Perspectives

In this column I have previously discussed the microbiome and its importance to health, especially as it relates to infections in children. Given the appreciated connection between microbiome and immunity, my group in Rochester, N.Y., recently undertook a study of the effect of antibiotic usage on the immune response to routine early childhood vaccines. In mouse models, it was previously shown that antibiotic exposure induced a reduction in the abundance and diversity of gut microbiota that in turn negatively affected the generation and maintenance of vaccine-induced immunity.^1,2 A study from Stanford University was the first experimental human trial of antibiotic effects on vaccine responses. Adult volunteers were given an antibiotic or not before seasonal influenza vaccination and the researchers identified specific bacteria in the gut that were reduced by the antibiotics given. Those normal bacteria in the gut microbiome were shown to provide positive immunity signals to the systemic immune system that potentiated vaccine responses.³

My group conducted the first-ever study in children to explore whether an association existed between antibiotic use and vaccine-induced antibody levels. In the May issue of Pediatrics we report results from 560 children studied.⁴ From these children, 11,888 serum antibody levels to vaccine antigens were measured. Vaccine-induced antibody levels were determined at various time points after primary vaccination at child age 2, 4, and 6 months and boosters at age 12-18 months for 10 antigens included in four vaccines: DTaP, Hib, IPV, and PCV. The antibody levels to vaccine components were measured to DTaP (diphtheria toxoid, pertussis toxoid, tetanus toxoid, pertactin, and filamentous hemagglutinin), Hib conjugate (polyribosylribitol phosphate), IPV (polio 2), and PCV (serotypes 6B, 14, and 23F). A total of 342 children with 1,678 antibiotic courses prescribed were compared with 218 children with no antibiotic exposures. The predominant antibiotics prescribed were amoxicillin, cefdinir, amoxicillin/clavulanate, and ceftriaxone, since most treatments were for acute otitis media.

Of possible high clinical relevance, we found that from 9 to 24 months of age, children with antibiotic exposure had a higher frequency of vaccine-induced antibody levels below protection compared with children with no antibiotic use, placing them at risk of contracting a vaccine-preventable infection for DTaP antigens DT, TT, and PT and for PCV serotype 14.

For time points where antibody levels were determined within 30 days of completion of a course of antibiotics (recent antibiotic use), individual antibiotics were analyzed for effect on antibody levels below protective levels. Across all vaccine antigens measured, we found that all antibiotics had a negative effect on antibody levels and percentage of children achieving the protective antibody level threshold. Amoxicillin use had a lower association with lower antibody levels than the broader spectrum antibiotics, amoxicillin clavulanate (Augmentin), cefdinir, and ceftriaxone. For children receiving amoxicillin/clavulanate prescriptions, it was possible to compare the effect of shorter versus longer courses and we found that a 5-day course was associated with subprotective antibody levels similar to 10 days of amoxicillin, whereas 10-day amoxicillin/clavulanate was associated with higher frequency of children having subprotective antibody levels (Figure).

We examined whether accumulation of antibiotic courses in the first year of life had an association with subsequent vaccine-induced antibody levels and found that each antibiotic prescription was associated with a reduction in the median antibody level. For DTaP, each prescription was associated with 5.8% drop in antibody level to the vaccine components. For Hib the drop was 6.8%, IPV was 11.3%, and PCV was 10.4% – all statistically significant. To determine if booster vaccination influenced this association, a second analysis was performed using antibiotic prescriptions up to 15 months of age. We found each antibiotic prescription was associated with a reduction in median vaccine-induced antibody levels for DTaP by 18%, Hib by 21%, IPV by 19%, and PCV by 12% – all statistically significant.

Our study is the first in young children during the early age window where vaccine-induced immunity is established. Antibiotic use was associated with increased frequency of subprotective antibody levels for several vaccines used in children up to 2 years of age. The lower antibody levels could leave children vulnerable to vaccine preventable diseases. Perhaps outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, such as pertussis, may be a consequence of multiple courses of antibiotics suppressing vaccine-induced immunity.

A goal of this study was to explore potential acute and long-term effects of antibiotic exposure on vaccine-induced antibody levels. Accumulated antibiotic courses up to booster immunization was associated with decreased vaccine antibody levels both before and after booster, suggesting that booster immunization was not sufficient to change the negative association with antibiotic exposure. The results were similar for all vaccines tested, suggesting that the specific vaccine formulation was not a factor.

The study has several limitations. The antibiotic prescription data and measurements of vaccine-induced antibody levels were recorded and measured prospectively; however, our analysis was done retrospectively. The group of study children was derived from my private practice in Rochester, N.Y., and may not be broadly representative of all children. The number of vaccine antibody measurements was limited by serum availability at some sampling time points in some children; and sometimes, the serum samples were collected far apart, which weakened our ability to perform longitudinal analyses. We did not collect stool samples from the children so we could not directly study the effect of antibiotic courses on the gut microbiome.

Our study adds new reasons to be cautious about overprescribing antibiotics on an individual child basis because an adverse effect extends to reduction in vaccine responses. This should be explained to parents requesting unnecessary antibiotics for colds and coughs. When antibiotics are necessary, the judicious choice of a narrow-spectrum antibiotic or a shorter duration of a broader spectrum antibiotic may reduce adverse effects on vaccine-induced immunity.

References

1. Valdez Y et al. Influence of the microbiota on vaccine effectiveness. Trends Immunol. 2014;35(11):526-37.

2. Lynn MA et al. Early-life antibiotic-driven dysbiosis leads to dysregulated vaccine immune responses in mice. Cell Host Microbe. 2018;23(5):653-60.e5.

3. Hagan T et al. Antibiotics-driven gut microbiome perturbation alters immunity to vaccines in humans. Cell. 2019;178(6):1313-28.e13.

4. Chapman T et al. Antibiotic use and vaccine antibody levels. Pediatrics. 2022;149(5);1-17. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.

In this column I have previously discussed the microbiome and its importance to health, especially as it relates to infections in children. Given the appreciated connection between microbiome and immunity, my group in Rochester, N.Y., recently undertook a study of the effect of antibiotic usage on the immune response to routine early childhood vaccines. In mouse models, it was previously shown that antibiotic exposure induced a reduction in the abundance and diversity of gut microbiota that in turn negatively affected the generation and maintenance of vaccine-induced immunity.^1,2 A study from Stanford University was the first experimental human trial of antibiotic effects on vaccine responses. Adult volunteers were given an antibiotic or not before seasonal influenza vaccination and the researchers identified specific bacteria in the gut that were reduced by the antibiotics given. Those normal bacteria in the gut microbiome were shown to provide positive immunity signals to the systemic immune system that potentiated vaccine responses.³

My group conducted the first-ever study in children to explore whether an association existed between antibiotic use and vaccine-induced antibody levels. In the May issue of Pediatrics we report results from 560 children studied.⁴ From these children, 11,888 serum antibody levels to vaccine antigens were measured. Vaccine-induced antibody levels were determined at various time points after primary vaccination at child age 2, 4, and 6 months and boosters at age 12-18 months for 10 antigens included in four vaccines: DTaP, Hib, IPV, and PCV. The antibody levels to vaccine components were measured to DTaP (diphtheria toxoid, pertussis toxoid, tetanus toxoid, pertactin, and filamentous hemagglutinin), Hib conjugate (polyribosylribitol phosphate), IPV (polio 2), and PCV (serotypes 6B, 14, and 23F). A total of 342 children with 1,678 antibiotic courses prescribed were compared with 218 children with no antibiotic exposures. The predominant antibiotics prescribed were amoxicillin, cefdinir, amoxicillin/clavulanate, and ceftriaxone, since most treatments were for acute otitis media.

Of possible high clinical relevance, we found that from 9 to 24 months of age, children with antibiotic exposure had a higher frequency of vaccine-induced antibody levels below protection compared with children with no antibiotic use, placing them at risk of contracting a vaccine-preventable infection for DTaP antigens DT, TT, and PT and for PCV serotype 14.

For time points where antibody levels were determined within 30 days of completion of a course of antibiotics (recent antibiotic use), individual antibiotics were analyzed for effect on antibody levels below protective levels. Across all vaccine antigens measured, we found that all antibiotics had a negative effect on antibody levels and percentage of children achieving the protective antibody level threshold. Amoxicillin use had a lower association with lower antibody levels than the broader spectrum antibiotics, amoxicillin clavulanate (Augmentin), cefdinir, and ceftriaxone. For children receiving amoxicillin/clavulanate prescriptions, it was possible to compare the effect of shorter versus longer courses and we found that a 5-day course was associated with subprotective antibody levels similar to 10 days of amoxicillin, whereas 10-day amoxicillin/clavulanate was associated with higher frequency of children having subprotective antibody levels (Figure).

We examined whether accumulation of antibiotic courses in the first year of life had an association with subsequent vaccine-induced antibody levels and found that each antibiotic prescription was associated with a reduction in the median antibody level. For DTaP, each prescription was associated with 5.8% drop in antibody level to the vaccine components. For Hib the drop was 6.8%, IPV was 11.3%, and PCV was 10.4% – all statistically significant. To determine if booster vaccination influenced this association, a second analysis was performed using antibiotic prescriptions up to 15 months of age. We found each antibiotic prescription was associated with a reduction in median vaccine-induced antibody levels for DTaP by 18%, Hib by 21%, IPV by 19%, and PCV by 12% – all statistically significant.

Our study is the first in young children during the early age window where vaccine-induced immunity is established. Antibiotic use was associated with increased frequency of subprotective antibody levels for several vaccines used in children up to 2 years of age. The lower antibody levels could leave children vulnerable to vaccine preventable diseases. Perhaps outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, such as pertussis, may be a consequence of multiple courses of antibiotics suppressing vaccine-induced immunity.

A goal of this study was to explore potential acute and long-term effects of antibiotic exposure on vaccine-induced antibody levels. Accumulated antibiotic courses up to booster immunization was associated with decreased vaccine antibody levels both before and after booster, suggesting that booster immunization was not sufficient to change the negative association with antibiotic exposure. The results were similar for all vaccines tested, suggesting that the specific vaccine formulation was not a factor.

The study has several limitations. The antibiotic prescription data and measurements of vaccine-induced antibody levels were recorded and measured prospectively; however, our analysis was done retrospectively. The group of study children was derived from my private practice in Rochester, N.Y., and may not be broadly representative of all children. The number of vaccine antibody measurements was limited by serum availability at some sampling time points in some children; and sometimes, the serum samples were collected far apart, which weakened our ability to perform longitudinal analyses. We did not collect stool samples from the children so we could not directly study the effect of antibiotic courses on the gut microbiome.

Our study adds new reasons to be cautious about overprescribing antibiotics on an individual child basis because an adverse effect extends to reduction in vaccine responses. This should be explained to parents requesting unnecessary antibiotics for colds and coughs. When antibiotics are necessary, the judicious choice of a narrow-spectrum antibiotic or a shorter duration of a broader spectrum antibiotic may reduce adverse effects on vaccine-induced immunity.

References

1. Valdez Y et al. Influence of the microbiota on vaccine effectiveness. Trends Immunol. 2014;35(11):526-37.

2. Lynn MA et al. Early-life antibiotic-driven dysbiosis leads to dysregulated vaccine immune responses in mice. Cell Host Microbe. 2018;23(5):653-60.e5.

3. Hagan T et al. Antibiotics-driven gut microbiome perturbation alters immunity to vaccines in humans. Cell. 2019;178(6):1313-28.e13.

4. Chapman T et al. Antibiotic use and vaccine antibody levels. Pediatrics. 2022;149(5);1-17. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.

In this column I have previously discussed the microbiome and its importance to health, especially as it relates to infections in children. Given the appreciated connection between microbiome and immunity, my group in Rochester, N.Y., recently undertook a study of the effect of antibiotic usage on the immune response to routine early childhood vaccines. In mouse models, it was previously shown that antibiotic exposure induced a reduction in the abundance and diversity of gut microbiota that in turn negatively affected the generation and maintenance of vaccine-induced immunity.^1,2 A study from Stanford University was the first experimental human trial of antibiotic effects on vaccine responses. Adult volunteers were given an antibiotic or not before seasonal influenza vaccination and the researchers identified specific bacteria in the gut that were reduced by the antibiotics given. Those normal bacteria in the gut microbiome were shown to provide positive immunity signals to the systemic immune system that potentiated vaccine responses.³

My group conducted the first-ever study in children to explore whether an association existed between antibiotic use and vaccine-induced antibody levels. In the May issue of Pediatrics we report results from 560 children studied.⁴ From these children, 11,888 serum antibody levels to vaccine antigens were measured. Vaccine-induced antibody levels were determined at various time points after primary vaccination at child age 2, 4, and 6 months and boosters at age 12-18 months for 10 antigens included in four vaccines: DTaP, Hib, IPV, and PCV. The antibody levels to vaccine components were measured to DTaP (diphtheria toxoid, pertussis toxoid, tetanus toxoid, pertactin, and filamentous hemagglutinin), Hib conjugate (polyribosylribitol phosphate), IPV (polio 2), and PCV (serotypes 6B, 14, and 23F). A total of 342 children with 1,678 antibiotic courses prescribed were compared with 218 children with no antibiotic exposures. The predominant antibiotics prescribed were amoxicillin, cefdinir, amoxicillin/clavulanate, and ceftriaxone, since most treatments were for acute otitis media.

Of possible high clinical relevance, we found that from 9 to 24 months of age, children with antibiotic exposure had a higher frequency of vaccine-induced antibody levels below protection compared with children with no antibiotic use, placing them at risk of contracting a vaccine-preventable infection for DTaP antigens DT, TT, and PT and for PCV serotype 14.

For time points where antibody levels were determined within 30 days of completion of a course of antibiotics (recent antibiotic use), individual antibiotics were analyzed for effect on antibody levels below protective levels. Across all vaccine antigens measured, we found that all antibiotics had a negative effect on antibody levels and percentage of children achieving the protective antibody level threshold. Amoxicillin use had a lower association with lower antibody levels than the broader spectrum antibiotics, amoxicillin clavulanate (Augmentin), cefdinir, and ceftriaxone. For children receiving amoxicillin/clavulanate prescriptions, it was possible to compare the effect of shorter versus longer courses and we found that a 5-day course was associated with subprotective antibody levels similar to 10 days of amoxicillin, whereas 10-day amoxicillin/clavulanate was associated with higher frequency of children having subprotective antibody levels (Figure).

We examined whether accumulation of antibiotic courses in the first year of life had an association with subsequent vaccine-induced antibody levels and found that each antibiotic prescription was associated with a reduction in the median antibody level. For DTaP, each prescription was associated with 5.8% drop in antibody level to the vaccine components. For Hib the drop was 6.8%, IPV was 11.3%, and PCV was 10.4% – all statistically significant. To determine if booster vaccination influenced this association, a second analysis was performed using antibiotic prescriptions up to 15 months of age. We found each antibiotic prescription was associated with a reduction in median vaccine-induced antibody levels for DTaP by 18%, Hib by 21%, IPV by 19%, and PCV by 12% – all statistically significant.

Our study is the first in young children during the early age window where vaccine-induced immunity is established. Antibiotic use was associated with increased frequency of subprotective antibody levels for several vaccines used in children up to 2 years of age. The lower antibody levels could leave children vulnerable to vaccine preventable diseases. Perhaps outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, such as pertussis, may be a consequence of multiple courses of antibiotics suppressing vaccine-induced immunity.

A goal of this study was to explore potential acute and long-term effects of antibiotic exposure on vaccine-induced antibody levels. Accumulated antibiotic courses up to booster immunization was associated with decreased vaccine antibody levels both before and after booster, suggesting that booster immunization was not sufficient to change the negative association with antibiotic exposure. The results were similar for all vaccines tested, suggesting that the specific vaccine formulation was not a factor.

The study has several limitations. The antibiotic prescription data and measurements of vaccine-induced antibody levels were recorded and measured prospectively; however, our analysis was done retrospectively. The group of study children was derived from my private practice in Rochester, N.Y., and may not be broadly representative of all children. The number of vaccine antibody measurements was limited by serum availability at some sampling time points in some children; and sometimes, the serum samples were collected far apart, which weakened our ability to perform longitudinal analyses. We did not collect stool samples from the children so we could not directly study the effect of antibiotic courses on the gut microbiome.

Our study adds new reasons to be cautious about overprescribing antibiotics on an individual child basis because an adverse effect extends to reduction in vaccine responses. This should be explained to parents requesting unnecessary antibiotics for colds and coughs. When antibiotics are necessary, the judicious choice of a narrow-spectrum antibiotic or a shorter duration of a broader spectrum antibiotic may reduce adverse effects on vaccine-induced immunity.

References

1. Valdez Y et al. Influence of the microbiota on vaccine effectiveness. Trends Immunol. 2014;35(11):526-37.

2. Lynn MA et al. Early-life antibiotic-driven dysbiosis leads to dysregulated vaccine immune responses in mice. Cell Host Microbe. 2018;23(5):653-60.e5.

3. Hagan T et al. Antibiotics-driven gut microbiome perturbation alters immunity to vaccines in humans. Cell. 2019;178(6):1313-28.e13.

4. Chapman T et al. Antibiotic use and vaccine antibody levels. Pediatrics. 2022;149(5);1-17. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.

Psychiatrists practice a field of medicine that relies on one’s clinical perspective to interpret observable behaviors originating from the brains of others. In this manner, psychiatry and photography are similar. And digital technology has changed them both.

In photography, there are many technical aspects for one to master when framing and capturing a shot. The length of exposure. The amount of light needed. The speed of the film, which is its sensitivity to light. The aperture that controls how much light falls on the film. The movement of the subject across the film during the exposure. Despite the fact that physical film has mostly yielded to electronic sensors over the past couple decades, these basic aspects of photography remain.

But perspective is the critical ingredient. This is what brings the greatest impact to photography. The composition, or the subject of the photograph and how its elements – foreground, background, shapes, patterns, texture, shadow, motion, leading lines, and focal points – are arranged. The most powerful way to improve the composition – more powerful than fancy camera bells and whistles – is to move. One step to the left or right, one step forward or back. Stand on your toes, or crouch to your knees. Pivot this way or that. A simple change in perspective dramatically changes the nature and the energy of the captured image.

While the field of medicine has similarly been impacted by the onset of digital technology, physicians’ perspectives about their work remain the key factor in the nature and the energy of what we do.

In fact, many physicians are changing what they actually do for a living. Pivoting their clinical perspectives. And applying those perspectives to other areas. The latest catalyst fueling these career pivots, these changes in perspectives, has been the incredible global impact of the tiny little coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2. The COVID-19 pandemic that began two years ago has disrupted the entire planet. The virus has caused us all to change our perspective, to see our world differently, and our place in it.

The virus has exposed defects in our health care delivery system. And physicians have necessarily reacted, injecting changes in what they do and how they do it. Many of these changes rely on digital technology, building upon the groundwork laid over the past couple of decades to convert our paper processes into electronic processes, and our manual work flows into digital work flows. This groundwork is no small thing, as it relies on conventions and standards, such as DICOM, LOINC, AES, CDA, UMLS, FHIR, ICD, NDC, USCDI, and SNOMED-CT. Establishing, maintaining, and evolving health care standards requires organized groups of people to come together to share their diverse perspectives. This is but one of many places where physicians are using their unique clinical perspective to share what they see with others.

This column will focus on these professional pivots that physicians make when they take a step to the left or right to change their perspective and share their viewpoints in different settings with diverse groups of people. Some of these pivots are small, while others are career changing. But the theme that knits them together is about taking what one has learned while helping others achieve better health, and using that perspective to make a difference.

Dr. Daviss is chief medical officer for Optum Maryland and immediate past president of the Maryland-DC Society of Addiction Medicine, and former medical director and senior medical advisor at SAMHSA. He is coauthor of the 2011 book, Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work. Psychiatrists and other physicians may share their own experience with pivots they have made with Dr. Daviss via email (drdaviss@gmail.com) or Twitter (@HITshrink). The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer or organizations with which he is associated.

