User login
Jury is out on universal screening for eating disorders
Eating disorders (binge eating disorder, bulimia nervosa, and anorexia nervosa) can cause “serious harms to physical and psychosocial health and take a tremendous toll on individuals and families,” task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, told this news organization.
“Screening for eating disorders has the potential to improve health by leading to early detection and effective treatment,” said Dr. Pbert, with the department of population and quantitative health sciences, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.
However, a “deep dive” into the available literature failed to turn up adequate evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for eating disorders for children and adolescents aged 10 years and older and for adults who have no signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or concerns about their eating and who have not previously been diagnosed with an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert said.
The task force, therefore, issued an “I” statement (insufficient evidence), meaning it cannot at this time recommend for or against screening for eating disorders.
An “I” statement is “fundamentally a call for more research,” Dr. Pbert noted.
Adolescents and adults who have signs and symptoms of an eating disorder – which include rapid weight loss; weight gain or pronounced deviation from growth trajectory; pubertal delay; bradycardia; oligomenorrhea; and amenorrhea – are not included in this recommendation.
The USPSTF recommendation statement and accompanying evidence report were published online March 15 in JAMA.
Clinical judgment key
In the absence of evidence, clinicians should use their judgment when determining whether or not to screen an individual patient for an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert advised.
One thing to consider is whether the patient is in a group at higher risk for eating disorders, such as athletes, females, young adults aged 18-29, and transgender individuals.
Another is whether the patient reports engaging in unhealthy weight control behaviors, such as fasting or skipping meals, Dr. Pbert said.
Importantly, any patient who has signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or is expressing concerns about their eating should be assessed and referred for appropriate care, Dr. Pbert said.
“The good news is that eating disorders can be treated,” she said.
Several organizations currently recommend screening in the context of monitoring changes in weight and other vital signs or signs and symptoms to determine whether a patient might have an eating disorder.
Dr. Pbert said it’s important to recognize that the USPSTF statement “doesn’t really conflict” with the recommendations of other organizations. “We all agree that patients who present with signs or symptoms of an eating disorder should be assessed further.”
Evidence gaps
The authors of an invited commentary in JAMA) say the task force has identified several “notable deficiencies” in the available data on screening for eating disorders.
“Directing attention to rigorous research to close this evidence gap will be important to find optimal approaches to identify patients with these complex disorders and improve their health outcomes,” write Evelyn Attia, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and Angela Guarda, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
This “I” statement, they say, “highlights the need to prioritize research aimed at closing the evidence gap identified by USPSTF in a timely manner and underscores the need for new studies that address screening for eating disorders, treatment trials that enroll screen-detected populations from primary care settings, and screening in specific populations.
“Research on screening in primary care also should be paired with development and assessment of early brief intervention strategies for those individuals who screen positive, especially adolescents,” Dr. Attia and Dr. Guarda say.
Members of the USPSTF have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Attia has received research support from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Hilda & Preston David Foundation; royalties from UpToDate; and has served as a clinical advisor to Equip Health. Dr. Guarda has received support from the Stephen and Jean Robinson Fund and research funding from the Klarman Family Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Eating disorders (binge eating disorder, bulimia nervosa, and anorexia nervosa) can cause “serious harms to physical and psychosocial health and take a tremendous toll on individuals and families,” task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, told this news organization.
“Screening for eating disorders has the potential to improve health by leading to early detection and effective treatment,” said Dr. Pbert, with the department of population and quantitative health sciences, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.
However, a “deep dive” into the available literature failed to turn up adequate evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for eating disorders for children and adolescents aged 10 years and older and for adults who have no signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or concerns about their eating and who have not previously been diagnosed with an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert said.
The task force, therefore, issued an “I” statement (insufficient evidence), meaning it cannot at this time recommend for or against screening for eating disorders.
An “I” statement is “fundamentally a call for more research,” Dr. Pbert noted.
Adolescents and adults who have signs and symptoms of an eating disorder – which include rapid weight loss; weight gain or pronounced deviation from growth trajectory; pubertal delay; bradycardia; oligomenorrhea; and amenorrhea – are not included in this recommendation.
The USPSTF recommendation statement and accompanying evidence report were published online March 15 in JAMA.
Clinical judgment key
In the absence of evidence, clinicians should use their judgment when determining whether or not to screen an individual patient for an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert advised.
One thing to consider is whether the patient is in a group at higher risk for eating disorders, such as athletes, females, young adults aged 18-29, and transgender individuals.
Another is whether the patient reports engaging in unhealthy weight control behaviors, such as fasting or skipping meals, Dr. Pbert said.
Importantly, any patient who has signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or is expressing concerns about their eating should be assessed and referred for appropriate care, Dr. Pbert said.
“The good news is that eating disorders can be treated,” she said.
Several organizations currently recommend screening in the context of monitoring changes in weight and other vital signs or signs and symptoms to determine whether a patient might have an eating disorder.
Dr. Pbert said it’s important to recognize that the USPSTF statement “doesn’t really conflict” with the recommendations of other organizations. “We all agree that patients who present with signs or symptoms of an eating disorder should be assessed further.”
Evidence gaps
The authors of an invited commentary in JAMA) say the task force has identified several “notable deficiencies” in the available data on screening for eating disorders.
“Directing attention to rigorous research to close this evidence gap will be important to find optimal approaches to identify patients with these complex disorders and improve their health outcomes,” write Evelyn Attia, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and Angela Guarda, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
This “I” statement, they say, “highlights the need to prioritize research aimed at closing the evidence gap identified by USPSTF in a timely manner and underscores the need for new studies that address screening for eating disorders, treatment trials that enroll screen-detected populations from primary care settings, and screening in specific populations.
“Research on screening in primary care also should be paired with development and assessment of early brief intervention strategies for those individuals who screen positive, especially adolescents,” Dr. Attia and Dr. Guarda say.
Members of the USPSTF have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Attia has received research support from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Hilda & Preston David Foundation; royalties from UpToDate; and has served as a clinical advisor to Equip Health. Dr. Guarda has received support from the Stephen and Jean Robinson Fund and research funding from the Klarman Family Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Eating disorders (binge eating disorder, bulimia nervosa, and anorexia nervosa) can cause “serious harms to physical and psychosocial health and take a tremendous toll on individuals and families,” task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, told this news organization.
“Screening for eating disorders has the potential to improve health by leading to early detection and effective treatment,” said Dr. Pbert, with the department of population and quantitative health sciences, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.
However, a “deep dive” into the available literature failed to turn up adequate evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for eating disorders for children and adolescents aged 10 years and older and for adults who have no signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or concerns about their eating and who have not previously been diagnosed with an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert said.
The task force, therefore, issued an “I” statement (insufficient evidence), meaning it cannot at this time recommend for or against screening for eating disorders.
An “I” statement is “fundamentally a call for more research,” Dr. Pbert noted.
Adolescents and adults who have signs and symptoms of an eating disorder – which include rapid weight loss; weight gain or pronounced deviation from growth trajectory; pubertal delay; bradycardia; oligomenorrhea; and amenorrhea – are not included in this recommendation.
The USPSTF recommendation statement and accompanying evidence report were published online March 15 in JAMA.
Clinical judgment key
In the absence of evidence, clinicians should use their judgment when determining whether or not to screen an individual patient for an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert advised.
One thing to consider is whether the patient is in a group at higher risk for eating disorders, such as athletes, females, young adults aged 18-29, and transgender individuals.
Another is whether the patient reports engaging in unhealthy weight control behaviors, such as fasting or skipping meals, Dr. Pbert said.
Importantly, any patient who has signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or is expressing concerns about their eating should be assessed and referred for appropriate care, Dr. Pbert said.
“The good news is that eating disorders can be treated,” she said.
Several organizations currently recommend screening in the context of monitoring changes in weight and other vital signs or signs and symptoms to determine whether a patient might have an eating disorder.
Dr. Pbert said it’s important to recognize that the USPSTF statement “doesn’t really conflict” with the recommendations of other organizations. “We all agree that patients who present with signs or symptoms of an eating disorder should be assessed further.”
Evidence gaps
The authors of an invited commentary in JAMA) say the task force has identified several “notable deficiencies” in the available data on screening for eating disorders.
“Directing attention to rigorous research to close this evidence gap will be important to find optimal approaches to identify patients with these complex disorders and improve their health outcomes,” write Evelyn Attia, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and Angela Guarda, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
This “I” statement, they say, “highlights the need to prioritize research aimed at closing the evidence gap identified by USPSTF in a timely manner and underscores the need for new studies that address screening for eating disorders, treatment trials that enroll screen-detected populations from primary care settings, and screening in specific populations.
“Research on screening in primary care also should be paired with development and assessment of early brief intervention strategies for those individuals who screen positive, especially adolescents,” Dr. Attia and Dr. Guarda say.
Members of the USPSTF have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Attia has received research support from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Hilda & Preston David Foundation; royalties from UpToDate; and has served as a clinical advisor to Equip Health. Dr. Guarda has received support from the Stephen and Jean Robinson Fund and research funding from the Klarman Family Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Knowns and unknowns about SSRI use during pregnancy in 2022
The last 15-20 years have brought enormous attention to the relevant clinical issues regarding prescribing antidepressants during pregnancy. Concern about the effects of fetal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is appropriate given the consistent data that approximately 7% of women use antidepressants during pregnancy, and that risk for relapse of depression during pregnancy in women who have stopped antidepressants during pregnancy is very high.
We have learned so much from studies of relevant questions regarding SSRI exposure. Concerns about increased risk for organ malformation have been set aside. An extraordinary number of studies across a broad range of patients around the globe looked at the issue of risk for organ malformation following in utero SSRI exposure – even looking specifically at risk for cardiac malformations, which had been an earlier concern in the literature – with the evidence supporting absence of increased risk. Also clarified has been, first, the absence of risk of complications such as persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) and, second, a delineation of the prevalence and clinical implications of transient neonatal symptoms such as jitteriness and tachypnea in offspring of women who used antidepressants during pregnancy – so-called “poor neonatal adaptation syndrome.”
However, for so many clinicians and for patients, the missing piece in the risk-benefit equation has been the issue of long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in children whose mothers used antidepressants during pregnancy. While the accumulated data have shown sparse evidence linking SSRI exposure with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the evidence has been mixed regarding neurobehavioral sequelae associated with fetal exposure using developmental outcomes such as language ability, cognition, academic performance, language, math, and other cognitive outcomes. As far back as the 1990s, colleagues in Canada failed to show a difference in neurobehavioral outcomes in 5- to 7-year-old children whose mothers used SSRIs or older tricyclic antidepressants during pregnancy compared to nonexposed women (N Engl J Med. 1997 Jan 23;336[4]:258-62). Even early on, it was noted that one of the strongest predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome was untreated maternal psychiatric illness.
Since those early studies and over the last decade, there have been numerous small studies with conflicting data regarding a whole host of neurodevelopmental outcomes with inconsistent methodologies, different assessments, and failure to control for the presence or absence of maternal psychiatric illness during pregnancy – one of the most critical predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome and one we are beginning to appreciate plays a very significant role.
