Ob.Gyn. News

Maternal pertussis vaccinations, given during pregnancy, prevent an estimated 65% of pertussis infections in infants, new research indicates.

The study, led by Annette K. Regan, PhD, MPH, a perinatal and pediatric infectious disease epidemiologist at Curtin University, Perth, Australia, was published online in Pediatrics.

Dr. Regan – who is also with the University of San Francisco and the University of California, Los Angeles – and colleagues reviewed data on 279,418 infants born to 252,444 mothers in Australia.

There, about 52% of the women in this study received the Tdap vaccine through a maternal pertussis vaccination program.

Duration of effectiveness in infants was one of the main questions the study sought to answer.

The authors wrote that they assessed vaccine effectiveness through 18 months of age. “We observed significant protection against disease until at least 8 months of age, 2 months longer than reported in previous studies.” From 70% to 90% of all pertussis-attributable hospitalizations and death occur in infancy.
 

Answering the ‘blunting’ question

This study also set out to clarify an important clinical question regarding a potential “blunting” effect in infants. Previous work had suggested that maternal antibodies from the vaccination could interfere with the effectiveness of infants’ DtaP (the version of Tdap for infants) and other vaccines.

Dr. Regan and colleagues found that, “although we observed slightly lower VE [vaccine effectiveness] point estimates for the third dose of infant pertussis vaccine among maternally vaccinated compared with unvaccinated infants (76.5% vs. 92.9%, P = .002), we did not observe higher rates of pertussis infection (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-3.39).
 

Best time to give mothers the vaccine

Another clinical debate has centered on when to give the mother the vaccine during pregnancy. The authors concluded: “Our findings support the infant health benefits of recommendations to administer a booster dose of pertussis vaccine near 28 weeks of gestational age.”

That 28-week mark was associated with lower risk of infection in infants through 8 months of age, they wrote.
 

Positive results in the United States

In an invited commentary, Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, with the division of infectious diseases, department of pediatrics, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., highlighted similar positive findings for maternal pertussis vaccination in the United States.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did an ecologic study of infant pertussis cases reported between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2019. Rates were compared for the years before maternal Tdap vaccinations were recommended against the 7-year period after they were implemented.

That study found that in the period before maternal Tdap vaccination, annual pertussis incidence did not change among infants younger than 2 months and increased slightly in infants 6-12 months.

However, during the period after maternal Tdap vaccination had started (2012-2019), pertussis incidence significantly decreased in infants younger than 2 months and was unchanged in infants 6-12 months.

“As with the Australian data, the U.S. data support the overall benefit of the maternal Tdap program and, as with the Australian data, do not suggest that blunting has led to an increase in cases within the first year of life,” Dr. Edwards wrote.

The CDC notes that pertussis cases are rising and outbreaks are happening across the United States.

“On average, about 1,000 infants are hospitalized and typically between 5 and 15 infants die each year in the United States due to pertussis,” the CDC states.
 

Uptake low despite positive data

Dr. Edwards noted that, despite positive data supporting maternal vaccination to reduce pertussis, uptake rates are low – between 50% and 60% in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. “Active engagement to increase these rates should be implemented.”

Maternal vaccination might also be implemented soon to protect against other diseases including respiratory syncytial virus and group B streptococcal disease after promising study data, she said.

As with pertussis, the potential “blunting” effect will need to be carefully monitored, she said, “as was done in the carefully conducted study of pertussis reported in this issue of Pediatrics.”

One coauthor has received institutional honoraria for participation in advisory groups for Merck Sharpe & Dohme and Pfizer unrelated to this work. Another coauthor was supported by scholarships provided by the Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Disease at the Telethon Kids Institute. Dr. Edwards reported receiving grants from the CDC and consulting for Bionet, Dynavax, and IBM. She is a member of the data safety and monitoring board for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, Novavax, and Brighton Collaboration.

Maternal pertussis vaccinations, given during pregnancy, prevent an estimated 65% of pertussis infections in infants, new research indicates.

The study, led by Annette K. Regan, PhD, MPH, a perinatal and pediatric infectious disease epidemiologist at Curtin University, Perth, Australia, was published online in Pediatrics.

Dr. Regan – who is also with the University of San Francisco and the University of California, Los Angeles – and colleagues reviewed data on 279,418 infants born to 252,444 mothers in Australia.

There, about 52% of the women in this study received the Tdap vaccine through a maternal pertussis vaccination program.

Duration of effectiveness in infants was one of the main questions the study sought to answer.

The authors wrote that they assessed vaccine effectiveness through 18 months of age. “We observed significant protection against disease until at least 8 months of age, 2 months longer than reported in previous studies.” From 70% to 90% of all pertussis-attributable hospitalizations and death occur in infancy.
 

Answering the ‘blunting’ question

This study also set out to clarify an important clinical question regarding a potential “blunting” effect in infants. Previous work had suggested that maternal antibodies from the vaccination could interfere with the effectiveness of infants’ DtaP (the version of Tdap for infants) and other vaccines.

Dr. Regan and colleagues found that, “although we observed slightly lower VE [vaccine effectiveness] point estimates for the third dose of infant pertussis vaccine among maternally vaccinated compared with unvaccinated infants (76.5% vs. 92.9%, P = .002), we did not observe higher rates of pertussis infection (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-3.39).
 

Best time to give mothers the vaccine

Another clinical debate has centered on when to give the mother the vaccine during pregnancy. The authors concluded: “Our findings support the infant health benefits of recommendations to administer a booster dose of pertussis vaccine near 28 weeks of gestational age.”

That 28-week mark was associated with lower risk of infection in infants through 8 months of age, they wrote.
 

Positive results in the United States

In an invited commentary, Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, with the division of infectious diseases, department of pediatrics, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., highlighted similar positive findings for maternal pertussis vaccination in the United States.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did an ecologic study of infant pertussis cases reported between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2019. Rates were compared for the years before maternal Tdap vaccinations were recommended against the 7-year period after they were implemented.

That study found that in the period before maternal Tdap vaccination, annual pertussis incidence did not change among infants younger than 2 months and increased slightly in infants 6-12 months.

However, during the period after maternal Tdap vaccination had started (2012-2019), pertussis incidence significantly decreased in infants younger than 2 months and was unchanged in infants 6-12 months.

“As with the Australian data, the U.S. data support the overall benefit of the maternal Tdap program and, as with the Australian data, do not suggest that blunting has led to an increase in cases within the first year of life,” Dr. Edwards wrote.

The CDC notes that pertussis cases are rising and outbreaks are happening across the United States.

“On average, about 1,000 infants are hospitalized and typically between 5 and 15 infants die each year in the United States due to pertussis,” the CDC states.
 

Uptake low despite positive data

Dr. Edwards noted that, despite positive data supporting maternal vaccination to reduce pertussis, uptake rates are low – between 50% and 60% in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. “Active engagement to increase these rates should be implemented.”

Maternal vaccination might also be implemented soon to protect against other diseases including respiratory syncytial virus and group B streptococcal disease after promising study data, she said.

As with pertussis, the potential “blunting” effect will need to be carefully monitored, she said, “as was done in the carefully conducted study of pertussis reported in this issue of Pediatrics.”

One coauthor has received institutional honoraria for participation in advisory groups for Merck Sharpe & Dohme and Pfizer unrelated to this work. Another coauthor was supported by scholarships provided by the Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Disease at the Telethon Kids Institute. Dr. Edwards reported receiving grants from the CDC and consulting for Bionet, Dynavax, and IBM. She is a member of the data safety and monitoring board for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, Novavax, and Brighton Collaboration.

Maternal pertussis vaccinations, given during pregnancy, prevent an estimated 65% of pertussis infections in infants, new research indicates.

The study, led by Annette K. Regan, PhD, MPH, a perinatal and pediatric infectious disease epidemiologist at Curtin University, Perth, Australia, was published online in Pediatrics.

Dr. Regan – who is also with the University of San Francisco and the University of California, Los Angeles – and colleagues reviewed data on 279,418 infants born to 252,444 mothers in Australia.

There, about 52% of the women in this study received the Tdap vaccine through a maternal pertussis vaccination program.

Duration of effectiveness in infants was one of the main questions the study sought to answer.

The authors wrote that they assessed vaccine effectiveness through 18 months of age. “We observed significant protection against disease until at least 8 months of age, 2 months longer than reported in previous studies.” From 70% to 90% of all pertussis-attributable hospitalizations and death occur in infancy.
 

Answering the ‘blunting’ question

This study also set out to clarify an important clinical question regarding a potential “blunting” effect in infants. Previous work had suggested that maternal antibodies from the vaccination could interfere with the effectiveness of infants’ DtaP (the version of Tdap for infants) and other vaccines.

Dr. Regan and colleagues found that, “although we observed slightly lower VE [vaccine effectiveness] point estimates for the third dose of infant pertussis vaccine among maternally vaccinated compared with unvaccinated infants (76.5% vs. 92.9%, P = .002), we did not observe higher rates of pertussis infection (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-3.39).
 

Best time to give mothers the vaccine

Another clinical debate has centered on when to give the mother the vaccine during pregnancy. The authors concluded: “Our findings support the infant health benefits of recommendations to administer a booster dose of pertussis vaccine near 28 weeks of gestational age.”

That 28-week mark was associated with lower risk of infection in infants through 8 months of age, they wrote.
 

Positive results in the United States

In an invited commentary, Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, with the division of infectious diseases, department of pediatrics, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., highlighted similar positive findings for maternal pertussis vaccination in the United States.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did an ecologic study of infant pertussis cases reported between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2019. Rates were compared for the years before maternal Tdap vaccinations were recommended against the 7-year period after they were implemented.

That study found that in the period before maternal Tdap vaccination, annual pertussis incidence did not change among infants younger than 2 months and increased slightly in infants 6-12 months.

However, during the period after maternal Tdap vaccination had started (2012-2019), pertussis incidence significantly decreased in infants younger than 2 months and was unchanged in infants 6-12 months.

“As with the Australian data, the U.S. data support the overall benefit of the maternal Tdap program and, as with the Australian data, do not suggest that blunting has led to an increase in cases within the first year of life,” Dr. Edwards wrote.

The CDC notes that pertussis cases are rising and outbreaks are happening across the United States.

“On average, about 1,000 infants are hospitalized and typically between 5 and 15 infants die each year in the United States due to pertussis,” the CDC states.
 

Uptake low despite positive data

Dr. Edwards noted that, despite positive data supporting maternal vaccination to reduce pertussis, uptake rates are low – between 50% and 60% in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. “Active engagement to increase these rates should be implemented.”

Maternal vaccination might also be implemented soon to protect against other diseases including respiratory syncytial virus and group B streptococcal disease after promising study data, she said.

As with pertussis, the potential “blunting” effect will need to be carefully monitored, she said, “as was done in the carefully conducted study of pertussis reported in this issue of Pediatrics.”

One coauthor has received institutional honoraria for participation in advisory groups for Merck Sharpe & Dohme and Pfizer unrelated to this work. Another coauthor was supported by scholarships provided by the Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Disease at the Telethon Kids Institute. Dr. Edwards reported receiving grants from the CDC and consulting for Bionet, Dynavax, and IBM. She is a member of the data safety and monitoring board for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, Novavax, and Brighton Collaboration.

A disproportionate and unique number of obstacles exist in reproductive health care for patients based on race, ethnicity, geography, socioeconomic, LGBTQ+, and disability status. These barriers represent inequality in access to reproductive medical services.

These challenges are also seen in other reproductive disorders such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), fibroids, and endometriosis. It is estimated that < 25% of individuals with infertility in the United States access the resources required to have their treatment needs met (Fertil Steril. 2015 Nov;104(5):1104-10. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.113)

Fertility CARE

In 2020, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) created a task force on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) chaired by Board Member Michael A. Thomas, MD. Two years later, the ASRM elevated this task force to a committee that is now chaired by Gloria Richard-Davis, MD. As health care systems and societies increasingly recognize these obstacles to care, I invited Dr. Thomas, the current president of the ASRM, to address this vital concern. Dr. Thomas is professor and chair, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of Cincinnati.
 

While not limited to reproductive health care, how prevalent is the lack of DEI and what factors contribute to this problem?

When we established the initial ASRM DEI task force, we wanted to look at DEI issues within our profession and as an access-to-care initiative. We found that ASRM and ABOG (American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology) were not asking questions about the makeup of our REI (Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility) providers, nursing staff, and lab personnel. We had some older data from 2018 about the REI fellowships. Since that time, there appears to be an upward trend of people of color in REI fellowships.

University of Cincinnati

We still need more data about academic, hybrid, and private REI practices when it comes to all employees. The goal would be to increase the number of people of color in all aspects of our field.

As far as access to care, we know that people of color do not have the ability to undergo ART (assisted reproductive technology) procedures at the same rate. This could be due to affordability, slower and/or later referral patterns, and personal stigma issues. Even in mandated states, people of color are seen by IVF providers in lower numbers. There is a need for a better understanding of the access-to-care issues, especially when affordability is not a problem, and the barriers to our LGBTQ+ patients.
 

Can you provide information about actions by the ASRM DEI task force and any plans for the future?

The DEI task force is now an ASRM committee. This committee is chaired by Dr. Gloria Richard-Davis and continues to work on increasing people of color in the REI workforce and understanding and decreasing access to care issues faced by people of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

What can physicians do at the local, state, and national level to support DEI?

