Women's Health

Lung function in early infancy may be influenced by the mother’s level of physical activity during pregnancy, results of a study from Sweden suggest.

Low-lung function at 3 months of age, as measured by the ratio of time to peak tidal expiratory flow to expiratory time (tPTEF/tE), was more frequent among children whose mothers were physically inactive during the first half of pregnancy compared with those who exercised either moderately or strenuously, reported Hrefna Katrin Gudmundsdottir, MD, a pediatrician and PhD candidate at the University of Oslo, Norway. The results were based on a prospective observational study of 841 mother-child pairs.

“The potential link between maternal inactivity and low lung function in infancy adds to the importance of advising pregnant women and women of childbearing age on physical activity,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the virtual European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress.

Jonathan Grigg, MD, professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London, who was not involved in the study, commented that it “offers a fascinating hint that increased physical activity of mothers is associated with better lung function in their babies and, therefore, possibly their health in later life. More research is needed to confirm this link, but it is important that women feel supported by their health care providers to be active in a way that is comfortable and accessible to them.”

Impaired lung function in infancy is associated with wheezing and asthma in childhood, and lower lung function later in life, Dr. Gudmundsdottir said. She also noted that impaired lung function begins in utero and is related to fetal and infant size, family history of asthma, and/or maternal smoking.

Physical activity during pregnancy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of preterm birth and cesarean birth and of children being born either abnormally small or abnormally large for their gestational age, she explained.

To see where physical inactivity in the first half of pregnancy is associated with lower lung function in otherwise healthy 3-month old infants, Dr. Gudmundsdottir and colleagues looked at data on a mother-child cohort from the prospective population-based PreventADALL study, which was designed to study prevention of atopic dermatitis and allergies in children in Norway and Sweden.

A total of 814 infants (49% female) had available measures of tidal flow volume in the awake state at 3 months, as well as mother-reported data on physical activity at 18 weeks of pregnancy.

The investigators categorized the mothers as inactive, with either no or only low-intensity physical activity, “fairly” active, or “very” active based on self reporting.

The average tPTEF/tE value among all infants in the study was 0.391. The average value for 290 infants born to inactive mothers was 0.387, compared with 0.394 for 299 infants born to very active mothers, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Maternal physical activity level was not significantly associated with continuous tPTEF/tE, but the investigators did find that the offspring of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than the children of fairly or very active mothers to have a tPTEF/tE below 0.25 in both univariate analysis (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .011), and in multivariate analysis controlling for maternal age, education, parity, prepregnancy body-mass index, parental atopy, and in-utero exposure to nicotine (OR, 2.18; P = .013).

In univariate but not multivariate analysis, children of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than infants of more active mothers to have tPTEF/tE values below the 50th percentile (OR, 1.35; P = .042).

“We observed a trend that adds to the importance of advising women of childbearing age and pregnant women about physical activity. However, there may be factors that affect both maternal physical activity and lung function in offspring that we have not accounted for and could affect the results, so more research is needed,” Dr. Gudmundsdottir said in a statement.

Dr. Grigg pointed out that “it’s also worth keeping in mind that the single most important thing that mothers can do for their own health and that of their baby is to ensure that they do not smoke or use other tobacco products before, during, and after pregnancy. A smoke-free home has the biggest impact on lung function and health in childhood and later life.”

The study was supported by the University of Oslo. Dr. Gudmundsdottir and Dr. Grigg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lung function in early infancy may be influenced by the mother’s level of physical activity during pregnancy, results of a study from Sweden suggest.

Low-lung function at 3 months of age, as measured by the ratio of time to peak tidal expiratory flow to expiratory time (tPTEF/tE), was more frequent among children whose mothers were physically inactive during the first half of pregnancy compared with those who exercised either moderately or strenuously, reported Hrefna Katrin Gudmundsdottir, MD, a pediatrician and PhD candidate at the University of Oslo, Norway. The results were based on a prospective observational study of 841 mother-child pairs.

“The potential link between maternal inactivity and low lung function in infancy adds to the importance of advising pregnant women and women of childbearing age on physical activity,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the virtual European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress.

Jonathan Grigg, MD, professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London, who was not involved in the study, commented that it “offers a fascinating hint that increased physical activity of mothers is associated with better lung function in their babies and, therefore, possibly their health in later life. More research is needed to confirm this link, but it is important that women feel supported by their health care providers to be active in a way that is comfortable and accessible to them.”

Impaired lung function in infancy is associated with wheezing and asthma in childhood, and lower lung function later in life, Dr. Gudmundsdottir said. She also noted that impaired lung function begins in utero and is related to fetal and infant size, family history of asthma, and/or maternal smoking.

Physical activity during pregnancy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of preterm birth and cesarean birth and of children being born either abnormally small or abnormally large for their gestational age, she explained.