Psychiatrists practice a field of medicine that relies on one’s clinical perspective to interpret observable behaviors originating from the brains of others. In this manner, psychiatry and photography are similar. And digital technology has changed them both.

In photography, there are many technical aspects for one to master when framing and capturing a shot. The length of exposure. The amount of light needed. The speed of the film, which is its sensitivity to light. The aperture that controls how much light falls on the film. The movement of the subject across the film during the exposure. Despite the fact that physical film has mostly yielded to electronic sensors over the past couple decades, these basic aspects of photography remain.

But perspective is the critical ingredient. This is what brings the greatest impact to photography. The composition, or the subject of the photograph and how its elements – foreground, background, shapes, patterns, texture, shadow, motion, leading lines, and focal points – are arranged. The most powerful way to improve the composition – more powerful than fancy camera bells and whistles – is to move. One step to the left or right, one step forward or back. Stand on your toes, or crouch to your knees. Pivot this way or that. A simple change in perspective dramatically changes the nature and the energy of the captured image.

While the field of medicine has similarly been impacted by the onset of digital technology, physicians’ perspectives about their work remain the key factor in the nature and the energy of what we do.

In fact, many physicians are changing what they actually do for a living. Pivoting their clinical perspectives. And applying those perspectives to other areas. The latest catalyst fueling these career pivots, these changes in perspectives, has been the incredible global impact of the tiny little coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2. The COVID-19 pandemic that began two years ago has disrupted the entire planet. The virus has caused us all to change our perspective, to see our world differently, and our place in it.

The virus has exposed defects in our health care delivery system. And physicians have necessarily reacted, injecting changes in what they do and how they do it. Many of these changes rely on digital technology, building upon the groundwork laid over the past couple of decades to convert our paper processes into electronic processes, and our manual work flows into digital work flows. This groundwork is no small thing, as it relies on conventions and standards, such as DICOM, LOINC, AES, CDA, UMLS, FHIR, ICD, NDC, USCDI, and SNOMED-CT. Establishing, maintaining, and evolving health care standards requires organized groups of people to come together to share their diverse perspectives. This is but one of many places where physicians are using their unique clinical perspective to share what they see with others.

This column will focus on these professional pivots that physicians make when they take a step to the left or right to change their perspective and share their viewpoints in different settings with diverse groups of people. Some of these pivots are small, while others are career changing. But the theme that knits them together is about taking what one has learned while helping others achieve better health, and using that perspective to make a difference.

Dr. Daviss is chief medical officer for Optum Maryland and immediate past president of the Maryland-DC Society of Addiction Medicine, and former medical director and senior medical advisor at SAMHSA. He is coauthor of the 2011 book, Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work. Psychiatrists and other physicians may share their own experience with pivots they have made with Dr. Daviss via email (drdaviss@gmail.com) or Twitter (@HITshrink). The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer or organizations with which he is associated.

Psychiatrists practice a field of medicine that relies on one’s clinical perspective to interpret observable behaviors originating from the brains of others. In this manner, psychiatry and photography are similar. And digital technology has changed them both.

In photography, there are many technical aspects for one to master when framing and capturing a shot. The length of exposure. The amount of light needed. The speed of the film, which is its sensitivity to light. The aperture that controls how much light falls on the film. The movement of the subject across the film during the exposure. Despite the fact that physical film has mostly yielded to electronic sensors over the past couple decades, these basic aspects of photography remain.

But perspective is the critical ingredient. This is what brings the greatest impact to photography. The composition, or the subject of the photograph and how its elements – foreground, background, shapes, patterns, texture, shadow, motion, leading lines, and focal points – are arranged. The most powerful way to improve the composition – more powerful than fancy camera bells and whistles – is to move. One step to the left or right, one step forward or back. Stand on your toes, or crouch to your knees. Pivot this way or that. A simple change in perspective dramatically changes the nature and the energy of the captured image.

While the field of medicine has similarly been impacted by the onset of digital technology, physicians’ perspectives about their work remain the key factor in the nature and the energy of what we do.

In fact, many physicians are changing what they actually do for a living. Pivoting their clinical perspectives. And applying those perspectives to other areas. The latest catalyst fueling these career pivots, these changes in perspectives, has been the incredible global impact of the tiny little coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2. The COVID-19 pandemic that began two years ago has disrupted the entire planet. The virus has caused us all to change our perspective, to see our world differently, and our place in it.

The virus has exposed defects in our health care delivery system. And physicians have necessarily reacted, injecting changes in what they do and how they do it. Many of these changes rely on digital technology, building upon the groundwork laid over the past couple of decades to convert our paper processes into electronic processes, and our manual work flows into digital work flows. This groundwork is no small thing, as it relies on conventions and standards, such as DICOM, LOINC, AES, CDA, UMLS, FHIR, ICD, NDC, USCDI, and SNOMED-CT. Establishing, maintaining, and evolving health care standards requires organized groups of people to come together to share their diverse perspectives. This is but one of many places where physicians are using their unique clinical perspective to share what they see with others.

This column will focus on these professional pivots that physicians make when they take a step to the left or right to change their perspective and share their viewpoints in different settings with diverse groups of people. Some of these pivots are small, while others are career changing. But the theme that knits them together is about taking what one has learned while helping others achieve better health, and using that perspective to make a difference.

Dr. Daviss is chief medical officer for Optum Maryland and immediate past president of the Maryland-DC Society of Addiction Medicine, and former medical director and senior medical advisor at SAMHSA. He is coauthor of the 2011 book, Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work. Psychiatrists and other physicians may share their own experience with pivots they have made with Dr. Daviss via email (drdaviss@gmail.com) or Twitter (@HITshrink). The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer or organizations with which he is associated.

On April 12, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released the draft of a recommendation statement titled Screening for Anxiety in Children and Adolescents. Based on their observation that 7.8% of children and adolescents have a current anxiety disorder and their analysis of the magnitude of the net benefit, the Task Force plans on recommending that children ages 8-18 years be screened for the condition. However, the group could not find evidence to support screening for children 7 years and younger.

Over more than 4 decades of general pediatric practice, it became obvious to me that anxiety was driving a high percentage of my office visits. Most often in young children it was parental anxiety that was prompting the phone call or office visit. In older childhood and adolescence it was patient anxiety that began to play a larger role.

Over the last 2 decades the level of anxiety in all age groups has seemed to increase. How large a role the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and other terrorist attacks were playing in this phenomenon is unclear to me. However, I suspect they were significant. More recently the pandemic and the failure of both political parties to forge a working arrangement have fueled even more anxiety in many demographic segments. It may be safe to say that everyone is anxious to one degree or another.

Broad-based anxiety in the general population and the incidence of anxiety disorders severe enough to disrupt a child’s life are certainly two different kettles of fish. However, the factors that have raised the level of anxiety across all age groups certainly hasn’t made things any easier for the child who has inherited or developed an anxiety disorder.

Glancing at the 600-page evidence synthesis that accompanies the task force’s report it is clear that they have taken their challenge seriously. However, I wonder whether looking at the 7-and-under age group with a different lens might have resulted in the inclusion of younger children in their recommendation.

I understand that to support their recommendations the U.S. Preventive Services Task Forces must rely on data from peer-reviewed studies that have looked at quantifiable outcomes. However, I suspect the task force would agree that its recommendations shouldn’t prevent the rest of us from using our own observations and intuition when deciding whether to selectively screen our younger patients for anxiety disorders.

Although it may not generate a measurable data point, providing the parents of a 5-year-old whose troubling behavior is in part the result of an anxiety disorder is invaluable. Do we need to screen all 5-year-olds? The task force says probably not given the current state of our knowledge and I agree. But, the fact that almost 8% of the pediatric population carries the diagnosis and my anecdotal observations suggest that as pediatricians we should be learning more about anxiety disorders and their wide variety of presentations. Then we should selectively screen more of our patients. In fact, I suspect we might help our patients and ourselves by questioning more parents about their own mental health histories even before we have any inkling that their child has a problem. While the degree to which anxiety disorders are inheritable and the exact mechanism is far from clear, I think this history might be a valuable piece of information to learn as early as the prenatal get-acquainted visit. A simple question to a new or expecting parent about what worries them most about becoming a parent would be a good opener. Your reassurance that you expect parents to be worried and welcome hearing about their concerns should be a step in building a strong foundation for a family-provider relationship.

Anxiety happens and unfortunately so do anxiety disorders. We need to be doing a better job of acknowledging and responding to these two realities.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

*This column was updated on 5/4/2022.

On April 12, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released the draft of a recommendation statement titled Screening for Anxiety in Children and Adolescents. Based on their observation that 7.8% of children and adolescents have a current anxiety disorder and their analysis of the magnitude of the net benefit, the Task Force plans on recommending that children ages 8-18 years be screened for the condition. However, the group could not find evidence to support screening for children 7 years and younger.

Over more than 4 decades of general pediatric practice, it became obvious to me that anxiety was driving a high percentage of my office visits. Most often in young children it was parental anxiety that was prompting the phone call or office visit. In older childhood and adolescence it was patient anxiety that began to play a larger role.

Over the last 2 decades the level of anxiety in all age groups has seemed to increase. How large a role the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and other terrorist attacks were playing in this phenomenon is unclear to me. However, I suspect they were significant. More recently the pandemic and the failure of both political parties to forge a working arrangement have fueled even more anxiety in many demographic segments. It may be safe to say that everyone is anxious to one degree or another.

Broad-based anxiety in the general population and the incidence of anxiety disorders severe enough to disrupt a child’s life are certainly two different kettles of fish. However, the factors that have raised the level of anxiety across all age groups certainly hasn’t made things any easier for the child who has inherited or developed an anxiety disorder.

Glancing at the 600-page evidence synthesis that accompanies the task force’s report it is clear that they have taken their challenge seriously. However, I wonder whether looking at the 7-and-under age group with a different lens might have resulted in the inclusion of younger children in their recommendation.

I understand that to support their recommendations the U.S. Preventive Services Task Forces must rely on data from peer-reviewed studies that have looked at quantifiable outcomes. However, I suspect the task force would agree that its recommendations shouldn’t prevent the rest of us from using our own observations and intuition when deciding whether to selectively screen our younger patients for anxiety disorders.

Although it may not generate a measurable data point, providing the parents of a 5-year-old whose troubling behavior is in part the result of an anxiety disorder is invaluable. Do we need to screen all 5-year-olds? The task force says probably not given the current state of our knowledge and I agree. But, the fact that almost 8% of the pediatric population carries the diagnosis and my anecdotal observations suggest that as pediatricians we should be learning more about anxiety disorders and their wide variety of presentations. Then we should selectively screen more of our patients. In fact, I suspect we might help our patients and ourselves by questioning more parents about their own mental health histories even before we have any inkling that their child has a problem. While the degree to which anxiety disorders are inheritable and the exact mechanism is far from clear, I think this history might be a valuable piece of information to learn as early as the prenatal get-acquainted visit. A simple question to a new or expecting parent about what worries them most about becoming a parent would be a good opener. Your reassurance that you expect parents to be worried and welcome hearing about their concerns should be a step in building a strong foundation for a family-provider relationship.

Anxiety happens and unfortunately so do anxiety disorders. We need to be doing a better job of acknowledging and responding to these two realities.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

*This column was updated on 5/4/2022.

On April 12, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released the draft of a recommendation statement titled Screening for Anxiety in Children and Adolescents. Based on their observation that 7.8% of children and adolescents have a current anxiety disorder and their analysis of the magnitude of the net benefit, the Task Force plans on recommending that children ages 8-18 years be screened for the condition. However, the group could not find evidence to support screening for children 7 years and younger.

Over more than 4 decades of general pediatric practice, it became obvious to me that anxiety was driving a high percentage of my office visits. Most often in young children it was parental anxiety that was prompting the phone call or office visit. In older childhood and adolescence it was patient anxiety that began to play a larger role.

Over the last 2 decades the level of anxiety in all age groups has seemed to increase. How large a role the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and other terrorist attacks were playing in this phenomenon is unclear to me. However, I suspect they were significant. More recently the pandemic and the failure of both political parties to forge a working arrangement have fueled even more anxiety in many demographic segments. It may be safe to say that everyone is anxious to one degree or another.

Broad-based anxiety in the general population and the incidence of anxiety disorders severe enough to disrupt a child’s life are certainly two different kettles of fish. However, the factors that have raised the level of anxiety across all age groups certainly hasn’t made things any easier for the child who has inherited or developed an anxiety disorder.

Glancing at the 600-page evidence synthesis that accompanies the task force’s report it is clear that they have taken their challenge seriously. However, I wonder whether looking at the 7-and-under age group with a different lens might have resulted in the inclusion of younger children in their recommendation.

I understand that to support their recommendations the U.S. Preventive Services Task Forces must rely on data from peer-reviewed studies that have looked at quantifiable outcomes. However, I suspect the task force would agree that its recommendations shouldn’t prevent the rest of us from using our own observations and intuition when deciding whether to selectively screen our younger patients for anxiety disorders.

Although it may not generate a measurable data point, providing the parents of a 5-year-old whose troubling behavior is in part the result of an anxiety disorder is invaluable. Do we need to screen all 5-year-olds? The task force says probably not given the current state of our knowledge and I agree. But, the fact that almost 8% of the pediatric population carries the diagnosis and my anecdotal observations suggest that as pediatricians we should be learning more about anxiety disorders and their wide variety of presentations. Then we should selectively screen more of our patients. In fact, I suspect we might help our patients and ourselves by questioning more parents about their own mental health histories even before we have any inkling that their child has a problem. While the degree to which anxiety disorders are inheritable and the exact mechanism is far from clear, I think this history might be a valuable piece of information to learn as early as the prenatal get-acquainted visit. A simple question to a new or expecting parent about what worries them most about becoming a parent would be a good opener. Your reassurance that you expect parents to be worried and welcome hearing about their concerns should be a step in building a strong foundation for a family-provider relationship.

Anxiety happens and unfortunately so do anxiety disorders. We need to be doing a better job of acknowledging and responding to these two realities.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

*This column was updated on 5/4/2022.

This video transcript has been edited for clarity.

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: Welcome to Medscape. I’m Dr Andrew Wilner, reporting from the American Epilepsy Society meeting.

Today, I have the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Chethan Rao, a child and adolescent neurology resident from the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. Dr. Rao has a particular interest in pediatric epilepsy. Welcome, Dr. Rao.

Chethan Rao, DO: Thank you, Dr. Wilner. It’s a pleasure to be here, and thanks for taking the time to highlight our work.

Dr. Wilner: You had a very interesting paper at the meeting that I wanted to talk about, focused on infantile spasms and smartphone video. Before we dive into the paper, tell us: What are infantile spasms, and why is it important to diagnose them early?

Dr. Rao: Infantile spasms, also known as epileptic spasms, are 1- to 2-second seizures, and they typically consist of sudden stiffening of the body with brief bending forward or backward of the arms, legs, and head. They usually happen around age 3-8 months, and they typically occur in clusters, most often after awakening from sleep.

The incidence is about 1 in 2,000-3,000 children. Many kids with spasms go on to develop seizures that are very difficult to treat, like Lennox-Gastaut epilepsy, and many go on to have developmental delays as well.

Dr. Wilner: Are these subtle? In other words, could a parent have a child like that and not really recognize that this is something abnormal? Or are they so dramatic that parents say: “We’re going to the emergency room?”

Dr. Rao: One of the problems that we encounter often is that in this age group of infants, they have benign sleep myoclonus; they have Sandifer syndrome related to reflux. Those can be very difficult mimics of spasms. They’re not the most clear-cut, but they look usually different enough from normal baby movements that they get parents to seek medical attention.

Dr. Wilner: You mentioned that the infantile spasms really are a type of epilepsy and symptomatic, usually, of some underlying neurologic condition. Why is it so important to diagnose them early?

Dr. Rao: Great question. Many studies have looked at developmental outcomes based on when spasms were diagnosed and treated, and all of them have replicated time over time that the earlier you get to treatment for the spasms, the better the outcomes are for seizure control and for development.

For this reason, infantile spasm is considered a neurologic urgency in our world. Like I said, accurate diagnosis is often complicated by these potential mimics. Prompt EEG is one of the most important things for confirmation of diagnosis.

Dr. Wilner: But to get that EEG, it has to get all the way to the neurologist, right? It’s not something they’re going to do in the ER. I saw a statistic: There are millions, if not billions, of smartphones out there. Where does the smartphone come in?

Dr. Rao: Absolutely. One of the things that we have on our side these days is that almost everyone has a smartphone at their disposal. One of the recent polls in 2021 showed that more than 95% of adults of childbearing age have smartphones with video access. As some other studies have shown in the adult world, we all really have an epilepsy monitoring unit minus the EEG in our own pockets.

It’s definitely a useful tool, as that first screening video can be used in adjunct to history and physical. There have been many of studies on the adult epilepsy side showing the predictive value of smartphone video for differentiating things like epileptic seizures and nonepileptic spells. What we wanted to do is use smartphone video to pin the diagnosis early of infantile spasms and get it treated as quickly as possible.

Dr. Wilner: I’m a fan. Every now and then, I do have a patient who brings in a video of some spell. I’m an adult neurologist. The patient had a spell, and you ask them – of course they don’t remember – and you ask the witness, who usually is not a trained observer. There have been one or two occasions where I thought: “Well, I don’t know if that was really a seizure.” Then they show me the video and it’s like, “Wow, that is definitely a convulsion.” A picture definitely can be worth a thousand words.

You studied this systematically for your poster. Tell me about what you did.

Dr. Rao: Since the poster, we’ve actually expanded the study, so I’ll give you the updated version. We looked at 101 infants retrospectively at two large children’s health care centers: Nemours Children’s, associated with Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. We narrowed it down to 80 patients whom we included. Of these, 43 had smartphone video capture when they first presented and 37 had no video when they first presented.

We found a 17-day difference by median in the time to diagnosis and treatment. In other words, the video group was diagnosed and treated 17 days by median, compared with the no-video group. Although 17 days may not sound like a big number, in this context it can make a huge difference. That’s been shown by one of these key studies in our field called the UK Infantile Spasms Study. The 2-week difference made about a 10-point difference on the developmental scale that they use – so pretty significant.

Dr. Wilner: Let me think about this for a minute. Was that because the parents brought the child in with their video and the doctor said, “Hey, that’s infantile spasms. Here’s your shot of ACTH [or whatever they’re using these days].” Or was it because the parents who were attentive enough to use video brought their kids in sooner?

Or was this the time from when they brought the child in to treatment? Is that the time you looked at? So it wasn’t just that these were more attentive parents and more likely to use the video – you’re looking at the time from presentation with or without video until treatment, is that right?

Dr. Rao: We looked to the time from the start of the spasms, as reported by the parents, to the time of diagnosis and then the start of spasms to the time of treatment. What you asked was a fantastic question. We wanted to know who these parents are who are taking videos versus the ones that are not.

We looked at the race/ethnicity data and socioeconomic status data. There were no significant differences between the video and nonvideo group. That would not explain the difference in our results here.

Dr. Wilner: Do you have plans to follow these approximately 40 children 5 years from now and see who’s riding a bicycle and who’s still stuck in the stroller? Is there going to be a difference?

Dr. Rao: Because time to diagnosis and time to treatment were our primary outcomes, long-term follow-up may not really help as much in this study. We did have a couple of other ideas for future studies. One that we wanted to look at was kids who have risk factors for developing spasms, such as trisomy 21, tuberous sclerosis, and congenital cortical malformations; those kids are at a much higher risk for developing spasms around 3-8 months of life.

In giving targeted counseling to those families about how they can use smartphone video to minimize the time to diagnosis and treatment, we think we may be able to learn more and maybe do that prospectively.

