BRCA genes cause DNA damage, which increases the chance of developing cancer. The other way to look at it is, BRCA1 and 2 are tumor suppressor genes that are integrally involved with DNA damage control. Once there is a mutation, it adversely affects the beneficial effects of the gene. Mutations in these genes account for 5% to 10% of all hereditary breast cancers.³ Of note, men with BRCA2 are at increased risk for prostate cancer.

A patient who presents to her gynecologist stating that there is a family history of breast cancer, without knowledge of genetic components, presents a challenge (and a medicolegal risk) for the provider to assess. Prediction models have been used to determine specific patient risk for carrying a genetic mutation with resultant breast cancer development.⁴ Risk prediction models do not appear to be a good answer to predicting who is more likely to develop breast or ovarian cancer, however. A Mayo model may assist (FIGURE).⁵ Clinicians should also be aware of other models of risk assessment, including the Gail Model (TABLE 1).⁶

Continue to: Guidelines for genetic testing...

Guidelines for genetic testing

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that patient medical history and family history are paramount in obtaining information regarding risk for breast and ovarian cancer. First- and second-degree relatives are allocated to this category. Information regarding age of diagnosis, maternal and paternal lineage, and ethnic background can imply a need for genetic testing (TABLE 2).^7,8 A number of genetics national organizations have participated in recommendations and include the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, the National Society for Genetic Counselors, and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.⁷

The question always surfaces, could the clinical outcome of the cancer when diagnosed have been changed if screening were undertaken, with earlier diagnosis, or prevented with prophylactic mastectomy, and changed the end result. In addition, it is well known that breast augmentation mammoplasty alters the ability to accurately evaluate mammograms. Patients considering this type of plastic surgery, ideally, should be counselled accordingly.⁹

Bottom line, we as clinicians must be cognizant of both ACOG and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations regarding screening and gene testing for women considered high risk for breast cancer based on family history.⁷

Legal considerations

The case presented demonstrates that the discovery of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and reliable tests for determining the existence of the genes, brought with them legal issues as well as medical advantages. We look at professional liability (malpractice) questions this technology raises, and then consider the outcome of the hypothetical case. (BRCA is used here to apply broadly—not only to BRCA1 and 2 but also to PALB2, CHEK2, and similar genetic abnormalities.)

To date, the most visible BRCA legal issues covered in cases and law reviews have focused more on patent law than malpractice. The most important of these was a decision of the US Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics.¹⁰ The US Patent Office was granting patents to companies finding useful, naturally occurring segments of human DNA, and had granted Myriad several patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This patent policy had the potential to seriously interfere with broad scientific use of these genes.¹¹ Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in and unanimously invalidated such patents. It held that a “naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” The Court noted, “Finding the location of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes does not render the genes patent eligible ‘new . . . composition[s] of matter.’”⁸ The Court did allow the patenting of tests for specific gene structures, and artificial changes in naturally occurring genes.

Malpractice and BRCA

While the BRCA patent wars have lingered, the potential for a significant increase in BRCA-related malpractice cases is of increasing concern. Like most malpractice liability, these new claims are based on very old principles of negligence.¹² To prevail, the plaintiff (ordinarily, an injured patient) must demonstrate 4 things:

• A duty. That is, the physician owed a duty to the injured party. Usually (but not always) that requires a professional relationship between the physician and the person injured.
• A breach of that duty. Malpractice liability is based on the fact that the physician did something that a reasonably careful physician (generally, of the same specialty) would not have done, or that the physician failed to do something that a reasonable physician would have done. This usually means that the profession itself sees what the physician did (or did not do) as medically inappropriate. In medical malpractice cases, that is ordinarily measured by what the usual or common practice is among prudent physicians. In rare circumstances, courts have found the standard practice of a profession to be negligent. Where, for example, it was custom for a professional not to give an eye pressure test to anyone under age 40, a court found that common standard to be inappropriate.¹³ In the words of Judge Learned Hand (speaking about a different case), “a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices. It never may set its own tests.”¹⁴ Underlying negligence is a cost-benefit analysis (discussed below).
• Damages. There must have been some damage that courts recognize, usually loss of money or opportunity to work, the cost of care, pain and suffering, or loss of enjoyment/quality of life. In malpractice, many states now recognize the “loss of chance” or the “loss of a chance.” That means, if a “physician negligently fails to diagnose a curable disease, and the patient is harmed by the disease, the physician should be liable for causing the ‘loss of a chance of a cure.’”¹⁵ (Delay in diagnosis is the most common reason for claims in breast cancer care.)¹⁶
• Causation. The breach of duty (negligence) must have caused the damages. The causation must have been reasonably close. If a driver drives through a stop sign, or a physician misreads a test, and someone is injured but there is no connection between the negligence and the injury, there is not tort liability.

The 4 elements of malpractice just described are raised in some way in the possible liability associated with BRCA testing. We next look at the ways in which liability may arise from that testing (or lack of it).

Underlying much of the following discussion is the “cost-benefit” consideration noted above. This concept is that the total cost (financial and health) of testing should be compared with the value of the benefits of testing, taking into account the probabilities that the testing will result in better health outcomes. BRCA testing, for example, is essentially cost-free in terms of physical risk. Its financial cost, while not trivial, is not great, and it is commonly covered by health insurance.¹⁷ In terms of benefits, the testing has the potential for providing critical information in making treatment decisions for a meaningful percentage of patients and their families. There are many ways of analyzing the liability risks of genetic malpractice,^7,18 and the following is intended to discuss some of the greatest risks related to BRCA testing.

Continue to: Areas of liability...

 

 

Areas of liability

The failure to recommend a test. The circumstances in which BRCA testing should be undertaken are set out by professional organizations (noted above). These recommendations are not static, however. They change from time to time. Given the potential harm caused by the failure to test in relevant circumstances, malpractice liability is certainly a possibility when the failure to recommend a test to a patient results in a cancer that might have been prevented had the genetic problem been identified in a timely manner. The circumstances in which testing should be considered continue to change, placing an obligation on clinicians to stay well informed of changing genetic understandings. Another risk is that one specialist may assume that it is the job of another specialist to order the test. Whatever the cause of the failure to test, or unnecessary delay in testing, it appears to be the primary basis for BRCA liability.

The failure to properly interpret a test. Any test that is misinterpreted may lead to harm for the patient. A false negative, of course, may mean that preventive treatment that could have been undertaken will be foregone, as a “loss of a chance.” On the other hand, a false positive can lead to radical, unnecessary surgery or treatment. If a misinterpretation occurred because of carelessness by the testing organization, or confusion by a practitioner, there is a likelihood of negligence.¹⁹

A different form of “misinterpretation” could be reasonable—and not negligent. Advances in scientific-medical understanding may result in the outcome of tests being reconsidered and changed. That has been the case with genetic testing and breast cancer. The availability of multiple breast cancer SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), and combining this information with other risk factors for example, results in a polygenic risk score that may be at odds with the level of risk from earlier testing.^20,21 This naturally leads to the question of when later, updated testing should be recommended to look for a better current interpretation.^22,23

The failure to act on BRCA test results. Testing is of no value, of course, if the results are not used properly. Test results or analyses that are not sent to the proper physicians, or are somehow ignored when properly directed, is a “never” event—it should never happen. It almost always would be considered negligence, and if the patient were injured, could lead to liability. Amazingly, one study found that, in genetic testing liability cases, nearly 20% of the claims arose from failure to return test results to patients.²⁴ In addition, when a patient is found to be BRCA-positive, there is an obligation to discuss the options for dealing with the increased risk associated with the gene mutation(s), as well as to recommend the prudent course of action or to refer the patient to someone who will have that discussion.

Informed consent to the patient. BRCA testing requires informed consent. The physical risks of the testing process are minimal, of course, but it carries a number of other emotional and family risks. The informed consent process is an invitation to an honest discussion between clinicians and patients. It should be an opportunity to discuss what the testing is, and is not, and what the test may mean for treatment. It may also be an opportunity to discuss the implications for other members of the patient’s family (noted below).