To see where physical inactivity in the first half of pregnancy is associated with lower lung function in otherwise healthy 3-month old infants, Dr. Gudmundsdottir and colleagues looked at data on a mother-child cohort from the prospective population-based PreventADALL study, which was designed to study prevention of atopic dermatitis and allergies in children in Norway and Sweden.

A total of 814 infants (49% female) had available measures of tidal flow volume in the awake state at 3 months, as well as mother-reported data on physical activity at 18 weeks of pregnancy.

The investigators categorized the mothers as inactive, with either no or only low-intensity physical activity, “fairly” active, or “very” active based on self reporting.

The average tPTEF/tE value among all infants in the study was 0.391. The average value for 290 infants born to inactive mothers was 0.387, compared with 0.394 for 299 infants born to very active mothers, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Maternal physical activity level was not significantly associated with continuous tPTEF/tE, but the investigators did find that the offspring of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than the children of fairly or very active mothers to have a tPTEF/tE below 0.25 in both univariate analysis (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .011), and in multivariate analysis controlling for maternal age, education, parity, prepregnancy body-mass index, parental atopy, and in-utero exposure to nicotine (OR, 2.18; P = .013).

In univariate but not multivariate analysis, children of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than infants of more active mothers to have tPTEF/tE values below the 50th percentile (OR, 1.35; P = .042).

“We observed a trend that adds to the importance of advising women of childbearing age and pregnant women about physical activity. However, there may be factors that affect both maternal physical activity and lung function in offspring that we have not accounted for and could affect the results, so more research is needed,” Dr. Gudmundsdottir said in a statement.

Dr. Grigg pointed out that “it’s also worth keeping in mind that the single most important thing that mothers can do for their own health and that of their baby is to ensure that they do not smoke or use other tobacco products before, during, and after pregnancy. A smoke-free home has the biggest impact on lung function and health in childhood and later life.”

The study was supported by the University of Oslo. Dr. Gudmundsdottir and Dr. Grigg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lung function in early infancy may be influenced by the mother’s level of physical activity during pregnancy, results of a study from Sweden suggest.

Low-lung function at 3 months of age, as measured by the ratio of time to peak tidal expiratory flow to expiratory time (tPTEF/tE), was more frequent among children whose mothers were physically inactive during the first half of pregnancy compared with those who exercised either moderately or strenuously, reported Hrefna Katrin Gudmundsdottir, MD, a pediatrician and PhD candidate at the University of Oslo, Norway. The results were based on a prospective observational study of 841 mother-child pairs.

“The potential link between maternal inactivity and low lung function in infancy adds to the importance of advising pregnant women and women of childbearing age on physical activity,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the virtual European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress.

Jonathan Grigg, MD, professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London, who was not involved in the study, commented that it “offers a fascinating hint that increased physical activity of mothers is associated with better lung function in their babies and, therefore, possibly their health in later life. More research is needed to confirm this link, but it is important that women feel supported by their health care providers to be active in a way that is comfortable and accessible to them.”

Impaired lung function in infancy is associated with wheezing and asthma in childhood, and lower lung function later in life, Dr. Gudmundsdottir said. She also noted that impaired lung function begins in utero and is related to fetal and infant size, family history of asthma, and/or maternal smoking.

Physical activity during pregnancy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of preterm birth and cesarean birth and of children being born either abnormally small or abnormally large for their gestational age, she explained.

To see where physical inactivity in the first half of pregnancy is associated with lower lung function in otherwise healthy 3-month old infants, Dr. Gudmundsdottir and colleagues looked at data on a mother-child cohort from the prospective population-based PreventADALL study, which was designed to study prevention of atopic dermatitis and allergies in children in Norway and Sweden.

A total of 814 infants (49% female) had available measures of tidal flow volume in the awake state at 3 months, as well as mother-reported data on physical activity at 18 weeks of pregnancy.

The investigators categorized the mothers as inactive, with either no or only low-intensity physical activity, “fairly” active, or “very” active based on self reporting.

The average tPTEF/tE value among all infants in the study was 0.391. The average value for 290 infants born to inactive mothers was 0.387, compared with 0.394 for 299 infants born to very active mothers, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Maternal physical activity level was not significantly associated with continuous tPTEF/tE, but the investigators did find that the offspring of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than the children of fairly or very active mothers to have a tPTEF/tE below 0.25 in both univariate analysis (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .011), and in multivariate analysis controlling for maternal age, education, parity, prepregnancy body-mass index, parental atopy, and in-utero exposure to nicotine (OR, 2.18; P = .013).

In univariate but not multivariate analysis, children of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than infants of more active mothers to have tPTEF/tE values below the 50th percentile (OR, 1.35; P = .042).

“We observed a trend that adds to the importance of advising women of childbearing age and pregnant women about physical activity. However, there may be factors that affect both maternal physical activity and lung function in offspring that we have not accounted for and could affect the results, so more research is needed,” Dr. Gudmundsdottir said in a statement.