The other interesting idea is using artificial intelligence technology for spasm detection in some of these smartphone videos. They’re already using it for different seizure types. It could be an efficient first pass when we get a whole bunch of smartphone videos to determine which ones we need to pursue further steps – to see whether we need to get long-term EEG monitoring or not.

Dr. Wilner: As an epileptologist, I was going to say that we have smartphone EKG. All we need now is smartphone EEG, and then you’ll have all the information you need on day one. It may be a ways away.

As a bottom line, would it be fair to say that parents should not hesitate to take a video of any suspiciously abnormal behavior and bring it to their family doctor or pediatric neurologist?

Dr. Rao: Yes. I was happy to see the Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance put out a promotional video that had some steps for when parents see things that are suspicious for spasms, and they do recommend using smartphone video and promptly showing it to their doctors. I think the difference that we hope to provide in this study is that we can now quantify the effect of having that smartphone video when they first present.

My takeaway from this study that I would like to show is encouraging the use of smartphone video as an adjunct tool and for providers to ask for the videos, but also for these pediatric centers to develop an infrastructure – either a secure, monitored email address like we have at our center or a patient portal – where parents can submit video concerning for spasms.

Dr. Wilner: Save the trip to the doctor. Get that video out there first.

Dr. Rao: Especially in the pandemic world, right?

Dr. Wilner: Yes. I understand that you are a neurology resident. To wrap up, what’s the next step for you?

Dr. Rao: I’m finishing up my child neurology residency this year, and I’m moving out to Stanford for pediatric epilepsy fellowship. We’re preparing this project we’re talking about for submission soon, and we’re working on another project, which is a systematic review of genetic testing and the presurgical workup for pediatric drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

Dr. Wilner: Excellent. That’s pretty exciting. Good luck to you. I want to thank you very much for telling us about your research.

Dr. Rao: It was a pleasure speaking with you, and I look forward to the next time.

Dr. Wilner: I’m Dr Andrew Wilner, reporting for Medscape. Thanks for watching.

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

This video transcript has been edited for clarity.

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: Welcome to Medscape. I’m Dr Andrew Wilner, reporting from the American Epilepsy Society meeting.

Today, I have the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Chethan Rao, a child and adolescent neurology resident from the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. Dr. Rao has a particular interest in pediatric epilepsy. Welcome, Dr. Rao.

Chethan Rao, DO: Thank you, Dr. Wilner. It’s a pleasure to be here, and thanks for taking the time to highlight our work.

Dr. Wilner: You had a very interesting paper at the meeting that I wanted to talk about, focused on infantile spasms and smartphone video. Before we dive into the paper, tell us: What are infantile spasms, and why is it important to diagnose them early?

Dr. Rao: Infantile spasms, also known as epileptic spasms, are 1- to 2-second seizures, and they typically consist of sudden stiffening of the body with brief bending forward or backward of the arms, legs, and head. They usually happen around age 3-8 months, and they typically occur in clusters, most often after awakening from sleep.

The incidence is about 1 in 2,000-3,000 children. Many kids with spasms go on to develop seizures that are very difficult to treat, like Lennox-Gastaut epilepsy, and many go on to have developmental delays as well.

Dr. Wilner: Are these subtle? In other words, could a parent have a child like that and not really recognize that this is something abnormal? Or are they so dramatic that parents say: “We’re going to the emergency room?”

Dr. Rao: One of the problems that we encounter often is that in this age group of infants, they have benign sleep myoclonus; they have Sandifer syndrome related to reflux. Those can be very difficult mimics of spasms. They’re not the most clear-cut, but they look usually different enough from normal baby movements that they get parents to seek medical attention.

Dr. Wilner: You mentioned that the infantile spasms really are a type of epilepsy and symptomatic, usually, of some underlying neurologic condition. Why is it so important to diagnose them early?

Dr. Rao: Great question. Many studies have looked at developmental outcomes based on when spasms were diagnosed and treated, and all of them have replicated time over time that the earlier you get to treatment for the spasms, the better the outcomes are for seizure control and for development.

For this reason, infantile spasm is considered a neurologic urgency in our world. Like I said, accurate diagnosis is often complicated by these potential mimics. Prompt EEG is one of the most important things for confirmation of diagnosis.

Dr. Wilner: But to get that EEG, it has to get all the way to the neurologist, right? It’s not something they’re going to do in the ER. I saw a statistic: There are millions, if not billions, of smartphones out there. Where does the smartphone come in?

Dr. Rao: Absolutely. One of the things that we have on our side these days is that almost everyone has a smartphone at their disposal. One of the recent polls in 2021 showed that more than 95% of adults of childbearing age have smartphones with video access. As some other studies have shown in the adult world, we all really have an epilepsy monitoring unit minus the EEG in our own pockets.

It’s definitely a useful tool, as that first screening video can be used in adjunct to history and physical. There have been many of studies on the adult epilepsy side showing the predictive value of smartphone video for differentiating things like epileptic seizures and nonepileptic spells. What we wanted to do is use smartphone video to pin the diagnosis early of infantile spasms and get it treated as quickly as possible.

Dr. Wilner: I’m a fan. Every now and then, I do have a patient who brings in a video of some spell. I’m an adult neurologist. The patient had a spell, and you ask them – of course they don’t remember – and you ask the witness, who usually is not a trained observer. There have been one or two occasions where I thought: “Well, I don’t know if that was really a seizure.” Then they show me the video and it’s like, “Wow, that is definitely a convulsion.” A picture definitely can be worth a thousand words.

You studied this systematically for your poster. Tell me about what you did.

Dr. Rao: Since the poster, we’ve actually expanded the study, so I’ll give you the updated version. We looked at 101 infants retrospectively at two large children’s health care centers: Nemours Children’s, associated with Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. We narrowed it down to 80 patients whom we included. Of these, 43 had smartphone video capture when they first presented and 37 had no video when they first presented.

We found a 17-day difference by median in the time to diagnosis and treatment. In other words, the video group was diagnosed and treated 17 days by median, compared with the no-video group. Although 17 days may not sound like a big number, in this context it can make a huge difference. That’s been shown by one of these key studies in our field called the UK Infantile Spasms Study. The 2-week difference made about a 10-point difference on the developmental scale that they use – so pretty significant.

Dr. Wilner: Let me think about this for a minute. Was that because the parents brought the child in with their video and the doctor said, “Hey, that’s infantile spasms. Here’s your shot of ACTH [or whatever they’re using these days].” Or was it because the parents who were attentive enough to use video brought their kids in sooner?

Or was this the time from when they brought the child in to treatment? Is that the time you looked at? So it wasn’t just that these were more attentive parents and more likely to use the video – you’re looking at the time from presentation with or without video until treatment, is that right?

Dr. Rao: We looked to the time from the start of the spasms, as reported by the parents, to the time of diagnosis and then the start of spasms to the time of treatment. What you asked was a fantastic question. We wanted to know who these parents are who are taking videos versus the ones that are not.

We looked at the race/ethnicity data and socioeconomic status data. There were no significant differences between the video and nonvideo group. That would not explain the difference in our results here.

Dr. Wilner: Do you have plans to follow these approximately 40 children 5 years from now and see who’s riding a bicycle and who’s still stuck in the stroller? Is there going to be a difference?

Dr. Rao: Because time to diagnosis and time to treatment were our primary outcomes, long-term follow-up may not really help as much in this study. We did have a couple of other ideas for future studies. One that we wanted to look at was kids who have risk factors for developing spasms, such as trisomy 21, tuberous sclerosis, and congenital cortical malformations; those kids are at a much higher risk for developing spasms around 3-8 months of life.

In giving targeted counseling to those families about how they can use smartphone video to minimize the time to diagnosis and treatment, we think we may be able to learn more and maybe do that prospectively.

The other interesting idea is using artificial intelligence technology for spasm detection in some of these smartphone videos. They’re already using it for different seizure types. It could be an efficient first pass when we get a whole bunch of smartphone videos to determine which ones we need to pursue further steps – to see whether we need to get long-term EEG monitoring or not.

Dr. Wilner: As an epileptologist, I was going to say that we have smartphone EKG. All we need now is smartphone EEG, and then you’ll have all the information you need on day one. It may be a ways away.

As a bottom line, would it be fair to say that parents should not hesitate to take a video of any suspiciously abnormal behavior and bring it to their family doctor or pediatric neurologist?

Dr. Rao: Yes. I was happy to see the Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance put out a promotional video that had some steps for when parents see things that are suspicious for spasms, and they do recommend using smartphone video and promptly showing it to their doctors. I think the difference that we hope to provide in this study is that we can now quantify the effect of having that smartphone video when they first present.

My takeaway from this study that I would like to show is encouraging the use of smartphone video as an adjunct tool and for providers to ask for the videos, but also for these pediatric centers to develop an infrastructure – either a secure, monitored email address like we have at our center or a patient portal – where parents can submit video concerning for spasms.

Dr. Wilner: Save the trip to the doctor. Get that video out there first.

Dr. Rao: Especially in the pandemic world, right?

Dr. Wilner: Yes. I understand that you are a neurology resident. To wrap up, what’s the next step for you?

Dr. Rao: I’m finishing up my child neurology residency this year, and I’m moving out to Stanford for pediatric epilepsy fellowship. We’re preparing this project we’re talking about for submission soon, and we’re working on another project, which is a systematic review of genetic testing and the presurgical workup for pediatric drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

Dr. Wilner: Excellent. That’s pretty exciting. Good luck to you. I want to thank you very much for telling us about your research.

Dr. Rao: It was a pleasure speaking with you, and I look forward to the next time.

Dr. Wilner: I’m Dr Andrew Wilner, reporting for Medscape. Thanks for watching.

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

This video transcript has been edited for clarity.

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: Welcome to Medscape. I’m Dr Andrew Wilner, reporting from the American Epilepsy Society meeting.

Today, I have the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Chethan Rao, a child and adolescent neurology resident from the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. Dr. Rao has a particular interest in pediatric epilepsy. Welcome, Dr. Rao.

Chethan Rao, DO: Thank you, Dr. Wilner. It’s a pleasure to be here, and thanks for taking the time to highlight our work.

Dr. Wilner: You had a very interesting paper at the meeting that I wanted to talk about, focused on infantile spasms and smartphone video. Before we dive into the paper, tell us: What are infantile spasms, and why is it important to diagnose them early?

Dr. Rao: Infantile spasms, also known as epileptic spasms, are 1- to 2-second seizures, and they typically consist of sudden stiffening of the body with brief bending forward or backward of the arms, legs, and head. They usually happen around age 3-8 months, and they typically occur in clusters, most often after awakening from sleep.

The incidence is about 1 in 2,000-3,000 children. Many kids with spasms go on to develop seizures that are very difficult to treat, like Lennox-Gastaut epilepsy, and many go on to have developmental delays as well.

Dr. Wilner: Are these subtle? In other words, could a parent have a child like that and not really recognize that this is something abnormal? Or are they so dramatic that parents say: “We’re going to the emergency room?”

Dr. Rao: One of the problems that we encounter often is that in this age group of infants, they have benign sleep myoclonus; they have Sandifer syndrome related to reflux. Those can be very difficult mimics of spasms. They’re not the most clear-cut, but they look usually different enough from normal baby movements that they get parents to seek medical attention.

Dr. Wilner: You mentioned that the infantile spasms really are a type of epilepsy and symptomatic, usually, of some underlying neurologic condition. Why is it so important to diagnose them early?

Dr. Rao: Great question. Many studies have looked at developmental outcomes based on when spasms were diagnosed and treated, and all of them have replicated time over time that the earlier you get to treatment for the spasms, the better the outcomes are for seizure control and for development.

For this reason, infantile spasm is considered a neurologic urgency in our world. Like I said, accurate diagnosis is often complicated by these potential mimics. Prompt EEG is one of the most important things for confirmation of diagnosis.

Dr. Wilner: But to get that EEG, it has to get all the way to the neurologist, right? It’s not something they’re going to do in the ER. I saw a statistic: There are millions, if not billions, of smartphones out there. Where does the smartphone come in?

Dr. Rao: Absolutely. One of the things that we have on our side these days is that almost everyone has a smartphone at their disposal. One of the recent polls in 2021 showed that more than 95% of adults of childbearing age have smartphones with video access. As some other studies have shown in the adult world, we all really have an epilepsy monitoring unit minus the EEG in our own pockets.

It’s definitely a useful tool, as that first screening video can be used in adjunct to history and physical. There have been many of studies on the adult epilepsy side showing the predictive value of smartphone video for differentiating things like epileptic seizures and nonepileptic spells. What we wanted to do is use smartphone video to pin the diagnosis early of infantile spasms and get it treated as quickly as possible.

Dr. Wilner: I’m a fan. Every now and then, I do have a patient who brings in a video of some spell. I’m an adult neurologist. The patient had a spell, and you ask them – of course they don’t remember – and you ask the witness, who usually is not a trained observer. There have been one or two occasions where I thought: “Well, I don’t know if that was really a seizure.” Then they show me the video and it’s like, “Wow, that is definitely a convulsion.” A picture definitely can be worth a thousand words.

You studied this systematically for your poster. Tell me about what you did.

Dr. Rao: Since the poster, we’ve actually expanded the study, so I’ll give you the updated version. We looked at 101 infants retrospectively at two large children’s health care centers: Nemours Children’s, associated with Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. We narrowed it down to 80 patients whom we included. Of these, 43 had smartphone video capture when they first presented and 37 had no video when they first presented.

We found a 17-day difference by median in the time to diagnosis and treatment. In other words, the video group was diagnosed and treated 17 days by median, compared with the no-video group. Although 17 days may not sound like a big number, in this context it can make a huge difference. That’s been shown by one of these key studies in our field called the UK Infantile Spasms Study. The 2-week difference made about a 10-point difference on the developmental scale that they use – so pretty significant.

Dr. Wilner: Let me think about this for a minute. Was that because the parents brought the child in with their video and the doctor said, “Hey, that’s infantile spasms. Here’s your shot of ACTH [or whatever they’re using these days].” Or was it because the parents who were attentive enough to use video brought their kids in sooner?

Or was this the time from when they brought the child in to treatment? Is that the time you looked at? So it wasn’t just that these were more attentive parents and more likely to use the video – you’re looking at the time from presentation with or without video until treatment, is that right?

Dr. Rao: We looked to the time from the start of the spasms, as reported by the parents, to the time of diagnosis and then the start of spasms to the time of treatment. What you asked was a fantastic question. We wanted to know who these parents are who are taking videos versus the ones that are not.

We looked at the race/ethnicity data and socioeconomic status data. There were no significant differences between the video and nonvideo group. That would not explain the difference in our results here.

Dr. Wilner: Do you have plans to follow these approximately 40 children 5 years from now and see who’s riding a bicycle and who’s still stuck in the stroller? Is there going to be a difference?

Dr. Rao: Because time to diagnosis and time to treatment were our primary outcomes, long-term follow-up may not really help as much in this study. We did have a couple of other ideas for future studies. One that we wanted to look at was kids who have risk factors for developing spasms, such as trisomy 21, tuberous sclerosis, and congenital cortical malformations; those kids are at a much higher risk for developing spasms around 3-8 months of life.

In giving targeted counseling to those families about how they can use smartphone video to minimize the time to diagnosis and treatment, we think we may be able to learn more and maybe do that prospectively.

The other interesting idea is using artificial intelligence technology for spasm detection in some of these smartphone videos. They’re already using it for different seizure types. It could be an efficient first pass when we get a whole bunch of smartphone videos to determine which ones we need to pursue further steps – to see whether we need to get long-term EEG monitoring or not.

Dr. Wilner: As an epileptologist, I was going to say that we have smartphone EKG. All we need now is smartphone EEG, and then you’ll have all the information you need on day one. It may be a ways away.

As a bottom line, would it be fair to say that parents should not hesitate to take a video of any suspiciously abnormal behavior and bring it to their family doctor or pediatric neurologist?

Dr. Rao: Yes. I was happy to see the Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance put out a promotional video that had some steps for when parents see things that are suspicious for spasms, and they do recommend using smartphone video and promptly showing it to their doctors. I think the difference that we hope to provide in this study is that we can now quantify the effect of having that smartphone video when they first present.

My takeaway from this study that I would like to show is encouraging the use of smartphone video as an adjunct tool and for providers to ask for the videos, but also for these pediatric centers to develop an infrastructure – either a secure, monitored email address like we have at our center or a patient portal – where parents can submit video concerning for spasms.

Dr. Wilner: Save the trip to the doctor. Get that video out there first.

Dr. Rao: Especially in the pandemic world, right?

Dr. Wilner: Yes. I understand that you are a neurology resident. To wrap up, what’s the next step for you?

Dr. Rao: I’m finishing up my child neurology residency this year, and I’m moving out to Stanford for pediatric epilepsy fellowship. We’re preparing this project we’re talking about for submission soon, and we’re working on another project, which is a systematic review of genetic testing and the presurgical workup for pediatric drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

Dr. Wilner: Excellent. That’s pretty exciting. Good luck to you. I want to thank you very much for telling us about your research.

Dr. Rao: It was a pleasure speaking with you, and I look forward to the next time.

Dr. Wilner: I’m Dr Andrew Wilner, reporting for Medscape. Thanks for watching.

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

In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved 50 new drugs, but 24 will not be described here because they would probably not be used in pregnancy. The 24 are Aduhelm (aducanumab) to treat Alzheimer’s disease; Azstarys (serdexmethylphenidate and dexmethylphenidate), a combination CNS stimulant indicated for the treatment of ADHD; Cabenuva (cabotegravir and rilpivirine) to treat HIV; Voxzogo (vosoritide) for children with achondroplasia and open epiphyses; Qelbree (viloxazine) used in children aged 6-17 years to treat ADHD; and Pylarify (piflufolastat) for prostate cancer. Other anticancer drugs that will not be covered are Cosela (trilaciclib), Cytalux (pafolacianine), Exkivity (mobocertinib); Fotivda (tivozanib), Jemperli (dostarlimab-gxly), Lumakras (sotorasib), Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide), Rybrevant (amivantamab-vmjw), Rylaze (asparaginase erwinia chrysanthemi), Scemblix (asciminib), Tepmetko (tepotinib), Tivdak (tisotumab vedotin-tftv), Truseltiq (infigratinib), Ukoniq (umbralisib), and Zynlonta (loncastuximab tesirine-lpyl).

Skytrofa (lonapegsomatropin-tcgd) will not be described below because it is indicated to treat short stature and is unlikely to be used in pregnancy. Nextstellis (drospirenone and estetrol) is used to prevent pregnancy.

Typically, for new drugs there will be no published reports describing their use in pregnant women. That information will come much later. In the sections below, the indications, effects on pregnant animals, and the potential for harm of a fetus/embryo are described. However, the relevance of animal data to human pregnancies is not great.

Adbry (tralokinumab) (molecular weight [MW], 147 kilodaltons), is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adult patients whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable. The drug did not harm fetal monkeys at doses that were 10 times the maximum recommended human dose.

Besremi (ropeginterferon alfa-2b-njft) (MW, 60 kDa) is an interferon alfa-2b indicated for the treatment of adults with polycythemia vera. It is given by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks. Animal studies assessing reproductive toxicity have not been conducted. The manufacturer states that the drug may cause fetal harm and should be assumed to have abortifacient potential.

Brexafemme (ibrexafungerp) (MW, 922) is indicated for the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits but not in pregnant rats. The manufacturer recommends females with reproductive potential should use effective contraception during treatment and for 4 days after the final dose.

Bylvay (odevixibat) (MW unknown) is indicated for the treatment of pruritus in patients aged 3 months and older. There are no human data regarding its use in pregnant women. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits. Although there are no data, the drug has low absorption following oral administration and breastfeeding is not expected to result in exposure of the infant.