All REI and ob.gyn. physicians can work with insurance companies to work on the current barriers that stand in the way of patients who want to have a family. For example, physicians can work with insurance companies to remove their definition of infertility as exposure to sperm for 1 year before fertility coverage can take effect. Also, mandated insurance coverage in all 50 states would allow even smaller companies to require this benefit to patients.

Many people of color work in smaller companies that, unfortunately, are not required to offer IVF coverage in states where mandated insurance coverage is available. As potential encouraging news, ASRM, RESOLVE (The National Infertility Association) and other patient advocacy groups are working with each state to help enact fertility mandates.
 

Which group, if any, has been most negatively affected by a lack of DEI?

People of color, LGBTQ+ communities, people with disabilities, single individuals, and those with income challenges are the most likely to be affected by adverse DEI policies.

While it is long overdue, why do you believe DEI has become such a touchstone and pervasive movement at this time?

This is the million-dollar question. After the George Floyd death, there was a global re-examination of how people of color were treated in every aspect of society. ASRM was the first to start this DEI initiative in women’s health.

ASRM and its patient advocacy partners are working with every nonmandated state toward the goal of passing infertility legislation to dramatically reduce the financial burden on all patients. We are starting to see more states either coming on board with mandates or at least discussing the possibilities. ASRM and RESOLVE have seen some recent positive outcomes with improved insurance for military families and government workers.
 

We can all agree that access to infertility treatment, particularly IVF, is not equivalent among different racial/ethnic populations. Part of the ASRM DEI task force is to evaluate research on IVF outcomes and race/ethnicity. Can you share why pregnancy outcomes would be included to potentially improve DEI?

More research needs to be done on pregnancy outcomes in women of color. We know that women of color have a decreased pregnancy rate in ART cycles even when controlling for age and other factors. We also know that birth outcomes are worse in these women. More understanding of this problem for women of color, especially African American women needs to be done.

Estimates are that more than one in eight LGBTQ+ patients live in states where physicians can refuse to treat them. Consequently, how can we improve DEI in these regions?

As someone with a number of family members in the LGBTQ+ community, this is a problem that is close to my heart. There appear to be many barriers that are being built to disenfranchise our LGBTQ+ community members. It is up to ASRM and patient advocacy groups to work with legislators to pass more inclusive laws and for insurance companies to update their definitions of infertility to be more inclusive for all.

Any final comments?

Everyone should have the right to become a parent whether they want to now or in the future!

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

A disproportionate and unique number of obstacles exist in reproductive health care for patients based on race, ethnicity, geography, socioeconomic, LGBTQ+, and disability status. These barriers represent inequality in access to reproductive medical services.

These challenges are also seen in other reproductive disorders such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), fibroids, and endometriosis. It is estimated that < 25% of individuals with infertility in the United States access the resources required to have their treatment needs met (Fertil Steril. 2015 Nov;104(5):1104-10. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.113)

Fertility CARE

In 2020, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) created a task force on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) chaired by Board Member Michael A. Thomas, MD. Two years later, the ASRM elevated this task force to a committee that is now chaired by Gloria Richard-Davis, MD. As health care systems and societies increasingly recognize these obstacles to care, I invited Dr. Thomas, the current president of the ASRM, to address this vital concern. Dr. Thomas is professor and chair, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of Cincinnati.
 

While not limited to reproductive health care, how prevalent is the lack of DEI and what factors contribute to this problem?

When we established the initial ASRM DEI task force, we wanted to look at DEI issues within our profession and as an access-to-care initiative. We found that ASRM and ABOG (American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology) were not asking questions about the makeup of our REI (Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility) providers, nursing staff, and lab personnel. We had some older data from 2018 about the REI fellowships. Since that time, there appears to be an upward trend of people of color in REI fellowships.

University of Cincinnati

We still need more data about academic, hybrid, and private REI practices when it comes to all employees. The goal would be to increase the number of people of color in all aspects of our field.

As far as access to care, we know that people of color do not have the ability to undergo ART (assisted reproductive technology) procedures at the same rate. This could be due to affordability, slower and/or later referral patterns, and personal stigma issues. Even in mandated states, people of color are seen by IVF providers in lower numbers. There is a need for a better understanding of the access-to-care issues, especially when affordability is not a problem, and the barriers to our LGBTQ+ patients.
 

Can you provide information about actions by the ASRM DEI task force and any plans for the future?

The DEI task force is now an ASRM committee. This committee is chaired by Dr. Gloria Richard-Davis and continues to work on increasing people of color in the REI workforce and understanding and decreasing access to care issues faced by people of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

What can physicians do at the local, state, and national level to support DEI?

All REI and ob.gyn. physicians can work with insurance companies to work on the current barriers that stand in the way of patients who want to have a family. For example, physicians can work with insurance companies to remove their definition of infertility as exposure to sperm for 1 year before fertility coverage can take effect. Also, mandated insurance coverage in all 50 states would allow even smaller companies to require this benefit to patients.

Many people of color work in smaller companies that, unfortunately, are not required to offer IVF coverage in states where mandated insurance coverage is available. As potential encouraging news, ASRM, RESOLVE (The National Infertility Association) and other patient advocacy groups are working with each state to help enact fertility mandates.
 

Which group, if any, has been most negatively affected by a lack of DEI?

People of color, LGBTQ+ communities, people with disabilities, single individuals, and those with income challenges are the most likely to be affected by adverse DEI policies.

While it is long overdue, why do you believe DEI has become such a touchstone and pervasive movement at this time?

This is the million-dollar question. After the George Floyd death, there was a global re-examination of how people of color were treated in every aspect of society. ASRM was the first to start this DEI initiative in women’s health.

ASRM and its patient advocacy partners are working with every nonmandated state toward the goal of passing infertility legislation to dramatically reduce the financial burden on all patients. We are starting to see more states either coming on board with mandates or at least discussing the possibilities. ASRM and RESOLVE have seen some recent positive outcomes with improved insurance for military families and government workers.
 

We can all agree that access to infertility treatment, particularly IVF, is not equivalent among different racial/ethnic populations. Part of the ASRM DEI task force is to evaluate research on IVF outcomes and race/ethnicity. Can you share why pregnancy outcomes would be included to potentially improve DEI?

More research needs to be done on pregnancy outcomes in women of color. We know that women of color have a decreased pregnancy rate in ART cycles even when controlling for age and other factors. We also know that birth outcomes are worse in these women. More understanding of this problem for women of color, especially African American women needs to be done.

Estimates are that more than one in eight LGBTQ+ patients live in states where physicians can refuse to treat them. Consequently, how can we improve DEI in these regions?

As someone with a number of family members in the LGBTQ+ community, this is a problem that is close to my heart. There appear to be many barriers that are being built to disenfranchise our LGBTQ+ community members. It is up to ASRM and patient advocacy groups to work with legislators to pass more inclusive laws and for insurance companies to update their definitions of infertility to be more inclusive for all.

Any final comments?

Everyone should have the right to become a parent whether they want to now or in the future!

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

A disproportionate and unique number of obstacles exist in reproductive health care for patients based on race, ethnicity, geography, socioeconomic, LGBTQ+, and disability status. These barriers represent inequality in access to reproductive medical services.

These challenges are also seen in other reproductive disorders such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), fibroids, and endometriosis. It is estimated that < 25% of individuals with infertility in the United States access the resources required to have their treatment needs met (Fertil Steril. 2015 Nov;104(5):1104-10. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.113)

Fertility CARE

In 2020, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) created a task force on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) chaired by Board Member Michael A. Thomas, MD. Two years later, the ASRM elevated this task force to a committee that is now chaired by Gloria Richard-Davis, MD. As health care systems and societies increasingly recognize these obstacles to care, I invited Dr. Thomas, the current president of the ASRM, to address this vital concern. Dr. Thomas is professor and chair, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of Cincinnati.
 

While not limited to reproductive health care, how prevalent is the lack of DEI and what factors contribute to this problem?

When we established the initial ASRM DEI task force, we wanted to look at DEI issues within our profession and as an access-to-care initiative. We found that ASRM and ABOG (American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology) were not asking questions about the makeup of our REI (Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility) providers, nursing staff, and lab personnel. We had some older data from 2018 about the REI fellowships. Since that time, there appears to be an upward trend of people of color in REI fellowships.

University of Cincinnati

We still need more data about academic, hybrid, and private REI practices when it comes to all employees. The goal would be to increase the number of people of color in all aspects of our field.

As far as access to care, we know that people of color do not have the ability to undergo ART (assisted reproductive technology) procedures at the same rate. This could be due to affordability, slower and/or later referral patterns, and personal stigma issues. Even in mandated states, people of color are seen by IVF providers in lower numbers. There is a need for a better understanding of the access-to-care issues, especially when affordability is not a problem, and the barriers to our LGBTQ+ patients.
 

Can you provide information about actions by the ASRM DEI task force and any plans for the future?

The DEI task force is now an ASRM committee. This committee is chaired by Dr. Gloria Richard-Davis and continues to work on increasing people of color in the REI workforce and understanding and decreasing access to care issues faced by people of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

What can physicians do at the local, state, and national level to support DEI?

All REI and ob.gyn. physicians can work with insurance companies to work on the current barriers that stand in the way of patients who want to have a family. For example, physicians can work with insurance companies to remove their definition of infertility as exposure to sperm for 1 year before fertility coverage can take effect. Also, mandated insurance coverage in all 50 states would allow even smaller companies to require this benefit to patients.

Many people of color work in smaller companies that, unfortunately, are not required to offer IVF coverage in states where mandated insurance coverage is available. As potential encouraging news, ASRM, RESOLVE (The National Infertility Association) and other patient advocacy groups are working with each state to help enact fertility mandates.
 

Which group, if any, has been most negatively affected by a lack of DEI?

People of color, LGBTQ+ communities, people with disabilities, single individuals, and those with income challenges are the most likely to be affected by adverse DEI policies.

While it is long overdue, why do you believe DEI has become such a touchstone and pervasive movement at this time?

This is the million-dollar question. After the George Floyd death, there was a global re-examination of how people of color were treated in every aspect of society. ASRM was the first to start this DEI initiative in women’s health.

ASRM and its patient advocacy partners are working with every nonmandated state toward the goal of passing infertility legislation to dramatically reduce the financial burden on all patients. We are starting to see more states either coming on board with mandates or at least discussing the possibilities. ASRM and RESOLVE have seen some recent positive outcomes with improved insurance for military families and government workers.
 

We can all agree that access to infertility treatment, particularly IVF, is not equivalent among different racial/ethnic populations. Part of the ASRM DEI task force is to evaluate research on IVF outcomes and race/ethnicity. Can you share why pregnancy outcomes would be included to potentially improve DEI?

More research needs to be done on pregnancy outcomes in women of color. We know that women of color have a decreased pregnancy rate in ART cycles even when controlling for age and other factors. We also know that birth outcomes are worse in these women. More understanding of this problem for women of color, especially African American women needs to be done.

Estimates are that more than one in eight LGBTQ+ patients live in states where physicians can refuse to treat them. Consequently, how can we improve DEI in these regions?

As someone with a number of family members in the LGBTQ+ community, this is a problem that is close to my heart. There appear to be many barriers that are being built to disenfranchise our LGBTQ+ community members. It is up to ASRM and patient advocacy groups to work with legislators to pass more inclusive laws and for insurance companies to update their definitions of infertility to be more inclusive for all.

Any final comments?

Everyone should have the right to become a parent whether they want to now or in the future!

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

PHILADELPHIA – Both a pelvic yoga program and a general physical conditioning program for incontinence led to improvements in women’s incontinence, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

“As clinicians, we’re usually focused on treatments that we ourselves can prescribe, perform, or administer. We’re not as good as recommending or supporting treatment or management strategies that don’t rely on costly or intensive visits with clinical specialists,” lead author Alison Huang, MD, MAS, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

“But our findings suggest that women who try pelvic yoga as a complementary management strategy for genitourinary conditions like urinary incontinence that often emerge in midlife are likely to experience substantial improvement in their genitourinary symptoms and function,” Dr. Huang said. “Some of these improvements may be shared with other forms of low-impact physical movement or exercise.”

The 240 participants from communities around three Northern California sites ranged in age from 45 to 90 years old, with an average age of 62, and all had at least daily urgency, stress, or mixed-type urinary incontinence. While most were White women, 40% identified as racial/ethnic minorities, including 14% Hispanic, 6% Black, 16% Asian American, and 4% multiracial.

Participants needed to be able to walk two blocks on level ground and get from a supine to a standing position on their own, but they should not have recently participated in any organized yoga or physical conditioning exercise classes. They also needed to forgo behavioral, invasive, or pharmacologic treatments for urinary incontinence for at least 3 months. The trial ran from 2019 to 2022, with most women completing the 3-month program virtually once the pandemic began.

The 121 women randomly assigned to the pelvic yoga program had twice-weekly group instruction by trained yoga instructors and once-weekly individual practice. The practice focused on 16 standard Hatha yoga poses in standing, seated, supine, and prone positions with an emphasis on precise alignment of their postures during each pose. Yoga props, such as blocks, straps, or bolsters, were available to minimize risk of injury and to accommodate women with less flexibility.