Dr. Grigg pointed out that “it’s also worth keeping in mind that the single most important thing that mothers can do for their own health and that of their baby is to ensure that they do not smoke or use other tobacco products before, during, and after pregnancy. A smoke-free home has the biggest impact on lung function and health in childhood and later life.”

The study was supported by the University of Oslo. Dr. Gudmundsdottir and Dr. Grigg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Receiving a COVID-19 vaccine early in pregnancy is not associated with an increased risk for spontaneous abortion, new research suggests.

The study, published online in JAMA, evaluated the proportion of women who received the vaccine and had ongoing pregnancies in comparison with those who experienced a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. The researchers analyzed data from 105,446 unique pregnancies over seven 4-week surveillance periods between December 2020 and June 2021. Ongoing pregnancies between 6 and 19 weeks’ gestation were identified on the last day of each 4-week surveillance period (index date). Spontaneous abortions were assigned to a 4-week surveillance period on the basis of their outcome date. There were 13,160 spontaneous abortions and 92,286 ongoing pregnancies.

Overall, a COVID-19 vaccine was received within 28 days prior to an index date among 8.0% of ongoing pregnancy surveillance periods versus 8.6% of spontaneous abortions.

“We’re hoping that this data can inform the ongoing conversations between providers and pregnant women [about the COVID-19 vaccines],” study author Elyse O. Kharbanda, MD, MPH, senior research investigator at HealthPartners Institute, told this news organization. “It should be considered in the context of all the data that’s coming out both on the risks of COVID infection and pregnancy and data on outcomes among women who are vaccinated and pregnant.”

Among the women whose pregnancies were followed, 7.8% received at least one dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, 6% received at least one dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, and 0.5% received the Janssen vaccine.

In August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine strongly recommended that all pregnant women be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The new findings provide reassuring evidence about the safety of COVID vaccines, particularly mRNA vaccines, during pregnancy, said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, chair of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study.

“The study design was a carefully conducted case-control study. Although ideally the best design for studying vaccine safety and efficacy is a randomized clinical trial, data are rapidly accumulating from a variety of sources that COVID vaccines are safe in pregnancy,” said Dr. Jamieson, who serves on several ACOG committees.

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

Receiving a COVID-19 vaccine early in pregnancy is not associated with an increased risk for spontaneous abortion, new research suggests.

The study, published online in JAMA, evaluated the proportion of women who received the vaccine and had ongoing pregnancies in comparison with those who experienced a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. The researchers analyzed data from 105,446 unique pregnancies over seven 4-week surveillance periods between December 2020 and June 2021. Ongoing pregnancies between 6 and 19 weeks’ gestation were identified on the last day of each 4-week surveillance period (index date). Spontaneous abortions were assigned to a 4-week surveillance period on the basis of their outcome date. There were 13,160 spontaneous abortions and 92,286 ongoing pregnancies.

Overall, a COVID-19 vaccine was received within 28 days prior to an index date among 8.0% of ongoing pregnancy surveillance periods versus 8.6% of spontaneous abortions.

“We’re hoping that this data can inform the ongoing conversations between providers and pregnant women [about the COVID-19 vaccines],” study author Elyse O. Kharbanda, MD, MPH, senior research investigator at HealthPartners Institute, told this news organization. “It should be considered in the context of all the data that’s coming out both on the risks of COVID infection and pregnancy and data on outcomes among women who are vaccinated and pregnant.”

Among the women whose pregnancies were followed, 7.8% received at least one dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, 6% received at least one dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, and 0.5% received the Janssen vaccine.

In August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine strongly recommended that all pregnant women be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The new findings provide reassuring evidence about the safety of COVID vaccines, particularly mRNA vaccines, during pregnancy, said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, chair of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study.

“The study design was a carefully conducted case-control study. Although ideally the best design for studying vaccine safety and efficacy is a randomized clinical trial, data are rapidly accumulating from a variety of sources that COVID vaccines are safe in pregnancy,” said Dr. Jamieson, who serves on several ACOG committees.

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

Receiving a COVID-19 vaccine early in pregnancy is not associated with an increased risk for spontaneous abortion, new research suggests.

The study, published online in JAMA, evaluated the proportion of women who received the vaccine and had ongoing pregnancies in comparison with those who experienced a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. The researchers analyzed data from 105,446 unique pregnancies over seven 4-week surveillance periods between December 2020 and June 2021. Ongoing pregnancies between 6 and 19 weeks’ gestation were identified on the last day of each 4-week surveillance period (index date). Spontaneous abortions were assigned to a 4-week surveillance period on the basis of their outcome date. There were 13,160 spontaneous abortions and 92,286 ongoing pregnancies.

Overall, a COVID-19 vaccine was received within 28 days prior to an index date among 8.0% of ongoing pregnancy surveillance periods versus 8.6% of spontaneous abortions.