Empaveli (pegcetacoplan) (MW, 44 kDa) is used to treat paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. When the drug was given to pregnant cynomolgus monkeys there was an increase in abortions and stillbirths.

Evkeeza (evinacumab-dgnb) (MW, 146k) is used to treat homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. The drug was teratogenic in rabbits but not rats.

Fexinidazole (MW not specified) is indicated to treat human African trypanosomiasis caused by the parasite Trypanosoma brucei gambiense. Additional information not available.

Kerendia (finerenone) (MW, 378), is indicated to reduce the risk of kidney and heart complications in chronic kidney disease associated with type 2 diabetes. The drug was teratogenic in rats.

Korsuva (difelikefalin) (MW, 679) is a kappa opioid–receptor agonist indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe pruritus associated with chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis. No adverse effects were observed in pregnant rats and rabbits. The limited human data on use of Korsuva in pregnant women are not sufficient to evaluate a drug associated risk for major birth defects or miscarriage.

Leqvio (inclisiran) (MW, 17,285) is indicated to treat heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease as an add-on therapy. The drug was not teratogenic in rats and rabbits.

Livmarli (maralixibat) (MW, 710) is indicated for the treatment of cholestatic pruritus associated with Alagille syndrome. Because systemic absorption is low, the recommended clinical dose is not expected to result in measurable fetal exposure. No effects on fetal rats were observed.

Livtencity (maribavir) (MW, 376) is used to treat posttransplant cytomegalovirus infection that has not responded to other treatment. Embryo/fetal survival was reduced in rats but not in rabbits at doses less then the human dose.

Lupkynis (voclosporin) (MW, 1,215) is used to treat nephritis. Avoid use of Lupkynis in pregnant women because of the alcohol content of the drug formulation. The drug was embryocidal and feticidal in rats and rabbits but with no treatment-related fetal malformations or variations.

Lybalvi (olanzapine and samidorphan) (MW, 312 and 505) is a combination drug used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It was fetal toxic in pregnant rats and rabbits but with no evidence of malformations. There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to atypical antipsychotics, including this drug, during pregnancy. Health care providers are encouraged to register patients by contacting the National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics at 1-866-961-2388 or visit the Reproductive Psychiatry Resource and Information Center of the MGH Center for Women’s Mental Health.

Nexviazyme (avalglucosidase alfa-ngpt) (MW, 124k) is a hydrolytic lysosomal glycogen-specific enzyme indicated for the treatment of patients aged 1 year and older with late-onset Pompe disease. The drug was not teratogenic in mice and rabbits.

Nulibry (fosdenopterin) (MW, 480) is used to reduce the risk of mortality in molybdenum cofactor deficiency type A. Studies have not been conducted in pregnant animals.

Ponvory (ponesimod) (MW, 461) is used to treat relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. The drug caused severe adverse effects in pregnant rats and rabbits.

Qulipta (atogepant) (MW, 604) is indicated to prevent episodic migraines. It is embryo/fetal toxic in rats and rabbits.

Saphnelo (anifrolumab-fnia) (MW, 148k) is used to treat moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus along with standard therapy. In pregnant cynomolgus monkeys, there was no evidence of embryotoxicity or fetal malformations with exposures up to approximately 28 times the exposure at the maximum recommended human dose.

Tavneos (avacopan) (MW, 582) is indicated to treat severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. There appears to be an increased risk for hepatotoxicity. The drug caused no defects in hamsters and rabbits, but in rabbits there was an increase in abortions.

Tezspire (tezepelumab-ekko) (MW, 147k) is indicated to treat severe asthma as an add-on maintenance therapy. No adverse fetal effects were observed in pregnant cynomolgus monkeys.

Verquvo (vericiguat) (MW, 426) is used to mitigate the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for chronic heart failure. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits but not rats.

Vyvgart (efgartigimod alfa-fcab) (MW, 54k) is indicated to treat generalized myasthenia gravis. The drug did not cause birth defects in rats and rabbits.

Welireg (belzutifan) (MW, 383) is used to treat von Hippel–Lindau disease. In pregnant rats, the drug caused embryo-fetal lethality, reduced fetal body weight, and caused fetal skeletal malformations at maternal exposures of at least 0.2 times the human exposures.

Zegalogue (dasiglucagon) (MW, 3,382) is used to treat severe hypoglycemia. The drug did not cause birth defects in pregnant rats and rabbits.
 

Breastfeeding

It is not known if the above drugs will be in breast milk, but the safest course for an infant is to not breast feed if the mother is taking any of the above drugs.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved 50 new drugs, but 24 will not be described here because they would probably not be used in pregnancy. The 24 are Aduhelm (aducanumab) to treat Alzheimer’s disease; Azstarys (serdexmethylphenidate and dexmethylphenidate), a combination CNS stimulant indicated for the treatment of ADHD; Cabenuva (cabotegravir and rilpivirine) to treat HIV; Voxzogo (vosoritide) for children with achondroplasia and open epiphyses; Qelbree (viloxazine) used in children aged 6-17 years to treat ADHD; and Pylarify (piflufolastat) for prostate cancer. Other anticancer drugs that will not be covered are Cosela (trilaciclib), Cytalux (pafolacianine), Exkivity (mobocertinib); Fotivda (tivozanib), Jemperli (dostarlimab-gxly), Lumakras (sotorasib), Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide), Rybrevant (amivantamab-vmjw), Rylaze (asparaginase erwinia chrysanthemi), Scemblix (asciminib), Tepmetko (tepotinib), Tivdak (tisotumab vedotin-tftv), Truseltiq (infigratinib), Ukoniq (umbralisib), and Zynlonta (loncastuximab tesirine-lpyl).

Skytrofa (lonapegsomatropin-tcgd) will not be described below because it is indicated to treat short stature and is unlikely to be used in pregnancy. Nextstellis (drospirenone and estetrol) is used to prevent pregnancy.

Typically, for new drugs there will be no published reports describing their use in pregnant women. That information will come much later. In the sections below, the indications, effects on pregnant animals, and the potential for harm of a fetus/embryo are described. However, the relevance of animal data to human pregnancies is not great.

Adbry (tralokinumab) (molecular weight [MW], 147 kilodaltons), is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adult patients whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable. The drug did not harm fetal monkeys at doses that were 10 times the maximum recommended human dose.

Besremi (ropeginterferon alfa-2b-njft) (MW, 60 kDa) is an interferon alfa-2b indicated for the treatment of adults with polycythemia vera. It is given by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks. Animal studies assessing reproductive toxicity have not been conducted. The manufacturer states that the drug may cause fetal harm and should be assumed to have abortifacient potential.

Brexafemme (ibrexafungerp) (MW, 922) is indicated for the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits but not in pregnant rats. The manufacturer recommends females with reproductive potential should use effective contraception during treatment and for 4 days after the final dose.

Bylvay (odevixibat) (MW unknown) is indicated for the treatment of pruritus in patients aged 3 months and older. There are no human data regarding its use in pregnant women. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits. Although there are no data, the drug has low absorption following oral administration and breastfeeding is not expected to result in exposure of the infant.

Empaveli (pegcetacoplan) (MW, 44 kDa) is used to treat paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. When the drug was given to pregnant cynomolgus monkeys there was an increase in abortions and stillbirths.

Evkeeza (evinacumab-dgnb) (MW, 146k) is used to treat homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. The drug was teratogenic in rabbits but not rats.

Fexinidazole (MW not specified) is indicated to treat human African trypanosomiasis caused by the parasite Trypanosoma brucei gambiense. Additional information not available.

Kerendia (finerenone) (MW, 378), is indicated to reduce the risk of kidney and heart complications in chronic kidney disease associated with type 2 diabetes. The drug was teratogenic in rats.

Korsuva (difelikefalin) (MW, 679) is a kappa opioid–receptor agonist indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe pruritus associated with chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis. No adverse effects were observed in pregnant rats and rabbits. The limited human data on use of Korsuva in pregnant women are not sufficient to evaluate a drug associated risk for major birth defects or miscarriage.

Leqvio (inclisiran) (MW, 17,285) is indicated to treat heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease as an add-on therapy. The drug was not teratogenic in rats and rabbits.

Livmarli (maralixibat) (MW, 710) is indicated for the treatment of cholestatic pruritus associated with Alagille syndrome. Because systemic absorption is low, the recommended clinical dose is not expected to result in measurable fetal exposure. No effects on fetal rats were observed.

Livtencity (maribavir) (MW, 376) is used to treat posttransplant cytomegalovirus infection that has not responded to other treatment. Embryo/fetal survival was reduced in rats but not in rabbits at doses less then the human dose.

Lupkynis (voclosporin) (MW, 1,215) is used to treat nephritis. Avoid use of Lupkynis in pregnant women because of the alcohol content of the drug formulation. The drug was embryocidal and feticidal in rats and rabbits but with no treatment-related fetal malformations or variations.

Lybalvi (olanzapine and samidorphan) (MW, 312 and 505) is a combination drug used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It was fetal toxic in pregnant rats and rabbits but with no evidence of malformations. There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to atypical antipsychotics, including this drug, during pregnancy. Health care providers are encouraged to register patients by contacting the National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics at 1-866-961-2388 or visit the Reproductive Psychiatry Resource and Information Center of the MGH Center for Women’s Mental Health.

Nexviazyme (avalglucosidase alfa-ngpt) (MW, 124k) is a hydrolytic lysosomal glycogen-specific enzyme indicated for the treatment of patients aged 1 year and older with late-onset Pompe disease. The drug was not teratogenic in mice and rabbits.

Nulibry (fosdenopterin) (MW, 480) is used to reduce the risk of mortality in molybdenum cofactor deficiency type A. Studies have not been conducted in pregnant animals.

Ponvory (ponesimod) (MW, 461) is used to treat relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. The drug caused severe adverse effects in pregnant rats and rabbits.

Qulipta (atogepant) (MW, 604) is indicated to prevent episodic migraines. It is embryo/fetal toxic in rats and rabbits.

Saphnelo (anifrolumab-fnia) (MW, 148k) is used to treat moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus along with standard therapy. In pregnant cynomolgus monkeys, there was no evidence of embryotoxicity or fetal malformations with exposures up to approximately 28 times the exposure at the maximum recommended human dose.

Tavneos (avacopan) (MW, 582) is indicated to treat severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. There appears to be an increased risk for hepatotoxicity. The drug caused no defects in hamsters and rabbits, but in rabbits there was an increase in abortions.

Tezspire (tezepelumab-ekko) (MW, 147k) is indicated to treat severe asthma as an add-on maintenance therapy. No adverse fetal effects were observed in pregnant cynomolgus monkeys.

Verquvo (vericiguat) (MW, 426) is used to mitigate the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for chronic heart failure. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits but not rats.

Vyvgart (efgartigimod alfa-fcab) (MW, 54k) is indicated to treat generalized myasthenia gravis. The drug did not cause birth defects in rats and rabbits.

Welireg (belzutifan) (MW, 383) is used to treat von Hippel–Lindau disease. In pregnant rats, the drug caused embryo-fetal lethality, reduced fetal body weight, and caused fetal skeletal malformations at maternal exposures of at least 0.2 times the human exposures.

Zegalogue (dasiglucagon) (MW, 3,382) is used to treat severe hypoglycemia. The drug did not cause birth defects in pregnant rats and rabbits.
 

Breastfeeding

It is not known if the above drugs will be in breast milk, but the safest course for an infant is to not breast feed if the mother is taking any of the above drugs.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved 50 new drugs, but 24 will not be described here because they would probably not be used in pregnancy. The 24 are Aduhelm (aducanumab) to treat Alzheimer’s disease; Azstarys (serdexmethylphenidate and dexmethylphenidate), a combination CNS stimulant indicated for the treatment of ADHD; Cabenuva (cabotegravir and rilpivirine) to treat HIV; Voxzogo (vosoritide) for children with achondroplasia and open epiphyses; Qelbree (viloxazine) used in children aged 6-17 years to treat ADHD; and Pylarify (piflufolastat) for prostate cancer. Other anticancer drugs that will not be covered are Cosela (trilaciclib), Cytalux (pafolacianine), Exkivity (mobocertinib); Fotivda (tivozanib), Jemperli (dostarlimab-gxly), Lumakras (sotorasib), Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide), Rybrevant (amivantamab-vmjw), Rylaze (asparaginase erwinia chrysanthemi), Scemblix (asciminib), Tepmetko (tepotinib), Tivdak (tisotumab vedotin-tftv), Truseltiq (infigratinib), Ukoniq (umbralisib), and Zynlonta (loncastuximab tesirine-lpyl).

Skytrofa (lonapegsomatropin-tcgd) will not be described below because it is indicated to treat short stature and is unlikely to be used in pregnancy. Nextstellis (drospirenone and estetrol) is used to prevent pregnancy.

Typically, for new drugs there will be no published reports describing their use in pregnant women. That information will come much later. In the sections below, the indications, effects on pregnant animals, and the potential for harm of a fetus/embryo are described. However, the relevance of animal data to human pregnancies is not great.

Adbry (tralokinumab) (molecular weight [MW], 147 kilodaltons), is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adult patients whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable. The drug did not harm fetal monkeys at doses that were 10 times the maximum recommended human dose.

Besremi (ropeginterferon alfa-2b-njft) (MW, 60 kDa) is an interferon alfa-2b indicated for the treatment of adults with polycythemia vera. It is given by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks. Animal studies assessing reproductive toxicity have not been conducted. The manufacturer states that the drug may cause fetal harm and should be assumed to have abortifacient potential.

Brexafemme (ibrexafungerp) (MW, 922) is indicated for the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits but not in pregnant rats. The manufacturer recommends females with reproductive potential should use effective contraception during treatment and for 4 days after the final dose.

Bylvay (odevixibat) (MW unknown) is indicated for the treatment of pruritus in patients aged 3 months and older. There are no human data regarding its use in pregnant women. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits. Although there are no data, the drug has low absorption following oral administration and breastfeeding is not expected to result in exposure of the infant.

Empaveli (pegcetacoplan) (MW, 44 kDa) is used to treat paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. When the drug was given to pregnant cynomolgus monkeys there was an increase in abortions and stillbirths.

Evkeeza (evinacumab-dgnb) (MW, 146k) is used to treat homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. The drug was teratogenic in rabbits but not rats.

Fexinidazole (MW not specified) is indicated to treat human African trypanosomiasis caused by the parasite Trypanosoma brucei gambiense. Additional information not available.

Kerendia (finerenone) (MW, 378), is indicated to reduce the risk of kidney and heart complications in chronic kidney disease associated with type 2 diabetes. The drug was teratogenic in rats.

Korsuva (difelikefalin) (MW, 679) is a kappa opioid–receptor agonist indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe pruritus associated with chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis. No adverse effects were observed in pregnant rats and rabbits. The limited human data on use of Korsuva in pregnant women are not sufficient to evaluate a drug associated risk for major birth defects or miscarriage.

Leqvio (inclisiran) (MW, 17,285) is indicated to treat heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease as an add-on therapy. The drug was not teratogenic in rats and rabbits.

Livmarli (maralixibat) (MW, 710) is indicated for the treatment of cholestatic pruritus associated with Alagille syndrome. Because systemic absorption is low, the recommended clinical dose is not expected to result in measurable fetal exposure. No effects on fetal rats were observed.

Livtencity (maribavir) (MW, 376) is used to treat posttransplant cytomegalovirus infection that has not responded to other treatment. Embryo/fetal survival was reduced in rats but not in rabbits at doses less then the human dose.

Lupkynis (voclosporin) (MW, 1,215) is used to treat nephritis. Avoid use of Lupkynis in pregnant women because of the alcohol content of the drug formulation. The drug was embryocidal and feticidal in rats and rabbits but with no treatment-related fetal malformations or variations.

Lybalvi (olanzapine and samidorphan) (MW, 312 and 505) is a combination drug used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It was fetal toxic in pregnant rats and rabbits but with no evidence of malformations. There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to atypical antipsychotics, including this drug, during pregnancy. Health care providers are encouraged to register patients by contacting the National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics at 1-866-961-2388 or visit the Reproductive Psychiatry Resource and Information Center of the MGH Center for Women’s Mental Health.

Nexviazyme (avalglucosidase alfa-ngpt) (MW, 124k) is a hydrolytic lysosomal glycogen-specific enzyme indicated for the treatment of patients aged 1 year and older with late-onset Pompe disease. The drug was not teratogenic in mice and rabbits.

Nulibry (fosdenopterin) (MW, 480) is used to reduce the risk of mortality in molybdenum cofactor deficiency type A. Studies have not been conducted in pregnant animals.

Ponvory (ponesimod) (MW, 461) is used to treat relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. The drug caused severe adverse effects in pregnant rats and rabbits.

Qulipta (atogepant) (MW, 604) is indicated to prevent episodic migraines. It is embryo/fetal toxic in rats and rabbits.

Saphnelo (anifrolumab-fnia) (MW, 148k) is used to treat moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus along with standard therapy. In pregnant cynomolgus monkeys, there was no evidence of embryotoxicity or fetal malformations with exposures up to approximately 28 times the exposure at the maximum recommended human dose.

Tavneos (avacopan) (MW, 582) is indicated to treat severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. There appears to be an increased risk for hepatotoxicity. The drug caused no defects in hamsters and rabbits, but in rabbits there was an increase in abortions.

Tezspire (tezepelumab-ekko) (MW, 147k) is indicated to treat severe asthma as an add-on maintenance therapy. No adverse fetal effects were observed in pregnant cynomolgus monkeys.

Verquvo (vericiguat) (MW, 426) is used to mitigate the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for chronic heart failure. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits but not rats.

Vyvgart (efgartigimod alfa-fcab) (MW, 54k) is indicated to treat generalized myasthenia gravis. The drug did not cause birth defects in rats and rabbits.

Welireg (belzutifan) (MW, 383) is used to treat von Hippel–Lindau disease. In pregnant rats, the drug caused embryo-fetal lethality, reduced fetal body weight, and caused fetal skeletal malformations at maternal exposures of at least 0.2 times the human exposures.

Zegalogue (dasiglucagon) (MW, 3,382) is used to treat severe hypoglycemia. The drug did not cause birth defects in pregnant rats and rabbits.
 

Breastfeeding

It is not known if the above drugs will be in breast milk, but the safest course for an infant is to not breast feed if the mother is taking any of the above drugs.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

Dear colleagues,

We are all often asked by friends, colleagues, and especially patients how to reduce the risk of getting colorectal cancer. We offer exercise, diet, and smoking cessation as some possible ways to mitigate risk. But what about that wonder drug – the ubiquitous aspirin? The American Gastroenterological Association’s recent clinical practice update suggests that aspirin may be protective in some patients younger than 70 years depending on their cardiovascular and gastrointestinal bleeding risks. If so, should we gastroenterologists be the ones to recommend or even prescribe aspirin? Or are the data just not there yet? We invite two colorectal cancer experts, Dr. Sonia Kupfer and Dr. Jennifer Weiss, to share their perspectives in light of these new recommendations. I invite you to a great debate and look forward to hearing your own thoughts online and by email at ginews@gastro.org.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Not our lane

By Jennifer Weiss, MD, MS

In 2021, the AGA published a clinical practice update on chemoprevention for colorectal neoplasia that advises clinicians to use low-dose aspirin to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality in average-risk individuals who are (1) younger than 70 years with a life expectancy of at least 10 years, (2) have at least a 10% 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, and (3) are not at high risk for gastrointestinal bleeding.¹ As gastroenterologists, we may see average-risk patients only at the time of their screening or surveillance colonoscopies, and I wonder if we should be taking the lead in prescribing/recommending aspirin for CRC chemoprevention in these patients. To answer this question, I will review three main concerns: (1) issues with the overall strength of the evidence on the effectiveness of aspirin to reduce CRC incidence and mortality, (2) determining an individual’s long-term CVD risk and life expectancy may be outside of a gastroenterologist’s purview, and (3) the potential for serious gastrointestinal bleeding is dynamic and requires continual review.