Most recently, the authors of a very large population-based retrospective cohort study in Denmark linked population-based registries with obstetrical data and examined language and math performance among 575,369 public schoolchildren whose mothers used or didn’t use antidepressants during pregnancy (JAMA. 2021 Nov 2;326[17]:1725-35). These investigators found a decrease in mean test scores for language (53.4 vs. 56.6) and math (52.1 vs. 57.4) in children whose mothers received antidepressant prescriptions during pregnancy compared with children who did not have that exposure. However, when they adjusted for maternal psychiatric illness and other relevant confounders, the finding went to null for language (adjusted difference, –0.1; 95% confidence interval, –0.6 to 0.3), but did not for math (adjusted difference, −2.2; 95% CI, −2.7 to −1.6). The results ultimately showed a modest finding for exposure and a small decrement in mathematical performance. The takeaway is that antidepressant use may be a proxy for neurodevelopmental deficit but is unlikely to be the etiology or direct cause of that deficit.
With that said, patients and their doctors can be reassured with respect to how much we have learned about SSRIs during pregnancy across the last decade. Yet there are appropriate concerns about long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in this patient population. I think that what we can say in 2022 is that there is a growing appreciation for the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on long-term outcomes in children and the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on risk for postpartum depression, which we know influences long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in children. Perhaps more than in years past, there is now also an appreciation of the effect of a dysregulated stress axis on the intrauterine fetal neuronal programming, which is perhaps the newest frontier, and which may hold the answers with respect to how to weigh the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on decisions about psychotropic use during pregnancy. But for today, there is an appreciation that exposure to maternal psychopathology is not a benign exposure.
Although some of the data remain incomplete, in 2022, patients will continue to make individual decisions based on the available data, factoring in the effect of maternal adversity in a more deliberate way and with a refined lens through with which to see their options with respect to using or not using SSRIs during pregnancy.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.
The last 15-20 years have brought enormous attention to the relevant clinical issues regarding prescribing antidepressants during pregnancy. Concern about the effects of fetal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is appropriate given the consistent data that approximately 7% of women use antidepressants during pregnancy, and that risk for relapse of depression during pregnancy in women who have stopped antidepressants during pregnancy is very high.
We have learned so much from studies of relevant questions regarding SSRI exposure. Concerns about increased risk for organ malformation have been set aside. An extraordinary number of studies across a broad range of patients around the globe looked at the issue of risk for organ malformation following in utero SSRI exposure – even looking specifically at risk for cardiac malformations, which had been an earlier concern in the literature – with the evidence supporting absence of increased risk. Also clarified has been, first, the absence of risk of complications such as persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) and, second, a delineation of the prevalence and clinical implications of transient neonatal symptoms such as jitteriness and tachypnea in offspring of women who used antidepressants during pregnancy – so-called “poor neonatal adaptation syndrome.”
However, for so many clinicians and for patients, the missing piece in the risk-benefit equation has been the issue of long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in children whose mothers used antidepressants during pregnancy. While the accumulated data have shown sparse evidence linking SSRI exposure with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the evidence has been mixed regarding neurobehavioral sequelae associated with fetal exposure using developmental outcomes such as language ability, cognition, academic performance, language, math, and other cognitive outcomes. As far back as the 1990s, colleagues in Canada failed to show a difference in neurobehavioral outcomes in 5- to 7-year-old children whose mothers used SSRIs or older tricyclic antidepressants during pregnancy compared to nonexposed women (N Engl J Med. 1997 Jan 23;336[4]:258-62). Even early on, it was noted that one of the strongest predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome was untreated maternal psychiatric illness.
Since those early studies and over the last decade, there have been numerous small studies with conflicting data regarding a whole host of neurodevelopmental outcomes with inconsistent methodologies, different assessments, and failure to control for the presence or absence of maternal psychiatric illness during pregnancy – one of the most critical predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome and one we are beginning to appreciate plays a very significant role.
Most recently, the authors of a very large population-based retrospective cohort study in Denmark linked population-based registries with obstetrical data and examined language and math performance among 575,369 public schoolchildren whose mothers used or didn’t use antidepressants during pregnancy (JAMA. 2021 Nov 2;326[17]:1725-35). These investigators found a decrease in mean test scores for language (53.4 vs. 56.6) and math (52.1 vs. 57.4) in children whose mothers received antidepressant prescriptions during pregnancy compared with children who did not have that exposure. However, when they adjusted for maternal psychiatric illness and other relevant confounders, the finding went to null for language (adjusted difference, –0.1; 95% confidence interval, –0.6 to 0.3), but did not for math (adjusted difference, −2.2; 95% CI, −2.7 to −1.6). The results ultimately showed a modest finding for exposure and a small decrement in mathematical performance. The takeaway is that antidepressant use may be a proxy for neurodevelopmental deficit but is unlikely to be the etiology or direct cause of that deficit.
With that said, patients and their doctors can be reassured with respect to how much we have learned about SSRIs during pregnancy across the last decade. Yet there are appropriate concerns about long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in this patient population. I think that what we can say in 2022 is that there is a growing appreciation for the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on long-term outcomes in children and the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on risk for postpartum depression, which we know influences long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in children. Perhaps more than in years past, there is now also an appreciation of the effect of a dysregulated stress axis on the intrauterine fetal neuronal programming, which is perhaps the newest frontier, and which may hold the answers with respect to how to weigh the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on decisions about psychotropic use during pregnancy. But for today, there is an appreciation that exposure to maternal psychopathology is not a benign exposure.
Although some of the data remain incomplete, in 2022, patients will continue to make individual decisions based on the available data, factoring in the effect of maternal adversity in a more deliberate way and with a refined lens through with which to see their options with respect to using or not using SSRIs during pregnancy.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.
The last 15-20 years have brought enormous attention to the relevant clinical issues regarding prescribing antidepressants during pregnancy. Concern about the effects of fetal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is appropriate given the consistent data that approximately 7% of women use antidepressants during pregnancy, and that risk for relapse of depression during pregnancy in women who have stopped antidepressants during pregnancy is very high.
We have learned so much from studies of relevant questions regarding SSRI exposure. Concerns about increased risk for organ malformation have been set aside. An extraordinary number of studies across a broad range of patients around the globe looked at the issue of risk for organ malformation following in utero SSRI exposure – even looking specifically at risk for cardiac malformations, which had been an earlier concern in the literature – with the evidence supporting absence of increased risk. Also clarified has been, first, the absence of risk of complications such as persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) and, second, a delineation of the prevalence and clinical implications of transient neonatal symptoms such as jitteriness and tachypnea in offspring of women who used antidepressants during pregnancy – so-called “poor neonatal adaptation syndrome.”
However, for so many clinicians and for patients, the missing piece in the risk-benefit equation has been the issue of long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in children whose mothers used antidepressants during pregnancy. While the accumulated data have shown sparse evidence linking SSRI exposure with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the evidence has been mixed regarding neurobehavioral sequelae associated with fetal exposure using developmental outcomes such as language ability, cognition, academic performance, language, math, and other cognitive outcomes. As far back as the 1990s, colleagues in Canada failed to show a difference in neurobehavioral outcomes in 5- to 7-year-old children whose mothers used SSRIs or older tricyclic antidepressants during pregnancy compared to nonexposed women (N Engl J Med. 1997 Jan 23;336[4]:258-62). Even early on, it was noted that one of the strongest predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome was untreated maternal psychiatric illness.
Since those early studies and over the last decade, there have been numerous small studies with conflicting data regarding a whole host of neurodevelopmental outcomes with inconsistent methodologies, different assessments, and failure to control for the presence or absence of maternal psychiatric illness during pregnancy – one of the most critical predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome and one we are beginning to appreciate plays a very significant role.
Most recently, the authors of a very large population-based retrospective cohort study in Denmark linked population-based registries with obstetrical data and examined language and math performance among 575,369 public schoolchildren whose mothers used or didn’t use antidepressants during pregnancy (JAMA. 2021 Nov 2;326[17]:1725-35). These investigators found a decrease in mean test scores for language (53.4 vs. 56.6) and math (52.1 vs. 57.4) in children whose mothers received antidepressant prescriptions during pregnancy compared with children who did not have that exposure. However, when they adjusted for maternal psychiatric illness and other relevant confounders, the finding went to null for language (adjusted difference, –0.1; 95% confidence interval, –0.6 to 0.3), but did not for math (adjusted difference, −2.2; 95% CI, −2.7 to −1.6). The results ultimately showed a modest finding for exposure and a small decrement in mathematical performance. The takeaway is that antidepressant use may be a proxy for neurodevelopmental deficit but is unlikely to be the etiology or direct cause of that deficit.
With that said, patients and their doctors can be reassured with respect to how much we have learned about SSRIs during pregnancy across the last decade. Yet there are appropriate concerns about long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in this patient population. I think that what we can say in 2022 is that there is a growing appreciation for the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on long-term outcomes in children and the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on risk for postpartum depression, which we know influences long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in children. Perhaps more than in years past, there is now also an appreciation of the effect of a dysregulated stress axis on the intrauterine fetal neuronal programming, which is perhaps the newest frontier, and which may hold the answers with respect to how to weigh the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on decisions about psychotropic use during pregnancy. But for today, there is an appreciation that exposure to maternal psychopathology is not a benign exposure.
Although some of the data remain incomplete, in 2022, patients will continue to make individual decisions based on the available data, factoring in the effect of maternal adversity in a more deliberate way and with a refined lens through with which to see their options with respect to using or not using SSRIs during pregnancy.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.
Doctors treat osteoporosis with hormone therapy against guidelines
This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.
According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.
Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
Women’s Health Initiative findings
The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.
The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.
Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
Hormone therapy’s complex history
HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.
While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.
Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.
“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”
Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.
It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis
Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.
“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.
“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.
“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.
Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.
“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.
According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.
“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT
“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.
“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”
Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.
“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”
“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.
“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”
Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.
“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”
Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.
This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.
According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.
Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
Women’s Health Initiative findings
The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.
The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.
Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
Hormone therapy’s complex history
HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.
While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.
Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.
“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”
Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.
It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis
Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.
“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.
“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.
“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.
Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.
“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.
According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.
“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT
“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.
“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”
Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.
“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”
“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.
“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”
Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.
“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”
Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.
This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.
According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.
Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
Women’s Health Initiative findings
The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.
The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.
Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
Hormone therapy’s complex history
HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.
While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.
Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.
“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”
Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.
It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis
Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.
“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.
“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.
“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.
Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.
“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.
According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.
“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT
“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.
“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”
Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.
“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”
“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.
“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”
Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.
“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”
Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.
Insurance mandates drive genetic testing and sex selection in IVF
The use of preimplantation genetic tests (PGT) in in vitro fertilization cycles, including tests for nonmedical sex selection, increased significantly in states without mandated insurance coverage, based on data from a study of 300,000 IVF cycles.
Previous studies have shown associations between IVF insurance coverage and various IVF practice patterns, but trends in genetic testing according to state-mandated insurance have not been explored, Bronwyn S. Bedrick, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.
“Preimplantation genetic testing was introduced into clinical practice to prevent transmission of genetic disease and to improve uptake of single embryo transfer, but in the real world there are many potential applications,” corresponding author Emily Jungheim, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “We wanted to know how PGT is being applied given that its use is on the rise.”
In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers analyzed genetic testing in deidentified autologous, nonbanking IVF cycles from 2014 to 2016 obtained through the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS). The data set included 301,465 IVF cycles and 224,235 unique patients over the 3-year study period. Of these, 78,578 cycles (26%) used PGT, and overall, the proportion of IVF cycles using PGT approximately doubled, from 17% in 2014 to 34% in 2016 – a significant increase over time (risk ratio, 1.37). As of 2021, 13 states had mandates that health insurance include IVF costs.
In states with insurance mandates versus nonmandated states, the proportion of any PGT was 28.8% vs. 19.6%, and the probability was 32% lower in states with mandates (RR. 0.68; P < .001).