One element of informed consent is a discussion of the consequences of failure to consent, or to undertake one of the alternatives. In the case of BRCA testing, this is especially important in cases in which a patient expresses a hesitancy to be tested with an “I’d rather not know philosophy.” Although clinicians should not practice law, some patient concerns about discrimination may be addressed by the protection that the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and other laws provide (which prohibit insurance and employment discrimination based on genetic information). A good source of information about GINA and related nondiscrimination laws is provided by the National Human Genome Research Institute.²⁵ In addition, the National Institutes of Health has a website that may be helpful to many patients²⁶ (and a much more complex site for health professionals).²⁷ At the same time, courts have resisted plaintiffs/patients who have tried to use informed consent as a way of suing for failure to offer genetic testing.^28,29

The failure to refer. In some cases, a patient should be formally referred for genetics consultation. The considerations here are similar to other circumstances in modern, fast developing medical practice that require special sensitivity to those occasions in which a patient will benefit from additional expertise. It is a principle that the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs has expressed this way: “In the absence of adequate expertise in pretest and posttest counseling, a physician should refer the patient to an appropriate specialist.”³⁰ The failure to refer, when that deviates from acceptable practice, may result in liability.

Informing others. BRCA testing is an area of medicine in which results may be of great significance not only to the patient but also to the patient’s family.³¹ Physicians should counsel patients on the importance of informing relatives about relevant results and “should make themselves available to assist patients in communicating with relatives to discuss opportunities for counseling and testing, as appropriate.”³⁰ The question may arise, however, of whether in some circumstances physicians should go a step further in ensuring relatives receive important information regarding their loved one’s health.³² The law has been reluctant to impose liability to “third parties” (someone not a patient). Duties usually arise through the physician-patient relationship. There are exceptions. Perhaps the best known has been the obligation of mental health professionals to take action to protect third parties from patients who have made believable threats against identifiable victims.³³ There are indications that some courts could find, in extreme circumstances, a “duty to warn” nonpatients in some instances where it is essential to inform third parties that they should receive a specific form of genetic testing.^34,35 Such a duty would, of course, have to protect the privacy rights of the patient to the maximum extent possible. A general duty of this type has not been established widely, but may be part of the future.

Continue to: Was there liability in our example case?...

Was there liability in our example case?

The hypothetical case provided above suggests that there could be liability. Routine medical history by the primary care physician would have produced the fact that the patient’s mother, sister, and maternal grandmother had breast cancer. That would clearly have put her in a category of those who should have received genetic testing. Yet, she was not tested until after her cancer was found. From the limited facts we have, it appears that this timeline of events would have been outside accepted practice—and negligent. The case was not pursued by the patient, however, and this may represent the current state of liability for BRCA issues.

The extent of liability seems to be significant

Our discussion of liability suggests that there is significant potential for BRCA testing negligence within practice, and that the damages in these cases could be substantial. Yet the predicted “tsunami” of malpractice lawsuits related to genetic testing has not appeared.^36,37 One study of cases in the United States (through 2016) found a “slowly rising tide” of liability cases instead of a tsunami,²⁴ as the number of claims made was low. On the other hand, the payments where damages were awarded were an order of magnitude larger than other malpractice cases—a mean of $5.3 million and median of $2 million. This is compared with mean values in the range of $275,000 to $600,000 in other areas of malpractice.

The majority of the genetic malpractice cases involve prenatal and newborn testing, and diagnosis/susceptibility/pharmacogenomic accounting for about 25% of cases. In terms of type of errors claimed, approximately 50% were diagnostic-interpretation errors, 30% failure to offer testing, nearly 20% failure to return test results to the patients, and a few remaining cases of failure to properly treat in light of genetic testing.²⁴

Despite a few very large payments, however, the fact remains that there is a surprisingly low number of genetics malpractice cases. Gary Marchant and colleagues suggest that several reasons may account for this:

• the clinical implementation of genetic science has been slower than expected
• the lack of expertise of many physicians in genetic science
• expert witnesses have sometimes been hard to find
• the lack of understanding by plaintiffs’ attorneys of genetic malpractice
• potential plaintiffs’ lack of understanding of the nature of genetic testing and the harms resulting from genetic negligence.^17,24,37

The tide is slowly coming in

By all appearances, there is every reason to think that genetic malpractice will be increasing, and that the recent past of much higher damages per claim paid in the genetics area will be part of that tide. The National Human Genome Research LawSeq project has suggested a number of useful ways of dealing with the liability issues.¹⁸ In addition to the BRCA issues that we have considered in this article for ObGyns, there are other critical issues of prenatal and newborn genetic testing.³⁸ But those are topics for another day. ●

CASE Young woman with family history of breast cancer detects lump

Two weeks after noting a lump on her breast when her cat happened to jump on her in that spot, a 28-year-old woman (G0) went to her primary care provider. She was referred to her gynecologist; breast imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography were obtained, with microcalcifications noted. A fine needle aspiration diagnosed intraductal malignancy. The surgical breast tissue specimen was estrogen receptor (ER)- and progestogen receptor (PR)-positive and HER2-negative. Other tumor markers were obtained, including carcinoembryonic antigen, and tissue polypeptide specific antigen, p53, cathepsin D, cyclin E, and nestin, but results were not available.

With regard to family history, the woman’s mother and maternal grandmother had a history of breast cancer. The patient and her family underwent gene testing. The patient was found to be BRCA1- and BRCA2-positive; her mother was BRCA1-positive, an older sister was BRCA2-positive, and her grandmother was not tested.

The question arose in light of her family history as to why she was not tested for BRCA and appropriately counseled by her gynecologist prior to the cancer diagnosis. Litigation was initiated. While the case did not go forward regarding litigation, it is indeed a case in point. (Please note that this is a hypothetical case. It is based on a composite of several cases.)
 

Medical considerations

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer affecting women in the Western world.¹ Advances in clinical testing for gene mutations have escalated and allowed for identification of patients at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Along with these advances come professional liability risk. After looking at the medical considerations for BRCA1 and 2 testing, we will consider a number of important legal issues. In the view of some commentators, the failure to diagnose genetic mutations in patients predisposed to cancer is “poised to become the next wave of medical professional liability lawsuits.”²

BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes provide tumor suppressor proteins, and assessment for mutations is recommended for individuals at high risk for breast and/or ovarian cancer; mutations in BRCA genes cause DNA damage, which increases the chance of developing cancer. The other way to look at it is, BRCA1 and 2 are tumor suppressor genes that are integrally involved with DNA damage control. Once there is a mutation, it adversely affects the beneficial effects of the gene. Mutations in these genes account for 5% to 10% of all hereditary breast cancers.³ Of note, men with BRCA2 are at increased risk for prostate cancer.

A patient who presents to her gynecologist stating that there is a family history of breast cancer, without knowledge of genetic components, presents a challenge (and a medicolegal risk) for the provider to assess. Prediction models have been used to determine specific patient risk for carrying a genetic mutation with resultant breast cancer development.⁴ Risk prediction models do not appear to be a good answer to predicting who is more likely to develop breast or ovarian cancer, however. A Mayo model may assist (FIGURE).⁵ Clinicians should also be aware of other models of risk assessment, including the Gail Model (TABLE 1).⁶

Continue to: Guidelines for genetic testing...

