Ob.Gyn. News

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

Checking on the well-being of mothers is one of the important acknowledged aspects of primary pediatric care. “How are you doing?” directed to the child’s mother has long been considered an appropriate question. The AAP recommends several checks in the Bright Futures Guidelines, including conducting several formal screens for depression and asking about “getting time alone with your partner” as well as other supports.

But I have recently become aware of new data that changes my ideas about what we pediatricians need to be doing as part of our care for children and their families, especially in the first year: Considering the risks to the mother of dying.

Maternal mortality increased by 26.6% from 2000 to 2014 across the United States such that it is higher now than it was for our own mothers. The U.S. now has the highest rates of maternal mortality among high-income nations, especially for Black, American Indian, or Alaska Native women, those of lower socioeconomic status, and those under 18 or over 35 years old.

You may be thinking, well, that is an issue for ob.gyns. Indeed, the most common reasons for maternal death are cardiovascular: hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders, deep vein thrombosis, and stroke, all usually occurring at or in the first week after birth. You may have heard about sudden unexpected heart failure from postpartum cardiomyopathy, although rare (1 in 1,000-4,000), presenting from 1 month pre birth to 5 months post delivery, which is when we may be the main clinicians seeing the mother, not the ob.gyns. This can be easily missed since it presents with shortness of breath and decreased exercise tolerance, fatigue, palpitations, and/or leg swelling. Serious eclampsia may have only symptoms of headache or abdominal pain. All of these may easily be mistaken for lingering pregnancy symptoms. But in higher income countries, such as the U.S., 38% of maternal deaths occur from 8 to 42 days after birth, the period for fatal infections as well as cardiac complications. Elevated risk for all of these causes of mortality include Black race, obesity, tobacco use, congenital heart disease, and being older than 40.

As pediatric providers, we may see mothers along with their infants as newborns in the hospital, at day 2, at 2 weeks, or even at 1-2 months after birth, potentially before their one recommended postnatal obstetric visit at 3-8 weeks. Asking the mother how she is feeling at those times should not just be a social nicety but rather an additional check for serious postnatal complications.
 

Additional concerns

But wait, it gets worse.

Did you know that the leading cause of maternal death from pregnancy up to 1 year after a birth is homicide?

Maternal perinatal mortality figures have not usually included “perinatal-associated” deaths, a maternal death attributable to a condition that is unaffected by the pregnancy and occurring within 1 year of delivery (that I will cite as perinatal henceforth). While half of maternal deaths occur during pregnancy, another half occur in the year following. There were 3.62 homicides per 100,000 live births among females who were pregnant or within 1 year postpartum, 16% more than for similarly aged nonpregnant and nonpostpartum women (3.12 deaths/100,000 population, P < .05). Homicides made up 8.4% of reported perinatal maternal deaths from all causes, with a rate of 1.7 per 100,000 live births, twice the rate of any one of the other leading causes noted above. Black women had seven times the risk of perinatal homicide as that of White women. Females under 20, many of them our own pediatric patients, had a greater than six times higher risk and those aged 20-24 had a 65% higher risk of pregnancy-associated homicide across race and ethnic groups. Homicide is most likely before 21 weeks of pregnancy, decreases in the third trimester, but increases again after birth. Two-thirds of pregnancy-associated homicide deaths occurred in the home, with the perpetrator a current or prior partner (> 59%, with 98% being male), 45%-50% were associated with reported intimate partner violence (IPV), and the most common method was a firearm (55%). Often the same women had histories of substance abuse, serious mental illness, and/or prior IPV, all risk factors for pregnancy-associated deaths, including from homicide.

Homicide? “Not the mothers in my practice,” you may say, but, if not homicide, drug-related deaths (3.68 per 100,000 person-years) and suicide (1.42 per 100,000 person-years) together comprise 18% of all maternal deaths. Non-Hispanic White women, Medicaid-insured women, and women residing in smaller cities were especially likely to die from drugs or suicide. More than half (54.3%) of perinatal suicides involve intimate partner conflict, which increases the risk ninefold. Perinatal mood disorders, affecting up to 15% of pregnant and postpartum U.S. women, is also a risk factor in substance abuse, opioid overdose death, and suicide.

And substance use has gotten more dangerous with the increase in fentanyl lacing. Pregnancy-associated deaths (4%-10% of deaths) involving opioids more than doubled between 2007 and 2016, and, although the rates are higher for Black women, the increase has been greater for non-Hispanic White women. Two-thirds of those deaths occur between 6 and 12 months postpartum, on our watch. Although many women decrease substance use during pregnancy, they may fall back into substance use (rates increase 4 times by 7-12 months after delivery) and not continue to receive treatment. Although pharmacotherapy (e.g., methadone, buprenorphine treatment) is the current standard of care for opioid use disorder (OUD) during pregnancy, nearly half receiving treatment in publicly funded centers are not receiving these medications and others may lose insurance or access to pregnancy-related treatment programs after delivery, increasing risk of relapse. Stigma, and punitive or discriminatory approaches to pregnant women with OUD (e.g., jail, removal of children) can dissuade them from participating in treatment, increasing overdose risk.

It is important to note that in more than half of the 41 deaths from violent trauma in one study (including 22 homicides), obstetrical providers knew of or suspected IPV. Also, the vast majority (74%) of those who died by drugs or suicide had made one or more emergency department or hospital visit between their delivery and death, and 39% had made three or more visits. Without knowing if anything was done in those cases, we also know that, in addition to thorough, compassionate providers, there is sometimes segmentation of responsibility, insensitivity, discrimination, racism, stigma, inequity, lack of resources, lack of access, lack of payment mechanisms, legal issues for immigrants, time constraints, and other systemic deficits that may hinder effective care for these and subsequent women.
 

Awareness and action

What should we, who are primary care pediatric providers, do about these threats to the mothers and pregnant young women we care for? Clearly, their children, our main patients, would be terribly and permanently hurt by harm coming to their mothers – the extreme adverse childhood experiences and social determinants of health to which we are already committed.

I hope this article will help alert pediatric providers to what is being published, mainly as women’s health and public health issues.

First, we need awareness of the physical symptoms that may come up in our interactions with pregnant and postpartum women so that we can educate them and expedite any indicated emergency care.

Next, we need to expand our routine screening of mothers and pregnant women from just the most impactful social determinants of health (including depression, substance use, and IPV) to include anxiety, past suicide attempts and current suicidal ideation, and the presence of firearms, early and repeatedly in the first year of the child’s life. Adults and teens are more likely to disclose risk for sensitive issues through questionnaires than through interviews, perhaps even more so when the identified patient is their child rather than themselves. Any screen can have false negatives, so asking directly when risk is suspected is important. The reason for screening could be framed as caring for the caregiver who is the most important person for the child. It could be accompanied by acknowledging that pregnancy and the first year of life can be difficult for mothers and their partners and that we want to support them and connect them to resources, if needed. When substance use disorder is acknowledged, we should prescribe and teach about Narcan for overdose. When there is IPV, we should discuss firearm removal/locking as well as counseling on a personal safety plan.

Working as part of an on-site or virtual team that includes professionals who know about community resources and can coordinate care is essential, in addition to educating about 211 for services and 988 for suicide risk.

Finally, we can advocate and vote for programs, people, and laws that support and safeguard women and families, address substance use, and reduce access to firearms.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Checking on the well-being of mothers is one of the important acknowledged aspects of primary pediatric care. “How are you doing?” directed to the child’s mother has long been considered an appropriate question. The AAP recommends several checks in the Bright Futures Guidelines, including conducting several formal screens for depression and asking about “getting time alone with your partner” as well as other supports.

But I have recently become aware of new data that changes my ideas about what we pediatricians need to be doing as part of our care for children and their families, especially in the first year: Considering the risks to the mother of dying.

Maternal mortality increased by 26.6% from 2000 to 2014 across the United States such that it is higher now than it was for our own mothers. The U.S. now has the highest rates of maternal mortality among high-income nations, especially for Black, American Indian, or Alaska Native women, those of lower socioeconomic status, and those under 18 or over 35 years old.

You may be thinking, well, that is an issue for ob.gyns. Indeed, the most common reasons for maternal death are cardiovascular: hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders, deep vein thrombosis, and stroke, all usually occurring at or in the first week after birth. You may have heard about sudden unexpected heart failure from postpartum cardiomyopathy, although rare (1 in 1,000-4,000), presenting from 1 month pre birth to 5 months post delivery, which is when we may be the main clinicians seeing the mother, not the ob.gyns. This can be easily missed since it presents with shortness of breath and decreased exercise tolerance, fatigue, palpitations, and/or leg swelling. Serious eclampsia may have only symptoms of headache or abdominal pain. All of these may easily be mistaken for lingering pregnancy symptoms. But in higher income countries, such as the U.S., 38% of maternal deaths occur from 8 to 42 days after birth, the period for fatal infections as well as cardiac complications. Elevated risk for all of these causes of mortality include Black race, obesity, tobacco use, congenital heart disease, and being older than 40.

As pediatric providers, we may see mothers along with their infants as newborns in the hospital, at day 2, at 2 weeks, or even at 1-2 months after birth, potentially before their one recommended postnatal obstetric visit at 3-8 weeks. Asking the mother how she is feeling at those times should not just be a social nicety but rather an additional check for serious postnatal complications.
 

Additional concerns

But wait, it gets worse.

Did you know that the leading cause of maternal death from pregnancy up to 1 year after a birth is homicide?

Maternal perinatal mortality figures have not usually included “perinatal-associated” deaths, a maternal death attributable to a condition that is unaffected by the pregnancy and occurring within 1 year of delivery (that I will cite as perinatal henceforth). While half of maternal deaths occur during pregnancy, another half occur in the year following. There were 3.62 homicides per 100,000 live births among females who were pregnant or within 1 year postpartum, 16% more than for similarly aged nonpregnant and nonpostpartum women (3.12 deaths/100,000 population, P < .05). Homicides made up 8.4% of reported perinatal maternal deaths from all causes, with a rate of 1.7 per 100,000 live births, twice the rate of any one of the other leading causes noted above. Black women had seven times the risk of perinatal homicide as that of White women. Females under 20, many of them our own pediatric patients, had a greater than six times higher risk and those aged 20-24 had a 65% higher risk of pregnancy-associated homicide across race and ethnic groups. Homicide is most likely before 21 weeks of pregnancy, decreases in the third trimester, but increases again after birth. Two-thirds of pregnancy-associated homicide deaths occurred in the home, with the perpetrator a current or prior partner (> 59%, with 98% being male), 45%-50% were associated with reported intimate partner violence (IPV), and the most common method was a firearm (55%). Often the same women had histories of substance abuse, serious mental illness, and/or prior IPV, all risk factors for pregnancy-associated deaths, including from homicide.

Homicide? “Not the mothers in my practice,” you may say, but, if not homicide, drug-related deaths (3.68 per 100,000 person-years) and suicide (1.42 per 100,000 person-years) together comprise 18% of all maternal deaths. Non-Hispanic White women, Medicaid-insured women, and women residing in smaller cities were especially likely to die from drugs or suicide. More than half (54.3%) of perinatal suicides involve intimate partner conflict, which increases the risk ninefold. Perinatal mood disorders, affecting up to 15% of pregnant and postpartum U.S. women, is also a risk factor in substance abuse, opioid overdose death, and suicide.