Aneuploidy was the most common indication for PGT, and accounted for 60% of the cycles; however, the number of cycles using PGT for elective sex selection increased from 1,314 cycles in 2014 to 2,184 in 2016 (approximately 66% increase).
In a multivariate analysis, IVF cycles for elective sex selection was 56% lower in states with mandates, compared with those without (RR, 0.44; P < .001).
In addition, cycles involving nonmedical sex selection were significantly more likely to result in male offspring, the researchers said.
“The increase in the number of cycles using elective sex selection seen in this study may reflect the growing number of clinics offering [PGT] for nonmedical sex selection as well as increasing public awareness of preimplantation genetic testing,” the researchers wrote.
However, the socioeconomic characteristics of women may play a role in the use of PGT, as those living in states with no mandate must be able pay the cost of IVF procedures, as well as the cost of PGT if desired, they noted.
“Because fertility centers may offer patients the choice to select the sex of their embryo after preimplantation genetic testing, this may in effect permit elective sex selection,” the researchers said. The shift in the male-female sex ratio in these cases “is concerning given the implications for future social demographics as IVF and preimplantation genetic testing utilization increase, and the negative effect outcomes could have on medical insurance policy and allocation of resources for medically indicated IVF and preimplantation genetic testing.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of clinic identifiers and lack of data characteristics including, race, ethnicity, and previous live births, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on the sex preferences of the couple, and whether the sex of the embryo was known, and whether male and female embryos were transferred. Also, no states have mandates to cover PGT, and the limited study period may not generalize to current practices.
However, the study strengths include the large size and comprehensive database, and have implications for future policies and expansion of insurance coverage for infertility treatment and for preventing transmission of genetic diseases, they said.
Be mindful of consequences of testing
In an interview, Dr. Jungheim said she was surprised by some of the findings. “I thought we would see that PGT-A utilization was lower in states without mandates given the already high cost of IVF for patients paying out of pocket. I was also surprised to see that more males were born after PGT-A; it suggests that overall, patients using PGT-A favor males.
“For clinicians, we need to be mindful of the long-term impact of our practices,” she emphasized. “Shifting the sex ratio in favor of one sex or the other is an unintended consequence of IVF with PGT-A that can have negative implications for future generations.”
In the study, the researchers proposed a revision to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee opinion on sex selection to provide guidance in keeping with ASRM’s mission of “accessible, ethical, and quality reproductive care for every person.”
However, “even if the ASRM Ethics Committee Opinion was revised, it’s up to clinicians to decide what they are comfortable with,” said Dr. Jungheim. “When patients are paying out of pocket for expensive treatments that require emotional investment and time, it can be difficult to keep medical decision making strictly evidence based.” Improved insurance coverage and access to fertility care may help with some of these decisions, but more real-world evidence is needed.
Let’s talk about sex (selection)
The study findings are both “novel and sobering,” and enhance the current body of evidence of associations between state insurance mandates and IVF outcomes, Jennifer Eaton, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“The association between mandate status and elective sex selection is particularly eye-opening,” said Dr. Eaton. The overall increased use of PGT for sex selection does not account for sex selection as part of testing for aneuploidy. In fact, “patients with euploid embryos of both sexes are frequently given the opportunity to select which embryo to transfer.”
The current study provides “compelling evidence that it is time to revisit the ethical dilemma of elective sex selection in the United States,” Dr. Eaton emphasized. The current ASRM guidance states that IVF clinics are not obligated to provide or refuse to provide nonmedically indicated methods of sex selection, but in light of the current study and other studies, a revision to the existing ASRM Ethics Committee opinion is needed.
The study received no outside funding. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Eaton had any financial conflicts to disclose.
The use of preimplantation genetic tests (PGT) in in vitro fertilization cycles, including tests for nonmedical sex selection, increased significantly in states without mandated insurance coverage, based on data from a study of 300,000 IVF cycles.
Previous studies have shown associations between IVF insurance coverage and various IVF practice patterns, but trends in genetic testing according to state-mandated insurance have not been explored, Bronwyn S. Bedrick, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.
“Preimplantation genetic testing was introduced into clinical practice to prevent transmission of genetic disease and to improve uptake of single embryo transfer, but in the real world there are many potential applications,” corresponding author Emily Jungheim, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “We wanted to know how PGT is being applied given that its use is on the rise.”
In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers analyzed genetic testing in deidentified autologous, nonbanking IVF cycles from 2014 to 2016 obtained through the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS). The data set included 301,465 IVF cycles and 224,235 unique patients over the 3-year study period. Of these, 78,578 cycles (26%) used PGT, and overall, the proportion of IVF cycles using PGT approximately doubled, from 17% in 2014 to 34% in 2016 – a significant increase over time (risk ratio, 1.37). As of 2021, 13 states had mandates that health insurance include IVF costs.
In states with insurance mandates versus nonmandated states, the proportion of any PGT was 28.8% vs. 19.6%, and the probability was 32% lower in states with mandates (RR. 0.68; P < .001).
Aneuploidy was the most common indication for PGT, and accounted for 60% of the cycles; however, the number of cycles using PGT for elective sex selection increased from 1,314 cycles in 2014 to 2,184 in 2016 (approximately 66% increase).
In a multivariate analysis, IVF cycles for elective sex selection was 56% lower in states with mandates, compared with those without (RR, 0.44; P < .001).
In addition, cycles involving nonmedical sex selection were significantly more likely to result in male offspring, the researchers said.
“The increase in the number of cycles using elective sex selection seen in this study may reflect the growing number of clinics offering [PGT] for nonmedical sex selection as well as increasing public awareness of preimplantation genetic testing,” the researchers wrote.
However, the socioeconomic characteristics of women may play a role in the use of PGT, as those living in states with no mandate must be able pay the cost of IVF procedures, as well as the cost of PGT if desired, they noted.
“Because fertility centers may offer patients the choice to select the sex of their embryo after preimplantation genetic testing, this may in effect permit elective sex selection,” the researchers said. The shift in the male-female sex ratio in these cases “is concerning given the implications for future social demographics as IVF and preimplantation genetic testing utilization increase, and the negative effect outcomes could have on medical insurance policy and allocation of resources for medically indicated IVF and preimplantation genetic testing.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of clinic identifiers and lack of data characteristics including, race, ethnicity, and previous live births, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on the sex preferences of the couple, and whether the sex of the embryo was known, and whether male and female embryos were transferred. Also, no states have mandates to cover PGT, and the limited study period may not generalize to current practices.
However, the study strengths include the large size and comprehensive database, and have implications for future policies and expansion of insurance coverage for infertility treatment and for preventing transmission of genetic diseases, they said.
Be mindful of consequences of testing
In an interview, Dr. Jungheim said she was surprised by some of the findings. “I thought we would see that PGT-A utilization was lower in states without mandates given the already high cost of IVF for patients paying out of pocket. I was also surprised to see that more males were born after PGT-A; it suggests that overall, patients using PGT-A favor males.
“For clinicians, we need to be mindful of the long-term impact of our practices,” she emphasized. “Shifting the sex ratio in favor of one sex or the other is an unintended consequence of IVF with PGT-A that can have negative implications for future generations.”
In the study, the researchers proposed a revision to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee opinion on sex selection to provide guidance in keeping with ASRM’s mission of “accessible, ethical, and quality reproductive care for every person.”
However, “even if the ASRM Ethics Committee Opinion was revised, it’s up to clinicians to decide what they are comfortable with,” said Dr. Jungheim. “When patients are paying out of pocket for expensive treatments that require emotional investment and time, it can be difficult to keep medical decision making strictly evidence based.” Improved insurance coverage and access to fertility care may help with some of these decisions, but more real-world evidence is needed.
Let’s talk about sex (selection)
The study findings are both “novel and sobering,” and enhance the current body of evidence of associations between state insurance mandates and IVF outcomes, Jennifer Eaton, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“The association between mandate status and elective sex selection is particularly eye-opening,” said Dr. Eaton. The overall increased use of PGT for sex selection does not account for sex selection as part of testing for aneuploidy. In fact, “patients with euploid embryos of both sexes are frequently given the opportunity to select which embryo to transfer.”
The current study provides “compelling evidence that it is time to revisit the ethical dilemma of elective sex selection in the United States,” Dr. Eaton emphasized. The current ASRM guidance states that IVF clinics are not obligated to provide or refuse to provide nonmedically indicated methods of sex selection, but in light of the current study and other studies, a revision to the existing ASRM Ethics Committee opinion is needed.
The study received no outside funding. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Eaton had any financial conflicts to disclose.
The use of preimplantation genetic tests (PGT) in in vitro fertilization cycles, including tests for nonmedical sex selection, increased significantly in states without mandated insurance coverage, based on data from a study of 300,000 IVF cycles.
Previous studies have shown associations between IVF insurance coverage and various IVF practice patterns, but trends in genetic testing according to state-mandated insurance have not been explored, Bronwyn S. Bedrick, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.
“Preimplantation genetic testing was introduced into clinical practice to prevent transmission of genetic disease and to improve uptake of single embryo transfer, but in the real world there are many potential applications,” corresponding author Emily Jungheim, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “We wanted to know how PGT is being applied given that its use is on the rise.”
In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers analyzed genetic testing in deidentified autologous, nonbanking IVF cycles from 2014 to 2016 obtained through the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS). The data set included 301,465 IVF cycles and 224,235 unique patients over the 3-year study period. Of these, 78,578 cycles (26%) used PGT, and overall, the proportion of IVF cycles using PGT approximately doubled, from 17% in 2014 to 34% in 2016 – a significant increase over time (risk ratio, 1.37). As of 2021, 13 states had mandates that health insurance include IVF costs.
In states with insurance mandates versus nonmandated states, the proportion of any PGT was 28.8% vs. 19.6%, and the probability was 32% lower in states with mandates (RR. 0.68; P < .001).
Aneuploidy was the most common indication for PGT, and accounted for 60% of the cycles; however, the number of cycles using PGT for elective sex selection increased from 1,314 cycles in 2014 to 2,184 in 2016 (approximately 66% increase).
In a multivariate analysis, IVF cycles for elective sex selection was 56% lower in states with mandates, compared with those without (RR, 0.44; P < .001).
In addition, cycles involving nonmedical sex selection were significantly more likely to result in male offspring, the researchers said.
“The increase in the number of cycles using elective sex selection seen in this study may reflect the growing number of clinics offering [PGT] for nonmedical sex selection as well as increasing public awareness of preimplantation genetic testing,” the researchers wrote.
However, the socioeconomic characteristics of women may play a role in the use of PGT, as those living in states with no mandate must be able pay the cost of IVF procedures, as well as the cost of PGT if desired, they noted.
“Because fertility centers may offer patients the choice to select the sex of their embryo after preimplantation genetic testing, this may in effect permit elective sex selection,” the researchers said. The shift in the male-female sex ratio in these cases “is concerning given the implications for future social demographics as IVF and preimplantation genetic testing utilization increase, and the negative effect outcomes could have on medical insurance policy and allocation of resources for medically indicated IVF and preimplantation genetic testing.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of clinic identifiers and lack of data characteristics including, race, ethnicity, and previous live births, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on the sex preferences of the couple, and whether the sex of the embryo was known, and whether male and female embryos were transferred. Also, no states have mandates to cover PGT, and the limited study period may not generalize to current practices.
However, the study strengths include the large size and comprehensive database, and have implications for future policies and expansion of insurance coverage for infertility treatment and for preventing transmission of genetic diseases, they said.