Guidelines for genetic testing

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that patient medical history and family history are paramount in obtaining information regarding risk for breast and ovarian cancer. First- and second-degree relatives are allocated to this category. Information regarding age of diagnosis, maternal and paternal lineage, and ethnic background can imply a need for genetic testing (TABLE 2).^7,8 A number of genetics national organizations have participated in recommendations and include the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, the National Society for Genetic Counselors, and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.⁷

The question always surfaces, could the clinical outcome of the cancer when diagnosed have been changed if screening were undertaken, with earlier diagnosis, or prevented with prophylactic mastectomy, and changed the end result. In addition, it is well known that breast augmentation mammoplasty alters the ability to accurately evaluate mammograms. Patients considering this type of plastic surgery, ideally, should be counselled accordingly.⁹

Bottom line, we as clinicians must be cognizant of both ACOG and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations regarding screening and gene testing for women considered high risk for breast cancer based on family history.⁷

Legal considerations

The case presented demonstrates that the discovery of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and reliable tests for determining the existence of the genes, brought with them legal issues as well as medical advantages. We look at professional liability (malpractice) questions this technology raises, and then consider the outcome of the hypothetical case. (BRCA is used here to apply broadly—not only to BRCA1 and 2 but also to PALB2, CHEK2, and similar genetic abnormalities.)

To date, the most visible BRCA legal issues covered in cases and law reviews have focused more on patent law than malpractice. The most important of these was a decision of the US Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics.¹⁰ The US Patent Office was granting patents to companies finding useful, naturally occurring segments of human DNA, and had granted Myriad several patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This patent policy had the potential to seriously interfere with broad scientific use of these genes.¹¹ Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in and unanimously invalidated such patents. It held that a “naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” The Court noted, “Finding the location of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes does not render the genes patent eligible ‘new . . . composition[s] of matter.’”⁸ The Court did allow the patenting of tests for specific gene structures, and artificial changes in naturally occurring genes.

Malpractice and BRCA

While the BRCA patent wars have lingered, the potential for a significant increase in BRCA-related malpractice cases is of increasing concern. Like most malpractice liability, these new claims are based on very old principles of negligence.¹² To prevail, the plaintiff (ordinarily, an injured patient) must demonstrate 4 things:

• A duty. That is, the physician owed a duty to the injured party. Usually (but not always) that requires a professional relationship between the physician and the person injured.
• A breach of that duty. Malpractice liability is based on the fact that the physician did something that a reasonably careful physician (generally, of the same specialty) would not have done, or that the physician failed to do something that a reasonable physician would have done. This usually means that the profession itself sees what the physician did (or did not do) as medically inappropriate. In medical malpractice cases, that is ordinarily measured by what the usual or common practice is among prudent physicians. In rare circumstances, courts have found the standard practice of a profession to be negligent. Where, for example, it was custom for a professional not to give an eye pressure test to anyone under age 40, a court found that common standard to be inappropriate.¹³ In the words of Judge Learned Hand (speaking about a different case), “a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices. It never may set its own tests.”¹⁴ Underlying negligence is a cost-benefit analysis (discussed below).
• Damages. There must have been some damage that courts recognize, usually loss of money or opportunity to work, the cost of care, pain and suffering, or loss of enjoyment/quality of life. In malpractice, many states now recognize the “loss of chance” or the “loss of a chance.” That means, if a “physician negligently fails to diagnose a curable disease, and the patient is harmed by the disease, the physician should be liable for causing the ‘loss of a chance of a cure.’”¹⁵ (Delay in diagnosis is the most common reason for claims in breast cancer care.)¹⁶
• Causation. The breach of duty (negligence) must have caused the damages. The causation must have been reasonably close. If a driver drives through a stop sign, or a physician misreads a test, and someone is injured but there is no connection between the negligence and the injury, there is not tort liability.

The 4 elements of malpractice just described are raised in some way in the possible liability associated with BRCA testing. We next look at the ways in which liability may arise from that testing (or lack of it).

Underlying much of the following discussion is the “cost-benefit” consideration noted above. This concept is that the total cost (financial and health) of testing should be compared with the value of the benefits of testing, taking into account the probabilities that the testing will result in better health outcomes. BRCA testing, for example, is essentially cost-free in terms of physical risk. Its financial cost, while not trivial, is not great, and it is commonly covered by health insurance.¹⁷ In terms of benefits, the testing has the potential for providing critical information in making treatment decisions for a meaningful percentage of patients and their families. There are many ways of analyzing the liability risks of genetic malpractice,^7,18 and the following is intended to discuss some of the greatest risks related to BRCA testing.

Continue to: Areas of liability...

 

 

Areas of liability

The failure to recommend a test. The circumstances in which BRCA testing should be undertaken are set out by professional organizations (noted above). These recommendations are not static, however. They change from time to time. Given the potential harm caused by the failure to test in relevant circumstances, malpractice liability is certainly a possibility when the failure to recommend a test to a patient results in a cancer that might have been prevented had the genetic problem been identified in a timely manner. The circumstances in which testing should be considered continue to change, placing an obligation on clinicians to stay well informed of changing genetic understandings. Another risk is that one specialist may assume that it is the job of another specialist to order the test. Whatever the cause of the failure to test, or unnecessary delay in testing, it appears to be the primary basis for BRCA liability.

The failure to properly interpret a test. Any test that is misinterpreted may lead to harm for the patient. A false negative, of course, may mean that preventive treatment that could have been undertaken will be foregone, as a “loss of a chance.” On the other hand, a false positive can lead to radical, unnecessary surgery or treatment. If a misinterpretation occurred because of carelessness by the testing organization, or confusion by a practitioner, there is a likelihood of negligence.¹⁹

A different form of “misinterpretation” could be reasonable—and not negligent. Advances in scientific-medical understanding may result in the outcome of tests being reconsidered and changed. That has been the case with genetic testing and breast cancer. The availability of multiple breast cancer SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), and combining this information with other risk factors for example, results in a polygenic risk score that may be at odds with the level of risk from earlier testing.^20,21 This naturally leads to the question of when later, updated testing should be recommended to look for a better current interpretation.^22,23

The failure to act on BRCA test results. Testing is of no value, of course, if the results are not used properly. Test results or analyses that are not sent to the proper physicians, or are somehow ignored when properly directed, is a “never” event—it should never happen. It almost always would be considered negligence, and if the patient were injured, could lead to liability. Amazingly, one study found that, in genetic testing liability cases, nearly 20% of the claims arose from failure to return test results to patients.²⁴ In addition, when a patient is found to be BRCA-positive, there is an obligation to discuss the options for dealing with the increased risk associated with the gene mutation(s), as well as to recommend the prudent course of action or to refer the patient to someone who will have that discussion.

Informed consent to the patient. BRCA testing requires informed consent. The physical risks of the testing process are minimal, of course, but it carries a number of other emotional and family risks. The informed consent process is an invitation to an honest discussion between clinicians and patients. It should be an opportunity to discuss what the testing is, and is not, and what the test may mean for treatment. It may also be an opportunity to discuss the implications for other members of the patient’s family (noted below).

One element of informed consent is a discussion of the consequences of failure to consent, or to undertake one of the alternatives. In the case of BRCA testing, this is especially important in cases in which a patient expresses a hesitancy to be tested with an “I’d rather not know philosophy.” Although clinicians should not practice law, some patient concerns about discrimination may be addressed by the protection that the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and other laws provide (which prohibit insurance and employment discrimination based on genetic information). A good source of information about GINA and related nondiscrimination laws is provided by the National Human Genome Research Institute.²⁵ In addition, the National Institutes of Health has a website that may be helpful to many patients²⁶ (and a much more complex site for health professionals).²⁷ At the same time, courts have resisted plaintiffs/patients who have tried to use informed consent as a way of suing for failure to offer genetic testing.^28,29

The failure to refer. In some cases, a patient should be formally referred for genetics consultation. The considerations here are similar to other circumstances in modern, fast developing medical practice that require special sensitivity to those occasions in which a patient will benefit from additional expertise. It is a principle that the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs has expressed this way: “In the absence of adequate expertise in pretest and posttest counseling, a physician should refer the patient to an appropriate specialist.”³⁰ The failure to refer, when that deviates from acceptable practice, may result in liability.