And substance use has gotten more dangerous with the increase in fentanyl lacing. Pregnancy-associated deaths (4%-10% of deaths) involving opioids more than doubled between 2007 and 2016, and, although the rates are higher for Black women, the increase has been greater for non-Hispanic White women. Two-thirds of those deaths occur between 6 and 12 months postpartum, on our watch. Although many women decrease substance use during pregnancy, they may fall back into substance use (rates increase 4 times by 7-12 months after delivery) and not continue to receive treatment. Although pharmacotherapy (e.g., methadone, buprenorphine treatment) is the current standard of care for opioid use disorder (OUD) during pregnancy, nearly half receiving treatment in publicly funded centers are not receiving these medications and others may lose insurance or access to pregnancy-related treatment programs after delivery, increasing risk of relapse. Stigma, and punitive or discriminatory approaches to pregnant women with OUD (e.g., jail, removal of children) can dissuade them from participating in treatment, increasing overdose risk.

It is important to note that in more than half of the 41 deaths from violent trauma in one study (including 22 homicides), obstetrical providers knew of or suspected IPV. Also, the vast majority (74%) of those who died by drugs or suicide had made one or more emergency department or hospital visit between their delivery and death, and 39% had made three or more visits. Without knowing if anything was done in those cases, we also know that, in addition to thorough, compassionate providers, there is sometimes segmentation of responsibility, insensitivity, discrimination, racism, stigma, inequity, lack of resources, lack of access, lack of payment mechanisms, legal issues for immigrants, time constraints, and other systemic deficits that may hinder effective care for these and subsequent women.
 

Awareness and action

What should we, who are primary care pediatric providers, do about these threats to the mothers and pregnant young women we care for? Clearly, their children, our main patients, would be terribly and permanently hurt by harm coming to their mothers – the extreme adverse childhood experiences and social determinants of health to which we are already committed.

I hope this article will help alert pediatric providers to what is being published, mainly as women’s health and public health issues.

First, we need awareness of the physical symptoms that may come up in our interactions with pregnant and postpartum women so that we can educate them and expedite any indicated emergency care.

Next, we need to expand our routine screening of mothers and pregnant women from just the most impactful social determinants of health (including depression, substance use, and IPV) to include anxiety, past suicide attempts and current suicidal ideation, and the presence of firearms, early and repeatedly in the first year of the child’s life. Adults and teens are more likely to disclose risk for sensitive issues through questionnaires than through interviews, perhaps even more so when the identified patient is their child rather than themselves. Any screen can have false negatives, so asking directly when risk is suspected is important. The reason for screening could be framed as caring for the caregiver who is the most important person for the child. It could be accompanied by acknowledging that pregnancy and the first year of life can be difficult for mothers and their partners and that we want to support them and connect them to resources, if needed. When substance use disorder is acknowledged, we should prescribe and teach about Narcan for overdose. When there is IPV, we should discuss firearm removal/locking as well as counseling on a personal safety plan.

Working as part of an on-site or virtual team that includes professionals who know about community resources and can coordinate care is essential, in addition to educating about 211 for services and 988 for suicide risk.

Finally, we can advocate and vote for programs, people, and laws that support and safeguard women and families, address substance use, and reduce access to firearms.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Checking on the well-being of mothers is one of the important acknowledged aspects of primary pediatric care. “How are you doing?” directed to the child’s mother has long been considered an appropriate question. The AAP recommends several checks in the Bright Futures Guidelines, including conducting several formal screens for depression and asking about “getting time alone with your partner” as well as other supports.

But I have recently become aware of new data that changes my ideas about what we pediatricians need to be doing as part of our care for children and their families, especially in the first year: Considering the risks to the mother of dying.

Maternal mortality increased by 26.6% from 2000 to 2014 across the United States such that it is higher now than it was for our own mothers. The U.S. now has the highest rates of maternal mortality among high-income nations, especially for Black, American Indian, or Alaska Native women, those of lower socioeconomic status, and those under 18 or over 35 years old.

You may be thinking, well, that is an issue for ob.gyns. Indeed, the most common reasons for maternal death are cardiovascular: hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders, deep vein thrombosis, and stroke, all usually occurring at or in the first week after birth. You may have heard about sudden unexpected heart failure from postpartum cardiomyopathy, although rare (1 in 1,000-4,000), presenting from 1 month pre birth to 5 months post delivery, which is when we may be the main clinicians seeing the mother, not the ob.gyns. This can be easily missed since it presents with shortness of breath and decreased exercise tolerance, fatigue, palpitations, and/or leg swelling. Serious eclampsia may have only symptoms of headache or abdominal pain. All of these may easily be mistaken for lingering pregnancy symptoms. But in higher income countries, such as the U.S., 38% of maternal deaths occur from 8 to 42 days after birth, the period for fatal infections as well as cardiac complications. Elevated risk for all of these causes of mortality include Black race, obesity, tobacco use, congenital heart disease, and being older than 40.

As pediatric providers, we may see mothers along with their infants as newborns in the hospital, at day 2, at 2 weeks, or even at 1-2 months after birth, potentially before their one recommended postnatal obstetric visit at 3-8 weeks. Asking the mother how she is feeling at those times should not just be a social nicety but rather an additional check for serious postnatal complications.
 

Additional concerns

But wait, it gets worse.

Did you know that the leading cause of maternal death from pregnancy up to 1 year after a birth is homicide?

Maternal perinatal mortality figures have not usually included “perinatal-associated” deaths, a maternal death attributable to a condition that is unaffected by the pregnancy and occurring within 1 year of delivery (that I will cite as perinatal henceforth). While half of maternal deaths occur during pregnancy, another half occur in the year following. There were 3.62 homicides per 100,000 live births among females who were pregnant or within 1 year postpartum, 16% more than for similarly aged nonpregnant and nonpostpartum women (3.12 deaths/100,000 population, P < .05). Homicides made up 8.4% of reported perinatal maternal deaths from all causes, with a rate of 1.7 per 100,000 live births, twice the rate of any one of the other leading causes noted above. Black women had seven times the risk of perinatal homicide as that of White women. Females under 20, many of them our own pediatric patients, had a greater than six times higher risk and those aged 20-24 had a 65% higher risk of pregnancy-associated homicide across race and ethnic groups. Homicide is most likely before 21 weeks of pregnancy, decreases in the third trimester, but increases again after birth. Two-thirds of pregnancy-associated homicide deaths occurred in the home, with the perpetrator a current or prior partner (> 59%, with 98% being male), 45%-50% were associated with reported intimate partner violence (IPV), and the most common method was a firearm (55%). Often the same women had histories of substance abuse, serious mental illness, and/or prior IPV, all risk factors for pregnancy-associated deaths, including from homicide.

Homicide? “Not the mothers in my practice,” you may say, but, if not homicide, drug-related deaths (3.68 per 100,000 person-years) and suicide (1.42 per 100,000 person-years) together comprise 18% of all maternal deaths. Non-Hispanic White women, Medicaid-insured women, and women residing in smaller cities were especially likely to die from drugs or suicide. More than half (54.3%) of perinatal suicides involve intimate partner conflict, which increases the risk ninefold. Perinatal mood disorders, affecting up to 15% of pregnant and postpartum U.S. women, is also a risk factor in substance abuse, opioid overdose death, and suicide.

And substance use has gotten more dangerous with the increase in fentanyl lacing. Pregnancy-associated deaths (4%-10% of deaths) involving opioids more than doubled between 2007 and 2016, and, although the rates are higher for Black women, the increase has been greater for non-Hispanic White women. Two-thirds of those deaths occur between 6 and 12 months postpartum, on our watch. Although many women decrease substance use during pregnancy, they may fall back into substance use (rates increase 4 times by 7-12 months after delivery) and not continue to receive treatment. Although pharmacotherapy (e.g., methadone, buprenorphine treatment) is the current standard of care for opioid use disorder (OUD) during pregnancy, nearly half receiving treatment in publicly funded centers are not receiving these medications and others may lose insurance or access to pregnancy-related treatment programs after delivery, increasing risk of relapse. Stigma, and punitive or discriminatory approaches to pregnant women with OUD (e.g., jail, removal of children) can dissuade them from participating in treatment, increasing overdose risk.

It is important to note that in more than half of the 41 deaths from violent trauma in one study (including 22 homicides), obstetrical providers knew of or suspected IPV. Also, the vast majority (74%) of those who died by drugs or suicide had made one or more emergency department or hospital visit between their delivery and death, and 39% had made three or more visits. Without knowing if anything was done in those cases, we also know that, in addition to thorough, compassionate providers, there is sometimes segmentation of responsibility, insensitivity, discrimination, racism, stigma, inequity, lack of resources, lack of access, lack of payment mechanisms, legal issues for immigrants, time constraints, and other systemic deficits that may hinder effective care for these and subsequent women.
 

Awareness and action

What should we, who are primary care pediatric providers, do about these threats to the mothers and pregnant young women we care for? Clearly, their children, our main patients, would be terribly and permanently hurt by harm coming to their mothers – the extreme adverse childhood experiences and social determinants of health to which we are already committed.

I hope this article will help alert pediatric providers to what is being published, mainly as women’s health and public health issues.

First, we need awareness of the physical symptoms that may come up in our interactions with pregnant and postpartum women so that we can educate them and expedite any indicated emergency care.

Next, we need to expand our routine screening of mothers and pregnant women from just the most impactful social determinants of health (including depression, substance use, and IPV) to include anxiety, past suicide attempts and current suicidal ideation, and the presence of firearms, early and repeatedly in the first year of the child’s life. Adults and teens are more likely to disclose risk for sensitive issues through questionnaires than through interviews, perhaps even more so when the identified patient is their child rather than themselves. Any screen can have false negatives, so asking directly when risk is suspected is important. The reason for screening could be framed as caring for the caregiver who is the most important person for the child. It could be accompanied by acknowledging that pregnancy and the first year of life can be difficult for mothers and their partners and that we want to support them and connect them to resources, if needed. When substance use disorder is acknowledged, we should prescribe and teach about Narcan for overdose. When there is IPV, we should discuss firearm removal/locking as well as counseling on a personal safety plan.

Working as part of an on-site or virtual team that includes professionals who know about community resources and can coordinate care is essential, in addition to educating about 211 for services and 988 for suicide risk.

Finally, we can advocate and vote for programs, people, and laws that support and safeguard women and families, address substance use, and reduce access to firearms.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

VANCOUVER – The occurrence of a fracture predicts future fracture risk, but the increase in risk is the same no matter what the age of the patient, according to a new population-based study drawn from the Manitoba BMD Registry.

The work expands previous studies that focused mostly on fracture risk prediction after a first fracture among individuals aged 45-50 and older. Other limitations of prior studies include large age categories (such as “premenopausal”), reliance on self-reporting, and small sample sizes.

As a result, some guidelines recommend considering fracture history only for patients older than a certain age when assessing for future risk, such as with the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). The new study suggests a potential need to reconsider that stance.

“The [percentage] of increased risk from having had prevalent fractures in the past, no matter what your age, is about the same. I think that it’s really paradigm shifting because [when] most of us think [of] young people who fracture, we’re not thinking of osteoporosis or future fracture risk. We’re not saying, ‘Oh, I had a fracture when I was 25. When I’m 70, I should be thinking about osteoporosis.’ So, I think this study is quite eye-opening that way,” Carrie Ye, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview.

Participants of younger age who are referred for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) likely represent a population at increased risk of osteoporosis, according to Dr. Ye. “Maybe they have Crohn’s disease or maybe they’re on a bunch of steroids, and so a clinician has flagged them,” said Dr. Ye, who is an assistant professor and rheumatologist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

The researchers limited the analysis to nontraumatic fractures, but session moderator Nicholas Harvey, MD, PhD, wondered if a similar finding would occur with traumatic fractures. In an interview, he noted that researchers led by William Leslie, MD, at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, found that prior traumatic fracture also predicted future low bone-mineral density (BMD) and osteoporotic fracture. “I think that would have been one interesting question,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre at the University of Southampton, England.