The 119 women randomly assigned to the physical conditioning group spent the same amount of group and individual class time on skeletal muscle stretching and strengthening exercises. These exercises focused on strengthening and stretching exercises for the upper and lower extremities in standing, sitting, or supine positions. The only props needed were exercise straps and handles and an exercise mat, and the program was designed to be safe and feasible for women across all ages.

Both groups received standard self-management pamphlets describing pelvic floor muscle exercises and recommendations on timed urination and urging suppression. After early dropouts from both arms, 107 women remained for analysis in the pelvic yoga group, and 113 women remained for analysis in the physical conditioning group.

Researchers assessed participants’ genitourinary quality of life at baseline and after 3 months using the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 (UDI-6), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ), and Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC). At baseline, the women’s average scores were 38.8 on the UDI-6, 101 on the IIQ, and 3.4 on the PPBC.

About one-third of the women in both groups attended all 24 group classes, and 57% of women in both groups attended 20-23 classes. In addition, 65% of the women in the pelvic yoga group and 73% of the women in the physical conditioning group completed all of the recommended additional hours of individual practice. Only 15% of pelvic yoga participants and 9% of physical conditioning participants completed less than 80% of the recommended individual practice hours. No differences in participation between the groups were statistically significant.

“Over 3 months, scores on all genitourinary quality of life measures improved by more than the minimum important difference thresholds in the pelvic yoga group,” the researchers reported, but only the UDI-6 score improved significantly – albeit still modestly – in the pelvic yoga group, compared with the physical conditioning group. Average scores improved 18.9 points in the pelvic yoga group and 13.1 points in the physical conditioning group (5.8-point difference; P = .02).

The scores on the IIQ improved an average 38.5 points in the pelvic yoga group and 31.4 points in the physical conditioning group (P = .48). PPBC scores improved 0.7 points in both groups.

“While yoga may offer benefits for genitourinary quality of life, it may not offer superior benefits compared to equivalent-time practice of other activities that improve general physical function,” Dr. Huang told attendees.

“The bottom line is that physical activity toward incontinence is a helpful technique,” Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, director for Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health and medical director for the Menopause Society, said in an interview regarding the findings. Urinary incontinence is under-recognized, Dr. Faubion said, “because women are embarrassed, so they don’t bring it up, so it doesn’t get managed.” But it’s a common problem, so clinicians need to ask patients about it, she said.

“We should realize that, in midlife and older age, genitourinary health is often connected to overall health,” Dr. Huang said in an interview. “We shouldn’t focus exclusively on treatments that are directed solely at the genital or lower urinary tract organs or tissues. We should consider the ways in which women’s urinary and sexual function are influenced by other aspects of their physical and cognitive health.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Huang and Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – Both a pelvic yoga program and a general physical conditioning program for incontinence led to improvements in women’s incontinence, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

“As clinicians, we’re usually focused on treatments that we ourselves can prescribe, perform, or administer. We’re not as good as recommending or supporting treatment or management strategies that don’t rely on costly or intensive visits with clinical specialists,” lead author Alison Huang, MD, MAS, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

“But our findings suggest that women who try pelvic yoga as a complementary management strategy for genitourinary conditions like urinary incontinence that often emerge in midlife are likely to experience substantial improvement in their genitourinary symptoms and function,” Dr. Huang said. “Some of these improvements may be shared with other forms of low-impact physical movement or exercise.”

The 240 participants from communities around three Northern California sites ranged in age from 45 to 90 years old, with an average age of 62, and all had at least daily urgency, stress, or mixed-type urinary incontinence. While most were White women, 40% identified as racial/ethnic minorities, including 14% Hispanic, 6% Black, 16% Asian American, and 4% multiracial.

Participants needed to be able to walk two blocks on level ground and get from a supine to a standing position on their own, but they should not have recently participated in any organized yoga or physical conditioning exercise classes. They also needed to forgo behavioral, invasive, or pharmacologic treatments for urinary incontinence for at least 3 months. The trial ran from 2019 to 2022, with most women completing the 3-month program virtually once the pandemic began.

The 121 women randomly assigned to the pelvic yoga program had twice-weekly group instruction by trained yoga instructors and once-weekly individual practice. The practice focused on 16 standard Hatha yoga poses in standing, seated, supine, and prone positions with an emphasis on precise alignment of their postures during each pose. Yoga props, such as blocks, straps, or bolsters, were available to minimize risk of injury and to accommodate women with less flexibility.

The 119 women randomly assigned to the physical conditioning group spent the same amount of group and individual class time on skeletal muscle stretching and strengthening exercises. These exercises focused on strengthening and stretching exercises for the upper and lower extremities in standing, sitting, or supine positions. The only props needed were exercise straps and handles and an exercise mat, and the program was designed to be safe and feasible for women across all ages.

Both groups received standard self-management pamphlets describing pelvic floor muscle exercises and recommendations on timed urination and urging suppression. After early dropouts from both arms, 107 women remained for analysis in the pelvic yoga group, and 113 women remained for analysis in the physical conditioning group.

Researchers assessed participants’ genitourinary quality of life at baseline and after 3 months using the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 (UDI-6), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ), and Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC). At baseline, the women’s average scores were 38.8 on the UDI-6, 101 on the IIQ, and 3.4 on the PPBC.

About one-third of the women in both groups attended all 24 group classes, and 57% of women in both groups attended 20-23 classes. In addition, 65% of the women in the pelvic yoga group and 73% of the women in the physical conditioning group completed all of the recommended additional hours of individual practice. Only 15% of pelvic yoga participants and 9% of physical conditioning participants completed less than 80% of the recommended individual practice hours. No differences in participation between the groups were statistically significant.

“Over 3 months, scores on all genitourinary quality of life measures improved by more than the minimum important difference thresholds in the pelvic yoga group,” the researchers reported, but only the UDI-6 score improved significantly – albeit still modestly – in the pelvic yoga group, compared with the physical conditioning group. Average scores improved 18.9 points in the pelvic yoga group and 13.1 points in the physical conditioning group (5.8-point difference; P = .02).

The scores on the IIQ improved an average 38.5 points in the pelvic yoga group and 31.4 points in the physical conditioning group (P = .48). PPBC scores improved 0.7 points in both groups.

“While yoga may offer benefits for genitourinary quality of life, it may not offer superior benefits compared to equivalent-time practice of other activities that improve general physical function,” Dr. Huang told attendees.

“The bottom line is that physical activity toward incontinence is a helpful technique,” Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, director for Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health and medical director for the Menopause Society, said in an interview regarding the findings. Urinary incontinence is under-recognized, Dr. Faubion said, “because women are embarrassed, so they don’t bring it up, so it doesn’t get managed.” But it’s a common problem, so clinicians need to ask patients about it, she said.

“We should realize that, in midlife and older age, genitourinary health is often connected to overall health,” Dr. Huang said in an interview. “We shouldn’t focus exclusively on treatments that are directed solely at the genital or lower urinary tract organs or tissues. We should consider the ways in which women’s urinary and sexual function are influenced by other aspects of their physical and cognitive health.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Huang and Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – Both a pelvic yoga program and a general physical conditioning program for incontinence led to improvements in women’s incontinence, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

“As clinicians, we’re usually focused on treatments that we ourselves can prescribe, perform, or administer. We’re not as good as recommending or supporting treatment or management strategies that don’t rely on costly or intensive visits with clinical specialists,” lead author Alison Huang, MD, MAS, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

“But our findings suggest that women who try pelvic yoga as a complementary management strategy for genitourinary conditions like urinary incontinence that often emerge in midlife are likely to experience substantial improvement in their genitourinary symptoms and function,” Dr. Huang said. “Some of these improvements may be shared with other forms of low-impact physical movement or exercise.”

The 240 participants from communities around three Northern California sites ranged in age from 45 to 90 years old, with an average age of 62, and all had at least daily urgency, stress, or mixed-type urinary incontinence. While most were White women, 40% identified as racial/ethnic minorities, including 14% Hispanic, 6% Black, 16% Asian American, and 4% multiracial.

Participants needed to be able to walk two blocks on level ground and get from a supine to a standing position on their own, but they should not have recently participated in any organized yoga or physical conditioning exercise classes. They also needed to forgo behavioral, invasive, or pharmacologic treatments for urinary incontinence for at least 3 months. The trial ran from 2019 to 2022, with most women completing the 3-month program virtually once the pandemic began.

The 121 women randomly assigned to the pelvic yoga program had twice-weekly group instruction by trained yoga instructors and once-weekly individual practice. The practice focused on 16 standard Hatha yoga poses in standing, seated, supine, and prone positions with an emphasis on precise alignment of their postures during each pose. Yoga props, such as blocks, straps, or bolsters, were available to minimize risk of injury and to accommodate women with less flexibility.

The 119 women randomly assigned to the physical conditioning group spent the same amount of group and individual class time on skeletal muscle stretching and strengthening exercises. These exercises focused on strengthening and stretching exercises for the upper and lower extremities in standing, sitting, or supine positions. The only props needed were exercise straps and handles and an exercise mat, and the program was designed to be safe and feasible for women across all ages.

Both groups received standard self-management pamphlets describing pelvic floor muscle exercises and recommendations on timed urination and urging suppression. After early dropouts from both arms, 107 women remained for analysis in the pelvic yoga group, and 113 women remained for analysis in the physical conditioning group.

Researchers assessed participants’ genitourinary quality of life at baseline and after 3 months using the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 (UDI-6), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ), and Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC). At baseline, the women’s average scores were 38.8 on the UDI-6, 101 on the IIQ, and 3.4 on the PPBC.

About one-third of the women in both groups attended all 24 group classes, and 57% of women in both groups attended 20-23 classes. In addition, 65% of the women in the pelvic yoga group and 73% of the women in the physical conditioning group completed all of the recommended additional hours of individual practice. Only 15% of pelvic yoga participants and 9% of physical conditioning participants completed less than 80% of the recommended individual practice hours. No differences in participation between the groups were statistically significant.

“Over 3 months, scores on all genitourinary quality of life measures improved by more than the minimum important difference thresholds in the pelvic yoga group,” the researchers reported, but only the UDI-6 score improved significantly – albeit still modestly – in the pelvic yoga group, compared with the physical conditioning group. Average scores improved 18.9 points in the pelvic yoga group and 13.1 points in the physical conditioning group (5.8-point difference; P = .02).

The scores on the IIQ improved an average 38.5 points in the pelvic yoga group and 31.4 points in the physical conditioning group (P = .48). PPBC scores improved 0.7 points in both groups.

“While yoga may offer benefits for genitourinary quality of life, it may not offer superior benefits compared to equivalent-time practice of other activities that improve general physical function,” Dr. Huang told attendees.

“The bottom line is that physical activity toward incontinence is a helpful technique,” Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, director for Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health and medical director for the Menopause Society, said in an interview regarding the findings. Urinary incontinence is under-recognized, Dr. Faubion said, “because women are embarrassed, so they don’t bring it up, so it doesn’t get managed.” But it’s a common problem, so clinicians need to ask patients about it, she said.

“We should realize that, in midlife and older age, genitourinary health is often connected to overall health,” Dr. Huang said in an interview. “We shouldn’t focus exclusively on treatments that are directed solely at the genital or lower urinary tract organs or tissues. We should consider the ways in which women’s urinary and sexual function are influenced by other aspects of their physical and cognitive health.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Huang and Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.

TOPLINE:

Almost one-quarter of pregnant women who have had a heart transplant (HT) will experience severe maternal morbidity (SMM) during their hospital stay for delivery, and they have sevenfold greater risk for preterm birth than do other pregnant women, results of a large study with a nationwide sample suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study included 2010-2020 information from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD), a large, all-payer administrative dataset that allows for tracking of patient hospital readmissions in the same U.S. state within the same calendar year and includes patient demographics, hospital characteristics, diagnosis and procedure codes (including for cardiac transplants), length of stay, and discharge disposition.
• The primary outcome was nontransfusion SMM which, among other conditions, included acute myocardial infarction, aortic aneurysm, acute renal failure, adult respiratory distress syndrome, amniotic fluid embolism, cardiac arrest/ventricular fibrillation, and heart failure/arrest, during the delivery hospitalization.
• Additional outcomes included rates of all SMMs (including transfusion), a composite cardiovascular SMM (cSMM) outcome that included acute myocardial infarction, aortic aneurysm, cardiac arrest/ventricular fibrillation, cardioversion, and acute heart failure, preterm birth, and readmission rates.

TAKEAWAY:

• From 2010 to 2020, there were 19,399,521 hospital deliveries, of which, 105 were in HT recipients.
• In unadjusted comparisons, rates of all outcomes were higher in HT, compared with non-HT delivery hospitalizations, and after adjusting for age, demographic and facility characteristics, comorbid conditions, and calendar year, HT recipients continued to have higher odds of adverse maternal outcomes. For example, HT recipients had higher rates of nontransfusion SMM (adjusted odds ratio, 28.12; 95% confidence interval, 15.65-50.53), all SMM (aOR, 15.73; 95% CI, 9.17-27.00), cSMM (aOR, 37.7; 95% CI, 17.39-82.01), and preterm birth (aOR, 7.15; 95%, CI 4.75-10.77).
• HT recipients also had longer hospital stays and higher rates of cesarean delivery, although the authors noted that it’s unclear whether this increase was caused by the HT or complications of pregnancy because data were unavailable regarding indication for cesareans.
• Patients with HT were also at increased risk for hospital readmission within the first year after delivery, particularly within the first 6 months, including for HT-related complications, a finding that supports guidelines recommending an initial postpartum visit within 7-14 days of discharge for patients with cardiac conditions, write the authors.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings demonstrate the importance of counseling HT patients at early gestational ages “to provide information about anticipated risks in pregnancy and the postpartum period to allow patients the opportunity to make informed choices regarding their reproductive options,” the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Amanda M. Craig, MD, division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and colleagues. It was published online in JACC Heart Failure.