Informing others. BRCA testing is an area of medicine in which results may be of great significance not only to the patient but also to the patient’s family.³¹ Physicians should counsel patients on the importance of informing relatives about relevant results and “should make themselves available to assist patients in communicating with relatives to discuss opportunities for counseling and testing, as appropriate.”³⁰ The question may arise, however, of whether in some circumstances physicians should go a step further in ensuring relatives receive important information regarding their loved one’s health.³² The law has been reluctant to impose liability to “third parties” (someone not a patient). Duties usually arise through the physician-patient relationship. There are exceptions. Perhaps the best known has been the obligation of mental health professionals to take action to protect third parties from patients who have made believable threats against identifiable victims.³³ There are indications that some courts could find, in extreme circumstances, a “duty to warn” nonpatients in some instances where it is essential to inform third parties that they should receive a specific form of genetic testing.^34,35 Such a duty would, of course, have to protect the privacy rights of the patient to the maximum extent possible. A general duty of this type has not been established widely, but may be part of the future.

Continue to: Was there liability in our example case?...

Was there liability in our example case?

The hypothetical case provided above suggests that there could be liability. Routine medical history by the primary care physician would have produced the fact that the patient’s mother, sister, and maternal grandmother had breast cancer. That would clearly have put her in a category of those who should have received genetic testing. Yet, she was not tested until after her cancer was found. From the limited facts we have, it appears that this timeline of events would have been outside accepted practice—and negligent. The case was not pursued by the patient, however, and this may represent the current state of liability for BRCA issues.

The extent of liability seems to be significant

Our discussion of liability suggests that there is significant potential for BRCA testing negligence within practice, and that the damages in these cases could be substantial. Yet the predicted “tsunami” of malpractice lawsuits related to genetic testing has not appeared.^36,37 One study of cases in the United States (through 2016) found a “slowly rising tide” of liability cases instead of a tsunami,²⁴ as the number of claims made was low. On the other hand, the payments where damages were awarded were an order of magnitude larger than other malpractice cases—a mean of $5.3 million and median of $2 million. This is compared with mean values in the range of $275,000 to $600,000 in other areas of malpractice.

The majority of the genetic malpractice cases involve prenatal and newborn testing, and diagnosis/susceptibility/pharmacogenomic accounting for about 25% of cases. In terms of type of errors claimed, approximately 50% were diagnostic-interpretation errors, 30% failure to offer testing, nearly 20% failure to return test results to the patients, and a few remaining cases of failure to properly treat in light of genetic testing.²⁴

Despite a few very large payments, however, the fact remains that there is a surprisingly low number of genetics malpractice cases. Gary Marchant and colleagues suggest that several reasons may account for this:

• the clinical implementation of genetic science has been slower than expected
• the lack of expertise of many physicians in genetic science
• expert witnesses have sometimes been hard to find
• the lack of understanding by plaintiffs’ attorneys of genetic malpractice
• potential plaintiffs’ lack of understanding of the nature of genetic testing and the harms resulting from genetic negligence.^17,24,37

The tide is slowly coming in

By all appearances, there is every reason to think that genetic malpractice will be increasing, and that the recent past of much higher damages per claim paid in the genetics area will be part of that tide. The National Human Genome Research LawSeq project has suggested a number of useful ways of dealing with the liability issues.¹⁸ In addition to the BRCA issues that we have considered in this article for ObGyns, there are other critical issues of prenatal and newborn genetic testing.³⁸ But those are topics for another day. ●

CASE Young woman with family history of breast cancer detects lump

Two weeks after noting a lump on her breast when her cat happened to jump on her in that spot, a 28-year-old woman (G0) went to her primary care provider. She was referred to her gynecologist; breast imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography were obtained, with microcalcifications noted. A fine needle aspiration diagnosed intraductal malignancy. The surgical breast tissue specimen was estrogen receptor (ER)- and progestogen receptor (PR)-positive and HER2-negative. Other tumor markers were obtained, including carcinoembryonic antigen, and tissue polypeptide specific antigen, p53, cathepsin D, cyclin E, and nestin, but results were not available.

With regard to family history, the woman’s mother and maternal grandmother had a history of breast cancer. The patient and her family underwent gene testing. The patient was found to be BRCA1- and BRCA2-positive; her mother was BRCA1-positive, an older sister was BRCA2-positive, and her grandmother was not tested.

The question arose in light of her family history as to why she was not tested for BRCA and appropriately counseled by her gynecologist prior to the cancer diagnosis. Litigation was initiated. While the case did not go forward regarding litigation, it is indeed a case in point. (Please note that this is a hypothetical case. It is based on a composite of several cases.)
 

Medical considerations

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer affecting women in the Western world.¹ Advances in clinical testing for gene mutations have escalated and allowed for identification of patients at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Along with these advances come professional liability risk. After looking at the medical considerations for BRCA1 and 2 testing, we will consider a number of important legal issues. In the view of some commentators, the failure to diagnose genetic mutations in patients predisposed to cancer is “poised to become the next wave of medical professional liability lawsuits.”²

BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes provide tumor suppressor proteins, and assessment for mutations is recommended for individuals at high risk for breast and/or ovarian cancer; mutations in BRCA genes cause DNA damage, which increases the chance of developing cancer. The other way to look at it is, BRCA1 and 2 are tumor suppressor genes that are integrally involved with DNA damage control. Once there is a mutation, it adversely affects the beneficial effects of the gene. Mutations in these genes account for 5% to 10% of all hereditary breast cancers.³ Of note, men with BRCA2 are at increased risk for prostate cancer.

A patient who presents to her gynecologist stating that there is a family history of breast cancer, without knowledge of genetic components, presents a challenge (and a medicolegal risk) for the provider to assess. Prediction models have been used to determine specific patient risk for carrying a genetic mutation with resultant breast cancer development.⁴ Risk prediction models do not appear to be a good answer to predicting who is more likely to develop breast or ovarian cancer, however. A Mayo model may assist (FIGURE).⁵ Clinicians should also be aware of other models of risk assessment, including the Gail Model (TABLE 1).⁶

Continue to: Guidelines for genetic testing...

Guidelines for genetic testing

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that patient medical history and family history are paramount in obtaining information regarding risk for breast and ovarian cancer. First- and second-degree relatives are allocated to this category. Information regarding age of diagnosis, maternal and paternal lineage, and ethnic background can imply a need for genetic testing (TABLE 2).^7,8 A number of genetics national organizations have participated in recommendations and include the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, the National Society for Genetic Counselors, and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.⁷

The question always surfaces, could the clinical outcome of the cancer when diagnosed have been changed if screening were undertaken, with earlier diagnosis, or prevented with prophylactic mastectomy, and changed the end result. In addition, it is well known that breast augmentation mammoplasty alters the ability to accurately evaluate mammograms. Patients considering this type of plastic surgery, ideally, should be counselled accordingly.⁹

Bottom line, we as clinicians must be cognizant of both ACOG and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations regarding screening and gene testing for women considered high risk for breast cancer based on family history.⁷

Legal considerations

The case presented demonstrates that the discovery of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and reliable tests for determining the existence of the genes, brought with them legal issues as well as medical advantages. We look at professional liability (malpractice) questions this technology raises, and then consider the outcome of the hypothetical case. (BRCA is used here to apply broadly—not only to BRCA1 and 2 but also to PALB2, CHEK2, and similar genetic abnormalities.)

To date, the most visible BRCA legal issues covered in cases and law reviews have focused more on patent law than malpractice. The most important of these was a decision of the US Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics.¹⁰ The US Patent Office was granting patents to companies finding useful, naturally occurring segments of human DNA, and had granted Myriad several patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This patent policy had the potential to seriously interfere with broad scientific use of these genes.¹¹ Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in and unanimously invalidated such patents. It held that a “naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” The Court noted, “Finding the location of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes does not render the genes patent eligible ‘new . . . composition[s] of matter.’”⁸ The Court did allow the patenting of tests for specific gene structures, and artificial changes in naturally occurring genes.