Dr. Ye’s study included 88,696 individuals who underwent a first DXA scan between 1996 and 2018, which researchers then linked to provincial administrative health data collected between 1979 and 2018. The mean age at first DXA was 64.6 years, and 90.3% were women. Their mean body mass index was 27.4 kg/m². Current smokers made up 10.1% of the cohort, 5.5% had a history of prolonged glucocorticoid use, 3.1% had rheumatoid arthritis, and among 14.9% of patients, there was a secondary cause of osteoporosis. Over a median 25.1 years of observation prior to DXA, clinical fracture occurred in 23.8% of participants.

The mean age of the patients at the time of their first prior fracture was 57.7 years. Over a mean 9.0 years of follow-up, 14.6% of participants experienced a fracture of any kind, 14.0% had osteoporotic fractures, 10.6% had a major osteoporotic fracture (nonankle), and 3.5% had a hip fracture. Among persons aged 20-29 years to 80 years or older, the adjusted hazard ratios for future fractures were similar, ranging from 1.51 to 2.12 (P for trend = .120).

The results were similar when age groups were analyzed with regard to all fractures, osteoporotic fractures, major osteoporotic fractures, or hip fractures.

Going forward, Dr. Ye hopes to expand the research into childhood fractures. “They can break their bones pretty easily, especially as they’re going through growth spurts and things like that,” she said.

Asked what her advice to physicians would be, Dr. Ye responded: “Don’t ignore prior fractures, even if they occurred at an early age. I think if someone’s had a fracture, they bought themselves a fracture risk assessment, and that doesn’t mean necessarily a DXA scan. It means you go through their other risk factors: What medications are they on? Do they have a family history? Are they super low BMI? Look at other reasons why you should be worried about their bones, and if you should be worried about their bones, certainly [measure their] BMD and see what’s going on.”

Dr. Ye and Dr. Harvey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – The occurrence of a fracture predicts future fracture risk, but the increase in risk is the same no matter what the age of the patient, according to a new population-based study drawn from the Manitoba BMD Registry.

The work expands previous studies that focused mostly on fracture risk prediction after a first fracture among individuals aged 45-50 and older. Other limitations of prior studies include large age categories (such as “premenopausal”), reliance on self-reporting, and small sample sizes.

As a result, some guidelines recommend considering fracture history only for patients older than a certain age when assessing for future risk, such as with the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). The new study suggests a potential need to reconsider that stance.

“The [percentage] of increased risk from having had prevalent fractures in the past, no matter what your age, is about the same. I think that it’s really paradigm shifting because [when] most of us think [of] young people who fracture, we’re not thinking of osteoporosis or future fracture risk. We’re not saying, ‘Oh, I had a fracture when I was 25. When I’m 70, I should be thinking about osteoporosis.’ So, I think this study is quite eye-opening that way,” Carrie Ye, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview.

Participants of younger age who are referred for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) likely represent a population at increased risk of osteoporosis, according to Dr. Ye. “Maybe they have Crohn’s disease or maybe they’re on a bunch of steroids, and so a clinician has flagged them,” said Dr. Ye, who is an assistant professor and rheumatologist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

The researchers limited the analysis to nontraumatic fractures, but session moderator Nicholas Harvey, MD, PhD, wondered if a similar finding would occur with traumatic fractures. In an interview, he noted that researchers led by William Leslie, MD, at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, found that prior traumatic fracture also predicted future low bone-mineral density (BMD) and osteoporotic fracture. “I think that would have been one interesting question,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre at the University of Southampton, England.

Dr. Ye’s study included 88,696 individuals who underwent a first DXA scan between 1996 and 2018, which researchers then linked to provincial administrative health data collected between 1979 and 2018. The mean age at first DXA was 64.6 years, and 90.3% were women. Their mean body mass index was 27.4 kg/m². Current smokers made up 10.1% of the cohort, 5.5% had a history of prolonged glucocorticoid use, 3.1% had rheumatoid arthritis, and among 14.9% of patients, there was a secondary cause of osteoporosis. Over a median 25.1 years of observation prior to DXA, clinical fracture occurred in 23.8% of participants.

The mean age of the patients at the time of their first prior fracture was 57.7 years. Over a mean 9.0 years of follow-up, 14.6% of participants experienced a fracture of any kind, 14.0% had osteoporotic fractures, 10.6% had a major osteoporotic fracture (nonankle), and 3.5% had a hip fracture. Among persons aged 20-29 years to 80 years or older, the adjusted hazard ratios for future fractures were similar, ranging from 1.51 to 2.12 (P for trend = .120).

The results were similar when age groups were analyzed with regard to all fractures, osteoporotic fractures, major osteoporotic fractures, or hip fractures.

Going forward, Dr. Ye hopes to expand the research into childhood fractures. “They can break their bones pretty easily, especially as they’re going through growth spurts and things like that,” she said.

Asked what her advice to physicians would be, Dr. Ye responded: “Don’t ignore prior fractures, even if they occurred at an early age. I think if someone’s had a fracture, they bought themselves a fracture risk assessment, and that doesn’t mean necessarily a DXA scan. It means you go through their other risk factors: What medications are they on? Do they have a family history? Are they super low BMI? Look at other reasons why you should be worried about their bones, and if you should be worried about their bones, certainly [measure their] BMD and see what’s going on.”

Dr. Ye and Dr. Harvey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – The occurrence of a fracture predicts future fracture risk, but the increase in risk is the same no matter what the age of the patient, according to a new population-based study drawn from the Manitoba BMD Registry.

The work expands previous studies that focused mostly on fracture risk prediction after a first fracture among individuals aged 45-50 and older. Other limitations of prior studies include large age categories (such as “premenopausal”), reliance on self-reporting, and small sample sizes.

As a result, some guidelines recommend considering fracture history only for patients older than a certain age when assessing for future risk, such as with the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). The new study suggests a potential need to reconsider that stance.

“The [percentage] of increased risk from having had prevalent fractures in the past, no matter what your age, is about the same. I think that it’s really paradigm shifting because [when] most of us think [of] young people who fracture, we’re not thinking of osteoporosis or future fracture risk. We’re not saying, ‘Oh, I had a fracture when I was 25. When I’m 70, I should be thinking about osteoporosis.’ So, I think this study is quite eye-opening that way,” Carrie Ye, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview.

Participants of younger age who are referred for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) likely represent a population at increased risk of osteoporosis, according to Dr. Ye. “Maybe they have Crohn’s disease or maybe they’re on a bunch of steroids, and so a clinician has flagged them,” said Dr. Ye, who is an assistant professor and rheumatologist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

The researchers limited the analysis to nontraumatic fractures, but session moderator Nicholas Harvey, MD, PhD, wondered if a similar finding would occur with traumatic fractures. In an interview, he noted that researchers led by William Leslie, MD, at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, found that prior traumatic fracture also predicted future low bone-mineral density (BMD) and osteoporotic fracture. “I think that would have been one interesting question,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre at the University of Southampton, England.

Dr. Ye’s study included 88,696 individuals who underwent a first DXA scan between 1996 and 2018, which researchers then linked to provincial administrative health data collected between 1979 and 2018. The mean age at first DXA was 64.6 years, and 90.3% were women. Their mean body mass index was 27.4 kg/m². Current smokers made up 10.1% of the cohort, 5.5% had a history of prolonged glucocorticoid use, 3.1% had rheumatoid arthritis, and among 14.9% of patients, there was a secondary cause of osteoporosis. Over a median 25.1 years of observation prior to DXA, clinical fracture occurred in 23.8% of participants.

The mean age of the patients at the time of their first prior fracture was 57.7 years. Over a mean 9.0 years of follow-up, 14.6% of participants experienced a fracture of any kind, 14.0% had osteoporotic fractures, 10.6% had a major osteoporotic fracture (nonankle), and 3.5% had a hip fracture. Among persons aged 20-29 years to 80 years or older, the adjusted hazard ratios for future fractures were similar, ranging from 1.51 to 2.12 (P for trend = .120).

The results were similar when age groups were analyzed with regard to all fractures, osteoporotic fractures, major osteoporotic fractures, or hip fractures.

Going forward, Dr. Ye hopes to expand the research into childhood fractures. “They can break their bones pretty easily, especially as they’re going through growth spurts and things like that,” she said.

Asked what her advice to physicians would be, Dr. Ye responded: “Don’t ignore prior fractures, even if they occurred at an early age. I think if someone’s had a fracture, they bought themselves a fracture risk assessment, and that doesn’t mean necessarily a DXA scan. It means you go through their other risk factors: What medications are they on? Do they have a family history? Are they super low BMI? Look at other reasons why you should be worried about their bones, and if you should be worried about their bones, certainly [measure their] BMD and see what’s going on.”

Dr. Ye and Dr. Harvey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Look at this guy – NFL Chargers jersey and shorts with a RVCA hat on backward. And next to him, a woman wearing her spin-class-Lulu gear. There’s also a guy sporting a 2016 San Diego Rock ‘n Roll Marathon Tee. And that young woman is actually wearing slippers. A visitor from the 1950s would be thunderstruck to see such casual wear on people waiting to board a plane. Photos from that era show men buttoned up in white shirt and tie and women wearing Chanel with hats and white gloves. This dramatic transformation from formal to unfussy wear cuts through all social situations, including in my office. As a new doc out of residency, I used to wear a tie and shoes that could hold a shine. Now I wear jogger scrubs and sneakers. Rather than be offended by the lack of formality though, patients seem to appreciate it. Should they?

At first glance this seems to be a modern phenomenon. The reasons for casual wear today are manifold: about one-third of people work from home, Millennials are taking over with their TikTok values and general irreverence, COVID made us all fat and lazy. Heck, even the U.S. Senate briefly abolished the requirement to wear suits on the Senate floor. But getting dressed up was never to signal that you are elite or superior to others. It’s the opposite. To get dressed is a signal that you are serving others, a tradition that is as old as society.

Kaiser Permanente

Think of Downton Abbey as an example. The servants were always required to be smartly dressed when working, whereas members of the family could be dressed up or not. It’s clear who is serving whom. This tradition lives today in the hospitality industry. When you mosey into the lobby of a luxury hotel in your Rainbow sandals you can expect everyone who greets you will be in finery, signaling that they put in effort to serve you. You’ll find the same for all staff at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which is no coincidence.

Suits used to be standard in medicine. In the 19th century, physicians wore formal black-tie when seeing patients. Unlike hospitality however, we had good reason to eschew the tradition: germs. Once we figured out that our pus-stained ties and jackets were doing harm, we switched to wearing sanitized uniforms. Casual wear for doctors isn’t a modern phenomenon after all, then. For proof, compare Thomas Eakins painting “The Gross Clinic” (1875) with his later “The Agnew Clinic” (1889). In the former, Dr. Gross is portrayed in formal black wear, bloody hand and all. In the latter, Dr. Agnew is wearing white FIGS (or the 1890’s equivalent anyway). Similarly, nurses uniforms traditionally resembled kitchen servants, with criss-cross aprons and floor length skirts. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that nurses stopped wearing dresses and white caps.

photo of painting MiguelHermoso/CC-BY-SA-4.0

In the operating theater it’s obviously critical that we wear sanitized scrubs to mitigate the risk of infection. Originally white to signal cleanliness, scrubs were changed to blue-green because surgeons were blinded by the lights bouncing off the uniforms. (Green is also opposite red on the color wheel, supposedly enhancing the ability to distinguish shades of red).