LIMITATIONS:

Relying on diagnosis and procedure codes in administrative datasets like NRD may result in underestimation of outcomes. In this study, outcomes were limited to delivery hospitalizations, which may underestimate the true incidence of complications or fail to include pregnancies that didn’t end in a delivery, including pregnancy terminations or spontaneous abortions. Information related to race, ethnicity, hospital regions, and cause of death are not captured in the NRD dataset.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Almost one-quarter of pregnant women who have had a heart transplant (HT) will experience severe maternal morbidity (SMM) during their hospital stay for delivery, and they have sevenfold greater risk for preterm birth than do other pregnant women, results of a large study with a nationwide sample suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study included 2010-2020 information from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD), a large, all-payer administrative dataset that allows for tracking of patient hospital readmissions in the same U.S. state within the same calendar year and includes patient demographics, hospital characteristics, diagnosis and procedure codes (including for cardiac transplants), length of stay, and discharge disposition.
• The primary outcome was nontransfusion SMM which, among other conditions, included acute myocardial infarction, aortic aneurysm, acute renal failure, adult respiratory distress syndrome, amniotic fluid embolism, cardiac arrest/ventricular fibrillation, and heart failure/arrest, during the delivery hospitalization.
• Additional outcomes included rates of all SMMs (including transfusion), a composite cardiovascular SMM (cSMM) outcome that included acute myocardial infarction, aortic aneurysm, cardiac arrest/ventricular fibrillation, cardioversion, and acute heart failure, preterm birth, and readmission rates.

TAKEAWAY:

• From 2010 to 2020, there were 19,399,521 hospital deliveries, of which, 105 were in HT recipients.
• In unadjusted comparisons, rates of all outcomes were higher in HT, compared with non-HT delivery hospitalizations, and after adjusting for age, demographic and facility characteristics, comorbid conditions, and calendar year, HT recipients continued to have higher odds of adverse maternal outcomes. For example, HT recipients had higher rates of nontransfusion SMM (adjusted odds ratio, 28.12; 95% confidence interval, 15.65-50.53), all SMM (aOR, 15.73; 95% CI, 9.17-27.00), cSMM (aOR, 37.7; 95% CI, 17.39-82.01), and preterm birth (aOR, 7.15; 95%, CI 4.75-10.77).
• HT recipients also had longer hospital stays and higher rates of cesarean delivery, although the authors noted that it’s unclear whether this increase was caused by the HT or complications of pregnancy because data were unavailable regarding indication for cesareans.
• Patients with HT were also at increased risk for hospital readmission within the first year after delivery, particularly within the first 6 months, including for HT-related complications, a finding that supports guidelines recommending an initial postpartum visit within 7-14 days of discharge for patients with cardiac conditions, write the authors.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings demonstrate the importance of counseling HT patients at early gestational ages “to provide information about anticipated risks in pregnancy and the postpartum period to allow patients the opportunity to make informed choices regarding their reproductive options,” the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Amanda M. Craig, MD, division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and colleagues. It was published online in JACC Heart Failure.

LIMITATIONS:

Relying on diagnosis and procedure codes in administrative datasets like NRD may result in underestimation of outcomes. In this study, outcomes were limited to delivery hospitalizations, which may underestimate the true incidence of complications or fail to include pregnancies that didn’t end in a delivery, including pregnancy terminations or spontaneous abortions. Information related to race, ethnicity, hospital regions, and cause of death are not captured in the NRD dataset.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Almost one-quarter of pregnant women who have had a heart transplant (HT) will experience severe maternal morbidity (SMM) during their hospital stay for delivery, and they have sevenfold greater risk for preterm birth than do other pregnant women, results of a large study with a nationwide sample suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study included 2010-2020 information from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD), a large, all-payer administrative dataset that allows for tracking of patient hospital readmissions in the same U.S. state within the same calendar year and includes patient demographics, hospital characteristics, diagnosis and procedure codes (including for cardiac transplants), length of stay, and discharge disposition.
• The primary outcome was nontransfusion SMM which, among other conditions, included acute myocardial infarction, aortic aneurysm, acute renal failure, adult respiratory distress syndrome, amniotic fluid embolism, cardiac arrest/ventricular fibrillation, and heart failure/arrest, during the delivery hospitalization.
• Additional outcomes included rates of all SMMs (including transfusion), a composite cardiovascular SMM (cSMM) outcome that included acute myocardial infarction, aortic aneurysm, cardiac arrest/ventricular fibrillation, cardioversion, and acute heart failure, preterm birth, and readmission rates.

TAKEAWAY:

• From 2010 to 2020, there were 19,399,521 hospital deliveries, of which, 105 were in HT recipients.
• In unadjusted comparisons, rates of all outcomes were higher in HT, compared with non-HT delivery hospitalizations, and after adjusting for age, demographic and facility characteristics, comorbid conditions, and calendar year, HT recipients continued to have higher odds of adverse maternal outcomes. For example, HT recipients had higher rates of nontransfusion SMM (adjusted odds ratio, 28.12; 95% confidence interval, 15.65-50.53), all SMM (aOR, 15.73; 95% CI, 9.17-27.00), cSMM (aOR, 37.7; 95% CI, 17.39-82.01), and preterm birth (aOR, 7.15; 95%, CI 4.75-10.77).
• HT recipients also had longer hospital stays and higher rates of cesarean delivery, although the authors noted that it’s unclear whether this increase was caused by the HT or complications of pregnancy because data were unavailable regarding indication for cesareans.
• Patients with HT were also at increased risk for hospital readmission within the first year after delivery, particularly within the first 6 months, including for HT-related complications, a finding that supports guidelines recommending an initial postpartum visit within 7-14 days of discharge for patients with cardiac conditions, write the authors.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings demonstrate the importance of counseling HT patients at early gestational ages “to provide information about anticipated risks in pregnancy and the postpartum period to allow patients the opportunity to make informed choices regarding their reproductive options,” the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Amanda M. Craig, MD, division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and colleagues. It was published online in JACC Heart Failure.

LIMITATIONS:

Relying on diagnosis and procedure codes in administrative datasets like NRD may result in underestimation of outcomes. In this study, outcomes were limited to delivery hospitalizations, which may underestimate the true incidence of complications or fail to include pregnancies that didn’t end in a delivery, including pregnancy terminations or spontaneous abortions. Information related to race, ethnicity, hospital regions, and cause of death are not captured in the NRD dataset.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine aims to further move the field from aspirational to actionable with a person-first focus.

“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.

The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”

Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.

Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”

A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”

However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”

Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
 

Currently, a dearth of data

Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”

Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”

In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.

This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
 

‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’

An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”

That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.

Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”

And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”

Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine aims to further move the field from aspirational to actionable with a person-first focus.

“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.

The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”

Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.

Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”

A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”

However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”

Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
 

Currently, a dearth of data

Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”

Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”

In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.

This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
 

‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’

An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”

That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.

Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”

And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”

Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine aims to further move the field from aspirational to actionable with a person-first focus.

“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.

The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”

Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.

Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”

A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”

However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”

Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
 

Currently, a dearth of data

Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”

Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”

In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.

This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
 

‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’

An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”

That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.

Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”

And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”

Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the use of affirmative action in admissions to colleges, universities, medical schools, and nursing schools. This has led to an enormous amount of worry and concern, particularly in medical school admissions in the world I’m in, where people start to say that diversity matters. Diversity is important.

I know many deans of medical schools immediately sent out messages of reassurance to their students, saying New York University or Stanford or Harvard or Minnesota or Case Western is still deeply concerned about diversity, and we’re going to do what we can to preserve attention to diversity.

I’ve served on admissions at a number of schools over the years for med school. I understand – and have been told – that diversity is important, and according to the Supreme Court, not explicitly by race. There are obviously many variables to take into account when trying to keep diversity at the forefront of admissions.

At the schools I’ve been at, including Columbia, NYU, University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, and University of Pennsylvania, there are plenty of qualified students. Happily, we’ve always been engaged in some effort to try and whittle down the class to the size that we can manage and accept, and many qualified students don’t get admitted.

The first order of business for me is not to worry about how to maintain diversity. It’s to recognize that we need more doctors, nurses, and mental health care providers. I will, in a second, say a few words about diversity and where it fits into admissions, but I want to make the point clearly that what we should be doing is trying to expand the pool of students who are going to become doctors, nurses, mental health care providers, and social workers.

There are too many early retirements. We don’t have the person power we need to manage the health care challenges of an aging population. Let’s not get lost in arguing about what characteristics ought to get you into the finest medical schools. Let’s realize that we have to expand the number of schools we have.

We better be working pretty hard to expand our physician assistant programs, to make sure that we give full authority to qualified dentists and nurses who can help deliver some clinical care. We need more folks. That’s really where the battle ought to be: How do we get that done and how do we get it done quickly, not arguing about who’s in, who’s out, and why.

That said, diversity to me has never meant just race. I’m always interested in gender orientation, disability, and geographic input. Sometimes in decisions that you’re looking at, when I have students in front of me, they tell me they play a musical instrument or about the obstacles they had to overcome to get to medical school. Some of them will say they were involved in 4-H and did rodeo in high school or junior high school, which makes them a diverse potential student with characteristics that maybe some others don’t bring.

I’m not against diversity. I think having a rich set of experiences in any class – medicine, nursing, whatever it’s going to be – is beneficial to the students. They learn from each other. It is sometimes said that it’s also good for patients. I’m a little less excited about that, because I think our training goal should be to make every medical student and nursing student qualified to treat anybody.

I don’t think that, just because you’re Latinx or gay, that’s going to make a gay patient feel better. I think we should teach our students how to give care to everybody that they encounter. They shouldn’t have to match up characteristics to feel like they’re going to get quality care. That isn’t the right reason.

Diversity is important, I think, to teach our students, to broaden our research, and to make sure that bias doesn’t creep in to how we teach, learn, or behave. When you have a diverse set of providers, they can call that out and be on the alert for it, and that’s very important.

I also believe that we should think widely and broadly about diversity. Maybe race is out, but certainly other experiences related to income, background, struggle that got you to the point where you’re applying to medical school, motivation, the kinds of experiences you might have had caring for an elderly person, dealing with a disability or learning disability, and trying to overcome, let’s say, going to school in a poor area with not such a wonderful school, really help in terms of forming professionalism, empathy, and a caring point of view.

To me, the main goal is to expand our workforce. The secondary goal is to stay diverse, because we get better providers when we do so.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the use of affirmative action in admissions to colleges, universities, medical schools, and nursing schools. This has led to an enormous amount of worry and concern, particularly in medical school admissions in the world I’m in, where people start to say that diversity matters. Diversity is important.

I know many deans of medical schools immediately sent out messages of reassurance to their students, saying New York University or Stanford or Harvard or Minnesota or Case Western is still deeply concerned about diversity, and we’re going to do what we can to preserve attention to diversity.

I’ve served on admissions at a number of schools over the years for med school. I understand – and have been told – that diversity is important, and according to the Supreme Court, not explicitly by race. There are obviously many variables to take into account when trying to keep diversity at the forefront of admissions.

At the schools I’ve been at, including Columbia, NYU, University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, and University of Pennsylvania, there are plenty of qualified students. Happily, we’ve always been engaged in some effort to try and whittle down the class to the size that we can manage and accept, and many qualified students don’t get admitted.

The first order of business for me is not to worry about how to maintain diversity. It’s to recognize that we need more doctors, nurses, and mental health care providers. I will, in a second, say a few words about diversity and where it fits into admissions, but I want to make the point clearly that what we should be doing is trying to expand the pool of students who are going to become doctors, nurses, mental health care providers, and social workers.

There are too many early retirements. We don’t have the person power we need to manage the health care challenges of an aging population. Let’s not get lost in arguing about what characteristics ought to get you into the finest medical schools. Let’s realize that we have to expand the number of schools we have.

We better be working pretty hard to expand our physician assistant programs, to make sure that we give full authority to qualified dentists and nurses who can help deliver some clinical care. We need more folks. That’s really where the battle ought to be: How do we get that done and how do we get it done quickly, not arguing about who’s in, who’s out, and why.

That said, diversity to me has never meant just race. I’m always interested in gender orientation, disability, and geographic input. Sometimes in decisions that you’re looking at, when I have students in front of me, they tell me they play a musical instrument or about the obstacles they had to overcome to get to medical school. Some of them will say they were involved in 4-H and did rodeo in high school or junior high school, which makes them a diverse potential student with characteristics that maybe some others don’t bring.

I’m not against diversity. I think having a rich set of experiences in any class – medicine, nursing, whatever it’s going to be – is beneficial to the students. They learn from each other. It is sometimes said that it’s also good for patients. I’m a little less excited about that, because I think our training goal should be to make every medical student and nursing student qualified to treat anybody.

I don’t think that, just because you’re Latinx or gay, that’s going to make a gay patient feel better. I think we should teach our students how to give care to everybody that they encounter. They shouldn’t have to match up characteristics to feel like they’re going to get quality care. That isn’t the right reason.