“We’re hoping that this data can inform the ongoing conversations between providers and pregnant women [about the COVID-19 vaccines],” study author Elyse O. Kharbanda, MD, MPH, senior research investigator at HealthPartners Institute, told this news organization. “It should be considered in the context of all the data that’s coming out both on the risks of COVID infection and pregnancy and data on outcomes among women who are vaccinated and pregnant.”

Among the women whose pregnancies were followed, 7.8% received at least one dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, 6% received at least one dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, and 0.5% received the Janssen vaccine.

In August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine strongly recommended that all pregnant women be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The new findings provide reassuring evidence about the safety of COVID vaccines, particularly mRNA vaccines, during pregnancy, said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, chair of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study.

“The study design was a carefully conducted case-control study. Although ideally the best design for studying vaccine safety and efficacy is a randomized clinical trial, data are rapidly accumulating from a variety of sources that COVID vaccines are safe in pregnancy,” said Dr. Jamieson, who serves on several ACOG committees.

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

Many pregnant patients are not being screened for iron deficiency despite it being a common cause of anemia in pregnancy that could increase the risk of maternal and infant death.

Researchers analyzed data from 44,552 pregnant patients in Ontario, Canada, collected between 2013 and 2018 to determine the prevalence of ferritin testing, the standard test for iron deficiency, over the course of 5 years.

Their study, published in Blood Advances, revealed that only 59.4% of pregnant persons received a ferritin test, the standard test for iron deficiency. Of those pregnant persons, 25.2% were iron insufficient and 52.8% were iron deficient at least once during pregnancy.

They also found that 71% of these iron tests were ordered during the first trimester, when the risk of iron deficiency is lowest.

“We are not only missing a very large proportion of women who are iron deficient going into pregnancy, but we’re missing those that become iron deficient later on in their pregnancies,” study author Dr. Jennifer Teichman, hematology resident at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. Researchers said iron deficiency during pregnancy is associated with maternal fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, depression, low birth weight, and poor brain development of the child.

Dr. Teichman explained that if iron deficiency during pregnancy is identified early enough, doctors would have enough time to treat the condition with iron supplements before the patient goes into delivery. She also explained prenatal vitamins, which contain some iron, do not contain enough of the mineral to fix iron deficiency.

“One really important point is that the amount of iron contained in a prenatal vitamin is really low,” Dr. Teichman explained. “It’s enough to make up the difference of the additional iron that she needs to sustain her pregnancy, but it’s not enough to treat a woman who’s already got low iron going into pregnancy. So there’s a difference between a prenatal vitamin and true iron supplementation.”

Researchers also found that those who came from a household with a low annual income were even less likely to receive a ferritin test, which was a troubling finding since women of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be iron deficient in pregnancy. 

“[This] says something about how we as health care providers are contributing to this gap in care,” Dr. Teichman said. “Women of lower socioeconomic status sort of have a triple whammy: They’re more likely to be iron deficient, they’re less likely to have it diagnosed, and they’re less likely to have it corrected.”

Dr. Teichman and her colleagues took a unique approach by looking at isolated ferritin levels as opposed to complete blood counts, which is the typical screening for anemia in pregnancy, said Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved with the study.

“Those who meet the criteria for anemia should be evaluated for the cause with initial suspicion for iron deficiency anemia, as that is the most common etiology,” said Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends screening for iron deficiency anemia in pregnant persons, in addition to universal iron supplementation to meet the iron requirements of pregnancy.  

Additionally, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that all pregnant persons be screened for anemia with a complete blood count in the first trimester and again between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy.

However, iron deficiency is completely missed by ACOG’s recommendations, said Michael Auerbach, MD, of the department of medicine, Georgetown University, Washington. 

“They recommend a [complete blood count] on all presenting pregnant women, but they do not recommend iron parameters, including a ferritin test, unless the mother is anemic,” said Dr. Auerbach, who was not involved in the study. “I think those guidelines are in need of revision.”

Dr. Teichman hopes her team’s findings will motivate change in obstetric and hematologic guidelines that recommend routine prenatal testing.

“I think ferritin should be a part of routine prenatal testing,” Dr. Teichman said. “And I also think that patients need to be empowered to ask what their iron levels are in pregnancy and providers need to know what a normal iron level is.”

None of the experts interviewed for this story had financial conflicts of interest.

Many pregnant patients are not being screened for iron deficiency despite it being a common cause of anemia in pregnancy that could increase the risk of maternal and infant death.

Researchers analyzed data from 44,552 pregnant patients in Ontario, Canada, collected between 2013 and 2018 to determine the prevalence of ferritin testing, the standard test for iron deficiency, over the course of 5 years.

Their study, published in Blood Advances, revealed that only 59.4% of pregnant persons received a ferritin test, the standard test for iron deficiency. Of those pregnant persons, 25.2% were iron insufficient and 52.8% were iron deficient at least once during pregnancy.