Be mindful of consequences of testing
In an interview, Dr. Jungheim said she was surprised by some of the findings. “I thought we would see that PGT-A utilization was lower in states without mandates given the already high cost of IVF for patients paying out of pocket. I was also surprised to see that more males were born after PGT-A; it suggests that overall, patients using PGT-A favor males.
“For clinicians, we need to be mindful of the long-term impact of our practices,” she emphasized. “Shifting the sex ratio in favor of one sex or the other is an unintended consequence of IVF with PGT-A that can have negative implications for future generations.”
In the study, the researchers proposed a revision to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee opinion on sex selection to provide guidance in keeping with ASRM’s mission of “accessible, ethical, and quality reproductive care for every person.”
However, “even if the ASRM Ethics Committee Opinion was revised, it’s up to clinicians to decide what they are comfortable with,” said Dr. Jungheim. “When patients are paying out of pocket for expensive treatments that require emotional investment and time, it can be difficult to keep medical decision making strictly evidence based.” Improved insurance coverage and access to fertility care may help with some of these decisions, but more real-world evidence is needed.
Let’s talk about sex (selection)
The study findings are both “novel and sobering,” and enhance the current body of evidence of associations between state insurance mandates and IVF outcomes, Jennifer Eaton, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“The association between mandate status and elective sex selection is particularly eye-opening,” said Dr. Eaton. The overall increased use of PGT for sex selection does not account for sex selection as part of testing for aneuploidy. In fact, “patients with euploid embryos of both sexes are frequently given the opportunity to select which embryo to transfer.”
The current study provides “compelling evidence that it is time to revisit the ethical dilemma of elective sex selection in the United States,” Dr. Eaton emphasized. The current ASRM guidance states that IVF clinics are not obligated to provide or refuse to provide nonmedically indicated methods of sex selection, but in light of the current study and other studies, a revision to the existing ASRM Ethics Committee opinion is needed.
The study received no outside funding. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Eaton had any financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Genomic analysis reveals possible role of AMH in PCOS infertility
A genomic study has revealed new insights into the function of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in the context of reproductive biology and fertility.
Insights into the physiological, and potentially therapeutic, function were identified based on data from single-cell RNA sequencing, derived from transcriptomic analysis and immunolabeling of antral follicles.
“The specific contribution of elevated AMH to the molecular pathology of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and its defining clinical features is unclear, as no study, to date, has examined the effect of chronically elevated AMH in an experimentally controlled in vivo model,” study author Limor Man, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues wrote. The group’s findings were published in Science Advances.
The researchers used ovarian cortical xenografts with cotransplantation of engineered endothelial cells to examine the effect of chronic paracrine AMH stimulus on human folliculogenesis.
They cotransplanted human ovarian cortex with control or AMH-expressing endothelial cells in immunocompromised mice and recovered antral follicles for purification and subsequent analysis. Overall, 38 antral follicles were observed (19 control and 19 AMH) at long-term intervals, defined as intervals greater than 10 weeks.
The researchers found that long-term xenografts showed an accelerated growth rate in the setting of chronically elevated AMH and exhibited a molecular signature indicative of more advanced stages of follicle maturation, including that of luteinization.
In mice, exogenous AMH follicles showed a decreased ratio of primordial to growing follicles and antral follicles of increased diameter.
In addition, transcriptomic and immunolabeling analyses revealed that chronic high AMH had a marked influence on the growth and transcriptomic signature of antral-stage follicles, with a universal increase in factors related to the synthesis and/or metabolism of cholesterol and sex steroid hormones, as well as early expression of factors often seen at later stages of folliculogenesis.
“These data decouple elevated AMH from the metabolic and hyperandrogenic conditions that define PCOS and suggest that chronically elevated AMH induces a molecular cascade that contributes, at least in part, to the anovulatory phenotype in these patients,” the researchers wrote.
Furthermore, they found evidence to suggest that chronic high AMH can induce expression of the luteinizing hormone receptor at earlier stages of folliculogenesis, thereby worsening the disruptive effect of elevated luteinizing hormone from the pituitary.
“[These] findings underscore the broad influence of AMH on transcriptional activity and maturation state of follicles and support an independent role for dysregulation of AMH signaling in driving anovulation in women with PCOS,” they wrote.
While these findings are intriguing, the researchers cautioned against drawing conclusions from the study since elevated AMH is almost always seen in combination with one or more symptomatic hallmarks in PCOS.
“Despite [some] limitations, [our] analysis provides a deep and high-resolution examination of AMH action on human folliculogenesis and suggests a prominent effect on antral follicle maturation,” they explained.
Expert perspective
“From age 25, AMH levels begin their decline until reaching undetectable levels at menopause,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “Women with PCOS experience a chronic and frustrating pathophysiologic problem whose origins and mechanism have evaded researchers for decades.
“As AMH elevations in utero may contribute to fetal susceptibility to PCOS, this study provides another potential link by suggesting that chronically elevated AMH induces anovulation,” he added. “We await, with great anticipation, future clinical studies to potentially further illustrate the apparent and intriguing role of AMH in the development of PCOS.”
This study was supported by the Queenie Victorina Neri Scholarship and a Research Grant from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. One author reported financial relationships with Oviva Therapeutics; no other conflicts of interest were reported.
A genomic study has revealed new insights into the function of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in the context of reproductive biology and fertility.
Insights into the physiological, and potentially therapeutic, function were identified based on data from single-cell RNA sequencing, derived from transcriptomic analysis and immunolabeling of antral follicles.
“The specific contribution of elevated AMH to the molecular pathology of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and its defining clinical features is unclear, as no study, to date, has examined the effect of chronically elevated AMH in an experimentally controlled in vivo model,” study author Limor Man, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues wrote. The group’s findings were published in Science Advances.
The researchers used ovarian cortical xenografts with cotransplantation of engineered endothelial cells to examine the effect of chronic paracrine AMH stimulus on human folliculogenesis.
They cotransplanted human ovarian cortex with control or AMH-expressing endothelial cells in immunocompromised mice and recovered antral follicles for purification and subsequent analysis. Overall, 38 antral follicles were observed (19 control and 19 AMH) at long-term intervals, defined as intervals greater than 10 weeks.
The researchers found that long-term xenografts showed an accelerated growth rate in the setting of chronically elevated AMH and exhibited a molecular signature indicative of more advanced stages of follicle maturation, including that of luteinization.
In mice, exogenous AMH follicles showed a decreased ratio of primordial to growing follicles and antral follicles of increased diameter.
In addition, transcriptomic and immunolabeling analyses revealed that chronic high AMH had a marked influence on the growth and transcriptomic signature of antral-stage follicles, with a universal increase in factors related to the synthesis and/or metabolism of cholesterol and sex steroid hormones, as well as early expression of factors often seen at later stages of folliculogenesis.
“These data decouple elevated AMH from the metabolic and hyperandrogenic conditions that define PCOS and suggest that chronically elevated AMH induces a molecular cascade that contributes, at least in part, to the anovulatory phenotype in these patients,” the researchers wrote.
Furthermore, they found evidence to suggest that chronic high AMH can induce expression of the luteinizing hormone receptor at earlier stages of folliculogenesis, thereby worsening the disruptive effect of elevated luteinizing hormone from the pituitary.
“[These] findings underscore the broad influence of AMH on transcriptional activity and maturation state of follicles and support an independent role for dysregulation of AMH signaling in driving anovulation in women with PCOS,” they wrote.
While these findings are intriguing, the researchers cautioned against drawing conclusions from the study since elevated AMH is almost always seen in combination with one or more symptomatic hallmarks in PCOS.
“Despite [some] limitations, [our] analysis provides a deep and high-resolution examination of AMH action on human folliculogenesis and suggests a prominent effect on antral follicle maturation,” they explained.
Expert perspective
“From age 25, AMH levels begin their decline until reaching undetectable levels at menopause,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “Women with PCOS experience a chronic and frustrating pathophysiologic problem whose origins and mechanism have evaded researchers for decades.
“As AMH elevations in utero may contribute to fetal susceptibility to PCOS, this study provides another potential link by suggesting that chronically elevated AMH induces anovulation,” he added. “We await, with great anticipation, future clinical studies to potentially further illustrate the apparent and intriguing role of AMH in the development of PCOS.”
This study was supported by the Queenie Victorina Neri Scholarship and a Research Grant from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. One author reported financial relationships with Oviva Therapeutics; no other conflicts of interest were reported.
A genomic study has revealed new insights into the function of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in the context of reproductive biology and fertility.
Insights into the physiological, and potentially therapeutic, function were identified based on data from single-cell RNA sequencing, derived from transcriptomic analysis and immunolabeling of antral follicles.
“The specific contribution of elevated AMH to the molecular pathology of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and its defining clinical features is unclear, as no study, to date, has examined the effect of chronically elevated AMH in an experimentally controlled in vivo model,” study author Limor Man, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues wrote. The group’s findings were published in Science Advances.
The researchers used ovarian cortical xenografts with cotransplantation of engineered endothelial cells to examine the effect of chronic paracrine AMH stimulus on human folliculogenesis.
They cotransplanted human ovarian cortex with control or AMH-expressing endothelial cells in immunocompromised mice and recovered antral follicles for purification and subsequent analysis. Overall, 38 antral follicles were observed (19 control and 19 AMH) at long-term intervals, defined as intervals greater than 10 weeks.
The researchers found that long-term xenografts showed an accelerated growth rate in the setting of chronically elevated AMH and exhibited a molecular signature indicative of more advanced stages of follicle maturation, including that of luteinization.
In mice, exogenous AMH follicles showed a decreased ratio of primordial to growing follicles and antral follicles of increased diameter.
In addition, transcriptomic and immunolabeling analyses revealed that chronic high AMH had a marked influence on the growth and transcriptomic signature of antral-stage follicles, with a universal increase in factors related to the synthesis and/or metabolism of cholesterol and sex steroid hormones, as well as early expression of factors often seen at later stages of folliculogenesis.
“These data decouple elevated AMH from the metabolic and hyperandrogenic conditions that define PCOS and suggest that chronically elevated AMH induces a molecular cascade that contributes, at least in part, to the anovulatory phenotype in these patients,” the researchers wrote.
Furthermore, they found evidence to suggest that chronic high AMH can induce expression of the luteinizing hormone receptor at earlier stages of folliculogenesis, thereby worsening the disruptive effect of elevated luteinizing hormone from the pituitary.
“[These] findings underscore the broad influence of AMH on transcriptional activity and maturation state of follicles and support an independent role for dysregulation of AMH signaling in driving anovulation in women with PCOS,” they wrote.
While these findings are intriguing, the researchers cautioned against drawing conclusions from the study since elevated AMH is almost always seen in combination with one or more symptomatic hallmarks in PCOS.
“Despite [some] limitations, [our] analysis provides a deep and high-resolution examination of AMH action on human folliculogenesis and suggests a prominent effect on antral follicle maturation,” they explained.
Expert perspective
“From age 25, AMH levels begin their decline until reaching undetectable levels at menopause,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “Women with PCOS experience a chronic and frustrating pathophysiologic problem whose origins and mechanism have evaded researchers for decades.
“As AMH elevations in utero may contribute to fetal susceptibility to PCOS, this study provides another potential link by suggesting that chronically elevated AMH induces anovulation,” he added. “We await, with great anticipation, future clinical studies to potentially further illustrate the apparent and intriguing role of AMH in the development of PCOS.”
This study was supported by the Queenie Victorina Neri Scholarship and a Research Grant from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. One author reported financial relationships with Oviva Therapeutics; no other conflicts of interest were reported.