Diversity is important, I think, to teach our students, to broaden our research, and to make sure that bias doesn’t creep in to how we teach, learn, or behave. When you have a diverse set of providers, they can call that out and be on the alert for it, and that’s very important.

I also believe that we should think widely and broadly about diversity. Maybe race is out, but certainly other experiences related to income, background, struggle that got you to the point where you’re applying to medical school, motivation, the kinds of experiences you might have had caring for an elderly person, dealing with a disability or learning disability, and trying to overcome, let’s say, going to school in a poor area with not such a wonderful school, really help in terms of forming professionalism, empathy, and a caring point of view.

To me, the main goal is to expand our workforce. The secondary goal is to stay diverse, because we get better providers when we do so.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the use of affirmative action in admissions to colleges, universities, medical schools, and nursing schools. This has led to an enormous amount of worry and concern, particularly in medical school admissions in the world I’m in, where people start to say that diversity matters. Diversity is important.

I know many deans of medical schools immediately sent out messages of reassurance to their students, saying New York University or Stanford or Harvard or Minnesota or Case Western is still deeply concerned about diversity, and we’re going to do what we can to preserve attention to diversity.

I’ve served on admissions at a number of schools over the years for med school. I understand – and have been told – that diversity is important, and according to the Supreme Court, not explicitly by race. There are obviously many variables to take into account when trying to keep diversity at the forefront of admissions.

At the schools I’ve been at, including Columbia, NYU, University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, and University of Pennsylvania, there are plenty of qualified students. Happily, we’ve always been engaged in some effort to try and whittle down the class to the size that we can manage and accept, and many qualified students don’t get admitted.

The first order of business for me is not to worry about how to maintain diversity. It’s to recognize that we need more doctors, nurses, and mental health care providers. I will, in a second, say a few words about diversity and where it fits into admissions, but I want to make the point clearly that what we should be doing is trying to expand the pool of students who are going to become doctors, nurses, mental health care providers, and social workers.

There are too many early retirements. We don’t have the person power we need to manage the health care challenges of an aging population. Let’s not get lost in arguing about what characteristics ought to get you into the finest medical schools. Let’s realize that we have to expand the number of schools we have.

We better be working pretty hard to expand our physician assistant programs, to make sure that we give full authority to qualified dentists and nurses who can help deliver some clinical care. We need more folks. That’s really where the battle ought to be: How do we get that done and how do we get it done quickly, not arguing about who’s in, who’s out, and why.

That said, diversity to me has never meant just race. I’m always interested in gender orientation, disability, and geographic input. Sometimes in decisions that you’re looking at, when I have students in front of me, they tell me they play a musical instrument or about the obstacles they had to overcome to get to medical school. Some of them will say they were involved in 4-H and did rodeo in high school or junior high school, which makes them a diverse potential student with characteristics that maybe some others don’t bring.

I’m not against diversity. I think having a rich set of experiences in any class – medicine, nursing, whatever it’s going to be – is beneficial to the students. They learn from each other. It is sometimes said that it’s also good for patients. I’m a little less excited about that, because I think our training goal should be to make every medical student and nursing student qualified to treat anybody.

I don’t think that, just because you’re Latinx or gay, that’s going to make a gay patient feel better. I think we should teach our students how to give care to everybody that they encounter. They shouldn’t have to match up characteristics to feel like they’re going to get quality care. That isn’t the right reason.

Diversity is important, I think, to teach our students, to broaden our research, and to make sure that bias doesn’t creep in to how we teach, learn, or behave. When you have a diverse set of providers, they can call that out and be on the alert for it, and that’s very important.

I also believe that we should think widely and broadly about diversity. Maybe race is out, but certainly other experiences related to income, background, struggle that got you to the point where you’re applying to medical school, motivation, the kinds of experiences you might have had caring for an elderly person, dealing with a disability or learning disability, and trying to overcome, let’s say, going to school in a poor area with not such a wonderful school, really help in terms of forming professionalism, empathy, and a caring point of view.

To me, the main goal is to expand our workforce. The secondary goal is to stay diverse, because we get better providers when we do so.

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

Forty-five minutes of intense exercise three times a week may reduce cancer risk in patients with Lynch syndrome, a genetic condition that can lead to cancer at a young age.

That amount of exercise made the immune system more able to stamp out cancer cells, researchers at the found. The intervention was specific by design, said Eduardo Vilar-Sanchez, MD, PhD, a professor of clinical cancer prevention at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and the study’s lead author. 

“We wanted to be very concrete on the recommendation,” he said. “People don’t adhere to vague lifestyle advice like ‘just exercise.’ We wanted to link a specific biologic effect to a very concrete intervention.”

The study was small (just 21 people), but it builds on a vast body of evidence linking regular exercise to a decreased risk of cancer, particularly colorectal cancer. But the researchers went a step further, investigating how exercise might lower cancer risk. 
 

Exercise and the immune system

All 21 people in the study had Lynch syndrome, and they were divided into two groups. One was given a 12-month exercise program; the other was not. The scientists checked their cardio and respiratory fitness and tracked immune cells – natural killer cells and CD8+ T cells – in the blood and colon tissues. 

“These are the immune cells that are in charge of attacking foreign entities like cancer cells,” Dr. Vilar-Sanchez said, “and they were more active with the participants who exercised.”

People in the exercise group also saw a drop in levels of the inflammatory marker prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). The drop was closely linked to the increase in immune cells. Both changes suggest a stronger immune response. 

The researchers believe the changes relate to a boost in the body’s “immune surveillance” system for hunting down and clearing out cells that would otherwise become cancerous.
 

Building on prior research

Science already offers a lot of support that regular exercise can help prevent cancer. A massive 2019 systematic review of more than 45 studies and several million people found strong evidence that exercise can reduce the risk of several cancers – including bladder, breast, colorectal, and gastric cancers – by up to 20%. 

But the MD Anderson study is the first to show a link between exercise and changes in immune biomarkers, the researchers said.

“One thing is having the epidemiological correlation, but it’s another thing to know the biological basis,” added Xavier Llor, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn, who was not involved in the study. 

Two previous studies looked at exercise and inflammation markers in healthy people and in those with a history of colon polyps, but neither study produced meaningful results. This new study’s success could be caused by the higher-intensity exercise or extra colon tissue samples. But also, advances in technology now allow for more sensitive measurements, the researchers said.
 

Wider implications?

Dr. Vilar-Sanchez hesitated to extend the study findings beyond people with Lynch syndrome, but he’s optimistic that they may apply to the general population as well. 

Dr. Llor agreed: “Exercise could be protective against other types of cancer through some of these mechanisms.”

According to the American Cancer Society, more than 15% of all cancer deaths (aside from tobacco-related cancers) in the United States are related to lifestyle factors, including physical inactivity, excess body weight, alcohol use, and poor nutrition. It recommends 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise a week to reduce cancer risk. People in the study saw a significant immune response with 135 minutes of high-intensity exercise a week. 

“The public should know that engaging in any form of exercise will somehow lead to effects in cancer prevention,” Dr. Vilar-Sanchez said.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Forty-five minutes of intense exercise three times a week may reduce cancer risk in patients with Lynch syndrome, a genetic condition that can lead to cancer at a young age.

That amount of exercise made the immune system more able to stamp out cancer cells, researchers at the found. The intervention was specific by design, said Eduardo Vilar-Sanchez, MD, PhD, a professor of clinical cancer prevention at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and the study’s lead author. 

“We wanted to be very concrete on the recommendation,” he said. “People don’t adhere to vague lifestyle advice like ‘just exercise.’ We wanted to link a specific biologic effect to a very concrete intervention.”

The study was small (just 21 people), but it builds on a vast body of evidence linking regular exercise to a decreased risk of cancer, particularly colorectal cancer. But the researchers went a step further, investigating how exercise might lower cancer risk. 
 

Exercise and the immune system

All 21 people in the study had Lynch syndrome, and they were divided into two groups. One was given a 12-month exercise program; the other was not. The scientists checked their cardio and respiratory fitness and tracked immune cells – natural killer cells and CD8+ T cells – in the blood and colon tissues. 

“These are the immune cells that are in charge of attacking foreign entities like cancer cells,” Dr. Vilar-Sanchez said, “and they were more active with the participants who exercised.”

People in the exercise group also saw a drop in levels of the inflammatory marker prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). The drop was closely linked to the increase in immune cells. Both changes suggest a stronger immune response. 

The researchers believe the changes relate to a boost in the body’s “immune surveillance” system for hunting down and clearing out cells that would otherwise become cancerous.
 

Building on prior research

Science already offers a lot of support that regular exercise can help prevent cancer. A massive 2019 systematic review of more than 45 studies and several million people found strong evidence that exercise can reduce the risk of several cancers – including bladder, breast, colorectal, and gastric cancers – by up to 20%. 

But the MD Anderson study is the first to show a link between exercise and changes in immune biomarkers, the researchers said.

“One thing is having the epidemiological correlation, but it’s another thing to know the biological basis,” added Xavier Llor, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn, who was not involved in the study. 

Two previous studies looked at exercise and inflammation markers in healthy people and in those with a history of colon polyps, but neither study produced meaningful results. This new study’s success could be caused by the higher-intensity exercise or extra colon tissue samples. But also, advances in technology now allow for more sensitive measurements, the researchers said.
 

Wider implications?

Dr. Vilar-Sanchez hesitated to extend the study findings beyond people with Lynch syndrome, but he’s optimistic that they may apply to the general population as well. 

Dr. Llor agreed: “Exercise could be protective against other types of cancer through some of these mechanisms.”

According to the American Cancer Society, more than 15% of all cancer deaths (aside from tobacco-related cancers) in the United States are related to lifestyle factors, including physical inactivity, excess body weight, alcohol use, and poor nutrition. It recommends 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise a week to reduce cancer risk. People in the study saw a significant immune response with 135 minutes of high-intensity exercise a week. 

“The public should know that engaging in any form of exercise will somehow lead to effects in cancer prevention,” Dr. Vilar-Sanchez said.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Forty-five minutes of intense exercise three times a week may reduce cancer risk in patients with Lynch syndrome, a genetic condition that can lead to cancer at a young age.

That amount of exercise made the immune system more able to stamp out cancer cells, researchers at the found. The intervention was specific by design, said Eduardo Vilar-Sanchez, MD, PhD, a professor of clinical cancer prevention at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and the study’s lead author. 

“We wanted to be very concrete on the recommendation,” he said. “People don’t adhere to vague lifestyle advice like ‘just exercise.’ We wanted to link a specific biologic effect to a very concrete intervention.”

The study was small (just 21 people), but it builds on a vast body of evidence linking regular exercise to a decreased risk of cancer, particularly colorectal cancer. But the researchers went a step further, investigating how exercise might lower cancer risk. 
 

Exercise and the immune system

All 21 people in the study had Lynch syndrome, and they were divided into two groups. One was given a 12-month exercise program; the other was not. The scientists checked their cardio and respiratory fitness and tracked immune cells – natural killer cells and CD8+ T cells – in the blood and colon tissues. 

“These are the immune cells that are in charge of attacking foreign entities like cancer cells,” Dr. Vilar-Sanchez said, “and they were more active with the participants who exercised.”

People in the exercise group also saw a drop in levels of the inflammatory marker prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). The drop was closely linked to the increase in immune cells. Both changes suggest a stronger immune response. 

The researchers believe the changes relate to a boost in the body’s “immune surveillance” system for hunting down and clearing out cells that would otherwise become cancerous.
 

Building on prior research

Science already offers a lot of support that regular exercise can help prevent cancer. A massive 2019 systematic review of more than 45 studies and several million people found strong evidence that exercise can reduce the risk of several cancers – including bladder, breast, colorectal, and gastric cancers – by up to 20%. 

But the MD Anderson study is the first to show a link between exercise and changes in immune biomarkers, the researchers said.

“One thing is having the epidemiological correlation, but it’s another thing to know the biological basis,” added Xavier Llor, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn, who was not involved in the study. 

Two previous studies looked at exercise and inflammation markers in healthy people and in those with a history of colon polyps, but neither study produced meaningful results. This new study’s success could be caused by the higher-intensity exercise or extra colon tissue samples. But also, advances in technology now allow for more sensitive measurements, the researchers said.
 

Wider implications?

Dr. Vilar-Sanchez hesitated to extend the study findings beyond people with Lynch syndrome, but he’s optimistic that they may apply to the general population as well. 

Dr. Llor agreed: “Exercise could be protective against other types of cancer through some of these mechanisms.”

According to the American Cancer Society, more than 15% of all cancer deaths (aside from tobacco-related cancers) in the United States are related to lifestyle factors, including physical inactivity, excess body weight, alcohol use, and poor nutrition. It recommends 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise a week to reduce cancer risk. People in the study saw a significant immune response with 135 minutes of high-intensity exercise a week. 

“The public should know that engaging in any form of exercise will somehow lead to effects in cancer prevention,” Dr. Vilar-Sanchez said.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

PHILADELPHIA – Women with obesity experience greater menopausal symptoms but substantially less relief from hormone therapy (HT) than women without obesity, according to a small, retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).