They also found that 71% of these iron tests were ordered during the first trimester, when the risk of iron deficiency is lowest.

“We are not only missing a very large proportion of women who are iron deficient going into pregnancy, but we’re missing those that become iron deficient later on in their pregnancies,” study author Dr. Jennifer Teichman, hematology resident at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. Researchers said iron deficiency during pregnancy is associated with maternal fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, depression, low birth weight, and poor brain development of the child.

Dr. Teichman explained that if iron deficiency during pregnancy is identified early enough, doctors would have enough time to treat the condition with iron supplements before the patient goes into delivery. She also explained prenatal vitamins, which contain some iron, do not contain enough of the mineral to fix iron deficiency.

“One really important point is that the amount of iron contained in a prenatal vitamin is really low,” Dr. Teichman explained. “It’s enough to make up the difference of the additional iron that she needs to sustain her pregnancy, but it’s not enough to treat a woman who’s already got low iron going into pregnancy. So there’s a difference between a prenatal vitamin and true iron supplementation.”

Researchers also found that those who came from a household with a low annual income were even less likely to receive a ferritin test, which was a troubling finding since women of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be iron deficient in pregnancy. 

“[This] says something about how we as health care providers are contributing to this gap in care,” Dr. Teichman said. “Women of lower socioeconomic status sort of have a triple whammy: They’re more likely to be iron deficient, they’re less likely to have it diagnosed, and they’re less likely to have it corrected.”

Dr. Teichman and her colleagues took a unique approach by looking at isolated ferritin levels as opposed to complete blood counts, which is the typical screening for anemia in pregnancy, said Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved with the study.

“Those who meet the criteria for anemia should be evaluated for the cause with initial suspicion for iron deficiency anemia, as that is the most common etiology,” said Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends screening for iron deficiency anemia in pregnant persons, in addition to universal iron supplementation to meet the iron requirements of pregnancy.  

Additionally, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that all pregnant persons be screened for anemia with a complete blood count in the first trimester and again between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy.

However, iron deficiency is completely missed by ACOG’s recommendations, said Michael Auerbach, MD, of the department of medicine, Georgetown University, Washington. 

“They recommend a [complete blood count] on all presenting pregnant women, but they do not recommend iron parameters, including a ferritin test, unless the mother is anemic,” said Dr. Auerbach, who was not involved in the study. “I think those guidelines are in need of revision.”

Dr. Teichman hopes her team’s findings will motivate change in obstetric and hematologic guidelines that recommend routine prenatal testing.

“I think ferritin should be a part of routine prenatal testing,” Dr. Teichman said. “And I also think that patients need to be empowered to ask what their iron levels are in pregnancy and providers need to know what a normal iron level is.”

None of the experts interviewed for this story had financial conflicts of interest.

Many pregnant patients are not being screened for iron deficiency despite it being a common cause of anemia in pregnancy that could increase the risk of maternal and infant death.

Researchers analyzed data from 44,552 pregnant patients in Ontario, Canada, collected between 2013 and 2018 to determine the prevalence of ferritin testing, the standard test for iron deficiency, over the course of 5 years.

Their study, published in Blood Advances, revealed that only 59.4% of pregnant persons received a ferritin test, the standard test for iron deficiency. Of those pregnant persons, 25.2% were iron insufficient and 52.8% were iron deficient at least once during pregnancy.

They also found that 71% of these iron tests were ordered during the first trimester, when the risk of iron deficiency is lowest.

“We are not only missing a very large proportion of women who are iron deficient going into pregnancy, but we’re missing those that become iron deficient later on in their pregnancies,” study author Dr. Jennifer Teichman, hematology resident at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. Researchers said iron deficiency during pregnancy is associated with maternal fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, depression, low birth weight, and poor brain development of the child.

Dr. Teichman explained that if iron deficiency during pregnancy is identified early enough, doctors would have enough time to treat the condition with iron supplements before the patient goes into delivery. She also explained prenatal vitamins, which contain some iron, do not contain enough of the mineral to fix iron deficiency.

“One really important point is that the amount of iron contained in a prenatal vitamin is really low,” Dr. Teichman explained. “It’s enough to make up the difference of the additional iron that she needs to sustain her pregnancy, but it’s not enough to treat a woman who’s already got low iron going into pregnancy. So there’s a difference between a prenatal vitamin and true iron supplementation.”

Researchers also found that those who came from a household with a low annual income were even less likely to receive a ferritin test, which was a troubling finding since women of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be iron deficient in pregnancy. 

“[This] says something about how we as health care providers are contributing to this gap in care,” Dr. Teichman said. “Women of lower socioeconomic status sort of have a triple whammy: They’re more likely to be iron deficient, they’re less likely to have it diagnosed, and they’re less likely to have it corrected.”