Malpractice and BRCA

While the BRCA patent wars have lingered, the potential for a significant increase in BRCA-related malpractice cases is of increasing concern. Like most malpractice liability, these new claims are based on very old principles of negligence.¹² To prevail, the plaintiff (ordinarily, an injured patient) must demonstrate 4 things:

• A duty. That is, the physician owed a duty to the injured party. Usually (but not always) that requires a professional relationship between the physician and the person injured.
• A breach of that duty. Malpractice liability is based on the fact that the physician did something that a reasonably careful physician (generally, of the same specialty) would not have done, or that the physician failed to do something that a reasonable physician would have done. This usually means that the profession itself sees what the physician did (or did not do) as medically inappropriate. In medical malpractice cases, that is ordinarily measured by what the usual or common practice is among prudent physicians. In rare circumstances, courts have found the standard practice of a profession to be negligent. Where, for example, it was custom for a professional not to give an eye pressure test to anyone under age 40, a court found that common standard to be inappropriate.¹³ In the words of Judge Learned Hand (speaking about a different case), “a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices. It never may set its own tests.”¹⁴ Underlying negligence is a cost-benefit analysis (discussed below).
• Damages. There must have been some damage that courts recognize, usually loss of money or opportunity to work, the cost of care, pain and suffering, or loss of enjoyment/quality of life. In malpractice, many states now recognize the “loss of chance” or the “loss of a chance.” That means, if a “physician negligently fails to diagnose a curable disease, and the patient is harmed by the disease, the physician should be liable for causing the ‘loss of a chance of a cure.’”¹⁵ (Delay in diagnosis is the most common reason for claims in breast cancer care.)¹⁶
• Causation. The breach of duty (negligence) must have caused the damages. The causation must have been reasonably close. If a driver drives through a stop sign, or a physician misreads a test, and someone is injured but there is no connection between the negligence and the injury, there is not tort liability.

The 4 elements of malpractice just described are raised in some way in the possible liability associated with BRCA testing. We next look at the ways in which liability may arise from that testing (or lack of it).

Underlying much of the following discussion is the “cost-benefit” consideration noted above. This concept is that the total cost (financial and health) of testing should be compared with the value of the benefits of testing, taking into account the probabilities that the testing will result in better health outcomes. BRCA testing, for example, is essentially cost-free in terms of physical risk. Its financial cost, while not trivial, is not great, and it is commonly covered by health insurance.¹⁷ In terms of benefits, the testing has the potential for providing critical information in making treatment decisions for a meaningful percentage of patients and their families. There are many ways of analyzing the liability risks of genetic malpractice,^7,18 and the following is intended to discuss some of the greatest risks related to BRCA testing.

Continue to: Areas of liability...

 

 

Areas of liability

The failure to recommend a test. The circumstances in which BRCA testing should be undertaken are set out by professional organizations (noted above). These recommendations are not static, however. They change from time to time. Given the potential harm caused by the failure to test in relevant circumstances, malpractice liability is certainly a possibility when the failure to recommend a test to a patient results in a cancer that might have been prevented had the genetic problem been identified in a timely manner. The circumstances in which testing should be considered continue to change, placing an obligation on clinicians to stay well informed of changing genetic understandings. Another risk is that one specialist may assume that it is the job of another specialist to order the test. Whatever the cause of the failure to test, or unnecessary delay in testing, it appears to be the primary basis for BRCA liability.

The failure to properly interpret a test. Any test that is misinterpreted may lead to harm for the patient. A false negative, of course, may mean that preventive treatment that could have been undertaken will be foregone, as a “loss of a chance.” On the other hand, a false positive can lead to radical, unnecessary surgery or treatment. If a misinterpretation occurred because of carelessness by the testing organization, or confusion by a practitioner, there is a likelihood of negligence.¹⁹

A different form of “misinterpretation” could be reasonable—and not negligent. Advances in scientific-medical understanding may result in the outcome of tests being reconsidered and changed. That has been the case with genetic testing and breast cancer. The availability of multiple breast cancer SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), and combining this information with other risk factors for example, results in a polygenic risk score that may be at odds with the level of risk from earlier testing.^20,21 This naturally leads to the question of when later, updated testing should be recommended to look for a better current interpretation.^22,23

The failure to act on BRCA test results. Testing is of no value, of course, if the results are not used properly. Test results or analyses that are not sent to the proper physicians, or are somehow ignored when properly directed, is a “never” event—it should never happen. It almost always would be considered negligence, and if the patient were injured, could lead to liability. Amazingly, one study found that, in genetic testing liability cases, nearly 20% of the claims arose from failure to return test results to patients.²⁴ In addition, when a patient is found to be BRCA-positive, there is an obligation to discuss the options for dealing with the increased risk associated with the gene mutation(s), as well as to recommend the prudent course of action or to refer the patient to someone who will have that discussion.

Informed consent to the patient. BRCA testing requires informed consent. The physical risks of the testing process are minimal, of course, but it carries a number of other emotional and family risks. The informed consent process is an invitation to an honest discussion between clinicians and patients. It should be an opportunity to discuss what the testing is, and is not, and what the test may mean for treatment. It may also be an opportunity to discuss the implications for other members of the patient’s family (noted below).

One element of informed consent is a discussion of the consequences of failure to consent, or to undertake one of the alternatives. In the case of BRCA testing, this is especially important in cases in which a patient expresses a hesitancy to be tested with an “I’d rather not know philosophy.” Although clinicians should not practice law, some patient concerns about discrimination may be addressed by the protection that the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and other laws provide (which prohibit insurance and employment discrimination based on genetic information). A good source of information about GINA and related nondiscrimination laws is provided by the National Human Genome Research Institute.²⁵ In addition, the National Institutes of Health has a website that may be helpful to many patients²⁶ (and a much more complex site for health professionals).²⁷ At the same time, courts have resisted plaintiffs/patients who have tried to use informed consent as a way of suing for failure to offer genetic testing.^28,29

The failure to refer. In some cases, a patient should be formally referred for genetics consultation. The considerations here are similar to other circumstances in modern, fast developing medical practice that require special sensitivity to those occasions in which a patient will benefit from additional expertise. It is a principle that the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs has expressed this way: “In the absence of adequate expertise in pretest and posttest counseling, a physician should refer the patient to an appropriate specialist.”³⁰ The failure to refer, when that deviates from acceptable practice, may result in liability.

Informing others. BRCA testing is an area of medicine in which results may be of great significance not only to the patient but also to the patient’s family.³¹ Physicians should counsel patients on the importance of informing relatives about relevant results and “should make themselves available to assist patients in communicating with relatives to discuss opportunities for counseling and testing, as appropriate.”³⁰ The question may arise, however, of whether in some circumstances physicians should go a step further in ensuring relatives receive important information regarding their loved one’s health.³² The law has been reluctant to impose liability to “third parties” (someone not a patient). Duties usually arise through the physician-patient relationship. There are exceptions. Perhaps the best known has been the obligation of mental health professionals to take action to protect third parties from patients who have made believable threats against identifiable victims.³³ There are indications that some courts could find, in extreme circumstances, a “duty to warn” nonpatients in some instances where it is essential to inform third parties that they should receive a specific form of genetic testing.^34,35 Such a duty would, of course, have to protect the privacy rights of the patient to the maximum extent possible. A general duty of this type has not been established widely, but may be part of the future.

Continue to: Was there liability in our example case?...

Was there liability in our example case?

The hypothetical case provided above suggests that there could be liability. Routine medical history by the primary care physician would have produced the fact that the patient’s mother, sister, and maternal grandmother had breast cancer. That would clearly have put her in a category of those who should have received genetic testing. Yet, she was not tested until after her cancer was found. From the limited facts we have, it appears that this timeline of events would have been outside accepted practice—and negligent. The case was not pursued by the patient, however, and this may represent the current state of liability for BRCA issues.