More than 40% of women over age 40 in the United States have obesity, presenter Anita Pershad, MD, an ob.gyn. medical resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, told attendees. Yet most of the large-scale studies investigating perimenopausal and postmenopausal hormone therapy included participants without major medical comorbidities, so little data exist on how effectively HT works in women with these comorbidities, she said

“The main takeaway of our study is that obesity may worsen a woman’s menopausal symptoms and limit the amount of relief she gets from hormone therapy,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “It remains unclear if hormone therapy is less effective in women with obesity overall, or if the expected efficacy can be achieved with alternative design and administration routes. A potential mechanism of action for the observed decreased effect could be due to adipose tissue acting as a heat insulator, promoting the effects of vasomotor symptoms.”

Dr. Pershad and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of 119 patients who presented to a menopause clinic at a Midsouth urban academic medical center between July 2018 and December 2022. Obesity was defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m² or greater.

The patients with and without obesity were similar in terms of age, duration of menopause, use of hormone therapy, and therapy acceptance, but patients with obesity were more likely to identify themselves as Black (71% vs. 40%). Women with obesity were also significantly more likely than women without obesity to report vasomotor symptoms (74% vs. 45%, P = .002), genitourinary/vulvovaginal symptoms (60% vs. 21%, P < .001), mood disturbances (11% vs. 0%, P = .18), and decreased libido (29% vs. 11%, P = .017).

There were no significant differences in comorbidities between women with and without obesity, and among women who received systemic or localized HT, the same standard dosing was used for both groups.

Women with obesity were much less likely to see a satisfying reduction in their menopausal symptoms than women without obesity (odds ratio 0.07, 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.64; P = .006), though the subgroups for each category of HT were small. Among the 20 women receiving systemic hormone therapy, only 1 of the 12 with obesity (8.3%) reported improvement in symptoms, compared with 7 of the 8 women without obesity (88%; P = .0004). Among 33 women using localized hormone therapy, 46% of the 24 women with obesity vs. 89% of the 9 women without obesity experienced symptom improvement (P = .026).

The proportions of women reporting relief from only lifestyle modifications or from nonhormonal medications, such as SSRIs/SNRIs, trazodone, and clonidine, were not statistically different. There were 33 women who relied only on lifestyle modifications, with 31% of the 16 women with obesity and 59% of the 17 women without obesity reporting improvement in their symptoms (P = .112). Similarly, among the 33 women using nonhormonal medications, 75% of the 20 women with obesity and 77% of the 13 women without obesity experienced relief (P = .9).
 

Women with obesity are undertreated

Dr. Pershad emphasized the need to improve care and counseling for diverse patients seeking treatment for menopausal symptoms.

“More research is needed to examine how women with medical comorbidities are uniquely impacted by menopause and respond to therapies,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “This can be achieved by actively including more diverse patient populations in women’s health studies, burdened by the social determinants of health and medical comorbidities such as obesity.”

Mayo Clinic

Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, MBA, director for Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health, Rochester, Minn., and medical director for The Menopause Society, was not surprised by the findings, particularly given that women with obesity tend to have more hot flashes and night sweats as a result of their extra weight. However, dosage data was not adjusted for BMI in the study and data on hormone levels was unavailable, she said, so it’s difficult to determine from the data whether HT was less effective for women with obesity or whether they were underdosed.

“I think women with obesity are undertreated,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “My guess is people are afraid. Women with obesity also may have other comorbidities,” such as hypertension and diabetes, she said, and “the greater the number of cardiovascular risk factors, the higher risk hormone therapy is.” Providers may therefore be leery of prescribing HT or prescribing it at an appropriately high enough dose to treat menopausal symptoms.

Common practice is to start patients at the lowest dose and titrate up according to symptoms, but “if people are afraid of it, they’re going to start the lowest dose” and may not increase it, Dr. Faubion said. She noted that other nonhormonal options are available, though providers should be conscientious about selecting ones whose adverse events do not include weight gain.

Although the study focused on an understudied population within hormone therapy research, the study was limited by its small size, low overall use of hormone therapy, recall bias, and the researchers’ inability to control for other medications the participants may have been taking.

Dr. Pershad said she is continuing research to try to identify the mechanisms underlying the reduced efficacy in women with obesity.

The research did not use any external funding. Dr. Pershad had no industry disclosures, but her colleagues reported honoraria from or speaking for TherapeuticsMD, Astella Pharma, Scynexis, Pharmavite, and Pfizer. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – Women with obesity experience greater menopausal symptoms but substantially less relief from hormone therapy (HT) than women without obesity, according to a small, retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).

More than 40% of women over age 40 in the United States have obesity, presenter Anita Pershad, MD, an ob.gyn. medical resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, told attendees. Yet most of the large-scale studies investigating perimenopausal and postmenopausal hormone therapy included participants without major medical comorbidities, so little data exist on how effectively HT works in women with these comorbidities, she said

“The main takeaway of our study is that obesity may worsen a woman’s menopausal symptoms and limit the amount of relief she gets from hormone therapy,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “It remains unclear if hormone therapy is less effective in women with obesity overall, or if the expected efficacy can be achieved with alternative design and administration routes. A potential mechanism of action for the observed decreased effect could be due to adipose tissue acting as a heat insulator, promoting the effects of vasomotor symptoms.”

Dr. Pershad and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of 119 patients who presented to a menopause clinic at a Midsouth urban academic medical center between July 2018 and December 2022. Obesity was defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m² or greater.

The patients with and without obesity were similar in terms of age, duration of menopause, use of hormone therapy, and therapy acceptance, but patients with obesity were more likely to identify themselves as Black (71% vs. 40%). Women with obesity were also significantly more likely than women without obesity to report vasomotor symptoms (74% vs. 45%, P = .002), genitourinary/vulvovaginal symptoms (60% vs. 21%, P < .001), mood disturbances (11% vs. 0%, P = .18), and decreased libido (29% vs. 11%, P = .017).

There were no significant differences in comorbidities between women with and without obesity, and among women who received systemic or localized HT, the same standard dosing was used for both groups.

Women with obesity were much less likely to see a satisfying reduction in their menopausal symptoms than women without obesity (odds ratio 0.07, 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.64; P = .006), though the subgroups for each category of HT were small. Among the 20 women receiving systemic hormone therapy, only 1 of the 12 with obesity (8.3%) reported improvement in symptoms, compared with 7 of the 8 women without obesity (88%; P = .0004). Among 33 women using localized hormone therapy, 46% of the 24 women with obesity vs. 89% of the 9 women without obesity experienced symptom improvement (P = .026).

The proportions of women reporting relief from only lifestyle modifications or from nonhormonal medications, such as SSRIs/SNRIs, trazodone, and clonidine, were not statistically different. There were 33 women who relied only on lifestyle modifications, with 31% of the 16 women with obesity and 59% of the 17 women without obesity reporting improvement in their symptoms (P = .112). Similarly, among the 33 women using nonhormonal medications, 75% of the 20 women with obesity and 77% of the 13 women without obesity experienced relief (P = .9).
 

Women with obesity are undertreated

Dr. Pershad emphasized the need to improve care and counseling for diverse patients seeking treatment for menopausal symptoms.

“More research is needed to examine how women with medical comorbidities are uniquely impacted by menopause and respond to therapies,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “This can be achieved by actively including more diverse patient populations in women’s health studies, burdened by the social determinants of health and medical comorbidities such as obesity.”

Mayo Clinic

Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, MBA, director for Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health, Rochester, Minn., and medical director for The Menopause Society, was not surprised by the findings, particularly given that women with obesity tend to have more hot flashes and night sweats as a result of their extra weight. However, dosage data was not adjusted for BMI in the study and data on hormone levels was unavailable, she said, so it’s difficult to determine from the data whether HT was less effective for women with obesity or whether they were underdosed.

“I think women with obesity are undertreated,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “My guess is people are afraid. Women with obesity also may have other comorbidities,” such as hypertension and diabetes, she said, and “the greater the number of cardiovascular risk factors, the higher risk hormone therapy is.” Providers may therefore be leery of prescribing HT or prescribing it at an appropriately high enough dose to treat menopausal symptoms.

Common practice is to start patients at the lowest dose and titrate up according to symptoms, but “if people are afraid of it, they’re going to start the lowest dose” and may not increase it, Dr. Faubion said. She noted that other nonhormonal options are available, though providers should be conscientious about selecting ones whose adverse events do not include weight gain.

Although the study focused on an understudied population within hormone therapy research, the study was limited by its small size, low overall use of hormone therapy, recall bias, and the researchers’ inability to control for other medications the participants may have been taking.

Dr. Pershad said she is continuing research to try to identify the mechanisms underlying the reduced efficacy in women with obesity.

The research did not use any external funding. Dr. Pershad had no industry disclosures, but her colleagues reported honoraria from or speaking for TherapeuticsMD, Astella Pharma, Scynexis, Pharmavite, and Pfizer. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – Women with obesity experience greater menopausal symptoms but substantially less relief from hormone therapy (HT) than women without obesity, according to a small, retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).

More than 40% of women over age 40 in the United States have obesity, presenter Anita Pershad, MD, an ob.gyn. medical resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, told attendees. Yet most of the large-scale studies investigating perimenopausal and postmenopausal hormone therapy included participants without major medical comorbidities, so little data exist on how effectively HT works in women with these comorbidities, she said

“The main takeaway of our study is that obesity may worsen a woman’s menopausal symptoms and limit the amount of relief she gets from hormone therapy,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “It remains unclear if hormone therapy is less effective in women with obesity overall, or if the expected efficacy can be achieved with alternative design and administration routes. A potential mechanism of action for the observed decreased effect could be due to adipose tissue acting as a heat insulator, promoting the effects of vasomotor symptoms.”

Dr. Pershad and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of 119 patients who presented to a menopause clinic at a Midsouth urban academic medical center between July 2018 and December 2022. Obesity was defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m² or greater.

The patients with and without obesity were similar in terms of age, duration of menopause, use of hormone therapy, and therapy acceptance, but patients with obesity were more likely to identify themselves as Black (71% vs. 40%). Women with obesity were also significantly more likely than women without obesity to report vasomotor symptoms (74% vs. 45%, P = .002), genitourinary/vulvovaginal symptoms (60% vs. 21%, P < .001), mood disturbances (11% vs. 0%, P = .18), and decreased libido (29% vs. 11%, P = .017).

There were no significant differences in comorbidities between women with and without obesity, and among women who received systemic or localized HT, the same standard dosing was used for both groups.

Women with obesity were much less likely to see a satisfying reduction in their menopausal symptoms than women without obesity (odds ratio 0.07, 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.64; P = .006), though the subgroups for each category of HT were small. Among the 20 women receiving systemic hormone therapy, only 1 of the 12 with obesity (8.3%) reported improvement in symptoms, compared with 7 of the 8 women without obesity (88%; P = .0004). Among 33 women using localized hormone therapy, 46% of the 24 women with obesity vs. 89% of the 9 women without obesity experienced symptom improvement (P = .026).

The proportions of women reporting relief from only lifestyle modifications or from nonhormonal medications, such as SSRIs/SNRIs, trazodone, and clonidine, were not statistically different. There were 33 women who relied only on lifestyle modifications, with 31% of the 16 women with obesity and 59% of the 17 women without obesity reporting improvement in their symptoms (P = .112). Similarly, among the 33 women using nonhormonal medications, 75% of the 20 women with obesity and 77% of the 13 women without obesity experienced relief (P = .9).
 

Women with obesity are undertreated

Dr. Pershad emphasized the need to improve care and counseling for diverse patients seeking treatment for menopausal symptoms.

“More research is needed to examine how women with medical comorbidities are uniquely impacted by menopause and respond to therapies,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “This can be achieved by actively including more diverse patient populations in women’s health studies, burdened by the social determinants of health and medical comorbidities such as obesity.”

Mayo Clinic

Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, MBA, director for Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health, Rochester, Minn., and medical director for The Menopause Society, was not surprised by the findings, particularly given that women with obesity tend to have more hot flashes and night sweats as a result of their extra weight. However, dosage data was not adjusted for BMI in the study and data on hormone levels was unavailable, she said, so it’s difficult to determine from the data whether HT was less effective for women with obesity or whether they were underdosed.

“I think women with obesity are undertreated,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “My guess is people are afraid. Women with obesity also may have other comorbidities,” such as hypertension and diabetes, she said, and “the greater the number of cardiovascular risk factors, the higher risk hormone therapy is.” Providers may therefore be leery of prescribing HT or prescribing it at an appropriately high enough dose to treat menopausal symptoms.

Common practice is to start patients at the lowest dose and titrate up according to symptoms, but “if people are afraid of it, they’re going to start the lowest dose” and may not increase it, Dr. Faubion said. She noted that other nonhormonal options are available, though providers should be conscientious about selecting ones whose adverse events do not include weight gain.

Although the study focused on an understudied population within hormone therapy research, the study was limited by its small size, low overall use of hormone therapy, recall bias, and the researchers’ inability to control for other medications the participants may have been taking.

Dr. Pershad said she is continuing research to try to identify the mechanisms underlying the reduced efficacy in women with obesity.

The research did not use any external funding. Dr. Pershad had no industry disclosures, but her colleagues reported honoraria from or speaking for TherapeuticsMD, Astella Pharma, Scynexis, Pharmavite, and Pfizer. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.

TOPLINE:

A Pap smear result indicating cervical dysplasia may actually be an early signal of genitourinary syndrome (vaginal atrophy) and can be treated effectively with local estrogen, according to a poster presented at The Menopause Society 2023 annual meeting.