Dr. Teichman and her colleagues took a unique approach by looking at isolated ferritin levels as opposed to complete blood counts, which is the typical screening for anemia in pregnancy, said Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved with the study.

“Those who meet the criteria for anemia should be evaluated for the cause with initial suspicion for iron deficiency anemia, as that is the most common etiology,” said Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends screening for iron deficiency anemia in pregnant persons, in addition to universal iron supplementation to meet the iron requirements of pregnancy.  

Additionally, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that all pregnant persons be screened for anemia with a complete blood count in the first trimester and again between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy.

However, iron deficiency is completely missed by ACOG’s recommendations, said Michael Auerbach, MD, of the department of medicine, Georgetown University, Washington. 

“They recommend a [complete blood count] on all presenting pregnant women, but they do not recommend iron parameters, including a ferritin test, unless the mother is anemic,” said Dr. Auerbach, who was not involved in the study. “I think those guidelines are in need of revision.”

Dr. Teichman hopes her team’s findings will motivate change in obstetric and hematologic guidelines that recommend routine prenatal testing.

“I think ferritin should be a part of routine prenatal testing,” Dr. Teichman said. “And I also think that patients need to be empowered to ask what their iron levels are in pregnancy and providers need to know what a normal iron level is.”

None of the experts interviewed for this story had financial conflicts of interest.

New evidence strongly suggests that COVID-19 disease causes an increased risk of preeclampsia and preterm birth in those who have an infection while pregnant, according to a retrospective observational study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Though the study was observational, its primary finding was a dose-response relationship between the severity of COVID-19 disease and the likelihood of preeclampsia or preterm birth, fulfilling a key criterion for establishing causality in an association.

“The fact that 43% (13/30) of the cases of preeclampsia diagnosed after SARS-Cov-2 infection were preterm preeclampsia (< 37 weeks) suggests that COVID-19 may be a cause for medically indicated preterm birth that contributes to the excess preterm birth delivery rate previously reported,” wrote Jonathan Lai, MD, of the Fetal Medicine Research Institute of King’s College Hospital, London, and colleagues. The study also found an increased likelihood of COVID-19 disease in those who had preeclampsia before their infection. “Whether preeclampsia can predispose COVID-19 some cases, or that the two conditions may co-occur because they share similar risk factors requires further investigation,” the authors wrote.

It’s also unclear whether the increased risk of pre-eclampsia is contributing to the higher preterm birth risk, according to Linda Eckert, MD, a professor of Ob.Gyn. at The University of Washington who specializes in maternal immunization.

“COVID is linked to preeclampsia in this study, and COVID is linked to preterm birth,” Dr. Eckert said in an interview. “The question of whether preeclampsia leading to preterm birth is also linked to infection is not possible to tease out in this study as all the factors are likely interrelated. There is a relationship between COVID and preterm birth absent preeclampsia.”

The researchers retrospectively examined data from 1,223 pregnant women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between February 2020 and March 2021 at any of 14 National Health Service maternity hospitals in the United Kingdom. The researchers compared the severity of disease among the women with their risk of preeclampsia as a primary outcome, followed by the outcomes of preterm birth and gestational age at delivery.

COVID-19 infections were classified as asymptomatic, mild illness (lacking shortness of breath, dyspnea, or abnormal chest imaging), moderate illness (evidence of lower respiratory disease but an oxygen saturation of at least 94%), and severe illness (requiring “high dependency or intensive care secondary to respiratory impairment/failure or multiorgan dysfunction”).

The researchers adjusted their analysis of preeclampsia to account for prior risk of preeclampsia based on maternal characteristics and medical history. Analysis of preterm birth risk included adjustment for maternal age, weight, height, race, method of conception, chronic hypertension, smoking, and diabetes.

Preeclampsia occurred in 4.2% of the women, and 17.6% of the women had a preterm birth. In addition, 1.3% of the cohort had a miscarriage, and there were 10 (0.81%) fetal deaths. Since 21 cases of preeclampsia occurred before the women tested positive, the researchers removed those cases from the analysis. Among the remaining 30 cases, 13 women had preterm preeclampsia and 17 had term preeclampsia.

When the researchers compared the study population’s risk of preeclampsia with that of a separate population with similar risk factors, they found a dose-response increased risk in those with COVID-19 infections. While 1.9% of asymptomatic patients had preeclampsia, incidence was 2.2% in patients with mild disease, 5.7% in those with moderate disease, and 11.1% in those with severe disease. Women with severe COVID-19 tended to be older and to have a higher body mass index.

After adjustments, women were nearly five times more likely to develop preeclampsia if they had severe COVID-19 compared to women with asymptomatic infection (adjusted relative risk [aRR] = 4.9). Those with moderate or severe disease had triple the risk of preeclampsia compared to those with mild or asymptomatic infection (aRR = 3.3).