FROM SCIENCE ADVANCES
FDA approves first PARP inhibitor for early BRCA+ breast cancer
BRCA+ breast cancer
Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.
The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.
The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.
The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.
The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.
The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.
The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.
The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.
The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.
The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.
The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.
The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.
The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BRCA+ breast cancer
BRCA+ breast cancer
Big missed opportunities for BP control in premenopausal women
A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.
In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.
What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.
Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.
Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.
Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.
“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.
However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.
In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.
Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”
She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.
Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”
“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”
Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.
“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”
During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.
The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.
The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.
In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.
What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.
Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.
Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.
Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.
“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.
However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.
In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.
Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”
She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.
Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”
“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”
Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.
“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”
During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.
The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.
The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.
In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.
What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.
Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.
Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.
Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.
“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.
However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.
In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.
Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”
She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.
Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”
“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”
Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.
“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”
During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.
The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.
The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Antiseptic as good as antibiotics for preventing recurrent UTI
The antiseptic methenamine hippurate (MH) is known to sterilize urine and has been suggested to be of use in preventing urinary tract infections (UTIs), but firm evidence has so far been lacking. Now researchers led by clinicians and scientists from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, have provided the ALTAR trial (Alternative to Prophylactic Antibiotics for the Treatment of Recurrent UTIs in Women).
Daily low-dose antibiotics as recommended by current guidelines for prophylactic treatment of recurrent UTI have been linked to antibiotic resistance. Using MH as an alternative could play an important role in helping to tackle the global problem of increasing antibiotic resistance, the team said.
Study details
They recruited 240 women aged 18 or over with recurrent UTIs requiring prophylactic treatment from eight secondary care urology and urogynecology centers in the United Kingdom from June 2016 to June 2018. Women were randomized to receive MH or daily low-dose antibiotics for 12 months, with follow up for a further 6 months beyond that.
Before trial entry the women had experienced an average of more than six UTI episodes per year. During the 12-month treatment period, in the modified intention-to-treat population, there were 90 symptomatic, antibiotic-treated UTI episodes reported over 101 person-years of follow-up in the antibiotic group, and 141 episodes over 102 person-years in the MH group.
This yielded a UTI rate of 0.89 episodes per person-year in the antibiotic group, compared with 1.38 in the MH group, an absolute difference of 0.49 episodes per person-year. In the 6-month posttreatment follow-up period, the UTI incidence rate was 1.19 episodes per person-year in the antibiotic prophylaxis group versus 1.72 in the MH group, an absolute difference of 0.53.
Before the trial, a patient and public involvement group had predefined the noninferiority margin as one episode of UTI per person-year. The small difference between the two groups was less than this, confirming noninferiority of MH to antibiotic prophylaxis in this setting. This finding was consistent across the modified intention-to-treat, strict intention-to-treat, per protocol, and modified per protocol (post hoc) analyses.
Thus the ALTAR results showed that MH was no worse than antibiotics at preventing UTIs, and MH was also associated with reduced antibiotic consumption.
The vast majority of participants were over 90% adherent with the allocated treatment. Patient satisfaction was generally high and rates of adverse events and adverse reactions generally low, and both were comparable between treatment groups. Adverse reactions were reported by 34/142 (24%) in the antibiotic group and 35/127 (28%) in the MH group, and most reactions were mild. In the antibiotic group there were two serious adverse reactions (severe abdominal pain and raised alanine transaminase), whereas six participants in the MH group reported an episode of febrile UTI and four were admitted to hospital because of UTI.
Substantial global health care problem
At least 50% and up to 80% of all women have at least one acute UTI in their lifetime, most often uncomplicated acute cystitis. About a quarter of them go on to suffer recurrent infection, defined as three or more repeat infections in the past year, or two infections in the preceding 6 months. Frequent recurrences thus represent “a substantial global health care problem,” the authors say.
Guidelines from the United Kingdom, Europe, and the United States acknowledge the need for preventive strategies and strongly recommend the use of daily, low-dose antibiotics as standard prophylactic treatment. However, the United Kingdom’s antimicrobial resistance strategy recommends a “strong focus on infection prevention,” and aims to reduce antimicrobial use in humans by 15% before 2024.
“To achieve that, exploration of nonantibiotic preventive treatments in common conditions such as UTI is essential,” the team said.
MH is one such nonantibiotic treatment. It is bactericidal and works by denaturing bacterial proteins and nucleic acids. Although previous Cochrane systematic reviews had concluded that it could be effective for preventing UTI, further large trials were needed.
“This trial adds to the evidence base for the use of MH for prophylactic treatment in adult women with recurrent UTI. Although the MH group had a 55% higher rate of UTI episodes than the antibiotics group, the absolute difference was just 0.49 UTI episodes per year, which has limited clinical consequence,” the team concluded.
Results could ‘support a change in practice’
In older patients, particularly, the risks of long-term antibiotic prophylaxis might outweigh the benefits, and the authors said that their results “could support a change in practice in terms of preventive treatments for recurrent UTI and provide patients and clinicians with a credible alternative to daily antibiotics, giving them the confidence to pursue strategies that avoid long-term antibiotic use.”
They acknowledged limitations of the study, including that treatment allocation was not masked, crossover between arms was allowed, and differences in antibiotics prescribed may have affected the results. In addition, data regarding long-term safety of MH are scarce.
However, they said that the trial accurately represented the broad range of women with recurrent UTI, and that its results “might encourage patients and clinicians to consider MH as a first line treatment for UTI prevention in women.”
In a linked editorial, scientists from the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare at Bond University in Queensland, Australia, commented: “Although the results need cautious interpretation, they align with others, and this new research increases the confidence with which MH can be offered as an option to women needing prophylaxis against recurrent urinary tract infection.”
References
Harding C et al. Alternative to prophylactic antibiotics for the treatment of recurrent urinary tract infections in women: multicentre, open label, randomised, noninferiority trial. BMJ 2022 Mar 9;376:e068229.
Hoffmann TC et al. Methenamine hippurate for recurrent urinary tract infections. BMJ 2022 Mar 9;376:o533.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.
The antiseptic methenamine hippurate (MH) is known to sterilize urine and has been suggested to be of use in preventing urinary tract infections (UTIs), but firm evidence has so far been lacking. Now researchers led by clinicians and scientists from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, have provided the ALTAR trial (Alternative to Prophylactic Antibiotics for the Treatment of Recurrent UTIs in Women).
Daily low-dose antibiotics as recommended by current guidelines for prophylactic treatment of recurrent UTI have been linked to antibiotic resistance. Using MH as an alternative could play an important role in helping to tackle the global problem of increasing antibiotic resistance, the team said.
Study details
They recruited 240 women aged 18 or over with recurrent UTIs requiring prophylactic treatment from eight secondary care urology and urogynecology centers in the United Kingdom from June 2016 to June 2018. Women were randomized to receive MH or daily low-dose antibiotics for 12 months, with follow up for a further 6 months beyond that.
Before trial entry the women had experienced an average of more than six UTI episodes per year. During the 12-month treatment period, in the modified intention-to-treat population, there were 90 symptomatic, antibiotic-treated UTI episodes reported over 101 person-years of follow-up in the antibiotic group, and 141 episodes over 102 person-years in the MH group.
This yielded a UTI rate of 0.89 episodes per person-year in the antibiotic group, compared with 1.38 in the MH group, an absolute difference of 0.49 episodes per person-year. In the 6-month posttreatment follow-up period, the UTI incidence rate was 1.19 episodes per person-year in the antibiotic prophylaxis group versus 1.72 in the MH group, an absolute difference of 0.53.
Before the trial, a patient and public involvement group had predefined the noninferiority margin as one episode of UTI per person-year. The small difference between the two groups was less than this, confirming noninferiority of MH to antibiotic prophylaxis in this setting. This finding was consistent across the modified intention-to-treat, strict intention-to-treat, per protocol, and modified per protocol (post hoc) analyses.
Thus the ALTAR results showed that MH was no worse than antibiotics at preventing UTIs, and MH was also associated with reduced antibiotic consumption.
The vast majority of participants were over 90% adherent with the allocated treatment. Patient satisfaction was generally high and rates of adverse events and adverse reactions generally low, and both were comparable between treatment groups. Adverse reactions were reported by 34/142 (24%) in the antibiotic group and 35/127 (28%) in the MH group, and most reactions were mild. In the antibiotic group there were two serious adverse reactions (severe abdominal pain and raised alanine transaminase), whereas six participants in the MH group reported an episode of febrile UTI and four were admitted to hospital because of UTI.
Substantial global health care problem
At least 50% and up to 80% of all women have at least one acute UTI in their lifetime, most often uncomplicated acute cystitis. About a quarter of them go on to suffer recurrent infection, defined as three or more repeat infections in the past year, or two infections in the preceding 6 months. Frequent recurrences thus represent “a substantial global health care problem,” the authors say.
Guidelines from the United Kingdom, Europe, and the United States acknowledge the need for preventive strategies and strongly recommend the use of daily, low-dose antibiotics as standard prophylactic treatment. However, the United Kingdom’s antimicrobial resistance strategy recommends a “strong focus on infection prevention,” and aims to reduce antimicrobial use in humans by 15% before 2024.
“To achieve that, exploration of nonantibiotic preventive treatments in common conditions such as UTI is essential,” the team said.
MH is one such nonantibiotic treatment. It is bactericidal and works by denaturing bacterial proteins and nucleic acids. Although previous Cochrane systematic reviews had concluded that it could be effective for preventing UTI, further large trials were needed.
“This trial adds to the evidence base for the use of MH for prophylactic treatment in adult women with recurrent UTI. Although the MH group had a 55% higher rate of UTI episodes than the antibiotics group, the absolute difference was just 0.49 UTI episodes per year, which has limited clinical consequence,” the team concluded.
Results could ‘support a change in practice’
In older patients, particularly, the risks of long-term antibiotic prophylaxis might outweigh the benefits, and the authors said that their results “could support a change in practice in terms of preventive treatments for recurrent UTI and provide patients and clinicians with a credible alternative to daily antibiotics, giving them the confidence to pursue strategies that avoid long-term antibiotic use.”
They acknowledged limitations of the study, including that treatment allocation was not masked, crossover between arms was allowed, and differences in antibiotics prescribed may have affected the results. In addition, data regarding long-term safety of MH are scarce.
However, they said that the trial accurately represented the broad range of women with recurrent UTI, and that its results “might encourage patients and clinicians to consider MH as a first line treatment for UTI prevention in women.”
In a linked editorial, scientists from the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare at Bond University in Queensland, Australia, commented: “Although the results need cautious interpretation, they align with others, and this new research increases the confidence with which MH can be offered as an option to women needing prophylaxis against recurrent urinary tract infection.”
References
Harding C et al. Alternative to prophylactic antibiotics for the treatment of recurrent urinary tract infections in women: multicentre, open label, randomised, noninferiority trial. BMJ 2022 Mar 9;376:e068229.
Hoffmann TC et al. Methenamine hippurate for recurrent urinary tract infections. BMJ 2022 Mar 9;376:o533.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.
The antiseptic methenamine hippurate (MH) is known to sterilize urine and has been suggested to be of use in preventing urinary tract infections (UTIs), but firm evidence has so far been lacking. Now researchers led by clinicians and scientists from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, have provided the ALTAR trial (Alternative to Prophylactic Antibiotics for the Treatment of Recurrent UTIs in Women).
Daily low-dose antibiotics as recommended by current guidelines for prophylactic treatment of recurrent UTI have been linked to antibiotic resistance. Using MH as an alternative could play an important role in helping to tackle the global problem of increasing antibiotic resistance, the team said.