METHODOLOGY:

• Starting in 2010, researchers in Florida and Antigua saw an increase in the number of perimenopausal women with no history of cervical abnormalities and low risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) presenting with abnormal Pap smears at their clinics.
• They studied 1,500 women aged 30-70 from several clinics. The women had low risk for STIs, a maximum of two sexual partners, and the presence of cervical dysplasia over a period of 12 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly all (96.7%) of the women who received local estrogen treatment had a normal Pap smear following therapy.
• A high number of patients who initially presented with cervical dysplasia underwent interventions such as colposcopies, biopsies, LEEP excisions, cryotherapy, cone biopsies, and hysterectomies because of cervical atrophy.
• The researchers concluded that local estrogen treatment could save patients money spent on treatments for cervical atrophy.
• Some women who underwent cone biopsies and hysterectomies and did not receive local estrogen still had vaginal dysplasia.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this study, we report an early sign of genitourinary syndrome of menopause: false positive cervical dysplasia caused by cervicovaginal atrophy resulting from decreased estrogen levels during perimenopause,” say the investigators. “We also demonstrate how the use of local estrogen therapy can prevent a significant number of interventions and procedures, resulting in significant cost savings. This is particularly relevant as the number of Pap smears conducted in this population represents 50%-60% of all Pap smears performed on women.”

SOURCE:

The data were presented at The Menopause Society 2023 annual meeting. The study was led by Alberto Dominguez-Bali, MD, from the Miami Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Human Sexuality.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors report no limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

A Pap smear result indicating cervical dysplasia may actually be an early signal of genitourinary syndrome (vaginal atrophy) and can be treated effectively with local estrogen, according to a poster presented at The Menopause Society 2023 annual meeting.

METHODOLOGY:

• Starting in 2010, researchers in Florida and Antigua saw an increase in the number of perimenopausal women with no history of cervical abnormalities and low risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) presenting with abnormal Pap smears at their clinics.
• They studied 1,500 women aged 30-70 from several clinics. The women had low risk for STIs, a maximum of two sexual partners, and the presence of cervical dysplasia over a period of 12 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly all (96.7%) of the women who received local estrogen treatment had a normal Pap smear following therapy.
• A high number of patients who initially presented with cervical dysplasia underwent interventions such as colposcopies, biopsies, LEEP excisions, cryotherapy, cone biopsies, and hysterectomies because of cervical atrophy.
• The researchers concluded that local estrogen treatment could save patients money spent on treatments for cervical atrophy.
• Some women who underwent cone biopsies and hysterectomies and did not receive local estrogen still had vaginal dysplasia.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this study, we report an early sign of genitourinary syndrome of menopause: false positive cervical dysplasia caused by cervicovaginal atrophy resulting from decreased estrogen levels during perimenopause,” say the investigators. “We also demonstrate how the use of local estrogen therapy can prevent a significant number of interventions and procedures, resulting in significant cost savings. This is particularly relevant as the number of Pap smears conducted in this population represents 50%-60% of all Pap smears performed on women.”

SOURCE:

The data were presented at The Menopause Society 2023 annual meeting. The study was led by Alberto Dominguez-Bali, MD, from the Miami Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Human Sexuality.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors report no limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

A Pap smear result indicating cervical dysplasia may actually be an early signal of genitourinary syndrome (vaginal atrophy) and can be treated effectively with local estrogen, according to a poster presented at The Menopause Society 2023 annual meeting.

METHODOLOGY:

• Starting in 2010, researchers in Florida and Antigua saw an increase in the number of perimenopausal women with no history of cervical abnormalities and low risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) presenting with abnormal Pap smears at their clinics.
• They studied 1,500 women aged 30-70 from several clinics. The women had low risk for STIs, a maximum of two sexual partners, and the presence of cervical dysplasia over a period of 12 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly all (96.7%) of the women who received local estrogen treatment had a normal Pap smear following therapy.
• A high number of patients who initially presented with cervical dysplasia underwent interventions such as colposcopies, biopsies, LEEP excisions, cryotherapy, cone biopsies, and hysterectomies because of cervical atrophy.
• The researchers concluded that local estrogen treatment could save patients money spent on treatments for cervical atrophy.
• Some women who underwent cone biopsies and hysterectomies and did not receive local estrogen still had vaginal dysplasia.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this study, we report an early sign of genitourinary syndrome of menopause: false positive cervical dysplasia caused by cervicovaginal atrophy resulting from decreased estrogen levels during perimenopause,” say the investigators. “We also demonstrate how the use of local estrogen therapy can prevent a significant number of interventions and procedures, resulting in significant cost savings. This is particularly relevant as the number of Pap smears conducted in this population represents 50%-60% of all Pap smears performed on women.”

SOURCE:

The data were presented at The Menopause Society 2023 annual meeting. The study was led by Alberto Dominguez-Bali, MD, from the Miami Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Human Sexuality.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors report no limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Multicancer early-detection blood (MCED) tests are the focus of intensive development. What techniques do these tests use? What potential do they show? Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc, oncologist, breast cancer specialist, and director of the individualized cancer prevention program (Interception) at the Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France, looks into these “liquid biopsies” and shares her reservations about their potential marketing, especially to the organized care plans.

Question: What are the general principles underpinning these MCED tests?

Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc: Despite their specificities, the general idea is to detect certain cancer markers in various body fluids (blood, urine, saliva, etc.), for example, molecules released by cancer cells (cytokines, inflammatory proteins, leptin, etc.) or distinctive features of the DNA in tumor cells. In blood, these molecules can be found in plasma or in serum. In urine, it’s more about detecting kidney, bladder, and urinary tract cancers.

Q: What sort of time frame are we looking at for these MCED tests to be used in routine practice?

Dr. Delaloge: They first appeared around 10 years ago. Development of these tests has intensified in recent years. There are numerous research laboratories, both public and private, that are developing different early-detection tests for cancer.

Some of these development processes are about to come to an end and are expected to be in regular, concrete use within 5-10 years. For the most advanced developments, the main biologic material researched and analyzed is DNA from cancer cells. We all have fragments of DNA from dead cells in our plasma (apoptosis), but cancer cells release more of these than others, and most importantly, their DNA has distinctive characteristics. The idea is to develop tests capable of detecting these characteristics.

Liquid biopsies based on genomic biomarkers could make MCED a reality, especially for cancers for which there is no standard screening process. But at this stage of the research, there are limitations, including low sensitivity for detecting stage I cancers in validation studies and an increased risk for overdiagnosis.

Q: What specific set of characteristics are the most advanced approaches based on?

Dr. Delaloge: They’re based on the analysis of DNA methylation, a biological process by which CH3 methyl groups are added to the DNA molecule and that determines gene expression. This phenomenon differs depending on whether the cell is cancerous. Among the tests currently under development making use of this specific characteristic is the Galleri test, which is the most advanced of them all.

A previous British National Health Service study, SYMPLIFY, which was published in 2023 by researchers at the University of Oxford, was conducted in symptomatic patients attending a health center. It offers promising results in a diagnostic situation. It has nothing at all to do with screening here. A large, randomized English study, NHS-Galleri, is underway, this time involving the general population, with the aim of assessing the potential benefit of the same test as screening in 140,000 people between ages 50 and 77 years.

In the SYMPLIFY study, which was carried out in symptomatic patients attending a health center, the Galleri MCED test had a positive predictive value of 75.5%, a negative predictive value of 97.6%, a sensitivity of 66.3%, and a specificity of 98.4%. Sensitivity increased with age and cancer stage from 24.2% at stage I to 95.3% at stage IV. For cases for which a cancer signal was detected in patients with cancer, the prediction of the original site of the cancer by the MCED test was accurate in 85.2% of cases. This large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test confirms its feasibility in a symptomatic population but is not yet sufficiently accurate to “confirm or rule out the presence of cancer.” According to the authors, “in cases in which the MCED test detects a cancer signal in this context, the probability of a diagnosis of cancer being made is considerably higher and may identify cancers at sites other than those suspected during the initial referral phase, thus reducing delays in diagnosis.” A negative test means a lower likelihood of cancer but not so low that proper investigation can be ruled out. Further tests will be needed to optimize use of a negative predictive value.

Q: Does MCED testing concern all types of cancer?

Dr. Delaloge: The Galleri test is based on full profiling of DNA methylation. This allows for early diagnosis of cancer even before it can be seen on imaging tests. The issue with these tests is that they aren’t that good at early diagnosis of the most common types of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical, etc.) for which we already have more efficient means such as the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer, mammography, HPV testing, and so on.

These blood tests would thus not be aimed at replacing routine screening but rather at screening asymptomatic individuals or those with nonspecific signs for cancers for which we have few or no screening measures and which are on the rise, such as deep tumors and cancer diagnosed at a late stage, namely pancreas, bile duct, ovarian, esophageal, lung, stomach, etc.

The results from the studies published are promising, but others are underway to confirm the benefit of these MCEDs. The challenge is to identify cancer at an early stage, at a stage where it will be easier to cure the patient and control its growth using treatments that are less onerous for the patient and that have fewer aftereffects but not at the expense of a massive increase in overdiagnosis, as seen with prostate-specific antigen levels in prostate cancer a few years ago!

Q: What would be the focus of these MCED tests?

Dr. Delaloge: We must be alert to the risk for the market development of MCED tests. For now, they are mostly, especially the Galleri test, developed in the general population to screen for types of cancer that could not be detected in any other way but also because it’s the most financially beneficial situation. The designers want to position themselves in the general population, regardless of whether this means they’ll have to test hundreds of people to find one for whom the test is beneficial. What’s more, developing tests in isolation, without considering their place in ad hoc treatment pathways, is not realistic. It’s likely that some of these tests will be marketed within the next 10 years, but the health care systems destined to receive them are not remotely ready to do so.

Q: An even more recent publication, from late July 2023, is even more exciting in relation to early detection of lung cancer using circulating DNA sequencing. What are your thoughts on it?

Dr. Delaloge: Initially overtaken by other technologies in favor of MCED approaches, DNA sequencing as a technique to detect somatic mutations seems to have reentered the competition with this new-generation research. The authors published some very interesting results, especially for stage I lung cancer with a very high sensitivity of 75%. [Editor’s note: A machine-learning model using genome-wide mutational profiles combined with other features and followed by CT imaging detected more than 90% of patients with lung cancer, including those with stage I and II disease.]

This research illustrates the difficulty of providing high performance while covering a broad range of cancers. Here, the good results mainly concern lung cancer. Researchers and health care authorities must be alert to ensuring that MCED tests prove themselves in terms of sensitivity and specificity in responding to a medical need and in their impact on specific mortality. This craze for MCED tests must not hinder the development of “single-cancer” technologies that may be much better for detecting specific cancers. This recent publication is interesting in this respect, because this sequencing test seems to be particularly good at detecting lung cancer.

Q: Another approach used in MCED tests is based on analyzing the size of DNA fragments in the blood. Can you explain how this works?

Dr. Delaloge: When cancer is not present, the size of DNA fragments in cells is much more homogeneous. Here also, the benefit of MCED based on this technique rests on the very early detection of cancers that are less common than those for which we already have good screening methods available.

Other approaches, still at the experimental stage, detect certain proteins, certain inflammatory molecules, RNA, etc. But for many researchers, the future will involve pairing tests on the basis of circulating DNA in the blood with the detection of specific molecules indicating the presence of cancer to obtain early screening tests that are even more effective or that possibly even allow us to identify an appropriate treatment at an early stage.

The development of a simple test based on a blood draw that allows us to screen early for all cancers and that would replace all current screening measures is, therefore, not imminent, although it could potentially be on the horizon in years to come. Alongside this, an important issue is the benefit of cancer screening in the general population vs. in a targeted population with a specific risk. The latter option is in development but requires an individualized screening pathway based on blood testing and current screening methods: imaging, etc. It also depends on an individual’s cancer risk profile such as age, personal and family medical history, genetic predisposition, and so on.

According to recent modeling, these multicancer tests could theoretically prevent a minimum of 2,000 deaths from cancer per 100,000 people between ages 50 and 79 years screened per year (17% fewer deaths from cancer per year).

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Multicancer early-detection blood (MCED) tests are the focus of intensive development. What techniques do these tests use? What potential do they show? Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc, oncologist, breast cancer specialist, and director of the individualized cancer prevention program (Interception) at the Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France, looks into these “liquid biopsies” and shares her reservations about their potential marketing, especially to the organized care plans.

Question: What are the general principles underpinning these MCED tests?

Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc: Despite their specificities, the general idea is to detect certain cancer markers in various body fluids (blood, urine, saliva, etc.), for example, molecules released by cancer cells (cytokines, inflammatory proteins, leptin, etc.) or distinctive features of the DNA in tumor cells. In blood, these molecules can be found in plasma or in serum. In urine, it’s more about detecting kidney, bladder, and urinary tract cancers.

Q: What sort of time frame are we looking at for these MCED tests to be used in routine practice?

Dr. Delaloge: They first appeared around 10 years ago. Development of these tests has intensified in recent years. There are numerous research laboratories, both public and private, that are developing different early-detection tests for cancer.

Some of these development processes are about to come to an end and are expected to be in regular, concrete use within 5-10 years. For the most advanced developments, the main biologic material researched and analyzed is DNA from cancer cells. We all have fragments of DNA from dead cells in our plasma (apoptosis), but cancer cells release more of these than others, and most importantly, their DNA has distinctive characteristics. The idea is to develop tests capable of detecting these characteristics.