To investigate whether having preeclampsia predisposes women to develop COVID-19 disease, the researchers compared the women who had preeclampsia before their infection with women in the study who never developed preeclampsia. Although they found a trend toward higher risk of moderate or severe COVID-19 following preeclampsia, the association was not significant before or after adjustment.

The researchers also found a dose-response relationship in risk of preterm birth. While 11.7% of asymptomatic patients had preterm birth, the incidence was 12.8% in those with mild COVID-19, 29.9% in those with moderate disease, and 69.4% in those with severe disease. Women with severe disease were more than five times more likely to have a preterm birth than were women with an asymptomatic infection (aRR = 5.64), and the risk of preterm birth was 2.5 times greater in women with moderate disease (aRR = 2.47).

“Moreover, there was a dose-response relationship between gestational age at delivery and the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the authors reported. Mean gestational age at delivery was 38.7 weeks in asymptomatic women compared to 37.5 weeks for those with moderate disease and 33 weeks in those with severe disease (P < .001).

”The more severe the infection with SARS-CoV-2, the greater the risk of preeclampsia and preterm birth,” the authors wrote. “SARS-CoV-2 infection can lead to endothelial dysfunction, intravascular inflammation, proteinuria, activation of thrombin, and hypertension, which are all features of preeclampsia. Therefore, a causal relationship must be considered.”

A dose-response association is only one criterion for causality, however, so it’s still premature to say definitively that a causal relationship exists, Dr. Eckert said.

“More investigation in different populations across different ethnicities is needed before causality can be confidently assured,” she said.

Anthony Sciscione, DO, director of maternal-fetal medicine and the ob.gyn. residency at ChristianaCare in Delaware, agreed that the precise relationship between the two remains unresolved.

”We don’t know what causes preeclampsia,” but “we strongly suspect it has to do with a placental dysfunction, or endothelial dysfunction, and it’s really clear that women who get COVID have a much higher risk of preeclampsia,” Dr. Sciscione said in an interview. It’s possible that no real relationship exists between the two (or that greater surveillance of women with COVID-19 is picking up the relationship) but it’s more likely that one of two other situations is happening, Dr. Sciscione said. Either COVID-19 involves a syndrome that looks like preeclampsia in pregnant women, or the disease “leads to the cascade that causes preeclampsia,” he said.

One clear clinical implication of these findings is that “women who have severe COVID early in pregnancy may need to be watched more closely for signs of developing preeclampsia” and that “women with severe COVID are more likely to have preterm births,” Dr. Eckert said. “This absolutely lends support to the need for pregnant individuals to receive a COVID vaccine.”

Dr. Sciscione said his experience counseling pregnant patients about the vaccine has made it clear that patients generally want to do what’s safest for their babies and may feel uneasiness about the safety of the vaccine. “The truth is, now there’s mounting evidence that there are fetal effects, not just maternal effects” from COVID-19 disease. He added that preterm birth is associated with a variety of long-term adverse outcomes, such as cerebral palsy and learning disabilities.

“At this time it’s critically important that women be offered and get the vaccine because we know that people that are vaccinated don’t get as sick,” Dr. Sciscione said.

The research was funded by the Fetal Medicine Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Eckert have no disclosures. Dr. Sciscione is the associate editor of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, where the study appeared.

New evidence strongly suggests that COVID-19 disease causes an increased risk of preeclampsia and preterm birth in those who have an infection while pregnant, according to a retrospective observational study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Though the study was observational, its primary finding was a dose-response relationship between the severity of COVID-19 disease and the likelihood of preeclampsia or preterm birth, fulfilling a key criterion for establishing causality in an association.

“The fact that 43% (13/30) of the cases of preeclampsia diagnosed after SARS-Cov-2 infection were preterm preeclampsia (< 37 weeks) suggests that COVID-19 may be a cause for medically indicated preterm birth that contributes to the excess preterm birth delivery rate previously reported,” wrote Jonathan Lai, MD, of the Fetal Medicine Research Institute of King’s College Hospital, London, and colleagues. The study also found an increased likelihood of COVID-19 disease in those who had preeclampsia before their infection. “Whether preeclampsia can predispose COVID-19 some cases, or that the two conditions may co-occur because they share similar risk factors requires further investigation,” the authors wrote.

It’s also unclear whether the increased risk of pre-eclampsia is contributing to the higher preterm birth risk, according to Linda Eckert, MD, a professor of Ob.Gyn. at The University of Washington who specializes in maternal immunization.

“COVID is linked to preeclampsia in this study, and COVID is linked to preterm birth,” Dr. Eckert said in an interview. “The question of whether preeclampsia leading to preterm birth is also linked to infection is not possible to tease out in this study as all the factors are likely interrelated. There is a relationship between COVID and preterm birth absent preeclampsia.”

The researchers retrospectively examined data from 1,223 pregnant women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between February 2020 and March 2021 at any of 14 National Health Service maternity hospitals in the United Kingdom. The researchers compared the severity of disease among the women with their risk of preeclampsia as a primary outcome, followed by the outcomes of preterm birth and gestational age at delivery.