But in outpatient medicine, the effect size for preventing infection by not wearing a tie or jacket is less obvious. In addition to protecting patients, it seems that wearing scrubs and donning On Cloud sneakers might also be a bit of push-back from us. Over time we’ve lost significant autonomy in our practice and lost a little respect from our patients. Payers tell us what to do. Patients question our expertise. Choosing what we wear is one of the few bits of medicine we still have agency. Pewter or pink, joggers or cargo pants, we get to choose.

The last time I flew British Airways everyone was in lounge wear, except the flight crew, of course. They were all smartly dressed. Recently British Airways rolled out updated, slightly more relaxed dress codes. Very modern, but I wonder if in a way we’re not all just a bit worse off.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

Look at this guy – NFL Chargers jersey and shorts with a RVCA hat on backward. And next to him, a woman wearing her spin-class-Lulu gear. There’s also a guy sporting a 2016 San Diego Rock ‘n Roll Marathon Tee. And that young woman is actually wearing slippers. A visitor from the 1950s would be thunderstruck to see such casual wear on people waiting to board a plane. Photos from that era show men buttoned up in white shirt and tie and women wearing Chanel with hats and white gloves. This dramatic transformation from formal to unfussy wear cuts through all social situations, including in my office. As a new doc out of residency, I used to wear a tie and shoes that could hold a shine. Now I wear jogger scrubs and sneakers. Rather than be offended by the lack of formality though, patients seem to appreciate it. Should they?

At first glance this seems to be a modern phenomenon. The reasons for casual wear today are manifold: about one-third of people work from home, Millennials are taking over with their TikTok values and general irreverence, COVID made us all fat and lazy. Heck, even the U.S. Senate briefly abolished the requirement to wear suits on the Senate floor. But getting dressed up was never to signal that you are elite or superior to others. It’s the opposite. To get dressed is a signal that you are serving others, a tradition that is as old as society.

Kaiser Permanente

Think of Downton Abbey as an example. The servants were always required to be smartly dressed when working, whereas members of the family could be dressed up or not. It’s clear who is serving whom. This tradition lives today in the hospitality industry. When you mosey into the lobby of a luxury hotel in your Rainbow sandals you can expect everyone who greets you will be in finery, signaling that they put in effort to serve you. You’ll find the same for all staff at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which is no coincidence.

Suits used to be standard in medicine. In the 19th century, physicians wore formal black-tie when seeing patients. Unlike hospitality however, we had good reason to eschew the tradition: germs. Once we figured out that our pus-stained ties and jackets were doing harm, we switched to wearing sanitized uniforms. Casual wear for doctors isn’t a modern phenomenon after all, then. For proof, compare Thomas Eakins painting “The Gross Clinic” (1875) with his later “The Agnew Clinic” (1889). In the former, Dr. Gross is portrayed in formal black wear, bloody hand and all. In the latter, Dr. Agnew is wearing white FIGS (or the 1890’s equivalent anyway). Similarly, nurses uniforms traditionally resembled kitchen servants, with criss-cross aprons and floor length skirts. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that nurses stopped wearing dresses and white caps.

photo of painting MiguelHermoso/CC-BY-SA-4.0

In the operating theater it’s obviously critical that we wear sanitized scrubs to mitigate the risk of infection. Originally white to signal cleanliness, scrubs were changed to blue-green because surgeons were blinded by the lights bouncing off the uniforms. (Green is also opposite red on the color wheel, supposedly enhancing the ability to distinguish shades of red).

But in outpatient medicine, the effect size for preventing infection by not wearing a tie or jacket is less obvious. In addition to protecting patients, it seems that wearing scrubs and donning On Cloud sneakers might also be a bit of push-back from us. Over time we’ve lost significant autonomy in our practice and lost a little respect from our patients. Payers tell us what to do. Patients question our expertise. Choosing what we wear is one of the few bits of medicine we still have agency. Pewter or pink, joggers or cargo pants, we get to choose.

The last time I flew British Airways everyone was in lounge wear, except the flight crew, of course. They were all smartly dressed. Recently British Airways rolled out updated, slightly more relaxed dress codes. Very modern, but I wonder if in a way we’re not all just a bit worse off.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

Look at this guy – NFL Chargers jersey and shorts with a RVCA hat on backward. And next to him, a woman wearing her spin-class-Lulu gear. There’s also a guy sporting a 2016 San Diego Rock ‘n Roll Marathon Tee. And that young woman is actually wearing slippers. A visitor from the 1950s would be thunderstruck to see such casual wear on people waiting to board a plane. Photos from that era show men buttoned up in white shirt and tie and women wearing Chanel with hats and white gloves. This dramatic transformation from formal to unfussy wear cuts through all social situations, including in my office. As a new doc out of residency, I used to wear a tie and shoes that could hold a shine. Now I wear jogger scrubs and sneakers. Rather than be offended by the lack of formality though, patients seem to appreciate it. Should they?

At first glance this seems to be a modern phenomenon. The reasons for casual wear today are manifold: about one-third of people work from home, Millennials are taking over with their TikTok values and general irreverence, COVID made us all fat and lazy. Heck, even the U.S. Senate briefly abolished the requirement to wear suits on the Senate floor. But getting dressed up was never to signal that you are elite or superior to others. It’s the opposite. To get dressed is a signal that you are serving others, a tradition that is as old as society.

Kaiser Permanente

Think of Downton Abbey as an example. The servants were always required to be smartly dressed when working, whereas members of the family could be dressed up or not. It’s clear who is serving whom. This tradition lives today in the hospitality industry. When you mosey into the lobby of a luxury hotel in your Rainbow sandals you can expect everyone who greets you will be in finery, signaling that they put in effort to serve you. You’ll find the same for all staff at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which is no coincidence.

Suits used to be standard in medicine. In the 19th century, physicians wore formal black-tie when seeing patients. Unlike hospitality however, we had good reason to eschew the tradition: germs. Once we figured out that our pus-stained ties and jackets were doing harm, we switched to wearing sanitized uniforms. Casual wear for doctors isn’t a modern phenomenon after all, then. For proof, compare Thomas Eakins painting “The Gross Clinic” (1875) with his later “The Agnew Clinic” (1889). In the former, Dr. Gross is portrayed in formal black wear, bloody hand and all. In the latter, Dr. Agnew is wearing white FIGS (or the 1890’s equivalent anyway). Similarly, nurses uniforms traditionally resembled kitchen servants, with criss-cross aprons and floor length skirts. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that nurses stopped wearing dresses and white caps.

photo of painting MiguelHermoso/CC-BY-SA-4.0

In the operating theater it’s obviously critical that we wear sanitized scrubs to mitigate the risk of infection. Originally white to signal cleanliness, scrubs were changed to blue-green because surgeons were blinded by the lights bouncing off the uniforms. (Green is also opposite red on the color wheel, supposedly enhancing the ability to distinguish shades of red).

But in outpatient medicine, the effect size for preventing infection by not wearing a tie or jacket is less obvious. In addition to protecting patients, it seems that wearing scrubs and donning On Cloud sneakers might also be a bit of push-back from us. Over time we’ve lost significant autonomy in our practice and lost a little respect from our patients. Payers tell us what to do. Patients question our expertise. Choosing what we wear is one of the few bits of medicine we still have agency. Pewter or pink, joggers or cargo pants, we get to choose.

The last time I flew British Airways everyone was in lounge wear, except the flight crew, of course. They were all smartly dressed. Recently British Airways rolled out updated, slightly more relaxed dress codes. Very modern, but I wonder if in a way we’re not all just a bit worse off.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

Lack of time for self-care and rest are particularly harmful to women’s health. Various speakers at the VII National Conference of the Onda Foundation, Italy’s National Observatory for Women and Gender’s Health, focused on this topic. The conference was dedicated to the social factors that determine health within the context of gender medicine.

In our society, housework and raising a family are responsibilities placed predominantly on the shoulders of women. These responsibilities contribute significantly to women’s daily workload. The most overburdened women are working mothers (according to ISTAT, Italy’s Office for National Statistics, 2019), who are forced to combine their professional responsibilities with family life, dedicating 8 hours and 20 minutes per day to paid and unpaid work overall, compared with the 7 hours and 29 minutes spent by working fathers. Working mothers between ages 25 and 44 years have on average 2 hours and 35 minutes of free time per day.
 

Stress and sleep deprivation

“Under these conditions, the risk of chronic stress is raised, and stress leads to depression. The rate of depression in the female population is double that of the male population,” said Claudio Mencacci, MD, chair of the Italian Society of Neuropsychopharmacology and the Onda Foundation. “What’s more, stress increases the risk of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, asthma, arthritis, and autoimmune diseases.”

The one thing that is especially damaging to physical and mental health is sleep deprivation, and working mothers get less sleep than do working fathers. “This is partially due to biological factors: hormonal changes that take place toward the end of adolescence in women during the premenstrual period are responsible for an increased rate of sleep disturbance and insomnia,” said Dr. Mencacci. “During pregnancy and the postpartum period, female sex hormones make sleep lighter, reducing time spent in the REM sleep stage. Then there’s the social aspect that plays a decisive role: by and large, it’s mothers who take care of the youngest children at night.”

According to a 2019 German study, during the first 6 years of life of the first child, a mother loses on average 44 minutes sleep per night, compared with the average time spent sleeping before pregnancy; a father loses 14 minutes.

“Another aspect to bear in mind is that, for cultural reasons, women tend to overlook the issue and not seek help, deeming sleep deprivation normal,” said Dr. Mencacci.
 

Caregivers at greatest risk

The negative effects of stress are evident in people continuously caring for a dependent older or disabled family member, so-called caregivers. This is, “A group predominantly made up of women aged between 45 and 55 years,” said Marina Petrini, PhD, of the Italian Health Institute’s Gender Medicine Center of Excellence. Dr. Petrini coordinated a study on stress and health in family caregivers.

“The results obtained reveal a high level of stress, especially among female caregivers, who are more exposed to the risk of severe symptoms of depression, physical disorders, especially those affecting the nervous and immune systems, and who tend to adopt irregular eating patterns and sedentary habits,” said Dr. Petrini.
 

Limited treatment access

Another study presented at the Onda Foundation’s conference, which shows just how much a lack of “me time” can damage your health, is the Access to Diagnostic Medicine and Treatment by Region: the Patient’s Perspective Survey, conducted by market research agency Elma Research on a sample of cancer patients requiring specialist treatment.

“Forty percent of them had to move to a different region from the one they live in to get the care they needed,” said Massimo Massagrande, CEO of Elma Research. “Of that group, 40% had to move to an area not neighboring their own. The impact of area of residence is heavy, in terms of money and logistics – so much so that a large proportion of patients interviewed were forced to turn their back on the best available treatments. For women responding to our survey, the biggest obstacle is the impossibility of reconciling the effects of a move or the prospective of a temporary transfer to another region with their responsibilities for looking after their family.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Lack of time for self-care and rest are particularly harmful to women’s health. Various speakers at the VII National Conference of the Onda Foundation, Italy’s National Observatory for Women and Gender’s Health, focused on this topic. The conference was dedicated to the social factors that determine health within the context of gender medicine.