Liquid biopsies based on genomic biomarkers could make MCED a reality, especially for cancers for which there is no standard screening process. But at this stage of the research, there are limitations, including low sensitivity for detecting stage I cancers in validation studies and an increased risk for overdiagnosis.

Q: What specific set of characteristics are the most advanced approaches based on?

Dr. Delaloge: They’re based on the analysis of DNA methylation, a biological process by which CH3 methyl groups are added to the DNA molecule and that determines gene expression. This phenomenon differs depending on whether the cell is cancerous. Among the tests currently under development making use of this specific characteristic is the Galleri test, which is the most advanced of them all.

A previous British National Health Service study, SYMPLIFY, which was published in 2023 by researchers at the University of Oxford, was conducted in symptomatic patients attending a health center. It offers promising results in a diagnostic situation. It has nothing at all to do with screening here. A large, randomized English study, NHS-Galleri, is underway, this time involving the general population, with the aim of assessing the potential benefit of the same test as screening in 140,000 people between ages 50 and 77 years.

In the SYMPLIFY study, which was carried out in symptomatic patients attending a health center, the Galleri MCED test had a positive predictive value of 75.5%, a negative predictive value of 97.6%, a sensitivity of 66.3%, and a specificity of 98.4%. Sensitivity increased with age and cancer stage from 24.2% at stage I to 95.3% at stage IV. For cases for which a cancer signal was detected in patients with cancer, the prediction of the original site of the cancer by the MCED test was accurate in 85.2% of cases. This large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test confirms its feasibility in a symptomatic population but is not yet sufficiently accurate to “confirm or rule out the presence of cancer.” According to the authors, “in cases in which the MCED test detects a cancer signal in this context, the probability of a diagnosis of cancer being made is considerably higher and may identify cancers at sites other than those suspected during the initial referral phase, thus reducing delays in diagnosis.” A negative test means a lower likelihood of cancer but not so low that proper investigation can be ruled out. Further tests will be needed to optimize use of a negative predictive value.

Q: Does MCED testing concern all types of cancer?

Dr. Delaloge: The Galleri test is based on full profiling of DNA methylation. This allows for early diagnosis of cancer even before it can be seen on imaging tests. The issue with these tests is that they aren’t that good at early diagnosis of the most common types of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical, etc.) for which we already have more efficient means such as the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer, mammography, HPV testing, and so on.

These blood tests would thus not be aimed at replacing routine screening but rather at screening asymptomatic individuals or those with nonspecific signs for cancers for which we have few or no screening measures and which are on the rise, such as deep tumors and cancer diagnosed at a late stage, namely pancreas, bile duct, ovarian, esophageal, lung, stomach, etc.

The results from the studies published are promising, but others are underway to confirm the benefit of these MCEDs. The challenge is to identify cancer at an early stage, at a stage where it will be easier to cure the patient and control its growth using treatments that are less onerous for the patient and that have fewer aftereffects but not at the expense of a massive increase in overdiagnosis, as seen with prostate-specific antigen levels in prostate cancer a few years ago!

Q: What would be the focus of these MCED tests?

Dr. Delaloge: We must be alert to the risk for the market development of MCED tests. For now, they are mostly, especially the Galleri test, developed in the general population to screen for types of cancer that could not be detected in any other way but also because it’s the most financially beneficial situation. The designers want to position themselves in the general population, regardless of whether this means they’ll have to test hundreds of people to find one for whom the test is beneficial. What’s more, developing tests in isolation, without considering their place in ad hoc treatment pathways, is not realistic. It’s likely that some of these tests will be marketed within the next 10 years, but the health care systems destined to receive them are not remotely ready to do so.

Q: An even more recent publication, from late July 2023, is even more exciting in relation to early detection of lung cancer using circulating DNA sequencing. What are your thoughts on it?

Dr. Delaloge: Initially overtaken by other technologies in favor of MCED approaches, DNA sequencing as a technique to detect somatic mutations seems to have reentered the competition with this new-generation research. The authors published some very interesting results, especially for stage I lung cancer with a very high sensitivity of 75%. [Editor’s note: A machine-learning model using genome-wide mutational profiles combined with other features and followed by CT imaging detected more than 90% of patients with lung cancer, including those with stage I and II disease.]

This research illustrates the difficulty of providing high performance while covering a broad range of cancers. Here, the good results mainly concern lung cancer. Researchers and health care authorities must be alert to ensuring that MCED tests prove themselves in terms of sensitivity and specificity in responding to a medical need and in their impact on specific mortality. This craze for MCED tests must not hinder the development of “single-cancer” technologies that may be much better for detecting specific cancers. This recent publication is interesting in this respect, because this sequencing test seems to be particularly good at detecting lung cancer.

Q: Another approach used in MCED tests is based on analyzing the size of DNA fragments in the blood. Can you explain how this works?

Dr. Delaloge: When cancer is not present, the size of DNA fragments in cells is much more homogeneous. Here also, the benefit of MCED based on this technique rests on the very early detection of cancers that are less common than those for which we already have good screening methods available.

Other approaches, still at the experimental stage, detect certain proteins, certain inflammatory molecules, RNA, etc. But for many researchers, the future will involve pairing tests on the basis of circulating DNA in the blood with the detection of specific molecules indicating the presence of cancer to obtain early screening tests that are even more effective or that possibly even allow us to identify an appropriate treatment at an early stage.

The development of a simple test based on a blood draw that allows us to screen early for all cancers and that would replace all current screening measures is, therefore, not imminent, although it could potentially be on the horizon in years to come. Alongside this, an important issue is the benefit of cancer screening in the general population vs. in a targeted population with a specific risk. The latter option is in development but requires an individualized screening pathway based on blood testing and current screening methods: imaging, etc. It also depends on an individual’s cancer risk profile such as age, personal and family medical history, genetic predisposition, and so on.

According to recent modeling, these multicancer tests could theoretically prevent a minimum of 2,000 deaths from cancer per 100,000 people between ages 50 and 79 years screened per year (17% fewer deaths from cancer per year).

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Multicancer early-detection blood (MCED) tests are the focus of intensive development. What techniques do these tests use? What potential do they show? Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc, oncologist, breast cancer specialist, and director of the individualized cancer prevention program (Interception) at the Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France, looks into these “liquid biopsies” and shares her reservations about their potential marketing, especially to the organized care plans.

Question: What are the general principles underpinning these MCED tests?

Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc: Despite their specificities, the general idea is to detect certain cancer markers in various body fluids (blood, urine, saliva, etc.), for example, molecules released by cancer cells (cytokines, inflammatory proteins, leptin, etc.) or distinctive features of the DNA in tumor cells. In blood, these molecules can be found in plasma or in serum. In urine, it’s more about detecting kidney, bladder, and urinary tract cancers.

Q: What sort of time frame are we looking at for these MCED tests to be used in routine practice?

Dr. Delaloge: They first appeared around 10 years ago. Development of these tests has intensified in recent years. There are numerous research laboratories, both public and private, that are developing different early-detection tests for cancer.

Some of these development processes are about to come to an end and are expected to be in regular, concrete use within 5-10 years. For the most advanced developments, the main biologic material researched and analyzed is DNA from cancer cells. We all have fragments of DNA from dead cells in our plasma (apoptosis), but cancer cells release more of these than others, and most importantly, their DNA has distinctive characteristics. The idea is to develop tests capable of detecting these characteristics.

Liquid biopsies based on genomic biomarkers could make MCED a reality, especially for cancers for which there is no standard screening process. But at this stage of the research, there are limitations, including low sensitivity for detecting stage I cancers in validation studies and an increased risk for overdiagnosis.

Q: What specific set of characteristics are the most advanced approaches based on?

Dr. Delaloge: They’re based on the analysis of DNA methylation, a biological process by which CH3 methyl groups are added to the DNA molecule and that determines gene expression. This phenomenon differs depending on whether the cell is cancerous. Among the tests currently under development making use of this specific characteristic is the Galleri test, which is the most advanced of them all.

A previous British National Health Service study, SYMPLIFY, which was published in 2023 by researchers at the University of Oxford, was conducted in symptomatic patients attending a health center. It offers promising results in a diagnostic situation. It has nothing at all to do with screening here. A large, randomized English study, NHS-Galleri, is underway, this time involving the general population, with the aim of assessing the potential benefit of the same test as screening in 140,000 people between ages 50 and 77 years.

In the SYMPLIFY study, which was carried out in symptomatic patients attending a health center, the Galleri MCED test had a positive predictive value of 75.5%, a negative predictive value of 97.6%, a sensitivity of 66.3%, and a specificity of 98.4%. Sensitivity increased with age and cancer stage from 24.2% at stage I to 95.3% at stage IV. For cases for which a cancer signal was detected in patients with cancer, the prediction of the original site of the cancer by the MCED test was accurate in 85.2% of cases. This large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test confirms its feasibility in a symptomatic population but is not yet sufficiently accurate to “confirm or rule out the presence of cancer.” According to the authors, “in cases in which the MCED test detects a cancer signal in this context, the probability of a diagnosis of cancer being made is considerably higher and may identify cancers at sites other than those suspected during the initial referral phase, thus reducing delays in diagnosis.” A negative test means a lower likelihood of cancer but not so low that proper investigation can be ruled out. Further tests will be needed to optimize use of a negative predictive value.

Q: Does MCED testing concern all types of cancer?

Dr. Delaloge: The Galleri test is based on full profiling of DNA methylation. This allows for early diagnosis of cancer even before it can be seen on imaging tests. The issue with these tests is that they aren’t that good at early diagnosis of the most common types of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical, etc.) for which we already have more efficient means such as the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer, mammography, HPV testing, and so on.

These blood tests would thus not be aimed at replacing routine screening but rather at screening asymptomatic individuals or those with nonspecific signs for cancers for which we have few or no screening measures and which are on the rise, such as deep tumors and cancer diagnosed at a late stage, namely pancreas, bile duct, ovarian, esophageal, lung, stomach, etc.

The results from the studies published are promising, but others are underway to confirm the benefit of these MCEDs. The challenge is to identify cancer at an early stage, at a stage where it will be easier to cure the patient and control its growth using treatments that are less onerous for the patient and that have fewer aftereffects but not at the expense of a massive increase in overdiagnosis, as seen with prostate-specific antigen levels in prostate cancer a few years ago!

Q: What would be the focus of these MCED tests?

Dr. Delaloge: We must be alert to the risk for the market development of MCED tests. For now, they are mostly, especially the Galleri test, developed in the general population to screen for types of cancer that could not be detected in any other way but also because it’s the most financially beneficial situation. The designers want to position themselves in the general population, regardless of whether this means they’ll have to test hundreds of people to find one for whom the test is beneficial. What’s more, developing tests in isolation, without considering their place in ad hoc treatment pathways, is not realistic. It’s likely that some of these tests will be marketed within the next 10 years, but the health care systems destined to receive them are not remotely ready to do so.

Q: An even more recent publication, from late July 2023, is even more exciting in relation to early detection of lung cancer using circulating DNA sequencing. What are your thoughts on it?

Dr. Delaloge: Initially overtaken by other technologies in favor of MCED approaches, DNA sequencing as a technique to detect somatic mutations seems to have reentered the competition with this new-generation research. The authors published some very interesting results, especially for stage I lung cancer with a very high sensitivity of 75%. [Editor’s note: A machine-learning model using genome-wide mutational profiles combined with other features and followed by CT imaging detected more than 90% of patients with lung cancer, including those with stage I and II disease.]

This research illustrates the difficulty of providing high performance while covering a broad range of cancers. Here, the good results mainly concern lung cancer. Researchers and health care authorities must be alert to ensuring that MCED tests prove themselves in terms of sensitivity and specificity in responding to a medical need and in their impact on specific mortality. This craze for MCED tests must not hinder the development of “single-cancer” technologies that may be much better for detecting specific cancers. This recent publication is interesting in this respect, because this sequencing test seems to be particularly good at detecting lung cancer.

Q: Another approach used in MCED tests is based on analyzing the size of DNA fragments in the blood. Can you explain how this works?

Dr. Delaloge: When cancer is not present, the size of DNA fragments in cells is much more homogeneous. Here also, the benefit of MCED based on this technique rests on the very early detection of cancers that are less common than those for which we already have good screening methods available.

Other approaches, still at the experimental stage, detect certain proteins, certain inflammatory molecules, RNA, etc. But for many researchers, the future will involve pairing tests on the basis of circulating DNA in the blood with the detection of specific molecules indicating the presence of cancer to obtain early screening tests that are even more effective or that possibly even allow us to identify an appropriate treatment at an early stage.

The development of a simple test based on a blood draw that allows us to screen early for all cancers and that would replace all current screening measures is, therefore, not imminent, although it could potentially be on the horizon in years to come. Alongside this, an important issue is the benefit of cancer screening in the general population vs. in a targeted population with a specific risk. The latter option is in development but requires an individualized screening pathway based on blood testing and current screening methods: imaging, etc. It also depends on an individual’s cancer risk profile such as age, personal and family medical history, genetic predisposition, and so on.

According to recent modeling, these multicancer tests could theoretically prevent a minimum of 2,000 deaths from cancer per 100,000 people between ages 50 and 79 years screened per year (17% fewer deaths from cancer per year).

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.