Study details
They recruited 240 women aged 18 or over with recurrent UTIs requiring prophylactic treatment from eight secondary care urology and urogynecology centers in the United Kingdom from June 2016 to June 2018. Women were randomized to receive MH or daily low-dose antibiotics for 12 months, with follow up for a further 6 months beyond that.
Before trial entry the women had experienced an average of more than six UTI episodes per year. During the 12-month treatment period, in the modified intention-to-treat population, there were 90 symptomatic, antibiotic-treated UTI episodes reported over 101 person-years of follow-up in the antibiotic group, and 141 episodes over 102 person-years in the MH group.
This yielded a UTI rate of 0.89 episodes per person-year in the antibiotic group, compared with 1.38 in the MH group, an absolute difference of 0.49 episodes per person-year. In the 6-month posttreatment follow-up period, the UTI incidence rate was 1.19 episodes per person-year in the antibiotic prophylaxis group versus 1.72 in the MH group, an absolute difference of 0.53.
Before the trial, a patient and public involvement group had predefined the noninferiority margin as one episode of UTI per person-year. The small difference between the two groups was less than this, confirming noninferiority of MH to antibiotic prophylaxis in this setting. This finding was consistent across the modified intention-to-treat, strict intention-to-treat, per protocol, and modified per protocol (post hoc) analyses.
Thus the ALTAR results showed that MH was no worse than antibiotics at preventing UTIs, and MH was also associated with reduced antibiotic consumption.
The vast majority of participants were over 90% adherent with the allocated treatment. Patient satisfaction was generally high and rates of adverse events and adverse reactions generally low, and both were comparable between treatment groups. Adverse reactions were reported by 34/142 (24%) in the antibiotic group and 35/127 (28%) in the MH group, and most reactions were mild. In the antibiotic group there were two serious adverse reactions (severe abdominal pain and raised alanine transaminase), whereas six participants in the MH group reported an episode of febrile UTI and four were admitted to hospital because of UTI.
Substantial global health care problem
At least 50% and up to 80% of all women have at least one acute UTI in their lifetime, most often uncomplicated acute cystitis. About a quarter of them go on to suffer recurrent infection, defined as three or more repeat infections in the past year, or two infections in the preceding 6 months. Frequent recurrences thus represent “a substantial global health care problem,” the authors say.
Guidelines from the United Kingdom, Europe, and the United States acknowledge the need for preventive strategies and strongly recommend the use of daily, low-dose antibiotics as standard prophylactic treatment. However, the United Kingdom’s antimicrobial resistance strategy recommends a “strong focus on infection prevention,” and aims to reduce antimicrobial use in humans by 15% before 2024.
“To achieve that, exploration of nonantibiotic preventive treatments in common conditions such as UTI is essential,” the team said.
MH is one such nonantibiotic treatment. It is bactericidal and works by denaturing bacterial proteins and nucleic acids. Although previous Cochrane systematic reviews had concluded that it could be effective for preventing UTI, further large trials were needed.
“This trial adds to the evidence base for the use of MH for prophylactic treatment in adult women with recurrent UTI. Although the MH group had a 55% higher rate of UTI episodes than the antibiotics group, the absolute difference was just 0.49 UTI episodes per year, which has limited clinical consequence,” the team concluded.
Results could ‘support a change in practice’
In older patients, particularly, the risks of long-term antibiotic prophylaxis might outweigh the benefits, and the authors said that their results “could support a change in practice in terms of preventive treatments for recurrent UTI and provide patients and clinicians with a credible alternative to daily antibiotics, giving them the confidence to pursue strategies that avoid long-term antibiotic use.”
They acknowledged limitations of the study, including that treatment allocation was not masked, crossover between arms was allowed, and differences in antibiotics prescribed may have affected the results. In addition, data regarding long-term safety of MH are scarce.
However, they said that the trial accurately represented the broad range of women with recurrent UTI, and that its results “might encourage patients and clinicians to consider MH as a first line treatment for UTI prevention in women.”
In a linked editorial, scientists from the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare at Bond University in Queensland, Australia, commented: “Although the results need cautious interpretation, they align with others, and this new research increases the confidence with which MH can be offered as an option to women needing prophylaxis against recurrent urinary tract infection.”
References
Harding C et al. Alternative to prophylactic antibiotics for the treatment of recurrent urinary tract infections in women: multicentre, open label, randomised, noninferiority trial. BMJ 2022 Mar 9;376:e068229.
Hoffmann TC et al. Methenamine hippurate for recurrent urinary tract infections. BMJ 2022 Mar 9;376:o533.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.
‘Baby-friendly’ steps help women meet prenatal breastfeeding goals
A first-ever study of the effect of evidence-based maternity care practices on prenatal breastfeeding intentions in women from low-income U.S. households shows that the use of “baby-friendly steps” during birth hospitalization made it possible for almost half to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month.
Analyses of national data from a longitudinal study of 1,080 women enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) revealed that 47% were able to meet their prenatal intention to breastfeed without formula or other milk for at least 30 days.
The odds of meeting prenatal breastfeeding intentions more than quadrupled when babies received only breast milk (risk ratio, 4.4; 95% confidence interval, 3.4-5.7), the study showed. Breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth was also associated with greater likelihood of breastfeeding success (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6).
The study, led by Heather C. Hamner, PhD, MS, MPH, of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, , Atlanta, was reported online in Pediatrics.
“This study confirms the relationship between experiencing maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding and meeting one’s breastfeeding intentions, and adds evidence specifically among low-income women, who are known to be at higher risk of not breastfeeding,” the study authors wrote.
Women from low-income households often face additional barriers to meeting their breastfeeding goals, including lack of access to professional lactation services, Dr. Hamner said in an interview. “We want physicians to know how important maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding are to helping all women achieve their breastfeeding goals. Physicians can be champions for implementation of evidence-based maternity care practices in the hospitals and practices in which they work.”
Dr. Hamner emphasized that physicians need to discuss the importance of breastfeeding with patients and their families, brief them on what to expect in the maternity care setting, and ensure women are connected to lactation resources. The American Academy of Pediatrics is working to increase physician capacity to support breastfeeding through the Physician Engagement and Training Focused on Breastfeeding project.
For the study, Dr. Hamner and colleagues analyzed data from the longitudinal WIC Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Study-2 (ITFPS-2), which assessed the impact of 6 steps from a 10-step maternity care protocol known as The Ten Steps To Successful Breastfeeding. These steps are part of the worldwide Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI), which has been shown to improve rates of breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity.
After adjusting for sociodemographic and other factors, the study authors estimated risk ratios for associations between each of six maternity care practices assessed in ITFPS-2 and the success of women who reported an intention to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month. The six steps included initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth (step 4), showing moms how to breastfeed and maintain lactation (step 5), giving no food or drink other than breast milk unless medically indicated (step 6), rooming-in (step 7), breastfeeding on demand (step 8), and giving no pacifiers (step 9).
The analyses showed that only steps 4 and 6 – initiating breastfeeding at birth and giving only breast milk – remained significantly associated with meeting breastfeeding intentions. The results also revealed a dose-response relationship between the number of baby steps experienced during birth hospitalization and the likelihood of meeting breastfeeding goals, a finding in keeping with previous studies. In women who experienced all six steps, for example, 76% were breastfeeding exclusively at 1 month, compared with 16% of those who experienced zero to two steps.
Although the dose-response relationship did not appear to differ significantly by race or ethnicity, it was driven primarily by a hospital policy of providing infant formula or other supplementation, the study authors found. Notably, 44% of women reported that their infant had been fed something other than breast milk while in the hospital, and about 60% said they stopped breastfeeding earlier than intended.
“This finding reiterates the importance of limiting in-hospital formula or other supplementation of breastfed infants to only those with medical necessity,” Dr. Hamner and colleagues said.
Despite improvements in maternity care practices that promote breastfeeding, including an increase in the number of births occurring in U.S. hospitals with a baby-friendly designation, many women continue to experience significant barriers to breastfeeding, the investigators pointed out. Currently, there are 592 baby-friendly hospitals in the United States, representing 28.29% of annual births.
“I think more hospitals becoming baby friendly would really help,” Mary Franklin, DNP, CNM, assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. More needs to be done to support women during birth hospitalization and after they return home, so they can continue to breastfeed for “longer than the initial 6 weeks,” added Dr. Franklin, who is also director of the nurse midwifery and women’s health NP program.
The AAP recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months followed by complementary food introduction and continued breastfeeding through 12 months or beyond.
Like Dr. Hamner, Dr. Franklin emphasized that physicians have an important role to play in the initiation, duration, and exclusivity of breastfeeding. This includes promoting enrichment of the pregnancy experience with prenatal education and increased support from health care providers and peers. At delivery, obstetricians can delay cord clamping to facilitate early breastfeeding. They can also support the elimination of the central nursery in hospitals so that mother and baby stay together from birth. In addition, prescriptions can be written for breast pumps, which are covered by Medicaid.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Hamner and coauthors disclosed having no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Franklin also disclosed having no financial conflicts of interest.
A first-ever study of the effect of evidence-based maternity care practices on prenatal breastfeeding intentions in women from low-income U.S. households shows that the use of “baby-friendly steps” during birth hospitalization made it possible for almost half to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month.
Analyses of national data from a longitudinal study of 1,080 women enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) revealed that 47% were able to meet their prenatal intention to breastfeed without formula or other milk for at least 30 days.
The odds of meeting prenatal breastfeeding intentions more than quadrupled when babies received only breast milk (risk ratio, 4.4; 95% confidence interval, 3.4-5.7), the study showed. Breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth was also associated with greater likelihood of breastfeeding success (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6).
The study, led by Heather C. Hamner, PhD, MS, MPH, of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, , Atlanta, was reported online in Pediatrics.
“This study confirms the relationship between experiencing maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding and meeting one’s breastfeeding intentions, and adds evidence specifically among low-income women, who are known to be at higher risk of not breastfeeding,” the study authors wrote.
Women from low-income households often face additional barriers to meeting their breastfeeding goals, including lack of access to professional lactation services, Dr. Hamner said in an interview. “We want physicians to know how important maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding are to helping all women achieve their breastfeeding goals. Physicians can be champions for implementation of evidence-based maternity care practices in the hospitals and practices in which they work.”
Dr. Hamner emphasized that physicians need to discuss the importance of breastfeeding with patients and their families, brief them on what to expect in the maternity care setting, and ensure women are connected to lactation resources. The American Academy of Pediatrics is working to increase physician capacity to support breastfeeding through the Physician Engagement and Training Focused on Breastfeeding project.
For the study, Dr. Hamner and colleagues analyzed data from the longitudinal WIC Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Study-2 (ITFPS-2), which assessed the impact of 6 steps from a 10-step maternity care protocol known as The Ten Steps To Successful Breastfeeding. These steps are part of the worldwide Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI), which has been shown to improve rates of breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity.
After adjusting for sociodemographic and other factors, the study authors estimated risk ratios for associations between each of six maternity care practices assessed in ITFPS-2 and the success of women who reported an intention to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month. The six steps included initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth (step 4), showing moms how to breastfeed and maintain lactation (step 5), giving no food or drink other than breast milk unless medically indicated (step 6), rooming-in (step 7), breastfeeding on demand (step 8), and giving no pacifiers (step 9).