Studies examining the effects of aspirin on CRC incidence and mortality have limitations and mixed results. Many of the randomized controlled trials have primarily been secondary analyses of studies with primary CVD endpoints. When examined individually some studies show no significant reduction in CRC risk such as the Women’s Health Study (at 10 years of follow-up), the Swedish Aspirin Low-Dose Trial, and the UK-TIA Aspirin Trial, while some meta-analyses have shown a decrease in CRC incidence and mortality.² One reason for this discrepancy may be varying lengths of follow-up across studies. In addition, we do not yet know the optimal aspirin dose or duration of therapy. The protective effect of aspirin on CRC incidence and mortality in average-risk individuals is mostly seen after 10-20 years of follow-up. This is relevant to the first part of the AGA clinical practice update recommendation that refers to individuals with a life expectancy of at least 10 years. The second part of the recommendation includes individuals with a 10-year CVD risk of at least 10%. As gastroenterologists, we may see these patients only two to three times over a 10-20 year period and only for their screening/surveillance colonoscopy. I would argue that we are not in the best position to address changes in life expectancy and 10-year CVD risk status over time and determine if they should start or continue taking aspirin for CRC chemoprevention.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force is also reexamining their previous recommendations for aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. The 2016 guidelines recommended initiation of low-dose aspirin for primary prevention of CVD and CRC in adults aged 50-59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk and at least a 10-year life expectancy (Grade B). The current draft recommendations state that aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults aged 40-59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk has a small net benefit (Grade C) and that initiating aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults aged 60 years and older has no net benefit (Grade D). They also state that, based on longer-term follow-up data from the Women’s Health Study and newer trials, the evidence is inadequate that low-dose aspirin use reduces CRC incidence and mortality.³ Because of these moving targets, we may also find ourselves walking back the AGA clinical practice update recommendations in the future.

Dr. Weiss is associate professor in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology and director of the University of Wisconsin Gastroenterology Genetics Clinic at University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. She reports receiving research support from Exact Sciences as a site-PI of a multisite trial.

References

1. Liang PS et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Jul;19(7):1327-36. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.02.014

2. Katona BW and Weiss JM. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan;158(2):368-88. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.06.047

3. United States Preventive Services Task Force. “Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: Preventive Medication.” Accessed April 5, 2022.

4. Burn J et al. Lancet. 2020 Jun13;395(10240):1855-63. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30366-4

Yes, but individualize it

By Sonia S. Kupfer, MD

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the top three causes of cancer and cancer death worldwide with an alarming rise in younger adults. Preventive strategies including screening, chemoprevention, and risk factor modification are important to reduce overall CRC burden. Aspirin, which is cheap and readily available, is supported for CRC chemoprevention by multiple lines of strong evidence. Recent AGA practice guidelines recommend low-dose aspirin chemoprevention in individuals at average CRC risk who are younger than 70 years with a life expectancy of at least 10 years, have a 10-year cardiovascular disease risk of at least 10% and are not at high risk for bleeding.¹ This advice diverges from the most recent U.S. Preventive Services Task Force–proposed guidelines² that reverse the 2016 USPSTF recommendation for aspirin CRC chemoprevention (and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease) based on uncertainty of net benefit over harms, especially in older individuals. In light of conflicting advice, how should we counsel our patients about aspirin use for CRC chemoprevention? In my opinion, we shouldn’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and should follow the AGA practice guideline to individualize aspirin chemoprevention based on balancing known benefits and risks.

As reviewed in the AGA practice guidelines1, many, but not all, randomized controlled and observational trials have shown efficacy of aspirin for reduction of CRC mortality, incidence, and adenoma recurrence. Analysis of cardiovascular prevention trials including over 14,000 mostly middle-aged people showed 33% reduction in 20-year cumulative CRC mortality. While a pooled estimate of four trials did not show reduced incidence 0-12 years after aspirin initiation, as noted in the practice guideline, three of these trials did show a 40% reduction between 10 and 19 years, a finding that is in line with results from a 20-year pooled analysis showing 24% reduction in CRC incidence by aspirin. Among Lynch syndrome patients, exposure to high-dose aspirin also significantly reduced CRC incidence in a randomized controlled trial with up to 20 years of follow-up³ highlighting that chemoprotective effects take years to manifest, and long-term follow-up in cancer chemoprevention trials is needed. Studies also have shown reduced adenoma incidence or recurrence by aspirin ranging from 17% to 51% depending on the study population, dose, and adherence. In addition to clinical trials, experimental data have demonstrated protective cellular effects of aspirin on colonic carcinogenesis, though exact mechanisms of this protective effect remain incompletely understood and are active areas of research, including in my lab. Taken together, there is a large body of evidence supporting a protective effect of aspirin on CRC mortality and colorectal neoplasia incidence most evident after 1-2 decades of follow-up.

Not all trials have shown that aspirin is chemoprotective, and, in fact, the ASPREE trial,⁴ that randomized over 19,000 healthy adults over the age of 70 to 100 mg aspirin or placebo, showed increased cancer mortality when the trial was stopped prematurely after 5 years. Individuals who started aspirin under age 70 appear to have continued chemoprotection as they age⁵ suggesting that aspirin, if it is tolerated, might not necessarily need to be stopped at a certain age. Notably, the ASPREE trial did not show increased CRC incidence, which begs the question of the biological mechanism underlying increased cancer mortality in trial participants. Beyond the findings of ASPREE, aspirin use is associated with risks of intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding with estimated odds ratios of 1.29 and 1.59, respectively. The AGA practice guideline acknowledges these risks especially in older adults and recommends initiation of aspirin in individuals under the age of 70 who are expected to live another 10 years without bleeding risks in order to reap the benefits and minimize the risks.

Dr. Kupfer is associate professor of medicine, director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk and Prevention Clinic, and codirector of the Comprehensive Cancer Risk and Prevention Clinic at the University of Chicago. She reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Liang PS et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Jul;19(7):1327-36.

2. United States Preventive Services Task Force. “Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: Preventive Medication.” Accessed April 10, 2022.

3. Burn J et al. Lancet. 2020 Jun 13;395(10240):1855-63.

4. McNeil JJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379(16):1519-28.

5. Guo CG et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021 Mar 1;7(3):428-35.

6. Lloyd KE et al. Prev Med. 2022 Jan;154:106872.

7. Rabin RC. “Aspirin Use to Prevent 1st Heart Attack or Stroke Should Be Curtailed, U.S. Panel Says.” New York Times. Oct. 13, 2021. Accessed April 10, 2022.

Dear colleagues,

We are all often asked by friends, colleagues, and especially patients how to reduce the risk of getting colorectal cancer. We offer exercise, diet, and smoking cessation as some possible ways to mitigate risk. But what about that wonder drug – the ubiquitous aspirin? The American Gastroenterological Association’s recent clinical practice update suggests that aspirin may be protective in some patients younger than 70 years depending on their cardiovascular and gastrointestinal bleeding risks. If so, should we gastroenterologists be the ones to recommend or even prescribe aspirin? Or are the data just not there yet? We invite two colorectal cancer experts, Dr. Sonia Kupfer and Dr. Jennifer Weiss, to share their perspectives in light of these new recommendations. I invite you to a great debate and look forward to hearing your own thoughts online and by email at ginews@gastro.org.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Not our lane

By Jennifer Weiss, MD, MS

In 2021, the AGA published a clinical practice update on chemoprevention for colorectal neoplasia that advises clinicians to use low-dose aspirin to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality in average-risk individuals who are (1) younger than 70 years with a life expectancy of at least 10 years, (2) have at least a 10% 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, and (3) are not at high risk for gastrointestinal bleeding.¹ As gastroenterologists, we may see average-risk patients only at the time of their screening or surveillance colonoscopies, and I wonder if we should be taking the lead in prescribing/recommending aspirin for CRC chemoprevention in these patients. To answer this question, I will review three main concerns: (1) issues with the overall strength of the evidence on the effectiveness of aspirin to reduce CRC incidence and mortality, (2) determining an individual’s long-term CVD risk and life expectancy may be outside of a gastroenterologist’s purview, and (3) the potential for serious gastrointestinal bleeding is dynamic and requires continual review.

Studies examining the effects of aspirin on CRC incidence and mortality have limitations and mixed results. Many of the randomized controlled trials have primarily been secondary analyses of studies with primary CVD endpoints. When examined individually some studies show no significant reduction in CRC risk such as the Women’s Health Study (at 10 years of follow-up), the Swedish Aspirin Low-Dose Trial, and the UK-TIA Aspirin Trial, while some meta-analyses have shown a decrease in CRC incidence and mortality.² One reason for this discrepancy may be varying lengths of follow-up across studies. In addition, we do not yet know the optimal aspirin dose or duration of therapy. The protective effect of aspirin on CRC incidence and mortality in average-risk individuals is mostly seen after 10-20 years of follow-up. This is relevant to the first part of the AGA clinical practice update recommendation that refers to individuals with a life expectancy of at least 10 years. The second part of the recommendation includes individuals with a 10-year CVD risk of at least 10%. As gastroenterologists, we may see these patients only two to three times over a 10-20 year period and only for their screening/surveillance colonoscopy. I would argue that we are not in the best position to address changes in life expectancy and 10-year CVD risk status over time and determine if they should start or continue taking aspirin for CRC chemoprevention.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force is also reexamining their previous recommendations for aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. The 2016 guidelines recommended initiation of low-dose aspirin for primary prevention of CVD and CRC in adults aged 50-59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk and at least a 10-year life expectancy (Grade B). The current draft recommendations state that aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults aged 40-59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk has a small net benefit (Grade C) and that initiating aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults aged 60 years and older has no net benefit (Grade D). They also state that, based on longer-term follow-up data from the Women’s Health Study and newer trials, the evidence is inadequate that low-dose aspirin use reduces CRC incidence and mortality.³ Because of these moving targets, we may also find ourselves walking back the AGA clinical practice update recommendations in the future.

Dr. Weiss is associate professor in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology and director of the University of Wisconsin Gastroenterology Genetics Clinic at University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. She reports receiving research support from Exact Sciences as a site-PI of a multisite trial.

References

1. Liang PS et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Jul;19(7):1327-36. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.02.014

2. Katona BW and Weiss JM. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan;158(2):368-88. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.06.047

3. United States Preventive Services Task Force. “Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: Preventive Medication.” Accessed April 5, 2022.

4. Burn J et al. Lancet. 2020 Jun13;395(10240):1855-63. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30366-4

Yes, but individualize it

By Sonia S. Kupfer, MD

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the top three causes of cancer and cancer death worldwide with an alarming rise in younger adults. Preventive strategies including screening, chemoprevention, and risk factor modification are important to reduce overall CRC burden. Aspirin, which is cheap and readily available, is supported for CRC chemoprevention by multiple lines of strong evidence. Recent AGA practice guidelines recommend low-dose aspirin chemoprevention in individuals at average CRC risk who are younger than 70 years with a life expectancy of at least 10 years, have a 10-year cardiovascular disease risk of at least 10% and are not at high risk for bleeding.¹ This advice diverges from the most recent U.S. Preventive Services Task Force–proposed guidelines² that reverse the 2016 USPSTF recommendation for aspirin CRC chemoprevention (and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease) based on uncertainty of net benefit over harms, especially in older individuals. In light of conflicting advice, how should we counsel our patients about aspirin use for CRC chemoprevention? In my opinion, we shouldn’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and should follow the AGA practice guideline to individualize aspirin chemoprevention based on balancing known benefits and risks.

As reviewed in the AGA practice guidelines1, many, but not all, randomized controlled and observational trials have shown efficacy of aspirin for reduction of CRC mortality, incidence, and adenoma recurrence. Analysis of cardiovascular prevention trials including over 14,000 mostly middle-aged people showed 33% reduction in 20-year cumulative CRC mortality. While a pooled estimate of four trials did not show reduced incidence 0-12 years after aspirin initiation, as noted in the practice guideline, three of these trials did show a 40% reduction between 10 and 19 years, a finding that is in line with results from a 20-year pooled analysis showing 24% reduction in CRC incidence by aspirin. Among Lynch syndrome patients, exposure to high-dose aspirin also significantly reduced CRC incidence in a randomized controlled trial with up to 20 years of follow-up³ highlighting that chemoprotective effects take years to manifest, and long-term follow-up in cancer chemoprevention trials is needed. Studies also have shown reduced adenoma incidence or recurrence by aspirin ranging from 17% to 51% depending on the study population, dose, and adherence. In addition to clinical trials, experimental data have demonstrated protective cellular effects of aspirin on colonic carcinogenesis, though exact mechanisms of this protective effect remain incompletely understood and are active areas of research, including in my lab. Taken together, there is a large body of evidence supporting a protective effect of aspirin on CRC mortality and colorectal neoplasia incidence most evident after 1-2 decades of follow-up.

Not all trials have shown that aspirin is chemoprotective, and, in fact, the ASPREE trial,⁴ that randomized over 19,000 healthy adults over the age of 70 to 100 mg aspirin or placebo, showed increased cancer mortality when the trial was stopped prematurely after 5 years. Individuals who started aspirin under age 70 appear to have continued chemoprotection as they age⁵ suggesting that aspirin, if it is tolerated, might not necessarily need to be stopped at a certain age. Notably, the ASPREE trial did not show increased CRC incidence, which begs the question of the biological mechanism underlying increased cancer mortality in trial participants. Beyond the findings of ASPREE, aspirin use is associated with risks of intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding with estimated odds ratios of 1.29 and 1.59, respectively. The AGA practice guideline acknowledges these risks especially in older adults and recommends initiation of aspirin in individuals under the age of 70 who are expected to live another 10 years without bleeding risks in order to reap the benefits and minimize the risks.

Dr. Kupfer is associate professor of medicine, director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk and Prevention Clinic, and codirector of the Comprehensive Cancer Risk and Prevention Clinic at the University of Chicago. She reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Liang PS et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Jul;19(7):1327-36.

2. United States Preventive Services Task Force. “Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: Preventive Medication.” Accessed April 10, 2022.

3. Burn J et al. Lancet. 2020 Jun 13;395(10240):1855-63.

4. McNeil JJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379(16):1519-28.

5. Guo CG et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021 Mar 1;7(3):428-35.

6. Lloyd KE et al. Prev Med. 2022 Jan;154:106872.

7. Rabin RC. “Aspirin Use to Prevent 1st Heart Attack or Stroke Should Be Curtailed, U.S. Panel Says.” New York Times. Oct. 13, 2021. Accessed April 10, 2022.

Dear colleagues,

We are all often asked by friends, colleagues, and especially patients how to reduce the risk of getting colorectal cancer. We offer exercise, diet, and smoking cessation as some possible ways to mitigate risk. But what about that wonder drug – the ubiquitous aspirin? The American Gastroenterological Association’s recent clinical practice update suggests that aspirin may be protective in some patients younger than 70 years depending on their cardiovascular and gastrointestinal bleeding risks. If so, should we gastroenterologists be the ones to recommend or even prescribe aspirin? Or are the data just not there yet? We invite two colorectal cancer experts, Dr. Sonia Kupfer and Dr. Jennifer Weiss, to share their perspectives in light of these new recommendations. I invite you to a great debate and look forward to hearing your own thoughts online and by email at ginews@gastro.org.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Not our lane

By Jennifer Weiss, MD, MS

In 2021, the AGA published a clinical practice update on chemoprevention for colorectal neoplasia that advises clinicians to use low-dose aspirin to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality in average-risk individuals who are (1) younger than 70 years with a life expectancy of at least 10 years, (2) have at least a 10% 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, and (3) are not at high risk for gastrointestinal bleeding.¹ As gastroenterologists, we may see average-risk patients only at the time of their screening or surveillance colonoscopies, and I wonder if we should be taking the lead in prescribing/recommending aspirin for CRC chemoprevention in these patients. To answer this question, I will review three main concerns: (1) issues with the overall strength of the evidence on the effectiveness of aspirin to reduce CRC incidence and mortality, (2) determining an individual’s long-term CVD risk and life expectancy may be outside of a gastroenterologist’s purview, and (3) the potential for serious gastrointestinal bleeding is dynamic and requires continual review.

Studies examining the effects of aspirin on CRC incidence and mortality have limitations and mixed results. Many of the randomized controlled trials have primarily been secondary analyses of studies with primary CVD endpoints. When examined individually some studies show no significant reduction in CRC risk such as the Women’s Health Study (at 10 years of follow-up), the Swedish Aspirin Low-Dose Trial, and the UK-TIA Aspirin Trial, while some meta-analyses have shown a decrease in CRC incidence and mortality.² One reason for this discrepancy may be varying lengths of follow-up across studies. In addition, we do not yet know the optimal aspirin dose or duration of therapy. The protective effect of aspirin on CRC incidence and mortality in average-risk individuals is mostly seen after 10-20 years of follow-up. This is relevant to the first part of the AGA clinical practice update recommendation that refers to individuals with a life expectancy of at least 10 years. The second part of the recommendation includes individuals with a 10-year CVD risk of at least 10%. As gastroenterologists, we may see these patients only two to three times over a 10-20 year period and only for their screening/surveillance colonoscopy. I would argue that we are not in the best position to address changes in life expectancy and 10-year CVD risk status over time and determine if they should start or continue taking aspirin for CRC chemoprevention.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force is also reexamining their previous recommendations for aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. The 2016 guidelines recommended initiation of low-dose aspirin for primary prevention of CVD and CRC in adults aged 50-59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk and at least a 10-year life expectancy (Grade B). The current draft recommendations state that aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults aged 40-59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk has a small net benefit (Grade C) and that initiating aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults aged 60 years and older has no net benefit (Grade D). They also state that, based on longer-term follow-up data from the Women’s Health Study and newer trials, the evidence is inadequate that low-dose aspirin use reduces CRC incidence and mortality.³ Because of these moving targets, we may also find ourselves walking back the AGA clinical practice update recommendations in the future.

Dr. Weiss is associate professor in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology and director of the University of Wisconsin Gastroenterology Genetics Clinic at University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. She reports receiving research support from Exact Sciences as a site-PI of a multisite trial.

References

1. Liang PS et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Jul;19(7):1327-36. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.02.014

2. Katona BW and Weiss JM. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan;158(2):368-88. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.06.047

3. United States Preventive Services Task Force. “Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: Preventive Medication.” Accessed April 5, 2022.

4. Burn J et al. Lancet. 2020 Jun13;395(10240):1855-63. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30366-4

Yes, but individualize it

By Sonia S. Kupfer, MD

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the top three causes of cancer and cancer death worldwide with an alarming rise in younger adults. Preventive strategies including screening, chemoprevention, and risk factor modification are important to reduce overall CRC burden. Aspirin, which is cheap and readily available, is supported for CRC chemoprevention by multiple lines of strong evidence. Recent AGA practice guidelines recommend low-dose aspirin chemoprevention in individuals at average CRC risk who are younger than 70 years with a life expectancy of at least 10 years, have a 10-year cardiovascular disease risk of at least 10% and are not at high risk for bleeding.¹ This advice diverges from the most recent U.S. Preventive Services Task Force–proposed guidelines² that reverse the 2016 USPSTF recommendation for aspirin CRC chemoprevention (and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease) based on uncertainty of net benefit over harms, especially in older individuals. In light of conflicting advice, how should we counsel our patients about aspirin use for CRC chemoprevention? In my opinion, we shouldn’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and should follow the AGA practice guideline to individualize aspirin chemoprevention based on balancing known benefits and risks.