In our society, housework and raising a family are responsibilities placed predominantly on the shoulders of women. These responsibilities contribute significantly to women’s daily workload. The most overburdened women are working mothers (according to ISTAT, Italy’s Office for National Statistics, 2019), who are forced to combine their professional responsibilities with family life, dedicating 8 hours and 20 minutes per day to paid and unpaid work overall, compared with the 7 hours and 29 minutes spent by working fathers. Working mothers between ages 25 and 44 years have on average 2 hours and 35 minutes of free time per day.
 

Stress and sleep deprivation

“Under these conditions, the risk of chronic stress is raised, and stress leads to depression. The rate of depression in the female population is double that of the male population,” said Claudio Mencacci, MD, chair of the Italian Society of Neuropsychopharmacology and the Onda Foundation. “What’s more, stress increases the risk of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, asthma, arthritis, and autoimmune diseases.”

The one thing that is especially damaging to physical and mental health is sleep deprivation, and working mothers get less sleep than do working fathers. “This is partially due to biological factors: hormonal changes that take place toward the end of adolescence in women during the premenstrual period are responsible for an increased rate of sleep disturbance and insomnia,” said Dr. Mencacci. “During pregnancy and the postpartum period, female sex hormones make sleep lighter, reducing time spent in the REM sleep stage. Then there’s the social aspect that plays a decisive role: by and large, it’s mothers who take care of the youngest children at night.”

According to a 2019 German study, during the first 6 years of life of the first child, a mother loses on average 44 minutes sleep per night, compared with the average time spent sleeping before pregnancy; a father loses 14 minutes.

“Another aspect to bear in mind is that, for cultural reasons, women tend to overlook the issue and not seek help, deeming sleep deprivation normal,” said Dr. Mencacci.
 

Caregivers at greatest risk

The negative effects of stress are evident in people continuously caring for a dependent older or disabled family member, so-called caregivers. This is, “A group predominantly made up of women aged between 45 and 55 years,” said Marina Petrini, PhD, of the Italian Health Institute’s Gender Medicine Center of Excellence. Dr. Petrini coordinated a study on stress and health in family caregivers.

“The results obtained reveal a high level of stress, especially among female caregivers, who are more exposed to the risk of severe symptoms of depression, physical disorders, especially those affecting the nervous and immune systems, and who tend to adopt irregular eating patterns and sedentary habits,” said Dr. Petrini.
 

Limited treatment access

Another study presented at the Onda Foundation’s conference, which shows just how much a lack of “me time” can damage your health, is the Access to Diagnostic Medicine and Treatment by Region: the Patient’s Perspective Survey, conducted by market research agency Elma Research on a sample of cancer patients requiring specialist treatment.

“Forty percent of them had to move to a different region from the one they live in to get the care they needed,” said Massimo Massagrande, CEO of Elma Research. “Of that group, 40% had to move to an area not neighboring their own. The impact of area of residence is heavy, in terms of money and logistics – so much so that a large proportion of patients interviewed were forced to turn their back on the best available treatments. For women responding to our survey, the biggest obstacle is the impossibility of reconciling the effects of a move or the prospective of a temporary transfer to another region with their responsibilities for looking after their family.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Lack of time for self-care and rest are particularly harmful to women’s health. Various speakers at the VII National Conference of the Onda Foundation, Italy’s National Observatory for Women and Gender’s Health, focused on this topic. The conference was dedicated to the social factors that determine health within the context of gender medicine.

In our society, housework and raising a family are responsibilities placed predominantly on the shoulders of women. These responsibilities contribute significantly to women’s daily workload. The most overburdened women are working mothers (according to ISTAT, Italy’s Office for National Statistics, 2019), who are forced to combine their professional responsibilities with family life, dedicating 8 hours and 20 minutes per day to paid and unpaid work overall, compared with the 7 hours and 29 minutes spent by working fathers. Working mothers between ages 25 and 44 years have on average 2 hours and 35 minutes of free time per day.
 

Stress and sleep deprivation

“Under these conditions, the risk of chronic stress is raised, and stress leads to depression. The rate of depression in the female population is double that of the male population,” said Claudio Mencacci, MD, chair of the Italian Society of Neuropsychopharmacology and the Onda Foundation. “What’s more, stress increases the risk of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, asthma, arthritis, and autoimmune diseases.”

The one thing that is especially damaging to physical and mental health is sleep deprivation, and working mothers get less sleep than do working fathers. “This is partially due to biological factors: hormonal changes that take place toward the end of adolescence in women during the premenstrual period are responsible for an increased rate of sleep disturbance and insomnia,” said Dr. Mencacci. “During pregnancy and the postpartum period, female sex hormones make sleep lighter, reducing time spent in the REM sleep stage. Then there’s the social aspect that plays a decisive role: by and large, it’s mothers who take care of the youngest children at night.”

According to a 2019 German study, during the first 6 years of life of the first child, a mother loses on average 44 minutes sleep per night, compared with the average time spent sleeping before pregnancy; a father loses 14 minutes.

“Another aspect to bear in mind is that, for cultural reasons, women tend to overlook the issue and not seek help, deeming sleep deprivation normal,” said Dr. Mencacci.
 

Caregivers at greatest risk

The negative effects of stress are evident in people continuously caring for a dependent older or disabled family member, so-called caregivers. This is, “A group predominantly made up of women aged between 45 and 55 years,” said Marina Petrini, PhD, of the Italian Health Institute’s Gender Medicine Center of Excellence. Dr. Petrini coordinated a study on stress and health in family caregivers.

“The results obtained reveal a high level of stress, especially among female caregivers, who are more exposed to the risk of severe symptoms of depression, physical disorders, especially those affecting the nervous and immune systems, and who tend to adopt irregular eating patterns and sedentary habits,” said Dr. Petrini.
 

Limited treatment access

Another study presented at the Onda Foundation’s conference, which shows just how much a lack of “me time” can damage your health, is the Access to Diagnostic Medicine and Treatment by Region: the Patient’s Perspective Survey, conducted by market research agency Elma Research on a sample of cancer patients requiring specialist treatment.

“Forty percent of them had to move to a different region from the one they live in to get the care they needed,” said Massimo Massagrande, CEO of Elma Research. “Of that group, 40% had to move to an area not neighboring their own. The impact of area of residence is heavy, in terms of money and logistics – so much so that a large proportion of patients interviewed were forced to turn their back on the best available treatments. For women responding to our survey, the biggest obstacle is the impossibility of reconciling the effects of a move or the prospective of a temporary transfer to another region with their responsibilities for looking after their family.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment of vasomotor symptoms with estetrol (E4) led to improvements in postmenopausal patients’ lipid profiles and blood glucose, according to findings of a phase 3 clinical trial presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

Participants taking estetrol experienced a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose, total cholesterol, LDL and lipoprotein as well as an increase in HDL cholesterol, according to the findings presented by Wolf Utian, MD, PhD, DSC, a professor emeritus of reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and medical director emeritus of the Menopause Society.

A separate poster at the conference from the same trial also reported significant improvements from estetrol in quality of life, including that related to vasomotor symptoms, and several psychosocial and sexual functioning areas.

Mayo Clinic

E4 is already available as combination oral contraception and is now being considered for treating vasomotor symptoms, explained Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, professor and chair of general internal of medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic Florida, who was not involved in the study.
 

Background on estetrol

E4 is a human fetal liver estrogen produced during pregnancy that’s synthesized from plants for pharmaceutical use, including as the oral contraceptive drospirenone, Dr. Utian told attendees. It’s classified as a native estrogen with selective tissue activity (NEST), he said.

“E4 is a completely different native estrogen with oral administration mimicking the benefits of transdermals and hence safe and effective,” Dr. Utian said in an interview. “It would be a significant new addition to the pharmaceutical armamentarium.”

Two phase 3 trials presented by Dr. Utian at the same conference last year found estetrol reduced the frequency and severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms, and a previous phase 2 trial finding vasomotor and genitourinary symptom benefits suggested it had potential benefits for lipids, carbohydrate metabolism, and bone turnover.

“In summary, E4 at a daily dose of 15 mg exhibited estrogenic effects in the vagina, leading to improved vaginal health and reduced signs of atrophy, emerging as a promising treatment option not only for vasomotor symptoms but also for other significant menopausal symptoms,” Dr. Utian said. “E4 could offer comprehensive relief for women experiencing a range of menopause-related discomforts.”

Dr. Utian also referenced a 2017 trial in which estetrol positively impacted lipid profiles, “lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and showing minimal influence on triglycerides,” he said. “Importantly, estetrol was associated with a significant decrease in osteocalcin levels in the higher dose groups, suggesting a potential preventive effect on bone loss,” he added. A recent review of the overall evidence on estetrol suggests its use is “promising,” Dr. Utian noted.
 

Current trial

His current randomized controlled phase 3 trial included postmenopausal women ages 40-65 from 151 sites in 14 countries in Europe, Latin America, and North America, and Russia. Among the 640 participants in the trial, 213 women randomly received 15 mg of estetrol, 213 women received 20 mg of estetrol, and 214 women received a placebo every day for 3 months. All women without hysterectomies also received 200 mg of progesterone once daily for two weeks after completing the estetrol treatment to protect the endometrium.

Researchers took blood samples from the participants at baseline and week 12 to assess total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, the total cholesterol/HDL ratio, triglycerides, lipoprotein A, fasting plasma glucose, insulin, and A1c.

Compared with women in the placebo group, women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg groups saw a statistically significant decrease in lipoprotein A and in the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL, and a statistically significant increase in HDL. Only the women in the 15 mg group saw a statistically significant decrease in LDL and increase in triglycerides; an increase in triglycerides in the 20 mg group did not reach statistical significance.

Statistically significant decreases in fasting plasma glucose and A1c also occurred in both treatment groups, but a decrease in insulin levels and in the homeostasis model-assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) seen in both treatment arms did not reach significance.

“While the mean changes after 12 weeks from baseline overall were small changes to the cholesterol and blood sugar profiles, they are clinically meaningful because it suggests that E4 does not have any adverse effects to these measures,” Dr. Shufelt said in an interview. “An advantage is that this gives us another hormone option for vasomotor symptoms since it is a native estrogen with selective tissue.”

It’s too early, however, to determine whether estetrol offers benefits in terms of its safety profile, compared with currently available therapies, Dr. Shufelt said.

”These findings of E4 are similar to how oral estradiol changes lipids, which finds an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and decreases plasma concentrations of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. an increase in HDL-C and triglycerides and decrease in LDL-C,” she said.
 

Poster findings also promising

For the findings reported in the poster, researchers assessed quality of life and the clinical meaningfulness of vasomotor symptoms’ reduction at baseline and 12 weeks using the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire and the Clinical Global Impression questionnaire, respectively. They also assessed women’s self-reported genitourinary symptoms, including vaginal dryness, pain during urination, vaginal pain and bleeding related to sex, and vaginal or vulvar irritation or itching. Most of these findings primarily confirmed previous positive effects from E4 in other trials.

Women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg estetrol groups reported a statistically significant improvement at 12 weeks, compared with placebo, in their total MENQOL score and in the vasomotor, psychosocial, and sexual functioning domain scores (P < .05). Those in the 20 mg group also had a statistically significant improvement in their physical domain score (P < .05).

Although numerical improvements in genitourinary symptoms occurred at 12 weeks across all three groups, the only statistically significant difference from baseline occurred in patients taking 15 mg of estetrol, who experienced a decrease in vaginal dryness and vaginal pain during sex (P = .0142 and P = .003, respectively).

The Clinical Global Impression questionnaire asked women at 4 and 12 weeks to rate on a seven-item Likert scale their response to this question: “Rate the total improvement, whether or not in your judgment it is due entirely to drug treatment. Compared to your condition at admission to the study, how much has it changed?” Responses of “very much improved” and “much improved” counted as a clinically meaningful difference.