The analyses showed that only steps 4 and 6 – initiating breastfeeding at birth and giving only breast milk – remained significantly associated with meeting breastfeeding intentions. The results also revealed a dose-response relationship between the number of baby steps experienced during birth hospitalization and the likelihood of meeting breastfeeding goals, a finding in keeping with previous studies. In women who experienced all six steps, for example, 76% were breastfeeding exclusively at 1 month, compared with 16% of those who experienced zero to two steps.
Although the dose-response relationship did not appear to differ significantly by race or ethnicity, it was driven primarily by a hospital policy of providing infant formula or other supplementation, the study authors found. Notably, 44% of women reported that their infant had been fed something other than breast milk while in the hospital, and about 60% said they stopped breastfeeding earlier than intended.
“This finding reiterates the importance of limiting in-hospital formula or other supplementation of breastfed infants to only those with medical necessity,” Dr. Hamner and colleagues said.
Despite improvements in maternity care practices that promote breastfeeding, including an increase in the number of births occurring in U.S. hospitals with a baby-friendly designation, many women continue to experience significant barriers to breastfeeding, the investigators pointed out. Currently, there are 592 baby-friendly hospitals in the United States, representing 28.29% of annual births.
“I think more hospitals becoming baby friendly would really help,” Mary Franklin, DNP, CNM, assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. More needs to be done to support women during birth hospitalization and after they return home, so they can continue to breastfeed for “longer than the initial 6 weeks,” added Dr. Franklin, who is also director of the nurse midwifery and women’s health NP program.
The AAP recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months followed by complementary food introduction and continued breastfeeding through 12 months or beyond.
Like Dr. Hamner, Dr. Franklin emphasized that physicians have an important role to play in the initiation, duration, and exclusivity of breastfeeding. This includes promoting enrichment of the pregnancy experience with prenatal education and increased support from health care providers and peers. At delivery, obstetricians can delay cord clamping to facilitate early breastfeeding. They can also support the elimination of the central nursery in hospitals so that mother and baby stay together from birth. In addition, prescriptions can be written for breast pumps, which are covered by Medicaid.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Hamner and coauthors disclosed having no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Franklin also disclosed having no financial conflicts of interest.
A first-ever study of the effect of evidence-based maternity care practices on prenatal breastfeeding intentions in women from low-income U.S. households shows that the use of “baby-friendly steps” during birth hospitalization made it possible for almost half to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month.
Analyses of national data from a longitudinal study of 1,080 women enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) revealed that 47% were able to meet their prenatal intention to breastfeed without formula or other milk for at least 30 days.
The odds of meeting prenatal breastfeeding intentions more than quadrupled when babies received only breast milk (risk ratio, 4.4; 95% confidence interval, 3.4-5.7), the study showed. Breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth was also associated with greater likelihood of breastfeeding success (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6).
The study, led by Heather C. Hamner, PhD, MS, MPH, of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, , Atlanta, was reported online in Pediatrics.
“This study confirms the relationship between experiencing maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding and meeting one’s breastfeeding intentions, and adds evidence specifically among low-income women, who are known to be at higher risk of not breastfeeding,” the study authors wrote.
Women from low-income households often face additional barriers to meeting their breastfeeding goals, including lack of access to professional lactation services, Dr. Hamner said in an interview. “We want physicians to know how important maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding are to helping all women achieve their breastfeeding goals. Physicians can be champions for implementation of evidence-based maternity care practices in the hospitals and practices in which they work.”
Dr. Hamner emphasized that physicians need to discuss the importance of breastfeeding with patients and their families, brief them on what to expect in the maternity care setting, and ensure women are connected to lactation resources. The American Academy of Pediatrics is working to increase physician capacity to support breastfeeding through the Physician Engagement and Training Focused on Breastfeeding project.
For the study, Dr. Hamner and colleagues analyzed data from the longitudinal WIC Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Study-2 (ITFPS-2), which assessed the impact of 6 steps from a 10-step maternity care protocol known as The Ten Steps To Successful Breastfeeding. These steps are part of the worldwide Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI), which has been shown to improve rates of breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity.
After adjusting for sociodemographic and other factors, the study authors estimated risk ratios for associations between each of six maternity care practices assessed in ITFPS-2 and the success of women who reported an intention to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month. The six steps included initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth (step 4), showing moms how to breastfeed and maintain lactation (step 5), giving no food or drink other than breast milk unless medically indicated (step 6), rooming-in (step 7), breastfeeding on demand (step 8), and giving no pacifiers (step 9).
The analyses showed that only steps 4 and 6 – initiating breastfeeding at birth and giving only breast milk – remained significantly associated with meeting breastfeeding intentions. The results also revealed a dose-response relationship between the number of baby steps experienced during birth hospitalization and the likelihood of meeting breastfeeding goals, a finding in keeping with previous studies. In women who experienced all six steps, for example, 76% were breastfeeding exclusively at 1 month, compared with 16% of those who experienced zero to two steps.
Although the dose-response relationship did not appear to differ significantly by race or ethnicity, it was driven primarily by a hospital policy of providing infant formula or other supplementation, the study authors found. Notably, 44% of women reported that their infant had been fed something other than breast milk while in the hospital, and about 60% said they stopped breastfeeding earlier than intended.
“This finding reiterates the importance of limiting in-hospital formula or other supplementation of breastfed infants to only those with medical necessity,” Dr. Hamner and colleagues said.
Despite improvements in maternity care practices that promote breastfeeding, including an increase in the number of births occurring in U.S. hospitals with a baby-friendly designation, many women continue to experience significant barriers to breastfeeding, the investigators pointed out. Currently, there are 592 baby-friendly hospitals in the United States, representing 28.29% of annual births.
“I think more hospitals becoming baby friendly would really help,” Mary Franklin, DNP, CNM, assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. More needs to be done to support women during birth hospitalization and after they return home, so they can continue to breastfeed for “longer than the initial 6 weeks,” added Dr. Franklin, who is also director of the nurse midwifery and women’s health NP program.
The AAP recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months followed by complementary food introduction and continued breastfeeding through 12 months or beyond.
Like Dr. Hamner, Dr. Franklin emphasized that physicians have an important role to play in the initiation, duration, and exclusivity of breastfeeding. This includes promoting enrichment of the pregnancy experience with prenatal education and increased support from health care providers and peers. At delivery, obstetricians can delay cord clamping to facilitate early breastfeeding. They can also support the elimination of the central nursery in hospitals so that mother and baby stay together from birth. In addition, prescriptions can be written for breast pumps, which are covered by Medicaid.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Hamner and coauthors disclosed having no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Franklin also disclosed having no financial conflicts of interest.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Does adjunctive oxytocin infusion during balloon cervical ripening improve labor induction?
Evidence summary
Time to delivery is shortened with combined therapy
Two recent high-quality meta-analyses investigated the effect of adding oxytocin to transcervical Foley balloon placement for cervical dilation. A network meta-analysis, including 30 RCTs (with 6465 pregnant patients), examined the efficacy of multiple combinations of cervical ripening methods.1 A subset of 7 trials (n = 1313) compared oxytocin infusion with transcervical Foley (inflated to 30-60 mL) to Foley alone. Patients were at > 24 weeks’ gestation with a live fetus and undergoing elective or medical induction of labor; exclusion criteria were standard contraindications to vaginal delivery.
Compared to Foley alone, Foley plus oxytocin reduced both the time to the primary outcome of vaginal delivery (mean duration [MD] = –4.2 h; 95% CI, –1.9 to –6.5) and the time to overall (vaginal and cesarean) delivery (MD = –3.1 h; 95% CI, –1.5 to –4.6). There were no differences in rates of cesarean section, chorioamnionitis, epidural use, or neonatal intensive care unit admission. This analysis did not stratify by parity.1
In a standard meta-analysis, researchers identified 6 RCTs (N = 1133) comparing transcervical Foley balloon and oxytocin to Foley balloon alone for cervical ripening in pregnant patients at > 23 weeks’ gestation (1 trial was limited to patients at > 37 weeks’ gestation).2 Foley balloons were inflated with 30 to 60 mL saline, and oxytocin infusions started at 1 to 2 mU/min and were titrated up to 10 to 40 mU/min. Balloon time was usually 12 hours, but not always stated.
The authors found no statistically significant difference in cesarean rates (the primary outcome) between Foley plus oxytocin vs Foley alone (relative risk [RR] = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76-1.1). Overall delivery within 12 hours was more likely with combined therapy (RR of remaining pregnant = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34-0.63), but delivery at 24 hours was not (RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-1.05). However, in a sub-analysis by parity, nulliparous women who received combined therapy had higher overall delivery rates in 24 hours than did multiparous women (RR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97).2
Adding oxytocin may allow shorter transcervical balloon times
One recent RCT (N = 177) compared labor induction with oxytocin and a single trans-cervical balloon (Cook catheter with only the intrauterine balloon inflated) removed at either 6 or 12 hours.3 Patients were pregnant women (mean age, 31 years) with a term singleton vertex pregnancy, a Bishop score ≤ 6, and no contraindications to vaginal delivery. All patients received a balloon inflated to 60 mL with an oxytocin infusion (2-30 mU/min). The intervention group had the balloon removed at 6 hours, while the control group had it removed at 12 hours.
The mean Bishop score changed by 6 points in each group. Time to overall delivery (the primary outcome) was significantly shorter with 6 hours of balloon time than with 12 hours (19.2 vs 24.3 h; P < .04). Overall delivery within 24 hours was also significantly more likely in the 6-hour group (67.4% vs 47.4%; P < .01), although vaginal delivery in 24 hours did not change (74% vs 59%; P = .07). No differences were seen in cesarean delivery rates or maternal or neonatal morbidity rates.
A look at fixed-dose vs titrated oxytocin
Another RCT (N = 116) examined the effectiveness of cervical ripening using a Foley balloon plus either fixed-dose or titrated low-dose oxytocin.4 Patients (mean age, 26 years) had singleton pregnancies at ≥ 37 weeks’ gestation with a Bishop score < 6 and presented for induction of labor. Foley balloons were inflated to 30 mL, and patients received either a fixed oxytocin infusion of 2 mU/min or a titrated infusion starting at 1 mU/min, increasing by 2 mU/min every 30 minutes to a maximum of 20 mU/min.
Continue to: Thre was no statistically...
There was no statistically significant difference in median time from Foley placement to overall delivery (the primary outcome) between the fixed low-dose and incremental low-dose groups in either nulliparous women (24 vs 19 h; P = .18) or multiparous women (16 vs 12 h; P = .68). The authors acknowledged the study may have been underpowered to detect a true difference.
Recommendations from others
A 2009 Practice Bulletin from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended the Foley catheter as a reasonable and effective alternative to prostaglandins for cervical ripening and the induction of labor (based on good-quality evidence).5 The guideline stated that Foley catheter placement before oxytocin induction reduced both the duration of labor and risk of cesarean delivery, but that the use of oxytocin along with a Foley catheter did not appear to shorten the time to delivery.
Editor’s takeaway
High-quality evidence shows us that the addition of oxytocin to balloon cervical ripening shortens the time to delivery. This newer evidence may prompt an update to the 2009 ACOG statement.