As reviewed in the AGA practice guidelines1, many, but not all, randomized controlled and observational trials have shown efficacy of aspirin for reduction of CRC mortality, incidence, and adenoma recurrence. Analysis of cardiovascular prevention trials including over 14,000 mostly middle-aged people showed 33% reduction in 20-year cumulative CRC mortality. While a pooled estimate of four trials did not show reduced incidence 0-12 years after aspirin initiation, as noted in the practice guideline, three of these trials did show a 40% reduction between 10 and 19 years, a finding that is in line with results from a 20-year pooled analysis showing 24% reduction in CRC incidence by aspirin. Among Lynch syndrome patients, exposure to high-dose aspirin also significantly reduced CRC incidence in a randomized controlled trial with up to 20 years of follow-up³ highlighting that chemoprotective effects take years to manifest, and long-term follow-up in cancer chemoprevention trials is needed. Studies also have shown reduced adenoma incidence or recurrence by aspirin ranging from 17% to 51% depending on the study population, dose, and adherence. In addition to clinical trials, experimental data have demonstrated protective cellular effects of aspirin on colonic carcinogenesis, though exact mechanisms of this protective effect remain incompletely understood and are active areas of research, including in my lab. Taken together, there is a large body of evidence supporting a protective effect of aspirin on CRC mortality and colorectal neoplasia incidence most evident after 1-2 decades of follow-up.

Not all trials have shown that aspirin is chemoprotective, and, in fact, the ASPREE trial,⁴ that randomized over 19,000 healthy adults over the age of 70 to 100 mg aspirin or placebo, showed increased cancer mortality when the trial was stopped prematurely after 5 years. Individuals who started aspirin under age 70 appear to have continued chemoprotection as they age⁵ suggesting that aspirin, if it is tolerated, might not necessarily need to be stopped at a certain age. Notably, the ASPREE trial did not show increased CRC incidence, which begs the question of the biological mechanism underlying increased cancer mortality in trial participants. Beyond the findings of ASPREE, aspirin use is associated with risks of intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding with estimated odds ratios of 1.29 and 1.59, respectively. The AGA practice guideline acknowledges these risks especially in older adults and recommends initiation of aspirin in individuals under the age of 70 who are expected to live another 10 years without bleeding risks in order to reap the benefits and minimize the risks.

Dr. Kupfer is associate professor of medicine, director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk and Prevention Clinic, and codirector of the Comprehensive Cancer Risk and Prevention Clinic at the University of Chicago. She reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Liang PS et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Jul;19(7):1327-36.

2. United States Preventive Services Task Force. “Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: Preventive Medication.” Accessed April 10, 2022.

3. Burn J et al. Lancet. 2020 Jun 13;395(10240):1855-63.

4. McNeil JJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379(16):1519-28.

5. Guo CG et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021 Mar 1;7(3):428-35.

6. Lloyd KE et al. Prev Med. 2022 Jan;154:106872.

7. Rabin RC. “Aspirin Use to Prevent 1st Heart Attack or Stroke Should Be Curtailed, U.S. Panel Says.” New York Times. Oct. 13, 2021. Accessed April 10, 2022.

“Texas investigates parents of transgender teen.” “Court did not force dad to allow chemical castration of son.” Headlines such as these are becoming more common as transgender adolescents and young adults, as well as their families, continue to come under attack from state and local governments. In the 2021 state legislative sessions, more than 100 anti-trans bills were filed across 35 state legislatures. Texas alone saw 13 anti-trans bills, covering everything from sports participation to criminalization of best-practice medical care.¹ Many of these bills are introduced under the guise of “protecting” these adolescents and young adults but are detrimental to their health. They also contain descriptions of gender-affirming care that do not reflect the evidence-based standards of care followed by clinicians across the country. Below is scientifically accurate information on gender-affirming care.
 

Gender identity development

Trajectories of gender identity are diverse. In a large sample of transgender adults (n = 27,715), 10% started to realize they were transgender at age 5 or younger, 16% between ages 6 and 10, 28% between 11 and 15, 29% between 16 and 20, and 18% at age 21 or older.² In childhood, cross-gender play and preferences are a normal part of gender expression and many gender-nonconforming children will go on to identify with the sex they were assigned at birth (labeled cisgender). However, some children explicitly identify with a gender different than the sex they were assigned at birth (labeled transgender). Children who are consistent, insistent, and persistent in this identity appear likely to remain so into adolescence and adulthood. It is important to note that there is no evidence that discouraging gender nonconformity decreases the likelihood that a child will identify as transgender. In fact, this practice is no longer considered ethical, as it can have damaging effects on self-esteem and mental health. In addition, not all transgender people are noticeably gender nonconforming in childhood and that lack of childhood gender nonconformity does not invalidate someone’s transgender identity.

Gender-affirming care

For youth who identify as transgender, all steps in transition prior to puberty are social. This includes steps like changing hairstyles or clothing and using a different (affirmed) name and/or pronouns. This time period allows youth to explore their gender identity and expression. In one large study of 10,000 LGBTQ youth, among youth who reported “all or most people” used their affirmed pronoun, 12% reported a history of suicide attempt.³ In comparison, among those who reported that “no one” used their affirmed pronoun, the suicide attempt rate was 28%. Further, 14% of youth who reported that they were able to make changes in their clothing and appearance reported a past suicide attempt in comparison to 26% of those who were not able to. Many of these youth also are under the care of mental health professionals during this time.

Outcomes

At least 13 studies have documented an improvement in gender dysphoria and/or mental health for adolescents and young adults after beginning gender affirming medical care.⁵ A recent study by Turban et al. showed that access to gender affirming hormones during adolescence or early adulthood was associated with decreased odds of past month suicidal ideation than for those who did not have access to gender-affirming hormones.⁶ Tordoff et al. found that receipt of gender-affirming care, including medications, led to a 60% decrease in depressive symptoms and a 73% decrease in suicidality.⁷ One other question that often arises is whether youth who undergo medical treatment for their transition regret their transition or retransition back to the sex they were assigned at birth. In a large study at a gender clinic in the United Kingdom, they found a regret rate of only 0.47% (16 of 3,398 adolescents aged 13-20).⁸ This is similar to other studies that have also found low rates of regret. Regret is often due to lack of acceptance in society rather than lack of transgender identity.

The care of gender diverse youth takes place on a spectrum, including options that do not include medical treatment. By supporting youth where they are on their gender journey, there is a significant reduction in adverse mental health outcomes. Gender-affirming hormonal treatment is individualized and a thorough multidisciplinary evaluation and informed consent are obtained prior to initiation. There are careful, nuanced discussions with patients and their families to individualize care based on individual goals. By following established evidence-based standards of care, physicians can support their gender-diverse patients throughout their gender journey. Just like other medical treatments, procedures, or surgeries, gender-affirming care should be undertaken in the context of the sacred patient-physician relationship.
 

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Equality Texas. Legislative Bill Tracker.

2. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. 2016. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality.

3. The Trevor Project. 2020. National Survey on LGBTQ Mental Health.

4. Lopez X et al. Curr Opin Pediatrics. 2017;29(4):475-80.

5. Turban J. The evidence for trans youth gender-affirming medical care. Psychology Today. 2022 Jan 24.

6. Turban J et al. Access to gender-affirming hormones during adolescence and mental health outcomes among transgender adults. PLOS ONE. 2022;17(1).

7. Tordoff DM et al. Mental health outcomes in transgender and nonbinary youths receiving gender-affirming care. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(2).

8. Davies S et al. Detransition rates in a national UK gender identity clinic. Inside Matters. On Law, Ethics, and Religion. 2019 Apr 11.

“Texas investigates parents of transgender teen.” “Court did not force dad to allow chemical castration of son.” Headlines such as these are becoming more common as transgender adolescents and young adults, as well as their families, continue to come under attack from state and local governments. In the 2021 state legislative sessions, more than 100 anti-trans bills were filed across 35 state legislatures. Texas alone saw 13 anti-trans bills, covering everything from sports participation to criminalization of best-practice medical care.¹ Many of these bills are introduced under the guise of “protecting” these adolescents and young adults but are detrimental to their health. They also contain descriptions of gender-affirming care that do not reflect the evidence-based standards of care followed by clinicians across the country. Below is scientifically accurate information on gender-affirming care.
 

Gender identity development

Trajectories of gender identity are diverse. In a large sample of transgender adults (n = 27,715), 10% started to realize they were transgender at age 5 or younger, 16% between ages 6 and 10, 28% between 11 and 15, 29% between 16 and 20, and 18% at age 21 or older.² In childhood, cross-gender play and preferences are a normal part of gender expression and many gender-nonconforming children will go on to identify with the sex they were assigned at birth (labeled cisgender). However, some children explicitly identify with a gender different than the sex they were assigned at birth (labeled transgender). Children who are consistent, insistent, and persistent in this identity appear likely to remain so into adolescence and adulthood. It is important to note that there is no evidence that discouraging gender nonconformity decreases the likelihood that a child will identify as transgender. In fact, this practice is no longer considered ethical, as it can have damaging effects on self-esteem and mental health. In addition, not all transgender people are noticeably gender nonconforming in childhood and that lack of childhood gender nonconformity does not invalidate someone’s transgender identity.

Gender-affirming care

For youth who identify as transgender, all steps in transition prior to puberty are social. This includes steps like changing hairstyles or clothing and using a different (affirmed) name and/or pronouns. This time period allows youth to explore their gender identity and expression. In one large study of 10,000 LGBTQ youth, among youth who reported “all or most people” used their affirmed pronoun, 12% reported a history of suicide attempt.³ In comparison, among those who reported that “no one” used their affirmed pronoun, the suicide attempt rate was 28%. Further, 14% of youth who reported that they were able to make changes in their clothing and appearance reported a past suicide attempt in comparison to 26% of those who were not able to. Many of these youth also are under the care of mental health professionals during this time.

Outcomes

At least 13 studies have documented an improvement in gender dysphoria and/or mental health for adolescents and young adults after beginning gender affirming medical care.⁵ A recent study by Turban et al. showed that access to gender affirming hormones during adolescence or early adulthood was associated with decreased odds of past month suicidal ideation than for those who did not have access to gender-affirming hormones.⁶ Tordoff et al. found that receipt of gender-affirming care, including medications, led to a 60% decrease in depressive symptoms and a 73% decrease in suicidality.⁷ One other question that often arises is whether youth who undergo medical treatment for their transition regret their transition or retransition back to the sex they were assigned at birth. In a large study at a gender clinic in the United Kingdom, they found a regret rate of only 0.47% (16 of 3,398 adolescents aged 13-20).⁸ This is similar to other studies that have also found low rates of regret. Regret is often due to lack of acceptance in society rather than lack of transgender identity.

The care of gender diverse youth takes place on a spectrum, including options that do not include medical treatment. By supporting youth where they are on their gender journey, there is a significant reduction in adverse mental health outcomes. Gender-affirming hormonal treatment is individualized and a thorough multidisciplinary evaluation and informed consent are obtained prior to initiation. There are careful, nuanced discussions with patients and their families to individualize care based on individual goals. By following established evidence-based standards of care, physicians can support their gender-diverse patients throughout their gender journey. Just like other medical treatments, procedures, or surgeries, gender-affirming care should be undertaken in the context of the sacred patient-physician relationship.
 

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Equality Texas. Legislative Bill Tracker.

2. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. 2016. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality.

3. The Trevor Project. 2020. National Survey on LGBTQ Mental Health.

4. Lopez X et al. Curr Opin Pediatrics. 2017;29(4):475-80.

5. Turban J. The evidence for trans youth gender-affirming medical care. Psychology Today. 2022 Jan 24.

6. Turban J et al. Access to gender-affirming hormones during adolescence and mental health outcomes among transgender adults. PLOS ONE. 2022;17(1).

7. Tordoff DM et al. Mental health outcomes in transgender and nonbinary youths receiving gender-affirming care. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(2).

8. Davies S et al. Detransition rates in a national UK gender identity clinic. Inside Matters. On Law, Ethics, and Religion. 2019 Apr 11.

“Texas investigates parents of transgender teen.” “Court did not force dad to allow chemical castration of son.” Headlines such as these are becoming more common as transgender adolescents and young adults, as well as their families, continue to come under attack from state and local governments. In the 2021 state legislative sessions, more than 100 anti-trans bills were filed across 35 state legislatures. Texas alone saw 13 anti-trans bills, covering everything from sports participation to criminalization of best-practice medical care.¹ Many of these bills are introduced under the guise of “protecting” these adolescents and young adults but are detrimental to their health. They also contain descriptions of gender-affirming care that do not reflect the evidence-based standards of care followed by clinicians across the country. Below is scientifically accurate information on gender-affirming care.
 

Gender identity development

Trajectories of gender identity are diverse. In a large sample of transgender adults (n = 27,715), 10% started to realize they were transgender at age 5 or younger, 16% between ages 6 and 10, 28% between 11 and 15, 29% between 16 and 20, and 18% at age 21 or older.² In childhood, cross-gender play and preferences are a normal part of gender expression and many gender-nonconforming children will go on to identify with the sex they were assigned at birth (labeled cisgender). However, some children explicitly identify with a gender different than the sex they were assigned at birth (labeled transgender). Children who are consistent, insistent, and persistent in this identity appear likely to remain so into adolescence and adulthood. It is important to note that there is no evidence that discouraging gender nonconformity decreases the likelihood that a child will identify as transgender. In fact, this practice is no longer considered ethical, as it can have damaging effects on self-esteem and mental health. In addition, not all transgender people are noticeably gender nonconforming in childhood and that lack of childhood gender nonconformity does not invalidate someone’s transgender identity.

Gender-affirming care

For youth who identify as transgender, all steps in transition prior to puberty are social. This includes steps like changing hairstyles or clothing and using a different (affirmed) name and/or pronouns. This time period allows youth to explore their gender identity and expression. In one large study of 10,000 LGBTQ youth, among youth who reported “all or most people” used their affirmed pronoun, 12% reported a history of suicide attempt.³ In comparison, among those who reported that “no one” used their affirmed pronoun, the suicide attempt rate was 28%. Further, 14% of youth who reported that they were able to make changes in their clothing and appearance reported a past suicide attempt in comparison to 26% of those who were not able to. Many of these youth also are under the care of mental health professionals during this time.

Outcomes

At least 13 studies have documented an improvement in gender dysphoria and/or mental health for adolescents and young adults after beginning gender affirming medical care.⁵ A recent study by Turban et al. showed that access to gender affirming hormones during adolescence or early adulthood was associated with decreased odds of past month suicidal ideation than for those who did not have access to gender-affirming hormones.⁶ Tordoff et al. found that receipt of gender-affirming care, including medications, led to a 60% decrease in depressive symptoms and a 73% decrease in suicidality.⁷ One other question that often arises is whether youth who undergo medical treatment for their transition regret their transition or retransition back to the sex they were assigned at birth. In a large study at a gender clinic in the United Kingdom, they found a regret rate of only 0.47% (16 of 3,398 adolescents aged 13-20).⁸ This is similar to other studies that have also found low rates of regret. Regret is often due to lack of acceptance in society rather than lack of transgender identity.

The care of gender diverse youth takes place on a spectrum, including options that do not include medical treatment. By supporting youth where they are on their gender journey, there is a significant reduction in adverse mental health outcomes. Gender-affirming hormonal treatment is individualized and a thorough multidisciplinary evaluation and informed consent are obtained prior to initiation. There are careful, nuanced discussions with patients and their families to individualize care based on individual goals. By following established evidence-based standards of care, physicians can support their gender-diverse patients throughout their gender journey. Just like other medical treatments, procedures, or surgeries, gender-affirming care should be undertaken in the context of the sacred patient-physician relationship.
 

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Equality Texas. Legislative Bill Tracker.

2. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. 2016. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality.

3. The Trevor Project. 2020. National Survey on LGBTQ Mental Health.

4. Lopez X et al. Curr Opin Pediatrics. 2017;29(4):475-80.

5. Turban J. The evidence for trans youth gender-affirming medical care. Psychology Today. 2022 Jan 24.

6. Turban J et al. Access to gender-affirming hormones during adolescence and mental health outcomes among transgender adults. PLOS ONE. 2022;17(1).

7. Tordoff DM et al. Mental health outcomes in transgender and nonbinary youths receiving gender-affirming care. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(2).

8. Davies S et al. Detransition rates in a national UK gender identity clinic. Inside Matters. On Law, Ethics, and Religion. 2019 Apr 11.

Augmentation mammaplasty, otherwise known as a breast augmentation, is one of the most common cosmetic procedures performed in cisgender females. Gynecologists routinely perform annual breast examinations and order screening mammography in cisgender women with breast implants. Similarly, there is an increasing number of transgender women seeking breast augmentation – with approximately 60%-70% of patients having desired or undergone the procedure.¹ Consequently, these patients are instructed by their surgeons to follow up with gynecologists for annual examinations and screening. While there are many similarities in technique and procedure, there are nuances in patient demographics, anatomy, and surgical technique that obstetricians/gynecologists should be aware of when examining these patients or prior to referring them to a surgeon for augmentation.²

Many patients who are dissatisfied with breast size from hormone therapy alone will seek out augmentation mammaplasty. In patients taking estrogen for hormone therapy, breast growth will commence around 2-3 months and peak over 1-2 years.³ Unlike chest surgery for transmasculine individuals, it is recommended that transfeminine patients seeking breast augmentation wait a minimum of 12 months before to surgery to allow for maximum breast enlargement. As with breast growth in cisgender females, the extent of breast development is multifactorial and varies from individual to individual. Current literature does not suggest that estrogen type or dose affects the ultimate breast size; however, younger age, tissue sensitivity, and body weight may affect breast volume.³ Referral to a genetic counselor and preoperative imaging may be necessary if a patient has a history concerning for a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer.

Implant selection and placement is determined by a variety of factors. While the overall principles of augmentation mammaplasty are essentially the same, there are anatomic differences in transfeminine patients that surgeons must take into consideration at the time of the consultation and during the surgery itself. For example, the pectoralis major muscle is more defined, there is a longer sternal notch-to-nipple distance, the chest wall is broader and more barrel-shaped, and there is a shorter distance between the nipple and the inframammary crease.^2-4 As a result of the broader chest wall, it is extremely difficult to achieve central cleavage even with larger implant selection. The surgeon must also ensure that the nipple and areola overlie the implant centrally. Medial placement of the implant will result in lateral displacement of the nipples, which can have an unsatisfactory cosmetic appearance.

Incision location can be axillary, inframammary, or even transareolar, although the latter is less common due to the smaller areolar size and larger implant choice.³ If the inframammary incision is used, it should be placed lower than the natural inframammary fold because the distance between the inferior areolar margin and inframammary fold is shorter and will expand after the implant is placed.⁴ While both saline and silicone implants are available, many surgeons (myself included), favor more form-stable silicone implants. Given the association between anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and textured implants, many surgeons also use nontextured, or smooth, cohesive gel silicone implants.⁵

Pocket selection of the implant itself can be subglandular – directly under the breast mound – or subpectoral – behind the pectoralis muscle. For patients with a pinch test of greater than 1.5 cm (outside of the area of the breast bud), good skin softening, and marked pectoralis hypertrophy, subglandular placement is reasonable.⁶ In thin patients with minimal breast development, subglandular placement can result in a “double-mound” appearance and can lead to visible implant edges on the periphery.⁶ Use of the subpectoral plane is more common and is associated with less implant visibility due to an increased amount of soft-tissue coverage and has lower rates of capsular contracture.⁴ However, due to the more robust pectoralis muscle in transfeminine patients, implant displacement can occur more frequently compared to subglandular placement. The surgeon and patient must have a thorough discussion about the location of the incision, implant material, and pocket placement along with the benefits and complications of the surgical plan.

Complications of augmentation mammaplasty are rare. However, when they occur it can include capsular contracture, breast asymmetry, hematoma formation, loss of nipple sensation, implant malposition, implant displacement below the inframammary crease, implant rupture, and need for revisional surgery.⁷ If an obstetrician/gynecologist observes any of the aforementioned findings in a postoperative patient, consultation and referral to a plastic surgeon is imperative.