The extent of liability seems to be significant

Our discussion of liability suggests that there is significant potential for BRCA testing negligence within practice, and that the damages in these cases could be substantial. Yet the predicted “tsunami” of malpractice lawsuits related to genetic testing has not appeared.^36,37 One study of cases in the United States (through 2016) found a “slowly rising tide” of liability cases instead of a tsunami,²⁴ as the number of claims made was low. On the other hand, the payments where damages were awarded were an order of magnitude larger than other malpractice cases—a mean of $5.3 million and median of $2 million. This is compared with mean values in the range of $275,000 to $600,000 in other areas of malpractice.

The majority of the genetic malpractice cases involve prenatal and newborn testing, and diagnosis/susceptibility/pharmacogenomic accounting for about 25% of cases. In terms of type of errors claimed, approximately 50% were diagnostic-interpretation errors, 30% failure to offer testing, nearly 20% failure to return test results to the patients, and a few remaining cases of failure to properly treat in light of genetic testing.²⁴

Despite a few very large payments, however, the fact remains that there is a surprisingly low number of genetics malpractice cases. Gary Marchant and colleagues suggest that several reasons may account for this:

• the clinical implementation of genetic science has been slower than expected
• the lack of expertise of many physicians in genetic science
• expert witnesses have sometimes been hard to find
• the lack of understanding by plaintiffs’ attorneys of genetic malpractice
• potential plaintiffs’ lack of understanding of the nature of genetic testing and the harms resulting from genetic negligence.^17,24,37

The tide is slowly coming in

By all appearances, there is every reason to think that genetic malpractice will be increasing, and that the recent past of much higher damages per claim paid in the genetics area will be part of that tide. The National Human Genome Research LawSeq project has suggested a number of useful ways of dealing with the liability issues.¹⁸ In addition to the BRCA issues that we have considered in this article for ObGyns, there are other critical issues of prenatal and newborn genetic testing.³⁸ But those are topics for another day. ●

Gynecologic malignancies continue to be a major cause of cancer-related mortality in women. In 2020, a number of developments changed practice in gynecologic oncology. In this Update, we highlight 3 important articles. The first showed that human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination reduced the rate of cervical cancer. The next evaluated a novel targeted therapeutic approach using the combination of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib in women with recurrent endometrial carcinoma that progressed after prior systemic therapy. Finally, the third article showed that talcum powder was not associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. We provide here a brief overview of the major findings of these studies and how these results are influencing practice.

Evidence establishes that HPV vaccination cuts risk of invasive cervical cancer

Lei J, Ploner A, Elfström KM, et al. HPV vaccination and the risk of invasive cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1340-1348.

HPV infection is associated with 99% of cervical cancers, and approximately 65% to 75% of cases involve HPV 16 or 18.^1,2 The quadrivalent HPV (6, 11, 16, 18) vaccine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 for the prevention of cervical intraepithelial lesions and genital warts associated with HPV.^3-5 Previous studies of the HPV vaccine showed it to be effective in preventing HPV infection, genital warts, and high-grade precancerous cervical lesions, such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) and grade 3 (CIN3).^6-8 While the vaccine offers a number of advantages, the long-term goal of the vaccine—to reduce the incidence of invasive cervical cancer—was not shown until recently.

Large study followed HPV vaccinated and unvaccinated women

Lei and colleagues conducted a registry based cohort study from 2006 through 2017 of women aged 10 to 30 years who were living in Sweden.⁹ They followed the women from their 10th birthday until they were diagnosed with cervical cancer, died, emigrated from Sweden, were lost to follow-up, or turned 31 years of age. In the study, the unique personal identity numbers assigned to all Swedish residents were linked to a number of large national administrative databases. Beginning in 2007 in Sweden, the quadrivalent vaccine was subsidized for use in girls aged 13 to 17, and a subsequent catch-up period that started in 2012 incorporated women who had not been vaccinated.

Continue to: Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17...

Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17

A total of 1,672,983 women were included in the study; 527,871 received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. During the study period, cervical cancer was diagnosed in 19 women who had received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine and in 538 women who had not received the vaccine. Women who initiated vaccination before age 17 had the lowest rates of cervical cancer (4 cases per 100,000 persons), followed by women vaccinated after age 17 (54 cases per 100,000 persons) and then those who were not vaccinated (94 cases per 100,000 persons).

After adjusting for confounders, the incidence rate ratio (RR) of cervical cancer was significantly lower among vaccinated women compared with unvaccinated women (RR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21– 0.57) (FIGURE 1).⁹ In addition, women who were vaccinated before age 17 demonstrated the greatest benefit. For those vaccinated before age 17 versus those who were unvaccinated, the RR was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.00–0.34). For women vaccinated between age 17 and 30 versus unvaccinated women, the RR was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27–0.75).

Promising option for patients with advanced endometrial cancer: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab

Makker V, Taylor MH, Aghajanian C, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:2981-2992.

Advanced stage endometrial cancer is associated with a 17% 5-year survival rate.¹⁰ Paclitaxel with carboplatin is the standard first-line treatment for advanced, recurrent, and metastatic endometrial cancer; for women who do not respond to this regimen, effective treatment options are limited.^11,12

The immunotherapy approach

Immunotherapy is a more recently developed treatment, an approach in which the immune system is activated to target cancer cells. Pembrolizumab is a commonly used agent for many solid tumors.¹³ This drug binds to the programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1) or PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1), a component of the immune checkpoint, which then allows the immune system to target and destroy cancer cells.¹⁴

Prembrolizumab is FDA approved for use in the treatment of microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) solid tumors that have progressed after prior therapy and for which there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.¹⁵ Endometrial cancers frequently display microsatellite instability and mismatch repair defects.¹⁶

Lenvatinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3; fibroblast growth factor receptors 1, 2, 3, and 4; and platelet derived growth factor receptor alpha, RET, and KIT.^17-19 In a phase 2 study of lenvatinib monotherapy for advanced previously treated endometrial cancer, the response rate was 14.3%.²⁰

While some preclinical studies have examined the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors with lenvatinib,^21-23 a recent study is the first to evaluate this combination in patients with advanced tumors.²⁴

Continue to: Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy...

Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy

Makker and colleagues conducted an ongoing multinational, open-label, phase 1B/2 study of lenvatinib 20 mg daily orally plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks in patients with select solid tumors.²⁴ Women with previously treated endometrial carcinoma (N = 125) were included. Of the study participants, 49% were PD-L1 positive and 10% were MSI-H/dMMR. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks, which was 38.0% (95% CI, 28.8%–47.8%).

The median duration of response was 21.2 months (95% CI, 7.6 months to not estimable). The ORR was similar in patients with PD-L1 expressing tumors (35.8%; 95% CI, 23.1%–50.2%), who are more likely to respond to immunotherapy, compared with those without PD-L1 expression (39.5%; 95% CI, 25.0%–55.6%). For patients with MSI-H/dMMR, there was a higher ORR (63.6%; 95% CI, 30.8%–89.1%, versus 36.2%; 95% CI, 26.5%–46.7%).

Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3–8.7 months) and median overall survival was 16.7 months (15 months to not estimable). Moderate to severe treatment-related adverse events occurred in 83 patients (66.9%), and 22 patients (17.7%) discontinued 1 or both study drugs because of adverse effects. Two deaths were judged to be treatment related.

What is the risk of ovarian cancer in women who use powder in the genital area?

O’Brien KM, Tworoger SS, Harris HR, et al. Association of powder use in the genital area with risk of ovarian cancer. JAMA. 2020;323:49-59.

Women apply talcum powder to their genital area to keep skin dry and to prevent rashes. Powder can be applied by direct application, sanitary napkins, diaphragms, or tampons. Most powder products contain the mineral talc. Because it often is found in nature with asbestos, a known carcinogen, talc’s carcinogenic effects have been investigated.^26,27

Talc also might ascend through the genital tract and irritate the epithelial lining of the fallopian tubes or ovaries, possibly triggering an inflammatory response that may promote carcinogenesis.^28,29 Case-control studies have reported a possible association between genital powder use and ovarian cancer.^30,31 Since these studies, talc-related lawsuits and media coverage have increased.^32,33

Large prospective cohorts provide data for analysis

In a pooled analysis of 4 large US-based observational cohorts between 1976 and 2017, O’Brien and colleagues noted that 38% of the 252,745 women included in the study self-reported the use of powder in the genital area.³⁴ With a median of 11.2 years of follow-up, 2,168 women developed ovarian cancer (58 cases/100,000 person-years). Among women who reported using genital powder, the incidence of ovarian cancer was 61 cases/100,000 person-years, while for women who reported never using genital powder, the incidence was 55 cases/100,000 person-years. This corresponded to an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 1.08 (95% CI, 0.99–1.17).