Compared with 27.9% of patients in the placebo group, 52.9% of patients in the 15 mg group and 59.8% of patients in the 20 mg group rated the weekly frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms as “much improved” or “very much improved” at 4 weeks (P < .0001). At 12 weeks, those numbers rose to 47% in the placebo group, 73.3% in the 15 mg group and 77.8% in the 20 mg group (P < .0001).

The trial’s primary limitation at this point is having only a 12-week follow-up, Dr. Shufelt said, though a few other questions remain.

“Because the two phase 3 RCTs included hysterectomized and nonhysterectomized women, it was unclear how many women in the study had E4 alone versus E4 with progesterone, as that might play a role in both cholesterol and carbohydrate metabolism,” Dr. Shufelt said. “While baseline data was not presented, it would also be important to know baseline values for the women and confirm that none were on lipid-lowering medications.”

The research was funded by Estetra SRL, an affiliate of Mithra Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Utian is a member of the Mithra and Elektra Scientific Advisory Boards. Dr. Shufelt has no disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment of vasomotor symptoms with estetrol (E4) led to improvements in postmenopausal patients’ lipid profiles and blood glucose, according to findings of a phase 3 clinical trial presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

Participants taking estetrol experienced a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose, total cholesterol, LDL and lipoprotein as well as an increase in HDL cholesterol, according to the findings presented by Wolf Utian, MD, PhD, DSC, a professor emeritus of reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and medical director emeritus of the Menopause Society.

A separate poster at the conference from the same trial also reported significant improvements from estetrol in quality of life, including that related to vasomotor symptoms, and several psychosocial and sexual functioning areas.

Mayo Clinic

E4 is already available as combination oral contraception and is now being considered for treating vasomotor symptoms, explained Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, professor and chair of general internal of medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic Florida, who was not involved in the study.
 

Background on estetrol

E4 is a human fetal liver estrogen produced during pregnancy that’s synthesized from plants for pharmaceutical use, including as the oral contraceptive drospirenone, Dr. Utian told attendees. It’s classified as a native estrogen with selective tissue activity (NEST), he said.

“E4 is a completely different native estrogen with oral administration mimicking the benefits of transdermals and hence safe and effective,” Dr. Utian said in an interview. “It would be a significant new addition to the pharmaceutical armamentarium.”

Two phase 3 trials presented by Dr. Utian at the same conference last year found estetrol reduced the frequency and severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms, and a previous phase 2 trial finding vasomotor and genitourinary symptom benefits suggested it had potential benefits for lipids, carbohydrate metabolism, and bone turnover.

“In summary, E4 at a daily dose of 15 mg exhibited estrogenic effects in the vagina, leading to improved vaginal health and reduced signs of atrophy, emerging as a promising treatment option not only for vasomotor symptoms but also for other significant menopausal symptoms,” Dr. Utian said. “E4 could offer comprehensive relief for women experiencing a range of menopause-related discomforts.”

Dr. Utian also referenced a 2017 trial in which estetrol positively impacted lipid profiles, “lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and showing minimal influence on triglycerides,” he said. “Importantly, estetrol was associated with a significant decrease in osteocalcin levels in the higher dose groups, suggesting a potential preventive effect on bone loss,” he added. A recent review of the overall evidence on estetrol suggests its use is “promising,” Dr. Utian noted.
 

Current trial

His current randomized controlled phase 3 trial included postmenopausal women ages 40-65 from 151 sites in 14 countries in Europe, Latin America, and North America, and Russia. Among the 640 participants in the trial, 213 women randomly received 15 mg of estetrol, 213 women received 20 mg of estetrol, and 214 women received a placebo every day for 3 months. All women without hysterectomies also received 200 mg of progesterone once daily for two weeks after completing the estetrol treatment to protect the endometrium.

Researchers took blood samples from the participants at baseline and week 12 to assess total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, the total cholesterol/HDL ratio, triglycerides, lipoprotein A, fasting plasma glucose, insulin, and A1c.

Compared with women in the placebo group, women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg groups saw a statistically significant decrease in lipoprotein A and in the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL, and a statistically significant increase in HDL. Only the women in the 15 mg group saw a statistically significant decrease in LDL and increase in triglycerides; an increase in triglycerides in the 20 mg group did not reach statistical significance.

Statistically significant decreases in fasting plasma glucose and A1c also occurred in both treatment groups, but a decrease in insulin levels and in the homeostasis model-assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) seen in both treatment arms did not reach significance.

“While the mean changes after 12 weeks from baseline overall were small changes to the cholesterol and blood sugar profiles, they are clinically meaningful because it suggests that E4 does not have any adverse effects to these measures,” Dr. Shufelt said in an interview. “An advantage is that this gives us another hormone option for vasomotor symptoms since it is a native estrogen with selective tissue.”

It’s too early, however, to determine whether estetrol offers benefits in terms of its safety profile, compared with currently available therapies, Dr. Shufelt said.

”These findings of E4 are similar to how oral estradiol changes lipids, which finds an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and decreases plasma concentrations of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. an increase in HDL-C and triglycerides and decrease in LDL-C,” she said.
 

Poster findings also promising

For the findings reported in the poster, researchers assessed quality of life and the clinical meaningfulness of vasomotor symptoms’ reduction at baseline and 12 weeks using the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire and the Clinical Global Impression questionnaire, respectively. They also assessed women’s self-reported genitourinary symptoms, including vaginal dryness, pain during urination, vaginal pain and bleeding related to sex, and vaginal or vulvar irritation or itching. Most of these findings primarily confirmed previous positive effects from E4 in other trials.

Women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg estetrol groups reported a statistically significant improvement at 12 weeks, compared with placebo, in their total MENQOL score and in the vasomotor, psychosocial, and sexual functioning domain scores (P < .05). Those in the 20 mg group also had a statistically significant improvement in their physical domain score (P < .05).

Although numerical improvements in genitourinary symptoms occurred at 12 weeks across all three groups, the only statistically significant difference from baseline occurred in patients taking 15 mg of estetrol, who experienced a decrease in vaginal dryness and vaginal pain during sex (P = .0142 and P = .003, respectively).

The Clinical Global Impression questionnaire asked women at 4 and 12 weeks to rate on a seven-item Likert scale their response to this question: “Rate the total improvement, whether or not in your judgment it is due entirely to drug treatment. Compared to your condition at admission to the study, how much has it changed?” Responses of “very much improved” and “much improved” counted as a clinically meaningful difference.

Compared with 27.9% of patients in the placebo group, 52.9% of patients in the 15 mg group and 59.8% of patients in the 20 mg group rated the weekly frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms as “much improved” or “very much improved” at 4 weeks (P < .0001). At 12 weeks, those numbers rose to 47% in the placebo group, 73.3% in the 15 mg group and 77.8% in the 20 mg group (P < .0001).

The trial’s primary limitation at this point is having only a 12-week follow-up, Dr. Shufelt said, though a few other questions remain.

“Because the two phase 3 RCTs included hysterectomized and nonhysterectomized women, it was unclear how many women in the study had E4 alone versus E4 with progesterone, as that might play a role in both cholesterol and carbohydrate metabolism,” Dr. Shufelt said. “While baseline data was not presented, it would also be important to know baseline values for the women and confirm that none were on lipid-lowering medications.”

The research was funded by Estetra SRL, an affiliate of Mithra Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Utian is a member of the Mithra and Elektra Scientific Advisory Boards. Dr. Shufelt has no disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment of vasomotor symptoms with estetrol (E4) led to improvements in postmenopausal patients’ lipid profiles and blood glucose, according to findings of a phase 3 clinical trial presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

Participants taking estetrol experienced a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose, total cholesterol, LDL and lipoprotein as well as an increase in HDL cholesterol, according to the findings presented by Wolf Utian, MD, PhD, DSC, a professor emeritus of reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and medical director emeritus of the Menopause Society.

A separate poster at the conference from the same trial also reported significant improvements from estetrol in quality of life, including that related to vasomotor symptoms, and several psychosocial and sexual functioning areas.

Mayo Clinic

E4 is already available as combination oral contraception and is now being considered for treating vasomotor symptoms, explained Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, professor and chair of general internal of medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic Florida, who was not involved in the study.
 

Background on estetrol

E4 is a human fetal liver estrogen produced during pregnancy that’s synthesized from plants for pharmaceutical use, including as the oral contraceptive drospirenone, Dr. Utian told attendees. It’s classified as a native estrogen with selective tissue activity (NEST), he said.

“E4 is a completely different native estrogen with oral administration mimicking the benefits of transdermals and hence safe and effective,” Dr. Utian said in an interview. “It would be a significant new addition to the pharmaceutical armamentarium.”

Two phase 3 trials presented by Dr. Utian at the same conference last year found estetrol reduced the frequency and severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms, and a previous phase 2 trial finding vasomotor and genitourinary symptom benefits suggested it had potential benefits for lipids, carbohydrate metabolism, and bone turnover.

“In summary, E4 at a daily dose of 15 mg exhibited estrogenic effects in the vagina, leading to improved vaginal health and reduced signs of atrophy, emerging as a promising treatment option not only for vasomotor symptoms but also for other significant menopausal symptoms,” Dr. Utian said. “E4 could offer comprehensive relief for women experiencing a range of menopause-related discomforts.”

Dr. Utian also referenced a 2017 trial in which estetrol positively impacted lipid profiles, “lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and showing minimal influence on triglycerides,” he said. “Importantly, estetrol was associated with a significant decrease in osteocalcin levels in the higher dose groups, suggesting a potential preventive effect on bone loss,” he added. A recent review of the overall evidence on estetrol suggests its use is “promising,” Dr. Utian noted.
 

Current trial

His current randomized controlled phase 3 trial included postmenopausal women ages 40-65 from 151 sites in 14 countries in Europe, Latin America, and North America, and Russia. Among the 640 participants in the trial, 213 women randomly received 15 mg of estetrol, 213 women received 20 mg of estetrol, and 214 women received a placebo every day for 3 months. All women without hysterectomies also received 200 mg of progesterone once daily for two weeks after completing the estetrol treatment to protect the endometrium.

Researchers took blood samples from the participants at baseline and week 12 to assess total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, the total cholesterol/HDL ratio, triglycerides, lipoprotein A, fasting plasma glucose, insulin, and A1c.

Compared with women in the placebo group, women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg groups saw a statistically significant decrease in lipoprotein A and in the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL, and a statistically significant increase in HDL. Only the women in the 15 mg group saw a statistically significant decrease in LDL and increase in triglycerides; an increase in triglycerides in the 20 mg group did not reach statistical significance.

Statistically significant decreases in fasting plasma glucose and A1c also occurred in both treatment groups, but a decrease in insulin levels and in the homeostasis model-assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) seen in both treatment arms did not reach significance.

“While the mean changes after 12 weeks from baseline overall were small changes to the cholesterol and blood sugar profiles, they are clinically meaningful because it suggests that E4 does not have any adverse effects to these measures,” Dr. Shufelt said in an interview. “An advantage is that this gives us another hormone option for vasomotor symptoms since it is a native estrogen with selective tissue.”

It’s too early, however, to determine whether estetrol offers benefits in terms of its safety profile, compared with currently available therapies, Dr. Shufelt said.

”These findings of E4 are similar to how oral estradiol changes lipids, which finds an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and decreases plasma concentrations of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. an increase in HDL-C and triglycerides and decrease in LDL-C,” she said.
 