Postoperative assessment and screening are mandatory in all patients who undergo breast augmentation. It is important for the gynecologist to note the incision placement, know the type of implant used (saline or silicone), and delineate where the implant was placed. If silicone implants are used, breast MRI is more sensitive in detecting implant rupture compared to mammography alone. Given the relatively poor epidemiologic data on breast cancer in transgender women, the Endocrine Society recommends that these patients follow the same screening guidelines as cisgender women.^4,6

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Wierckx K et al. J Sex Med. 2014;11(5):1240-7.

2. Mehra G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021 Jan 21;9(1):e3362. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003362.

3. Schecter LS, Schechter RB. Breast and chest surgery for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2020:73-81.

4. Colebunders B et al. Top surgery. In: Salgado CJ et al. ed. Gender Affirmation: Medical and Surgical Perspectives. New York, NY: Thieme, 2017:51-66.

5. De Boer M et al. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:NP83-NP87.

6. Coon D et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Jun;145(6):1343-53.

7. Kanhai RC et al. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:209-11.

Augmentation mammaplasty, otherwise known as a breast augmentation, is one of the most common cosmetic procedures performed in cisgender females. Gynecologists routinely perform annual breast examinations and order screening mammography in cisgender women with breast implants. Similarly, there is an increasing number of transgender women seeking breast augmentation – with approximately 60%-70% of patients having desired or undergone the procedure.¹ Consequently, these patients are instructed by their surgeons to follow up with gynecologists for annual examinations and screening. While there are many similarities in technique and procedure, there are nuances in patient demographics, anatomy, and surgical technique that obstetricians/gynecologists should be aware of when examining these patients or prior to referring them to a surgeon for augmentation.²

Many patients who are dissatisfied with breast size from hormone therapy alone will seek out augmentation mammaplasty. In patients taking estrogen for hormone therapy, breast growth will commence around 2-3 months and peak over 1-2 years.³ Unlike chest surgery for transmasculine individuals, it is recommended that transfeminine patients seeking breast augmentation wait a minimum of 12 months before to surgery to allow for maximum breast enlargement. As with breast growth in cisgender females, the extent of breast development is multifactorial and varies from individual to individual. Current literature does not suggest that estrogen type or dose affects the ultimate breast size; however, younger age, tissue sensitivity, and body weight may affect breast volume.³ Referral to a genetic counselor and preoperative imaging may be necessary if a patient has a history concerning for a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer.

Implant selection and placement is determined by a variety of factors. While the overall principles of augmentation mammaplasty are essentially the same, there are anatomic differences in transfeminine patients that surgeons must take into consideration at the time of the consultation and during the surgery itself. For example, the pectoralis major muscle is more defined, there is a longer sternal notch-to-nipple distance, the chest wall is broader and more barrel-shaped, and there is a shorter distance between the nipple and the inframammary crease.^2-4 As a result of the broader chest wall, it is extremely difficult to achieve central cleavage even with larger implant selection. The surgeon must also ensure that the nipple and areola overlie the implant centrally. Medial placement of the implant will result in lateral displacement of the nipples, which can have an unsatisfactory cosmetic appearance.

Incision location can be axillary, inframammary, or even transareolar, although the latter is less common due to the smaller areolar size and larger implant choice.³ If the inframammary incision is used, it should be placed lower than the natural inframammary fold because the distance between the inferior areolar margin and inframammary fold is shorter and will expand after the implant is placed.⁴ While both saline and silicone implants are available, many surgeons (myself included), favor more form-stable silicone implants. Given the association between anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and textured implants, many surgeons also use nontextured, or smooth, cohesive gel silicone implants.⁵

Pocket selection of the implant itself can be subglandular – directly under the breast mound – or subpectoral – behind the pectoralis muscle. For patients with a pinch test of greater than 1.5 cm (outside of the area of the breast bud), good skin softening, and marked pectoralis hypertrophy, subglandular placement is reasonable.⁶ In thin patients with minimal breast development, subglandular placement can result in a “double-mound” appearance and can lead to visible implant edges on the periphery.⁶ Use of the subpectoral plane is more common and is associated with less implant visibility due to an increased amount of soft-tissue coverage and has lower rates of capsular contracture.⁴ However, due to the more robust pectoralis muscle in transfeminine patients, implant displacement can occur more frequently compared to subglandular placement. The surgeon and patient must have a thorough discussion about the location of the incision, implant material, and pocket placement along with the benefits and complications of the surgical plan.

Complications of augmentation mammaplasty are rare. However, when they occur it can include capsular contracture, breast asymmetry, hematoma formation, loss of nipple sensation, implant malposition, implant displacement below the inframammary crease, implant rupture, and need for revisional surgery.⁷ If an obstetrician/gynecologist observes any of the aforementioned findings in a postoperative patient, consultation and referral to a plastic surgeon is imperative.

Postoperative assessment and screening are mandatory in all patients who undergo breast augmentation. It is important for the gynecologist to note the incision placement, know the type of implant used (saline or silicone), and delineate where the implant was placed. If silicone implants are used, breast MRI is more sensitive in detecting implant rupture compared to mammography alone. Given the relatively poor epidemiologic data on breast cancer in transgender women, the Endocrine Society recommends that these patients follow the same screening guidelines as cisgender women.^4,6

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Wierckx K et al. J Sex Med. 2014;11(5):1240-7.

2. Mehra G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021 Jan 21;9(1):e3362. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003362.

3. Schecter LS, Schechter RB. Breast and chest surgery for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2020:73-81.

4. Colebunders B et al. Top surgery. In: Salgado CJ et al. ed. Gender Affirmation: Medical and Surgical Perspectives. New York, NY: Thieme, 2017:51-66.

5. De Boer M et al. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:NP83-NP87.

6. Coon D et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Jun;145(6):1343-53.

7. Kanhai RC et al. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:209-11.

Augmentation mammaplasty, otherwise known as a breast augmentation, is one of the most common cosmetic procedures performed in cisgender females. Gynecologists routinely perform annual breast examinations and order screening mammography in cisgender women with breast implants. Similarly, there is an increasing number of transgender women seeking breast augmentation – with approximately 60%-70% of patients having desired or undergone the procedure.¹ Consequently, these patients are instructed by their surgeons to follow up with gynecologists for annual examinations and screening. While there are many similarities in technique and procedure, there are nuances in patient demographics, anatomy, and surgical technique that obstetricians/gynecologists should be aware of when examining these patients or prior to referring them to a surgeon for augmentation.²

Many patients who are dissatisfied with breast size from hormone therapy alone will seek out augmentation mammaplasty. In patients taking estrogen for hormone therapy, breast growth will commence around 2-3 months and peak over 1-2 years.³ Unlike chest surgery for transmasculine individuals, it is recommended that transfeminine patients seeking breast augmentation wait a minimum of 12 months before to surgery to allow for maximum breast enlargement. As with breast growth in cisgender females, the extent of breast development is multifactorial and varies from individual to individual. Current literature does not suggest that estrogen type or dose affects the ultimate breast size; however, younger age, tissue sensitivity, and body weight may affect breast volume.³ Referral to a genetic counselor and preoperative imaging may be necessary if a patient has a history concerning for a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer.

Implant selection and placement is determined by a variety of factors. While the overall principles of augmentation mammaplasty are essentially the same, there are anatomic differences in transfeminine patients that surgeons must take into consideration at the time of the consultation and during the surgery itself. For example, the pectoralis major muscle is more defined, there is a longer sternal notch-to-nipple distance, the chest wall is broader and more barrel-shaped, and there is a shorter distance between the nipple and the inframammary crease.^2-4 As a result of the broader chest wall, it is extremely difficult to achieve central cleavage even with larger implant selection. The surgeon must also ensure that the nipple and areola overlie the implant centrally. Medial placement of the implant will result in lateral displacement of the nipples, which can have an unsatisfactory cosmetic appearance.

Incision location can be axillary, inframammary, or even transareolar, although the latter is less common due to the smaller areolar size and larger implant choice.³ If the inframammary incision is used, it should be placed lower than the natural inframammary fold because the distance between the inferior areolar margin and inframammary fold is shorter and will expand after the implant is placed.⁴ While both saline and silicone implants are available, many surgeons (myself included), favor more form-stable silicone implants. Given the association between anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and textured implants, many surgeons also use nontextured, or smooth, cohesive gel silicone implants.⁵

Pocket selection of the implant itself can be subglandular – directly under the breast mound – or subpectoral – behind the pectoralis muscle. For patients with a pinch test of greater than 1.5 cm (outside of the area of the breast bud), good skin softening, and marked pectoralis hypertrophy, subglandular placement is reasonable.⁶ In thin patients with minimal breast development, subglandular placement can result in a “double-mound” appearance and can lead to visible implant edges on the periphery.⁶ Use of the subpectoral plane is more common and is associated with less implant visibility due to an increased amount of soft-tissue coverage and has lower rates of capsular contracture.⁴ However, due to the more robust pectoralis muscle in transfeminine patients, implant displacement can occur more frequently compared to subglandular placement. The surgeon and patient must have a thorough discussion about the location of the incision, implant material, and pocket placement along with the benefits and complications of the surgical plan.

Complications of augmentation mammaplasty are rare. However, when they occur it can include capsular contracture, breast asymmetry, hematoma formation, loss of nipple sensation, implant malposition, implant displacement below the inframammary crease, implant rupture, and need for revisional surgery.⁷ If an obstetrician/gynecologist observes any of the aforementioned findings in a postoperative patient, consultation and referral to a plastic surgeon is imperative.

Postoperative assessment and screening are mandatory in all patients who undergo breast augmentation. It is important for the gynecologist to note the incision placement, know the type of implant used (saline or silicone), and delineate where the implant was placed. If silicone implants are used, breast MRI is more sensitive in detecting implant rupture compared to mammography alone. Given the relatively poor epidemiologic data on breast cancer in transgender women, the Endocrine Society recommends that these patients follow the same screening guidelines as cisgender women.^4,6

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Wierckx K et al. J Sex Med. 2014;11(5):1240-7.

2. Mehra G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021 Jan 21;9(1):e3362. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003362.

3. Schecter LS, Schechter RB. Breast and chest surgery for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2020:73-81.

4. Colebunders B et al. Top surgery. In: Salgado CJ et al. ed. Gender Affirmation: Medical and Surgical Perspectives. New York, NY: Thieme, 2017:51-66.

5. De Boer M et al. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:NP83-NP87.

6. Coon D et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Jun;145(6):1343-53.

7. Kanhai RC et al. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:209-11.

The impact of a gynecologic cancer diagnosis reaches beyond the obvious side effects of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Many of our patients experience the quality-of-life–limiting side effects of abrupt hormone withdrawal as a consequence of our treatments. Assumptions are common, by both patients and providers, that hormonal therapy is unsafe after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and that it is associated with an increased risk for recurrence. This sentiment likely originates from the fallout of the Womens’ Health Initiative (WHI) studies which showed an increased risk of breast cancer among users of combined estrogen and progesterone therapy.¹ While this may be true for breast cancer risk, when initiated early, hormonal therapy is safe, even beneficial, for many patients with a history of gynecologic cancer, and can significantly improve their quality of life in addition to reducing all-cause mortality and incidence of osteoporosis, dementia, and cardiovascular disease.²

Premenopausal women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer or preinvasive hyperplasia should be considered for ovarian preservation at the time of surgery. This strategy has been shown to be safe and not associated with an increased risk of recurrence. If oophorectomy is performed, hormonal therapy has been shown to be a safe remedy to the side effects of surgical menopause and the deleterious acceleration of bone loss and cardiovascular aging. The safety of hormone therapy for early-stage endometrial cancer has been thoroughly studied, including in a randomized controlled trial of more than 1,200 patients.³ This study showed no difference in the recurrence rate in users when compared with nonusers.

While hormone therapy is safe, from an oncologic standpoint, for women with a history of early-stage endometrial cancer other risks must also be considered. Given the association between endometrial cancer and obesity, these patients are at higher risk for venous thromboembolic (VTE) events, more so with the addition of exogenous hormone therapy. While not an overt contraindication to hormone prescription, obese patients who are prescribed these agents should be counseled regarding their risks for VTE.

The subgroup of patients with endometrial cancer in whom hormones should not be prescribed are those with advanced or recurrent disease. It is common for these tumors to express estrogen receptors, as evidenced by the responsiveness of these tumors to progesterone and antiestrogen treatments. Therefore, there is a theoretical risk for progression while using estrogen. In addition, as stated above, the risk of VTE is particularly elevated for women with metastatic malignancy receiving systemic therapies.

Cervical cancer commonly affects women of premenopausal age; therefore, early ovarian failure is particularly deleterious for this group of patients. Early-stage cervical cancer is most commonly treated with radical or extrafascial hysterectomy. Oophorectomy is not obligatory for the majority of these cases, and can be omitted in pre-, or perimenopausal patients to prevent surgical menopause. Ovarian metastases have been reported in cases of cervical adenocarcinoma, which led to the concern that ovarian preservation was not safe for this histology. However, recent data dispute this concern. A contemporary retrospective series of 105 patients with cervical adenocarcinoma identified no significant difference in overall survival when comparing those who had undergone ovarian preservation versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.⁴

Ovarian preservation during cervical cancer surgery may not be enough to prevent early menopause. Approximately 20% of cervical cancer patients may require postoperative radiation for high- or intermediate-risk disease (such as positive lymph nodes, or adverse features in the tumor). For these women, ovarian ablation results, even if the ovaries were preserved at the time of surgery. Transposition of the ovaries to a location outside of the potential radiation fields is a strategy to mitigate this risk. To achieve this, the preserved ovaries and their vascular pedicles are skeletonized. The ovaries are then sutured to the paracolic gutter peritoneum or similar location above the pelvic brim, taking care to ensure that the vascular pedicle is not compromised or twisted. Placement of radio-opaque surgical clips on the caudad aspect of the transposed ovary aids in their identification by radiation oncologists when planning their treatment fields.

Ovarian transposition is most commonly used for women who are undergoing definitive surgery for cervical cancer. However, this strategy can also be used as a lead-in procedure for young women with advanced cervical cancer in whom definitive chemoradiation is planned. If the ovaries cannot be spared or moved out of “harm’s way” for premenopausal women undergoing treatment with definitive radiation, hormone therapy may be necessary and is safe for patients with cervical cancer, including those with adenocarcinoma. If the patient has not undergone hysterectomy, a regimen that includes a combination of estrogen and progesterone is necessary to avoid carcinogenic effects of unopposed estrogen on an intact endometrium, even after radiation has ablated those tissues.

When ovarian and fallopian cancers arise in premenopausal patients and appear confined to a single adnexa, contralateral ovarian preservation can be considered. However, for advanced disease, this is usually not possible or appropriate. Given that most ovarian cancers arise in a postmenopausal population, these patients may be preexisting users of hormone therapy. The data, including a randomized controlled trial, would suggest that it is safe to continue to use hormone therapy during or following a diagnosis of ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and that it is not associated with worse outcomes from their cancer.⁵

Once again, patients should be carefully counseled about the additive risks for VTE that come from metastatic ovarian cancer, surgery via laparotomy, and exogenous hormonal therapy. However, these patients need not be subjected to an abrupt transition to menopause, because level I evidence suggests that these therapies are not associated with worse oncologic outcomes. All patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer should receive genetic testing, and if deleterious mutations are found in BRCA 1 or 2 genes indicating an elevated risk for breast cancer, decision making regarding continued exogenous hormonal therapy is complicated. The most contemporary data, including long-term follow-up from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, do not suggest an increased risk for breast cancer with estrogen-only preparations of hormone therapy.⁶ Given that most women with gynecologic cancers have undergone hysterectomy as part of their treatment, these estrogen-only preparations are appropriate for most.

For patients with rare tumors, such as endometrial stromal tumors or uterine leiomyosarcoma, the safety of exogenous hormone therapy should be dictated by the receptor profile of their particular cancer. Many of these cancers express estrogen receptors; therefore, current guidelines recommend against the use of hormones after these diagnoses when estrogen receptors are expressed.

Gynecologic cancer treatments induce many toxicities with long-term deleterious effects on quality of life. Use of hormones to mitigate the symptoms of menopause is an important tool in the toolkit for gynecologists. Assumptions should not be made that hormonal therapies are always unsafe for all of these patients. It is important to closely evaluate the patient’s tumor and other risk factors before withholding potentially valuable therapies.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA. 2010 Oct 20;304(15):1684-92.

2. Sinno AK et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157(2):303-6.

3. Barakat et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

4. Hu Jun et al. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Nov;37(8):1065-9.

5. Eeles R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;33(35):4138-44.

6. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA Jul 28 2020;324(4):369-80.

The impact of a gynecologic cancer diagnosis reaches beyond the obvious side effects of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Many of our patients experience the quality-of-life–limiting side effects of abrupt hormone withdrawal as a consequence of our treatments. Assumptions are common, by both patients and providers, that hormonal therapy is unsafe after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and that it is associated with an increased risk for recurrence. This sentiment likely originates from the fallout of the Womens’ Health Initiative (WHI) studies which showed an increased risk of breast cancer among users of combined estrogen and progesterone therapy.¹ While this may be true for breast cancer risk, when initiated early, hormonal therapy is safe, even beneficial, for many patients with a history of gynecologic cancer, and can significantly improve their quality of life in addition to reducing all-cause mortality and incidence of osteoporosis, dementia, and cardiovascular disease.²

Premenopausal women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer or preinvasive hyperplasia should be considered for ovarian preservation at the time of surgery. This strategy has been shown to be safe and not associated with an increased risk of recurrence. If oophorectomy is performed, hormonal therapy has been shown to be a safe remedy to the side effects of surgical menopause and the deleterious acceleration of bone loss and cardiovascular aging. The safety of hormone therapy for early-stage endometrial cancer has been thoroughly studied, including in a randomized controlled trial of more than 1,200 patients.³ This study showed no difference in the recurrence rate in users when compared with nonusers.

While hormone therapy is safe, from an oncologic standpoint, for women with a history of early-stage endometrial cancer other risks must also be considered. Given the association between endometrial cancer and obesity, these patients are at higher risk for venous thromboembolic (VTE) events, more so with the addition of exogenous hormone therapy. While not an overt contraindication to hormone prescription, obese patients who are prescribed these agents should be counseled regarding their risks for VTE.

The subgroup of patients with endometrial cancer in whom hormones should not be prescribed are those with advanced or recurrent disease. It is common for these tumors to express estrogen receptors, as evidenced by the responsiveness of these tumors to progesterone and antiestrogen treatments. Therefore, there is a theoretical risk for progression while using estrogen. In addition, as stated above, the risk of VTE is particularly elevated for women with metastatic malignancy receiving systemic therapies.

Cervical cancer commonly affects women of premenopausal age; therefore, early ovarian failure is particularly deleterious for this group of patients. Early-stage cervical cancer is most commonly treated with radical or extrafascial hysterectomy. Oophorectomy is not obligatory for the majority of these cases, and can be omitted in pre-, or perimenopausal patients to prevent surgical menopause. Ovarian metastases have been reported in cases of cervical adenocarcinoma, which led to the concern that ovarian preservation was not safe for this histology. However, recent data dispute this concern. A contemporary retrospective series of 105 patients with cervical adenocarcinoma identified no significant difference in overall survival when comparing those who had undergone ovarian preservation versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.⁴

Ovarian preservation during cervical cancer surgery may not be enough to prevent early menopause. Approximately 20% of cervical cancer patients may require postoperative radiation for high- or intermediate-risk disease (such as positive lymph nodes, or adverse features in the tumor). For these women, ovarian ablation results, even if the ovaries were preserved at the time of surgery. Transposition of the ovaries to a location outside of the potential radiation fields is a strategy to mitigate this risk. To achieve this, the preserved ovaries and their vascular pedicles are skeletonized. The ovaries are then sutured to the paracolic gutter peritoneum or similar location above the pelvic brim, taking care to ensure that the vascular pedicle is not compromised or twisted. Placement of radio-opaque surgical clips on the caudad aspect of the transposed ovary aids in their identification by radiation oncologists when planning their treatment fields.