Frequent powder use, long-term use, and never use. Similar findings were seen for those with frequent use versus never use (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.97–1.23) and long-term use versus never use (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82– 1.25). When restricting the group to women with a patent reproductive tract at baseline, the HR was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01–1.26), but the P value for interaction comparing women with versus women without a patent reproductive tract was 0.15 (FIGURE 2).³⁴

Bottom line. In contrast to a prior meta-analysis, in this study there was no statistically significant association between the self-reported use of powder in the genital area and the incidence of ovarian cancer. ●

Gynecologic malignancies continue to be a major cause of cancer-related mortality in women. In 2020, a number of developments changed practice in gynecologic oncology. In this Update, we highlight 3 important articles. The first showed that human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination reduced the rate of cervical cancer. The next evaluated a novel targeted therapeutic approach using the combination of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib in women with recurrent endometrial carcinoma that progressed after prior systemic therapy. Finally, the third article showed that talcum powder was not associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. We provide here a brief overview of the major findings of these studies and how these results are influencing practice.

Evidence establishes that HPV vaccination cuts risk of invasive cervical cancer

Lei J, Ploner A, Elfström KM, et al. HPV vaccination and the risk of invasive cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1340-1348.

HPV infection is associated with 99% of cervical cancers, and approximately 65% to 75% of cases involve HPV 16 or 18.^1,2 The quadrivalent HPV (6, 11, 16, 18) vaccine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 for the prevention of cervical intraepithelial lesions and genital warts associated with HPV.^3-5 Previous studies of the HPV vaccine showed it to be effective in preventing HPV infection, genital warts, and high-grade precancerous cervical lesions, such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) and grade 3 (CIN3).^6-8 While the vaccine offers a number of advantages, the long-term goal of the vaccine—to reduce the incidence of invasive cervical cancer—was not shown until recently.

Large study followed HPV vaccinated and unvaccinated women

Lei and colleagues conducted a registry based cohort study from 2006 through 2017 of women aged 10 to 30 years who were living in Sweden.⁹ They followed the women from their 10th birthday until they were diagnosed with cervical cancer, died, emigrated from Sweden, were lost to follow-up, or turned 31 years of age. In the study, the unique personal identity numbers assigned to all Swedish residents were linked to a number of large national administrative databases. Beginning in 2007 in Sweden, the quadrivalent vaccine was subsidized for use in girls aged 13 to 17, and a subsequent catch-up period that started in 2012 incorporated women who had not been vaccinated.

Continue to: Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17...

Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17

A total of 1,672,983 women were included in the study; 527,871 received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. During the study period, cervical cancer was diagnosed in 19 women who had received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine and in 538 women who had not received the vaccine. Women who initiated vaccination before age 17 had the lowest rates of cervical cancer (4 cases per 100,000 persons), followed by women vaccinated after age 17 (54 cases per 100,000 persons) and then those who were not vaccinated (94 cases per 100,000 persons).

After adjusting for confounders, the incidence rate ratio (RR) of cervical cancer was significantly lower among vaccinated women compared with unvaccinated women (RR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21– 0.57) (FIGURE 1).⁹ In addition, women who were vaccinated before age 17 demonstrated the greatest benefit. For those vaccinated before age 17 versus those who were unvaccinated, the RR was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.00–0.34). For women vaccinated between age 17 and 30 versus unvaccinated women, the RR was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27–0.75).

Promising option for patients with advanced endometrial cancer: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab

Makker V, Taylor MH, Aghajanian C, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:2981-2992.

Advanced stage endometrial cancer is associated with a 17% 5-year survival rate.¹⁰ Paclitaxel with carboplatin is the standard first-line treatment for advanced, recurrent, and metastatic endometrial cancer; for women who do not respond to this regimen, effective treatment options are limited.^11,12

The immunotherapy approach

Immunotherapy is a more recently developed treatment, an approach in which the immune system is activated to target cancer cells. Pembrolizumab is a commonly used agent for many solid tumors.¹³ This drug binds to the programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1) or PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1), a component of the immune checkpoint, which then allows the immune system to target and destroy cancer cells.¹⁴

Prembrolizumab is FDA approved for use in the treatment of microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) solid tumors that have progressed after prior therapy and for which there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.¹⁵ Endometrial cancers frequently display microsatellite instability and mismatch repair defects.¹⁶

Lenvatinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3; fibroblast growth factor receptors 1, 2, 3, and 4; and platelet derived growth factor receptor alpha, RET, and KIT.^17-19 In a phase 2 study of lenvatinib monotherapy for advanced previously treated endometrial cancer, the response rate was 14.3%.²⁰

While some preclinical studies have examined the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors with lenvatinib,^21-23 a recent study is the first to evaluate this combination in patients with advanced tumors.²⁴

Continue to: Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy...

Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy

Makker and colleagues conducted an ongoing multinational, open-label, phase 1B/2 study of lenvatinib 20 mg daily orally plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks in patients with select solid tumors.²⁴ Women with previously treated endometrial carcinoma (N = 125) were included. Of the study participants, 49% were PD-L1 positive and 10% were MSI-H/dMMR. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks, which was 38.0% (95% CI, 28.8%–47.8%).

The median duration of response was 21.2 months (95% CI, 7.6 months to not estimable). The ORR was similar in patients with PD-L1 expressing tumors (35.8%; 95% CI, 23.1%–50.2%), who are more likely to respond to immunotherapy, compared with those without PD-L1 expression (39.5%; 95% CI, 25.0%–55.6%). For patients with MSI-H/dMMR, there was a higher ORR (63.6%; 95% CI, 30.8%–89.1%, versus 36.2%; 95% CI, 26.5%–46.7%).

Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3–8.7 months) and median overall survival was 16.7 months (15 months to not estimable). Moderate to severe treatment-related adverse events occurred in 83 patients (66.9%), and 22 patients (17.7%) discontinued 1 or both study drugs because of adverse effects. Two deaths were judged to be treatment related.

What is the risk of ovarian cancer in women who use powder in the genital area?

O’Brien KM, Tworoger SS, Harris HR, et al. Association of powder use in the genital area with risk of ovarian cancer. JAMA. 2020;323:49-59.

Women apply talcum powder to their genital area to keep skin dry and to prevent rashes. Powder can be applied by direct application, sanitary napkins, diaphragms, or tampons. Most powder products contain the mineral talc. Because it often is found in nature with asbestos, a known carcinogen, talc’s carcinogenic effects have been investigated.^26,27

Talc also might ascend through the genital tract and irritate the epithelial lining of the fallopian tubes or ovaries, possibly triggering an inflammatory response that may promote carcinogenesis.^28,29 Case-control studies have reported a possible association between genital powder use and ovarian cancer.^30,31 Since these studies, talc-related lawsuits and media coverage have increased.^32,33

Large prospective cohorts provide data for analysis

In a pooled analysis of 4 large US-based observational cohorts between 1976 and 2017, O’Brien and colleagues noted that 38% of the 252,745 women included in the study self-reported the use of powder in the genital area.³⁴ With a median of 11.2 years of follow-up, 2,168 women developed ovarian cancer (58 cases/100,000 person-years). Among women who reported using genital powder, the incidence of ovarian cancer was 61 cases/100,000 person-years, while for women who reported never using genital powder, the incidence was 55 cases/100,000 person-years. This corresponded to an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 1.08 (95% CI, 0.99–1.17).