Poster findings also promising

For the findings reported in the poster, researchers assessed quality of life and the clinical meaningfulness of vasomotor symptoms’ reduction at baseline and 12 weeks using the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire and the Clinical Global Impression questionnaire, respectively. They also assessed women’s self-reported genitourinary symptoms, including vaginal dryness, pain during urination, vaginal pain and bleeding related to sex, and vaginal or vulvar irritation or itching. Most of these findings primarily confirmed previous positive effects from E4 in other trials.

Women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg estetrol groups reported a statistically significant improvement at 12 weeks, compared with placebo, in their total MENQOL score and in the vasomotor, psychosocial, and sexual functioning domain scores (P < .05). Those in the 20 mg group also had a statistically significant improvement in their physical domain score (P < .05).

Although numerical improvements in genitourinary symptoms occurred at 12 weeks across all three groups, the only statistically significant difference from baseline occurred in patients taking 15 mg of estetrol, who experienced a decrease in vaginal dryness and vaginal pain during sex (P = .0142 and P = .003, respectively).

The Clinical Global Impression questionnaire asked women at 4 and 12 weeks to rate on a seven-item Likert scale their response to this question: “Rate the total improvement, whether or not in your judgment it is due entirely to drug treatment. Compared to your condition at admission to the study, how much has it changed?” Responses of “very much improved” and “much improved” counted as a clinically meaningful difference.

Compared with 27.9% of patients in the placebo group, 52.9% of patients in the 15 mg group and 59.8% of patients in the 20 mg group rated the weekly frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms as “much improved” or “very much improved” at 4 weeks (P < .0001). At 12 weeks, those numbers rose to 47% in the placebo group, 73.3% in the 15 mg group and 77.8% in the 20 mg group (P < .0001).

The trial’s primary limitation at this point is having only a 12-week follow-up, Dr. Shufelt said, though a few other questions remain.

“Because the two phase 3 RCTs included hysterectomized and nonhysterectomized women, it was unclear how many women in the study had E4 alone versus E4 with progesterone, as that might play a role in both cholesterol and carbohydrate metabolism,” Dr. Shufelt said. “While baseline data was not presented, it would also be important to know baseline values for the women and confirm that none were on lipid-lowering medications.”

The research was funded by Estetra SRL, an affiliate of Mithra Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Utian is a member of the Mithra and Elektra Scientific Advisory Boards. Dr. Shufelt has no disclosures.
 

Rheumatoid arthritis can’t be cured, but it can significantly improve naturally during pregnancy in 50%-75% of women, prior research has established. It may worsen or stay the same during pregnancy in others.

As of yet, there’s no way to tell which experience a woman with RA will have. RA occurs in 1% of adults globally and is three times more likely to occur in women.

However, a novel study of 19 women with RA suggests that blood biomarkers before pregnancy may predict who will get better or worse during pregnancy. If confirmed with larger studies, the discovery could lead to personalizing medication choices for women with RA who are seeking to become pregnant and change prepregnancy counseling for physicians.

Findings from the research, conducted by first author Matthew Wright, MS, of Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.) Research Institute and colleagues were published online in Arthritis Research & Therapy.
 

A risky choice for women

Currently, the choice is difficult because stopping medications during pregnancy could cause disease flare and continuing could risk possible harm to the baby as some of the medications have toxic side effects.

This is the first study to analyze genetic differences in women with RA who plan to get pregnant, senior author Damini Jawaheer, PhD, research associate professor of medicine in rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

Identifying women who have the disease and confirming they were planning to get pregnant has been extremely difficult, she noted, especially since the start of their research predated electronic health records (EHRs).

The researchers were able to develop a cohort from work they were already doing with researchers in Denmark, which has a national registry that included both women with RA and women of reproductive age. From there they could contact women about their pregnancy intentions and build the cohort for this study.

Healthy women and women with RA of Danish descent who planned to get pregnant were enrolled and were prospectively followed.
 

Genetic differences at prepregnancy baseline

Researchers analyzed genetic differences through RNA sequencing before pregnancy from 19 women with RA and 13 healthy women.

Of the 19 women with RA, disease activity improved during pregnancy in 14 and worsened in 5.

Before pregnancy, the researchers found, several neutrophil-related genes were significantly overexpressed in women whose RA later improved during pregnancy. Genes related to B cells were highly expressed among women who worsened. Those elevated B-cell–related gene levels were not seen in the group who improved during pregnancy, Dr. Jawaheer added.

“We don’t understand at this point why that is,” she said.

They also compared the blood samples with women in the control group who did not have RA.

“Comparisons to healthy women revealed that the B-cell signature was specific” to women with worsened RA, the authors wrote. “Thus, at the prepregnancy stage, the two groups of RA women differed significantly from each other in terms of B-cell function.”
 

Information could help to eliminate fear

Dr. Jawaheer said almost all the women in the cohort who have RA said they were afraid to take medications during pregnancy even if the medications they are taking are considered safe.

“If we could reliably predict who’s going to improve, those women would not have to be scared,” she said. They could stop their medications if they know they’re going to improve naturally.

“Women who are predicted to worsen could then work together with their rheumatologist so that they get treatment to prevent them from getting worse,” Dr. Jawaheer said. “Treatment could be focused on that group only.”

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a rheumatologist at University of California San Diego Health and director of the UCSD Center for Innovative Therapy, who was not part of the study, said his patients planning pregnancy struggle with the choices the researchers describe and that investigating potential biomarkers is important.

“Ideally, people would not want to be on anything when they’re pregnant,” he says.

He found the results “intriguing and hypothesis-generating,” but he said the small sample size makes it hard to draw conclusions about the work before it is replicated on a larger scale.

Beth L. Jonas, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, also not a part of the study, said the small study size must be considered, but if the findings are validated in larger studies, the potential is “huge.”

She said doctors used to tell their patients years ago that there’s an excellent chance they will be in remission in pregnancy.

Now, she says, “We’ve tempered our advice to say there’s a good chance you’ll still have disease activity during your pregnancy.”

Rheumatologists would be very interested in a predictive biomarker, she said, as would colleagues in obstetrics/gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine physicians who manage high-risk pregnancies and do prepregnancy counseling.

She said she would also like to see these data followed over multiple pregnancies for each woman, noting that some of her patients have seen RA improve in one pregnancy and worsen in another.

A question she has is, “with a single patient with RA, could you measure this multiple times and get different results?”
 

Tackling the unanswered questions

Next, the researchers want to conduct the study with a larger sample in the United States and one that is more diverse than the Danish cohort, which included only White patients. Now, Dr. Jawaheer and her team will have the help of EHRs.

A big part of Dr. Jawaheer’s lab’s focus is to find out why many with RA report “never feeling better” during pregnancy – some even experience remission – and why women who improve during pregnancy report that their disease flares 3-6 months after pregnancy, she said.

Her team is also studying what happens biologically when some women worsen in pregnancy.

Those answers “will give us an indication of what could be a potential drug target,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Jonas reported no relevant financial relationships.

Rheumatoid arthritis can’t be cured, but it can significantly improve naturally during pregnancy in 50%-75% of women, prior research has established. It may worsen or stay the same during pregnancy in others.

As of yet, there’s no way to tell which experience a woman with RA will have. RA occurs in 1% of adults globally and is three times more likely to occur in women.

However, a novel study of 19 women with RA suggests that blood biomarkers before pregnancy may predict who will get better or worse during pregnancy. If confirmed with larger studies, the discovery could lead to personalizing medication choices for women with RA who are seeking to become pregnant and change prepregnancy counseling for physicians.

Findings from the research, conducted by first author Matthew Wright, MS, of Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.) Research Institute and colleagues were published online in Arthritis Research & Therapy.
 

A risky choice for women

Currently, the choice is difficult because stopping medications during pregnancy could cause disease flare and continuing could risk possible harm to the baby as some of the medications have toxic side effects.

This is the first study to analyze genetic differences in women with RA who plan to get pregnant, senior author Damini Jawaheer, PhD, research associate professor of medicine in rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

Identifying women who have the disease and confirming they were planning to get pregnant has been extremely difficult, she noted, especially since the start of their research predated electronic health records (EHRs).

The researchers were able to develop a cohort from work they were already doing with researchers in Denmark, which has a national registry that included both women with RA and women of reproductive age. From there they could contact women about their pregnancy intentions and build the cohort for this study.

Healthy women and women with RA of Danish descent who planned to get pregnant were enrolled and were prospectively followed.
 

Genetic differences at prepregnancy baseline

Researchers analyzed genetic differences through RNA sequencing before pregnancy from 19 women with RA and 13 healthy women.

Of the 19 women with RA, disease activity improved during pregnancy in 14 and worsened in 5.

Before pregnancy, the researchers found, several neutrophil-related genes were significantly overexpressed in women whose RA later improved during pregnancy. Genes related to B cells were highly expressed among women who worsened. Those elevated B-cell–related gene levels were not seen in the group who improved during pregnancy, Dr. Jawaheer added.

“We don’t understand at this point why that is,” she said.

They also compared the blood samples with women in the control group who did not have RA.

“Comparisons to healthy women revealed that the B-cell signature was specific” to women with worsened RA, the authors wrote. “Thus, at the prepregnancy stage, the two groups of RA women differed significantly from each other in terms of B-cell function.”
 

Information could help to eliminate fear

Dr. Jawaheer said almost all the women in the cohort who have RA said they were afraid to take medications during pregnancy even if the medications they are taking are considered safe.

“If we could reliably predict who’s going to improve, those women would not have to be scared,” she said. They could stop their medications if they know they’re going to improve naturally.

“Women who are predicted to worsen could then work together with their rheumatologist so that they get treatment to prevent them from getting worse,” Dr. Jawaheer said. “Treatment could be focused on that group only.”

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a rheumatologist at University of California San Diego Health and director of the UCSD Center for Innovative Therapy, who was not part of the study, said his patients planning pregnancy struggle with the choices the researchers describe and that investigating potential biomarkers is important.

“Ideally, people would not want to be on anything when they’re pregnant,” he says.

He found the results “intriguing and hypothesis-generating,” but he said the small sample size makes it hard to draw conclusions about the work before it is replicated on a larger scale.

Beth L. Jonas, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, also not a part of the study, said the small study size must be considered, but if the findings are validated in larger studies, the potential is “huge.”

She said doctors used to tell their patients years ago that there’s an excellent chance they will be in remission in pregnancy.

Now, she says, “We’ve tempered our advice to say there’s a good chance you’ll still have disease activity during your pregnancy.”

Rheumatologists would be very interested in a predictive biomarker, she said, as would colleagues in obstetrics/gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine physicians who manage high-risk pregnancies and do prepregnancy counseling.

She said she would also like to see these data followed over multiple pregnancies for each woman, noting that some of her patients have seen RA improve in one pregnancy and worsen in another.

A question she has is, “with a single patient with RA, could you measure this multiple times and get different results?”
 

Tackling the unanswered questions

Next, the researchers want to conduct the study with a larger sample in the United States and one that is more diverse than the Danish cohort, which included only White patients. Now, Dr. Jawaheer and her team will have the help of EHRs.

A big part of Dr. Jawaheer’s lab’s focus is to find out why many with RA report “never feeling better” during pregnancy – some even experience remission – and why women who improve during pregnancy report that their disease flares 3-6 months after pregnancy, she said.

Her team is also studying what happens biologically when some women worsen in pregnancy.

Those answers “will give us an indication of what could be a potential drug target,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Jonas reported no relevant financial relationships.