1. Orr L, Reisinger-Kindle K, Roy A, et al. Combination of Foley and prostaglandins versus Foley and oxytocin for cervical ripening: a network meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223:743.e1-743.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.05.007
2. Gallagher LT, Gardner B, Rahman M, et al. Cervical ripening using Foley balloon with or without oxytocin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Perinatol. 2019;36:406-421. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1668577
3. Lassey SC, Haber HR, Kanbergs A, et al. Six vs twelve hours of single balloon catheter placement with oxytocin administration for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021:S0002-9378(21)00185-X. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.03.021
4. Fitzpatrick CB, Grotegut CA, Bishop TS, et al. Cervical ripening with Foley balloon plus fixed versus incremental low-dose oxytocin: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25:1006-1010. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2011.607522
5. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2 pt 1):386-397. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5
Evidence summary
Time to delivery is shortened with combined therapy
Two recent high-quality meta-analyses investigated the effect of adding oxytocin to transcervical Foley balloon placement for cervical dilation. A network meta-analysis, including 30 RCTs (with 6465 pregnant patients), examined the efficacy of multiple combinations of cervical ripening methods.1 A subset of 7 trials (n = 1313) compared oxytocin infusion with transcervical Foley (inflated to 30-60 mL) to Foley alone. Patients were at > 24 weeks’ gestation with a live fetus and undergoing elective or medical induction of labor; exclusion criteria were standard contraindications to vaginal delivery.
Compared to Foley alone, Foley plus oxytocin reduced both the time to the primary outcome of vaginal delivery (mean duration [MD] = –4.2 h; 95% CI, –1.9 to –6.5) and the time to overall (vaginal and cesarean) delivery (MD = –3.1 h; 95% CI, –1.5 to –4.6). There were no differences in rates of cesarean section, chorioamnionitis, epidural use, or neonatal intensive care unit admission. This analysis did not stratify by parity.1
In a standard meta-analysis, researchers identified 6 RCTs (N = 1133) comparing transcervical Foley balloon and oxytocin to Foley balloon alone for cervical ripening in pregnant patients at > 23 weeks’ gestation (1 trial was limited to patients at > 37 weeks’ gestation).2 Foley balloons were inflated with 30 to 60 mL saline, and oxytocin infusions started at 1 to 2 mU/min and were titrated up to 10 to 40 mU/min. Balloon time was usually 12 hours, but not always stated.
The authors found no statistically significant difference in cesarean rates (the primary outcome) between Foley plus oxytocin vs Foley alone (relative risk [RR] = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76-1.1). Overall delivery within 12 hours was more likely with combined therapy (RR of remaining pregnant = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34-0.63), but delivery at 24 hours was not (RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-1.05). However, in a sub-analysis by parity, nulliparous women who received combined therapy had higher overall delivery rates in 24 hours than did multiparous women (RR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97).2
Adding oxytocin may allow shorter transcervical balloon times
One recent RCT (N = 177) compared labor induction with oxytocin and a single trans-cervical balloon (Cook catheter with only the intrauterine balloon inflated) removed at either 6 or 12 hours.3 Patients were pregnant women (mean age, 31 years) with a term singleton vertex pregnancy, a Bishop score ≤ 6, and no contraindications to vaginal delivery. All patients received a balloon inflated to 60 mL with an oxytocin infusion (2-30 mU/min). The intervention group had the balloon removed at 6 hours, while the control group had it removed at 12 hours.
The mean Bishop score changed by 6 points in each group. Time to overall delivery (the primary outcome) was significantly shorter with 6 hours of balloon time than with 12 hours (19.2 vs 24.3 h; P < .04). Overall delivery within 24 hours was also significantly more likely in the 6-hour group (67.4% vs 47.4%; P < .01), although vaginal delivery in 24 hours did not change (74% vs 59%; P = .07). No differences were seen in cesarean delivery rates or maternal or neonatal morbidity rates.
A look at fixed-dose vs titrated oxytocin
Another RCT (N = 116) examined the effectiveness of cervical ripening using a Foley balloon plus either fixed-dose or titrated low-dose oxytocin.4 Patients (mean age, 26 years) had singleton pregnancies at ≥ 37 weeks’ gestation with a Bishop score < 6 and presented for induction of labor. Foley balloons were inflated to 30 mL, and patients received either a fixed oxytocin infusion of 2 mU/min or a titrated infusion starting at 1 mU/min, increasing by 2 mU/min every 30 minutes to a maximum of 20 mU/min.
Continue to: Thre was no statistically...
There was no statistically significant difference in median time from Foley placement to overall delivery (the primary outcome) between the fixed low-dose and incremental low-dose groups in either nulliparous women (24 vs 19 h; P = .18) or multiparous women (16 vs 12 h; P = .68). The authors acknowledged the study may have been underpowered to detect a true difference.
Recommendations from others
A 2009 Practice Bulletin from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended the Foley catheter as a reasonable and effective alternative to prostaglandins for cervical ripening and the induction of labor (based on good-quality evidence).5 The guideline stated that Foley catheter placement before oxytocin induction reduced both the duration of labor and risk of cesarean delivery, but that the use of oxytocin along with a Foley catheter did not appear to shorten the time to delivery.
Editor’s takeaway
High-quality evidence shows us that the addition of oxytocin to balloon cervical ripening shortens the time to delivery. This newer evidence may prompt an update to the 2009 ACOG statement.
Evidence summary
Time to delivery is shortened with combined therapy
Two recent high-quality meta-analyses investigated the effect of adding oxytocin to transcervical Foley balloon placement for cervical dilation. A network meta-analysis, including 30 RCTs (with 6465 pregnant patients), examined the efficacy of multiple combinations of cervical ripening methods.1 A subset of 7 trials (n = 1313) compared oxytocin infusion with transcervical Foley (inflated to 30-60 mL) to Foley alone. Patients were at > 24 weeks’ gestation with a live fetus and undergoing elective or medical induction of labor; exclusion criteria were standard contraindications to vaginal delivery.
Compared to Foley alone, Foley plus oxytocin reduced both the time to the primary outcome of vaginal delivery (mean duration [MD] = –4.2 h; 95% CI, –1.9 to –6.5) and the time to overall (vaginal and cesarean) delivery (MD = –3.1 h; 95% CI, –1.5 to –4.6). There were no differences in rates of cesarean section, chorioamnionitis, epidural use, or neonatal intensive care unit admission. This analysis did not stratify by parity.1
In a standard meta-analysis, researchers identified 6 RCTs (N = 1133) comparing transcervical Foley balloon and oxytocin to Foley balloon alone for cervical ripening in pregnant patients at > 23 weeks’ gestation (1 trial was limited to patients at > 37 weeks’ gestation).2 Foley balloons were inflated with 30 to 60 mL saline, and oxytocin infusions started at 1 to 2 mU/min and were titrated up to 10 to 40 mU/min. Balloon time was usually 12 hours, but not always stated.
The authors found no statistically significant difference in cesarean rates (the primary outcome) between Foley plus oxytocin vs Foley alone (relative risk [RR] = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76-1.1). Overall delivery within 12 hours was more likely with combined therapy (RR of remaining pregnant = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34-0.63), but delivery at 24 hours was not (RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-1.05). However, in a sub-analysis by parity, nulliparous women who received combined therapy had higher overall delivery rates in 24 hours than did multiparous women (RR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97).2
Adding oxytocin may allow shorter transcervical balloon times
One recent RCT (N = 177) compared labor induction with oxytocin and a single trans-cervical balloon (Cook catheter with only the intrauterine balloon inflated) removed at either 6 or 12 hours.3 Patients were pregnant women (mean age, 31 years) with a term singleton vertex pregnancy, a Bishop score ≤ 6, and no contraindications to vaginal delivery. All patients received a balloon inflated to 60 mL with an oxytocin infusion (2-30 mU/min). The intervention group had the balloon removed at 6 hours, while the control group had it removed at 12 hours.
The mean Bishop score changed by 6 points in each group. Time to overall delivery (the primary outcome) was significantly shorter with 6 hours of balloon time than with 12 hours (19.2 vs 24.3 h; P < .04). Overall delivery within 24 hours was also significantly more likely in the 6-hour group (67.4% vs 47.4%; P < .01), although vaginal delivery in 24 hours did not change (74% vs 59%; P = .07). No differences were seen in cesarean delivery rates or maternal or neonatal morbidity rates.
A look at fixed-dose vs titrated oxytocin
Another RCT (N = 116) examined the effectiveness of cervical ripening using a Foley balloon plus either fixed-dose or titrated low-dose oxytocin.4 Patients (mean age, 26 years) had singleton pregnancies at ≥ 37 weeks’ gestation with a Bishop score < 6 and presented for induction of labor. Foley balloons were inflated to 30 mL, and patients received either a fixed oxytocin infusion of 2 mU/min or a titrated infusion starting at 1 mU/min, increasing by 2 mU/min every 30 minutes to a maximum of 20 mU/min.
Continue to: Thre was no statistically...
There was no statistically significant difference in median time from Foley placement to overall delivery (the primary outcome) between the fixed low-dose and incremental low-dose groups in either nulliparous women (24 vs 19 h; P = .18) or multiparous women (16 vs 12 h; P = .68). The authors acknowledged the study may have been underpowered to detect a true difference.
Recommendations from others
A 2009 Practice Bulletin from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended the Foley catheter as a reasonable and effective alternative to prostaglandins for cervical ripening and the induction of labor (based on good-quality evidence).5 The guideline stated that Foley catheter placement before oxytocin induction reduced both the duration of labor and risk of cesarean delivery, but that the use of oxytocin along with a Foley catheter did not appear to shorten the time to delivery.
Editor’s takeaway
High-quality evidence shows us that the addition of oxytocin to balloon cervical ripening shortens the time to delivery. This newer evidence may prompt an update to the 2009 ACOG statement.
1. Orr L, Reisinger-Kindle K, Roy A, et al. Combination of Foley and prostaglandins versus Foley and oxytocin for cervical ripening: a network meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223:743.e1-743.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.05.007
2. Gallagher LT, Gardner B, Rahman M, et al. Cervical ripening using Foley balloon with or without oxytocin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Perinatol. 2019;36:406-421. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1668577
3. Lassey SC, Haber HR, Kanbergs A, et al. Six vs twelve hours of single balloon catheter placement with oxytocin administration for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021:S0002-9378(21)00185-X. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.03.021
4. Fitzpatrick CB, Grotegut CA, Bishop TS, et al. Cervical ripening with Foley balloon plus fixed versus incremental low-dose oxytocin: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25:1006-1010. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2011.607522
5. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2 pt 1):386-397. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5
1. Orr L, Reisinger-Kindle K, Roy A, et al. Combination of Foley and prostaglandins versus Foley and oxytocin for cervical ripening: a network meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223:743.e1-743.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.05.007
2. Gallagher LT, Gardner B, Rahman M, et al. Cervical ripening using Foley balloon with or without oxytocin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Perinatol. 2019;36:406-421. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1668577
3. Lassey SC, Haber HR, Kanbergs A, et al. Six vs twelve hours of single balloon catheter placement with oxytocin administration for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021:S0002-9378(21)00185-X. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.03.021
4. Fitzpatrick CB, Grotegut CA, Bishop TS, et al. Cervical ripening with Foley balloon plus fixed versus incremental low-dose oxytocin: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25:1006-1010. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2011.607522
5. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2 pt 1):386-397. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5
EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER:
YES. Compared to the use of a transcervical balloon alone, combined cervical ripening with a balloon catheter and oxytocin shortens the time to overall delivery by 3 hours and the time to vaginal delivery by 4 hours, without altering the rate of cesarean section (strength of recommendation [SOR]: A, network meta-analysis). The effect is more pronounced in nulliparous patients (SOR: A, meta-analysis).
When combined therapy is used, 6 hours of balloon time may result in faster delivery than 12 hours (SOR: B, single randomized controlled trial [RCT]). Fixed-dose oxytocin and titrated oxytocin appear to have similar effect when combined with a cervical ripening balloon (SOR: C, underpowered RCT).