Frequent powder use, long-term use, and never use. Similar findings were seen for those with frequent use versus never use (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.97–1.23) and long-term use versus never use (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82– 1.25). When restricting the group to women with a patent reproductive tract at baseline, the HR was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01–1.26), but the P value for interaction comparing women with versus women without a patent reproductive tract was 0.15 (FIGURE 2).³⁴

Bottom line. In contrast to a prior meta-analysis, in this study there was no statistically significant association between the self-reported use of powder in the genital area and the incidence of ovarian cancer. ●

Gynecologic malignancies continue to be a major cause of cancer-related mortality in women. In 2020, a number of developments changed practice in gynecologic oncology. In this Update, we highlight 3 important articles. The first showed that human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination reduced the rate of cervical cancer. The next evaluated a novel targeted therapeutic approach using the combination of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib in women with recurrent endometrial carcinoma that progressed after prior systemic therapy. Finally, the third article showed that talcum powder was not associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. We provide here a brief overview of the major findings of these studies and how these results are influencing practice.

Evidence establishes that HPV vaccination cuts risk of invasive cervical cancer

Lei J, Ploner A, Elfström KM, et al. HPV vaccination and the risk of invasive cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1340-1348.

HPV infection is associated with 99% of cervical cancers, and approximately 65% to 75% of cases involve HPV 16 or 18.^1,2 The quadrivalent HPV (6, 11, 16, 18) vaccine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 for the prevention of cervical intraepithelial lesions and genital warts associated with HPV.^3-5 Previous studies of the HPV vaccine showed it to be effective in preventing HPV infection, genital warts, and high-grade precancerous cervical lesions, such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) and grade 3 (CIN3).^6-8 While the vaccine offers a number of advantages, the long-term goal of the vaccine—to reduce the incidence of invasive cervical cancer—was not shown until recently.

Large study followed HPV vaccinated and unvaccinated women

Lei and colleagues conducted a registry based cohort study from 2006 through 2017 of women aged 10 to 30 years who were living in Sweden.⁹ They followed the women from their 10th birthday until they were diagnosed with cervical cancer, died, emigrated from Sweden, were lost to follow-up, or turned 31 years of age. In the study, the unique personal identity numbers assigned to all Swedish residents were linked to a number of large national administrative databases. Beginning in 2007 in Sweden, the quadrivalent vaccine was subsidized for use in girls aged 13 to 17, and a subsequent catch-up period that started in 2012 incorporated women who had not been vaccinated.

Continue to: Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17...

Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17

A total of 1,672,983 women were included in the study; 527,871 received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. During the study period, cervical cancer was diagnosed in 19 women who had received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine and in 538 women who had not received the vaccine. Women who initiated vaccination before age 17 had the lowest rates of cervical cancer (4 cases per 100,000 persons), followed by women vaccinated after age 17 (54 cases per 100,000 persons) and then those who were not vaccinated (94 cases per 100,000 persons).

After adjusting for confounders, the incidence rate ratio (RR) of cervical cancer was significantly lower among vaccinated women compared with unvaccinated women (RR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21– 0.57) (FIGURE 1).⁹ In addition, women who were vaccinated before age 17 demonstrated the greatest benefit. For those vaccinated before age 17 versus those who were unvaccinated, the RR was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.00–0.34). For women vaccinated between age 17 and 30 versus unvaccinated women, the RR was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27–0.75).

Promising option for patients with advanced endometrial cancer: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab

Makker V, Taylor MH, Aghajanian C, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:2981-2992.

Advanced stage endometrial cancer is associated with a 17% 5-year survival rate.¹⁰ Paclitaxel with carboplatin is the standard first-line treatment for advanced, recurrent, and metastatic endometrial cancer; for women who do not respond to this regimen, effective treatment options are limited.^11,12

The immunotherapy approach

Immunotherapy is a more recently developed treatment, an approach in which the immune system is activated to target cancer cells. Pembrolizumab is a commonly used agent for many solid tumors.¹³ This drug binds to the programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1) or PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1), a component of the immune checkpoint, which then allows the immune system to target and destroy cancer cells.¹⁴

Prembrolizumab is FDA approved for use in the treatment of microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) solid tumors that have progressed after prior therapy and for which there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.¹⁵ Endometrial cancers frequently display microsatellite instability and mismatch repair defects.¹⁶

Lenvatinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3; fibroblast growth factor receptors 1, 2, 3, and 4; and platelet derived growth factor receptor alpha, RET, and KIT.^17-19 In a phase 2 study of lenvatinib monotherapy for advanced previously treated endometrial cancer, the response rate was 14.3%.²⁰

While some preclinical studies have examined the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors with lenvatinib,^21-23 a recent study is the first to evaluate this combination in patients with advanced tumors.²⁴

Continue to: Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy...

Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy

Makker and colleagues conducted an ongoing multinational, open-label, phase 1B/2 study of lenvatinib 20 mg daily orally plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks in patients with select solid tumors.²⁴ Women with previously treated endometrial carcinoma (N = 125) were included. Of the study participants, 49% were PD-L1 positive and 10% were MSI-H/dMMR. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks, which was 38.0% (95% CI, 28.8%–47.8%).

The median duration of response was 21.2 months (95% CI, 7.6 months to not estimable). The ORR was similar in patients with PD-L1 expressing tumors (35.8%; 95% CI, 23.1%–50.2%), who are more likely to respond to immunotherapy, compared with those without PD-L1 expression (39.5%; 95% CI, 25.0%–55.6%). For patients with MSI-H/dMMR, there was a higher ORR (63.6%; 95% CI, 30.8%–89.1%, versus 36.2%; 95% CI, 26.5%–46.7%).

Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3–8.7 months) and median overall survival was 16.7 months (15 months to not estimable). Moderate to severe treatment-related adverse events occurred in 83 patients (66.9%), and 22 patients (17.7%) discontinued 1 or both study drugs because of adverse effects. Two deaths were judged to be treatment related.

What is the risk of ovarian cancer in women who use powder in the genital area?

O’Brien KM, Tworoger SS, Harris HR, et al. Association of powder use in the genital area with risk of ovarian cancer. JAMA. 2020;323:49-59.

Women apply talcum powder to their genital area to keep skin dry and to prevent rashes. Powder can be applied by direct application, sanitary napkins, diaphragms, or tampons. Most powder products contain the mineral talc. Because it often is found in nature with asbestos, a known carcinogen, talc’s carcinogenic effects have been investigated.^26,27

Talc also might ascend through the genital tract and irritate the epithelial lining of the fallopian tubes or ovaries, possibly triggering an inflammatory response that may promote carcinogenesis.^28,29 Case-control studies have reported a possible association between genital powder use and ovarian cancer.^30,31 Since these studies, talc-related lawsuits and media coverage have increased.^32,33

Large prospective cohorts provide data for analysis

In a pooled analysis of 4 large US-based observational cohorts between 1976 and 2017, O’Brien and colleagues noted that 38% of the 252,745 women included in the study self-reported the use of powder in the genital area.³⁴ With a median of 11.2 years of follow-up, 2,168 women developed ovarian cancer (58 cases/100,000 person-years). Among women who reported using genital powder, the incidence of ovarian cancer was 61 cases/100,000 person-years, while for women who reported never using genital powder, the incidence was 55 cases/100,000 person-years. This corresponded to an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 1.08 (95% CI, 0.99–1.17).

Frequent powder use, long-term use, and never use. Similar findings were seen for those with frequent use versus never use (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.97–1.23) and long-term use versus never use (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82– 1.25). When restricting the group to women with a patent reproductive tract at baseline, the HR was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01–1.26), but the P value for interaction comparing women with versus women without a patent reproductive tract was 0.15 (FIGURE 2).³⁴

Bottom line. In contrast to a prior meta-analysis, in this study there was no statistically significant association between the self-reported use of powder in the genital area and the incidence of ovarian cancer. ●