Rheumatoid arthritis can’t be cured, but it can significantly improve naturally during pregnancy in 50%-75% of women, prior research has established. It may worsen or stay the same during pregnancy in others.

As of yet, there’s no way to tell which experience a woman with RA will have. RA occurs in 1% of adults globally and is three times more likely to occur in women.

However, a novel study of 19 women with RA suggests that blood biomarkers before pregnancy may predict who will get better or worse during pregnancy. If confirmed with larger studies, the discovery could lead to personalizing medication choices for women with RA who are seeking to become pregnant and change prepregnancy counseling for physicians.

Findings from the research, conducted by first author Matthew Wright, MS, of Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.) Research Institute and colleagues were published online in Arthritis Research & Therapy.
 

A risky choice for women

Currently, the choice is difficult because stopping medications during pregnancy could cause disease flare and continuing could risk possible harm to the baby as some of the medications have toxic side effects.

This is the first study to analyze genetic differences in women with RA who plan to get pregnant, senior author Damini Jawaheer, PhD, research associate professor of medicine in rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

Identifying women who have the disease and confirming they were planning to get pregnant has been extremely difficult, she noted, especially since the start of their research predated electronic health records (EHRs).

The researchers were able to develop a cohort from work they were already doing with researchers in Denmark, which has a national registry that included both women with RA and women of reproductive age. From there they could contact women about their pregnancy intentions and build the cohort for this study.

Healthy women and women with RA of Danish descent who planned to get pregnant were enrolled and were prospectively followed.
 

Genetic differences at prepregnancy baseline

Researchers analyzed genetic differences through RNA sequencing before pregnancy from 19 women with RA and 13 healthy women.

Of the 19 women with RA, disease activity improved during pregnancy in 14 and worsened in 5.

Before pregnancy, the researchers found, several neutrophil-related genes were significantly overexpressed in women whose RA later improved during pregnancy. Genes related to B cells were highly expressed among women who worsened. Those elevated B-cell–related gene levels were not seen in the group who improved during pregnancy, Dr. Jawaheer added.

“We don’t understand at this point why that is,” she said.

They also compared the blood samples with women in the control group who did not have RA.

“Comparisons to healthy women revealed that the B-cell signature was specific” to women with worsened RA, the authors wrote. “Thus, at the prepregnancy stage, the two groups of RA women differed significantly from each other in terms of B-cell function.”
 

Information could help to eliminate fear

Dr. Jawaheer said almost all the women in the cohort who have RA said they were afraid to take medications during pregnancy even if the medications they are taking are considered safe.

“If we could reliably predict who’s going to improve, those women would not have to be scared,” she said. They could stop their medications if they know they’re going to improve naturally.

“Women who are predicted to worsen could then work together with their rheumatologist so that they get treatment to prevent them from getting worse,” Dr. Jawaheer said. “Treatment could be focused on that group only.”

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a rheumatologist at University of California San Diego Health and director of the UCSD Center for Innovative Therapy, who was not part of the study, said his patients planning pregnancy struggle with the choices the researchers describe and that investigating potential biomarkers is important.

“Ideally, people would not want to be on anything when they’re pregnant,” he says.

He found the results “intriguing and hypothesis-generating,” but he said the small sample size makes it hard to draw conclusions about the work before it is replicated on a larger scale.

Beth L. Jonas, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, also not a part of the study, said the small study size must be considered, but if the findings are validated in larger studies, the potential is “huge.”

She said doctors used to tell their patients years ago that there’s an excellent chance they will be in remission in pregnancy.

Now, she says, “We’ve tempered our advice to say there’s a good chance you’ll still have disease activity during your pregnancy.”

Rheumatologists would be very interested in a predictive biomarker, she said, as would colleagues in obstetrics/gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine physicians who manage high-risk pregnancies and do prepregnancy counseling.

She said she would also like to see these data followed over multiple pregnancies for each woman, noting that some of her patients have seen RA improve in one pregnancy and worsen in another.

A question she has is, “with a single patient with RA, could you measure this multiple times and get different results?”
 

Tackling the unanswered questions

Next, the researchers want to conduct the study with a larger sample in the United States and one that is more diverse than the Danish cohort, which included only White patients. Now, Dr. Jawaheer and her team will have the help of EHRs.

A big part of Dr. Jawaheer’s lab’s focus is to find out why many with RA report “never feeling better” during pregnancy – some even experience remission – and why women who improve during pregnancy report that their disease flares 3-6 months after pregnancy, she said.

Her team is also studying what happens biologically when some women worsen in pregnancy.

Those answers “will give us an indication of what could be a potential drug target,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Jonas reported no relevant financial relationships.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I had a case come to me of a 32-year-old resident who works in a hospital near where I am and was very interested in freezing her eggs. She wasn’t married and was getting worried that maybe she wouldn’t have a partner soon. She was also getting worried that the potential ability of her eggs to be fertilized would begin to decline, which is a phenomenon that does occur with age. She thought, I’m 32; maybe I should freeze my eggs now, as it’s better than to try freezing them when I’m 35 or 37. The potency may be far less.

There are many programs out there now. There have been academic programs for a long time that have been doing egg freezing, and there are many children who have been born successfully. However, it’s also true that people freeze their eggs when they’re 40 years old, and the likelihood of their “working,” if you will, is far less. I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, but age matters. This medical resident knew that and she decided to look into egg freezing.

Well, it turned out that egg freezing is not something that her student insurance plan – or most insurance plans in general – covers. The opportunity to do this is probably going to cost her about $10,000. There are many new egg-freezing infertility programs that have stared up that aren’t part of hospitals. There are clinics that are run for profit. They sometimes encourage women to freeze their eggs.

The student resident quickly found out that there were companies near her who would do egg freezing but would cut a deal if she agreed to take drugs to super-ovulate, make a large number of eggs, and they would be procured if she agreed to give half of them to other women who needed eggs for their infertility treatment. She could keep half and she could get very discounted treatment of egg freezing. In other words, she could barter her own eggs, said the clinic, if she was willing to accept the idea that she’d be donating them to others.

That may be a deal that she’s going to accept. She doesn’t have a path forward. She’s worried about freezing her eggs right now. But there are many ethical considerations that really have to be thought through here.

First and foremost, she’s giving eggs to others. They’re going to use them to try to make children. They can’t make their own eggs, for some reason. She’s going to have some biologically related kids out there. It used to be that you could say to someone who donated sperm or eggs that this will be anonymous.

But in today’s day and age with 23andMe, Ancestry, and better genetic testing, there’s a pretty good likelihood that somebody is going to find out that the person they thought was their biological mom isn’t, and they have someone out there who was the person who, in this case, donated an egg.

Is she willing to risk having that connection, that contact, to have someone enter her life in the future? It’s a situation where she’s donating the eggs, but I’ll tell you that the clinic is going to make far more money using the donated eggs, probably getting $10,000 or $15,000 a cycle with people who are trying to have a child. They’ll make much more money than she’s going to get by donating.

She may get a $5,000 discount, if you will, but the clinic has a business interest. The more they get women involved in bartering their eggs, the more they’re going to profit. In a sense, she’s being coerced, perhaps – I’m going to put it glibly – to sell cheaply. She probably is getting undervalue, even though she needs a path to do this egg freezing.

The other big issue is that we don’t know that egg freezing is going to work for her until someone tries to use those eggs. She may have her own infertility problem not due to age but to other things. Approximately 8%-9% of couples do have infertility problems, sometimes related to gametes. She may never get a partner. Maybe she doesn’t want to use these eggs on her own as a single mom. All of these issues have to be talked through.

What really troubles me here is not so much that someone would choose to barter their eggs, but that they don’t get counseling. They don’t get independent advice about thinking this all through. It’s turning into a business. A business has a commodity – her eggs – that they want. She’s getting more and more desperate, willing to cut a deal to get where she needs to be, but perhaps is not really thinking through all of the ethical dimensions that bartering or trading one’s eggs in order to gain access to freezing entails.

We have to set up a system where there’s independent advice and independent counseling; otherwise, I think we’re closer to exploitation.

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

Dr. Caplan is director, division of medical ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I had a case come to me of a 32-year-old resident who works in a hospital near where I am and was very interested in freezing her eggs. She wasn’t married and was getting worried that maybe she wouldn’t have a partner soon. She was also getting worried that the potential ability of her eggs to be fertilized would begin to decline, which is a phenomenon that does occur with age. She thought, I’m 32; maybe I should freeze my eggs now, as it’s better than to try freezing them when I’m 35 or 37. The potency may be far less.

There are many programs out there now. There have been academic programs for a long time that have been doing egg freezing, and there are many children who have been born successfully. However, it’s also true that people freeze their eggs when they’re 40 years old, and the likelihood of their “working,” if you will, is far less. I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, but age matters. This medical resident knew that and she decided to look into egg freezing.

Well, it turned out that egg freezing is not something that her student insurance plan – or most insurance plans in general – covers. The opportunity to do this is probably going to cost her about $10,000. There are many new egg-freezing infertility programs that have stared up that aren’t part of hospitals. There are clinics that are run for profit. They sometimes encourage women to freeze their eggs.

The student resident quickly found out that there were companies near her who would do egg freezing but would cut a deal if she agreed to take drugs to super-ovulate, make a large number of eggs, and they would be procured if she agreed to give half of them to other women who needed eggs for their infertility treatment. She could keep half and she could get very discounted treatment of egg freezing. In other words, she could barter her own eggs, said the clinic, if she was willing to accept the idea that she’d be donating them to others.

That may be a deal that she’s going to accept. She doesn’t have a path forward. She’s worried about freezing her eggs right now. But there are many ethical considerations that really have to be thought through here.

First and foremost, she’s giving eggs to others. They’re going to use them to try to make children. They can’t make their own eggs, for some reason. She’s going to have some biologically related kids out there. It used to be that you could say to someone who donated sperm or eggs that this will be anonymous.

But in today’s day and age with 23andMe, Ancestry, and better genetic testing, there’s a pretty good likelihood that somebody is going to find out that the person they thought was their biological mom isn’t, and they have someone out there who was the person who, in this case, donated an egg.

Is she willing to risk having that connection, that contact, to have someone enter her life in the future? It’s a situation where she’s donating the eggs, but I’ll tell you that the clinic is going to make far more money using the donated eggs, probably getting $10,000 or $15,000 a cycle with people who are trying to have a child. They’ll make much more money than she’s going to get by donating.

She may get a $5,000 discount, if you will, but the clinic has a business interest. The more they get women involved in bartering their eggs, the more they’re going to profit. In a sense, she’s being coerced, perhaps – I’m going to put it glibly – to sell cheaply. She probably is getting undervalue, even though she needs a path to do this egg freezing.

The other big issue is that we don’t know that egg freezing is going to work for her until someone tries to use those eggs. She may have her own infertility problem not due to age but to other things. Approximately 8%-9% of couples do have infertility problems, sometimes related to gametes. She may never get a partner. Maybe she doesn’t want to use these eggs on her own as a single mom. All of these issues have to be talked through.

What really troubles me here is not so much that someone would choose to barter their eggs, but that they don’t get counseling. They don’t get independent advice about thinking this all through. It’s turning into a business. A business has a commodity – her eggs – that they want. She’s getting more and more desperate, willing to cut a deal to get where she needs to be, but perhaps is not really thinking through all of the ethical dimensions that bartering or trading one’s eggs in order to gain access to freezing entails.

We have to set up a system where there’s independent advice and independent counseling; otherwise, I think we’re closer to exploitation.