Ovarian transposition is most commonly used for women who are undergoing definitive surgery for cervical cancer. However, this strategy can also be used as a lead-in procedure for young women with advanced cervical cancer in whom definitive chemoradiation is planned. If the ovaries cannot be spared or moved out of “harm’s way” for premenopausal women undergoing treatment with definitive radiation, hormone therapy may be necessary and is safe for patients with cervical cancer, including those with adenocarcinoma. If the patient has not undergone hysterectomy, a regimen that includes a combination of estrogen and progesterone is necessary to avoid carcinogenic effects of unopposed estrogen on an intact endometrium, even after radiation has ablated those tissues.

When ovarian and fallopian cancers arise in premenopausal patients and appear confined to a single adnexa, contralateral ovarian preservation can be considered. However, for advanced disease, this is usually not possible or appropriate. Given that most ovarian cancers arise in a postmenopausal population, these patients may be preexisting users of hormone therapy. The data, including a randomized controlled trial, would suggest that it is safe to continue to use hormone therapy during or following a diagnosis of ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and that it is not associated with worse outcomes from their cancer.⁵

Once again, patients should be carefully counseled about the additive risks for VTE that come from metastatic ovarian cancer, surgery via laparotomy, and exogenous hormonal therapy. However, these patients need not be subjected to an abrupt transition to menopause, because level I evidence suggests that these therapies are not associated with worse oncologic outcomes. All patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer should receive genetic testing, and if deleterious mutations are found in BRCA 1 or 2 genes indicating an elevated risk for breast cancer, decision making regarding continued exogenous hormonal therapy is complicated. The most contemporary data, including long-term follow-up from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, do not suggest an increased risk for breast cancer with estrogen-only preparations of hormone therapy.⁶ Given that most women with gynecologic cancers have undergone hysterectomy as part of their treatment, these estrogen-only preparations are appropriate for most.

For patients with rare tumors, such as endometrial stromal tumors or uterine leiomyosarcoma, the safety of exogenous hormone therapy should be dictated by the receptor profile of their particular cancer. Many of these cancers express estrogen receptors; therefore, current guidelines recommend against the use of hormones after these diagnoses when estrogen receptors are expressed.

Gynecologic cancer treatments induce many toxicities with long-term deleterious effects on quality of life. Use of hormones to mitigate the symptoms of menopause is an important tool in the toolkit for gynecologists. Assumptions should not be made that hormonal therapies are always unsafe for all of these patients. It is important to closely evaluate the patient’s tumor and other risk factors before withholding potentially valuable therapies.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA. 2010 Oct 20;304(15):1684-92.

2. Sinno AK et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157(2):303-6.

3. Barakat et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

4. Hu Jun et al. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Nov;37(8):1065-9.

5. Eeles R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;33(35):4138-44.

6. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA Jul 28 2020;324(4):369-80.

The impact of a gynecologic cancer diagnosis reaches beyond the obvious side effects of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Many of our patients experience the quality-of-life–limiting side effects of abrupt hormone withdrawal as a consequence of our treatments. Assumptions are common, by both patients and providers, that hormonal therapy is unsafe after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and that it is associated with an increased risk for recurrence. This sentiment likely originates from the fallout of the Womens’ Health Initiative (WHI) studies which showed an increased risk of breast cancer among users of combined estrogen and progesterone therapy.¹ While this may be true for breast cancer risk, when initiated early, hormonal therapy is safe, even beneficial, for many patients with a history of gynecologic cancer, and can significantly improve their quality of life in addition to reducing all-cause mortality and incidence of osteoporosis, dementia, and cardiovascular disease.²

Premenopausal women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer or preinvasive hyperplasia should be considered for ovarian preservation at the time of surgery. This strategy has been shown to be safe and not associated with an increased risk of recurrence. If oophorectomy is performed, hormonal therapy has been shown to be a safe remedy to the side effects of surgical menopause and the deleterious acceleration of bone loss and cardiovascular aging. The safety of hormone therapy for early-stage endometrial cancer has been thoroughly studied, including in a randomized controlled trial of more than 1,200 patients.³ This study showed no difference in the recurrence rate in users when compared with nonusers.

While hormone therapy is safe, from an oncologic standpoint, for women with a history of early-stage endometrial cancer other risks must also be considered. Given the association between endometrial cancer and obesity, these patients are at higher risk for venous thromboembolic (VTE) events, more so with the addition of exogenous hormone therapy. While not an overt contraindication to hormone prescription, obese patients who are prescribed these agents should be counseled regarding their risks for VTE.

The subgroup of patients with endometrial cancer in whom hormones should not be prescribed are those with advanced or recurrent disease. It is common for these tumors to express estrogen receptors, as evidenced by the responsiveness of these tumors to progesterone and antiestrogen treatments. Therefore, there is a theoretical risk for progression while using estrogen. In addition, as stated above, the risk of VTE is particularly elevated for women with metastatic malignancy receiving systemic therapies.

Cervical cancer commonly affects women of premenopausal age; therefore, early ovarian failure is particularly deleterious for this group of patients. Early-stage cervical cancer is most commonly treated with radical or extrafascial hysterectomy. Oophorectomy is not obligatory for the majority of these cases, and can be omitted in pre-, or perimenopausal patients to prevent surgical menopause. Ovarian metastases have been reported in cases of cervical adenocarcinoma, which led to the concern that ovarian preservation was not safe for this histology. However, recent data dispute this concern. A contemporary retrospective series of 105 patients with cervical adenocarcinoma identified no significant difference in overall survival when comparing those who had undergone ovarian preservation versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.⁴

Ovarian preservation during cervical cancer surgery may not be enough to prevent early menopause. Approximately 20% of cervical cancer patients may require postoperative radiation for high- or intermediate-risk disease (such as positive lymph nodes, or adverse features in the tumor). For these women, ovarian ablation results, even if the ovaries were preserved at the time of surgery. Transposition of the ovaries to a location outside of the potential radiation fields is a strategy to mitigate this risk. To achieve this, the preserved ovaries and their vascular pedicles are skeletonized. The ovaries are then sutured to the paracolic gutter peritoneum or similar location above the pelvic brim, taking care to ensure that the vascular pedicle is not compromised or twisted. Placement of radio-opaque surgical clips on the caudad aspect of the transposed ovary aids in their identification by radiation oncologists when planning their treatment fields.

Ovarian transposition is most commonly used for women who are undergoing definitive surgery for cervical cancer. However, this strategy can also be used as a lead-in procedure for young women with advanced cervical cancer in whom definitive chemoradiation is planned. If the ovaries cannot be spared or moved out of “harm’s way” for premenopausal women undergoing treatment with definitive radiation, hormone therapy may be necessary and is safe for patients with cervical cancer, including those with adenocarcinoma. If the patient has not undergone hysterectomy, a regimen that includes a combination of estrogen and progesterone is necessary to avoid carcinogenic effects of unopposed estrogen on an intact endometrium, even after radiation has ablated those tissues.

When ovarian and fallopian cancers arise in premenopausal patients and appear confined to a single adnexa, contralateral ovarian preservation can be considered. However, for advanced disease, this is usually not possible or appropriate. Given that most ovarian cancers arise in a postmenopausal population, these patients may be preexisting users of hormone therapy. The data, including a randomized controlled trial, would suggest that it is safe to continue to use hormone therapy during or following a diagnosis of ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and that it is not associated with worse outcomes from their cancer.⁵

Once again, patients should be carefully counseled about the additive risks for VTE that come from metastatic ovarian cancer, surgery via laparotomy, and exogenous hormonal therapy. However, these patients need not be subjected to an abrupt transition to menopause, because level I evidence suggests that these therapies are not associated with worse oncologic outcomes. All patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer should receive genetic testing, and if deleterious mutations are found in BRCA 1 or 2 genes indicating an elevated risk for breast cancer, decision making regarding continued exogenous hormonal therapy is complicated. The most contemporary data, including long-term follow-up from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, do not suggest an increased risk for breast cancer with estrogen-only preparations of hormone therapy.⁶ Given that most women with gynecologic cancers have undergone hysterectomy as part of their treatment, these estrogen-only preparations are appropriate for most.

For patients with rare tumors, such as endometrial stromal tumors or uterine leiomyosarcoma, the safety of exogenous hormone therapy should be dictated by the receptor profile of their particular cancer. Many of these cancers express estrogen receptors; therefore, current guidelines recommend against the use of hormones after these diagnoses when estrogen receptors are expressed.

Gynecologic cancer treatments induce many toxicities with long-term deleterious effects on quality of life. Use of hormones to mitigate the symptoms of menopause is an important tool in the toolkit for gynecologists. Assumptions should not be made that hormonal therapies are always unsafe for all of these patients. It is important to closely evaluate the patient’s tumor and other risk factors before withholding potentially valuable therapies.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA. 2010 Oct 20;304(15):1684-92.

2. Sinno AK et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157(2):303-6.

3. Barakat et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

4. Hu Jun et al. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Nov;37(8):1065-9.

5. Eeles R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;33(35):4138-44.

6. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA Jul 28 2020;324(4):369-80.

Difficult economic times and the unpredictable consequences of health care reform are making an increasing number of solo practitioners and small private groups very nervous. Yet, many balk at the prospect of selling to private equity companies. I have received many inquiries about other protective options, such as merging two or more small practices into one larger entity.

Merging offers many benefits: Better overall management, centralized and efficient billing and collection, group purchasing discounts, and reduced overhead, among others; but careful planning, and a written agreement, are essential. If you are considering such an option, here are some things to think about.

You should begin with an evaluation and comparison of the separate groups’ respective finances. This should include a history of production, collections, overhead, and liabilities. Basically, you want to locate and identify all assets and liabilities that will be combined into the new group. One area of immediate importance is Medicare participation. Which members now currently participate and which do not? Since the new group will need to have a single position, all of the physicians must agree on that issue.

Who will be in charge? Not every physician is a qualified manager. The manager should be the physician who is willing to spend the time it takes to sign checks, interact with the administrator, and ensure that other matters such as filing tax returns and approving minor purchases arc carried out properly.

What is the compensation formula? Compensation arrangements should be based on each physician’s current financial data and the goals of the practice. Will everyone be paid only for what they do individually, or will revenue be shared equally? I favor a combination, so productivity is rewarded but your income doesn’t drop to zero when you take time off.

Which practices have a retirement plan and which do not? Will you keep your retirement plans separate, or combine them? If the latter, you will have to agree on the terms of the new plan, which can be the same or different from any of the existing plans. You’ll probably need some legal guidance to insure that assets from existing plans can be transferred into a new plan without tax issues. You may also have to address the problem of physicians who currently do not have a plan who, for whatever reason, may not want to be forced into making retirement plan contributions.

The often-problematic issue of employees and their salaries needs to be addressed, to decide which employees will be needed in the new group, and to determine a salary structure. Each practice’s policies related to vacation, sick leave, and other such issues should be reviewed, and an overall policy for the new group developed.

Other common sticking points are issues related to facilities. If the practices intend to consolidate into one location, the physicians must decide which of the specific assets of each practice will be contributed to the new entity. Ideally, each party brings an equal amount of assets to the table, but in the real world that is hardly ever the case. Physicians whose assets are to be used generally want to be compensated, and those who have to dispose of or store assets are in a quandary. The solution to this predicament will vary depending on the circumstances of each merger. One alternative is to agree that any inequalities will be compensated at the other end, in the form of buyout value; that is, physicians contributing more assets will receive larger buyouts when they leave or retire than those contributing less.

Buyouts should be addressed in advance as well. You must decide when a buyout would occur – usually in the event of retirement, death, disability, or withdrawal (voluntary or involuntary) – how the buyout amount will be calculated, and how it will be paid. Then, you must agree on how a buyout amount will be valued. Remember that any buyout calculated at “appraised value” is a problem, because the buyout amount remains a mystery until an appraisal is performed. If the appraised value ends up being too high, the remaining owners may refuse to pay it. I suggest having an actuary create a formula, so that the buyout figure can be calculated at any time. This area, especially, is where you need experienced, competent legal advice.

Noncompete provisions are always a difficult issue, mostly because they are so hard (and expensive) to enforce. An increasingly popular alternative is, once again, to deal with it at the other end, with a buyout penalty. An unhappy partner can leave, and compete, but at the cost of a substantially reduced buyout. This permits competition, but discourages it; and it compensates the remaining partners.

These are only some of the pivotal business and legal issues that must be settled in advance. A little planning and negotiation can prevent a lot of grief, regret, and legal expenses in the future. I’ll discuss some other, more complicated merger options in my next column.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Difficult economic times and the unpredictable consequences of health care reform are making an increasing number of solo practitioners and small private groups very nervous. Yet, many balk at the prospect of selling to private equity companies. I have received many inquiries about other protective options, such as merging two or more small practices into one larger entity.

Merging offers many benefits: Better overall management, centralized and efficient billing and collection, group purchasing discounts, and reduced overhead, among others; but careful planning, and a written agreement, are essential. If you are considering such an option, here are some things to think about.

You should begin with an evaluation and comparison of the separate groups’ respective finances. This should include a history of production, collections, overhead, and liabilities. Basically, you want to locate and identify all assets and liabilities that will be combined into the new group. One area of immediate importance is Medicare participation. Which members now currently participate and which do not? Since the new group will need to have a single position, all of the physicians must agree on that issue.

Who will be in charge? Not every physician is a qualified manager. The manager should be the physician who is willing to spend the time it takes to sign checks, interact with the administrator, and ensure that other matters such as filing tax returns and approving minor purchases arc carried out properly.

What is the compensation formula? Compensation arrangements should be based on each physician’s current financial data and the goals of the practice. Will everyone be paid only for what they do individually, or will revenue be shared equally? I favor a combination, so productivity is rewarded but your income doesn’t drop to zero when you take time off.

Which practices have a retirement plan and which do not? Will you keep your retirement plans separate, or combine them? If the latter, you will have to agree on the terms of the new plan, which can be the same or different from any of the existing plans. You’ll probably need some legal guidance to insure that assets from existing plans can be transferred into a new plan without tax issues. You may also have to address the problem of physicians who currently do not have a plan who, for whatever reason, may not want to be forced into making retirement plan contributions.

The often-problematic issue of employees and their salaries needs to be addressed, to decide which employees will be needed in the new group, and to determine a salary structure. Each practice’s policies related to vacation, sick leave, and other such issues should be reviewed, and an overall policy for the new group developed.

Other common sticking points are issues related to facilities. If the practices intend to consolidate into one location, the physicians must decide which of the specific assets of each practice will be contributed to the new entity. Ideally, each party brings an equal amount of assets to the table, but in the real world that is hardly ever the case. Physicians whose assets are to be used generally want to be compensated, and those who have to dispose of or store assets are in a quandary. The solution to this predicament will vary depending on the circumstances of each merger. One alternative is to agree that any inequalities will be compensated at the other end, in the form of buyout value; that is, physicians contributing more assets will receive larger buyouts when they leave or retire than those contributing less.

Buyouts should be addressed in advance as well. You must decide when a buyout would occur – usually in the event of retirement, death, disability, or withdrawal (voluntary or involuntary) – how the buyout amount will be calculated, and how it will be paid. Then, you must agree on how a buyout amount will be valued. Remember that any buyout calculated at “appraised value” is a problem, because the buyout amount remains a mystery until an appraisal is performed. If the appraised value ends up being too high, the remaining owners may refuse to pay it. I suggest having an actuary create a formula, so that the buyout figure can be calculated at any time. This area, especially, is where you need experienced, competent legal advice.

Noncompete provisions are always a difficult issue, mostly because they are so hard (and expensive) to enforce. An increasingly popular alternative is, once again, to deal with it at the other end, with a buyout penalty. An unhappy partner can leave, and compete, but at the cost of a substantially reduced buyout. This permits competition, but discourages it; and it compensates the remaining partners.

These are only some of the pivotal business and legal issues that must be settled in advance. A little planning and negotiation can prevent a lot of grief, regret, and legal expenses in the future. I’ll discuss some other, more complicated merger options in my next column.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Difficult economic times and the unpredictable consequences of health care reform are making an increasing number of solo practitioners and small private groups very nervous. Yet, many balk at the prospect of selling to private equity companies. I have received many inquiries about other protective options, such as merging two or more small practices into one larger entity.

Merging offers many benefits: Better overall management, centralized and efficient billing and collection, group purchasing discounts, and reduced overhead, among others; but careful planning, and a written agreement, are essential. If you are considering such an option, here are some things to think about.

You should begin with an evaluation and comparison of the separate groups’ respective finances. This should include a history of production, collections, overhead, and liabilities. Basically, you want to locate and identify all assets and liabilities that will be combined into the new group. One area of immediate importance is Medicare participation. Which members now currently participate and which do not? Since the new group will need to have a single position, all of the physicians must agree on that issue.

Who will be in charge? Not every physician is a qualified manager. The manager should be the physician who is willing to spend the time it takes to sign checks, interact with the administrator, and ensure that other matters such as filing tax returns and approving minor purchases arc carried out properly.

What is the compensation formula? Compensation arrangements should be based on each physician’s current financial data and the goals of the practice. Will everyone be paid only for what they do individually, or will revenue be shared equally? I favor a combination, so productivity is rewarded but your income doesn’t drop to zero when you take time off.

Which practices have a retirement plan and which do not? Will you keep your retirement plans separate, or combine them? If the latter, you will have to agree on the terms of the new plan, which can be the same or different from any of the existing plans. You’ll probably need some legal guidance to insure that assets from existing plans can be transferred into a new plan without tax issues. You may also have to address the problem of physicians who currently do not have a plan who, for whatever reason, may not want to be forced into making retirement plan contributions.

The often-problematic issue of employees and their salaries needs to be addressed, to decide which employees will be needed in the new group, and to determine a salary structure. Each practice’s policies related to vacation, sick leave, and other such issues should be reviewed, and an overall policy for the new group developed.

Other common sticking points are issues related to facilities. If the practices intend to consolidate into one location, the physicians must decide which of the specific assets of each practice will be contributed to the new entity. Ideally, each party brings an equal amount of assets to the table, but in the real world that is hardly ever the case. Physicians whose assets are to be used generally want to be compensated, and those who have to dispose of or store assets are in a quandary. The solution to this predicament will vary depending on the circumstances of each merger. One alternative is to agree that any inequalities will be compensated at the other end, in the form of buyout value; that is, physicians contributing more assets will receive larger buyouts when they leave or retire than those contributing less.

Buyouts should be addressed in advance as well. You must decide when a buyout would occur – usually in the event of retirement, death, disability, or withdrawal (voluntary or involuntary) – how the buyout amount will be calculated, and how it will be paid. Then, you must agree on how a buyout amount will be valued. Remember that any buyout calculated at “appraised value” is a problem, because the buyout amount remains a mystery until an appraisal is performed. If the appraised value ends up being too high, the remaining owners may refuse to pay it. I suggest having an actuary create a formula, so that the buyout figure can be calculated at any time. This area, especially, is where you need experienced, competent legal advice.

Noncompete provisions are always a difficult issue, mostly because they are so hard (and expensive) to enforce. An increasingly popular alternative is, once again, to deal with it at the other end, with a buyout penalty. An unhappy partner can leave, and compete, but at the cost of a substantially reduced buyout. This permits competition, but discourages it; and it compensates the remaining partners.

These are only some of the pivotal business and legal issues that must be settled in advance. A little planning and negotiation can prevent a lot of grief, regret, and legal expenses in the future. I’ll discuss some other, more complicated merger options in my next column.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.