COVID-19 infections were classified as asymptomatic, mild illness (lacking shortness of breath, dyspnea, or abnormal chest imaging), moderate illness (evidence of lower respiratory disease but an oxygen saturation of at least 94%), and severe illness (requiring “high dependency or intensive care secondary to respiratory impairment/failure or multiorgan dysfunction”).

The researchers adjusted their analysis of preeclampsia to account for prior risk of preeclampsia based on maternal characteristics and medical history. Analysis of preterm birth risk included adjustment for maternal age, weight, height, race, method of conception, chronic hypertension, smoking, and diabetes.

Preeclampsia occurred in 4.2% of the women, and 17.6% of the women had a preterm birth. In addition, 1.3% of the cohort had a miscarriage, and there were 10 (0.81%) fetal deaths. Since 21 cases of preeclampsia occurred before the women tested positive, the researchers removed those cases from the analysis. Among the remaining 30 cases, 13 women had preterm preeclampsia and 17 had term preeclampsia.

When the researchers compared the study population’s risk of preeclampsia with that of a separate population with similar risk factors, they found a dose-response increased risk in those with COVID-19 infections. While 1.9% of asymptomatic patients had preeclampsia, incidence was 2.2% in patients with mild disease, 5.7% in those with moderate disease, and 11.1% in those with severe disease. Women with severe COVID-19 tended to be older and to have a higher body mass index.

After adjustments, women were nearly five times more likely to develop preeclampsia if they had severe COVID-19 compared to women with asymptomatic infection (adjusted relative risk [aRR] = 4.9). Those with moderate or severe disease had triple the risk of preeclampsia compared to those with mild or asymptomatic infection (aRR = 3.3).

To investigate whether having preeclampsia predisposes women to develop COVID-19 disease, the researchers compared the women who had preeclampsia before their infection with women in the study who never developed preeclampsia. Although they found a trend toward higher risk of moderate or severe COVID-19 following preeclampsia, the association was not significant before or after adjustment.

The researchers also found a dose-response relationship in risk of preterm birth. While 11.7% of asymptomatic patients had preterm birth, the incidence was 12.8% in those with mild COVID-19, 29.9% in those with moderate disease, and 69.4% in those with severe disease. Women with severe disease were more than five times more likely to have a preterm birth than were women with an asymptomatic infection (aRR = 5.64), and the risk of preterm birth was 2.5 times greater in women with moderate disease (aRR = 2.47).

“Moreover, there was a dose-response relationship between gestational age at delivery and the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the authors reported. Mean gestational age at delivery was 38.7 weeks in asymptomatic women compared to 37.5 weeks for those with moderate disease and 33 weeks in those with severe disease (P < .001).

”The more severe the infection with SARS-CoV-2, the greater the risk of preeclampsia and preterm birth,” the authors wrote. “SARS-CoV-2 infection can lead to endothelial dysfunction, intravascular inflammation, proteinuria, activation of thrombin, and hypertension, which are all features of preeclampsia. Therefore, a causal relationship must be considered.”

A dose-response association is only one criterion for causality, however, so it’s still premature to say definitively that a causal relationship exists, Dr. Eckert said.

“More investigation in different populations across different ethnicities is needed before causality can be confidently assured,” she said.

Anthony Sciscione, DO, director of maternal-fetal medicine and the ob.gyn. residency at ChristianaCare in Delaware, agreed that the precise relationship between the two remains unresolved.

”We don’t know what causes preeclampsia,” but “we strongly suspect it has to do with a placental dysfunction, or endothelial dysfunction, and it’s really clear that women who get COVID have a much higher risk of preeclampsia,” Dr. Sciscione said in an interview. It’s possible that no real relationship exists between the two (or that greater surveillance of women with COVID-19 is picking up the relationship) but it’s more likely that one of two other situations is happening, Dr. Sciscione said. Either COVID-19 involves a syndrome that looks like preeclampsia in pregnant women, or the disease “leads to the cascade that causes preeclampsia,” he said.

One clear clinical implication of these findings is that “women who have severe COVID early in pregnancy may need to be watched more closely for signs of developing preeclampsia” and that “women with severe COVID are more likely to have preterm births,” Dr. Eckert said. “This absolutely lends support to the need for pregnant individuals to receive a COVID vaccine.”

Dr. Sciscione said his experience counseling pregnant patients about the vaccine has made it clear that patients generally want to do what’s safest for their babies and may feel uneasiness about the safety of the vaccine. “The truth is, now there’s mounting evidence that there are fetal effects, not just maternal effects” from COVID-19 disease. He added that preterm birth is associated with a variety of long-term adverse outcomes, such as cerebral palsy and learning disabilities.

“At this time it’s critically important that women be offered and get the vaccine because we know that people that are vaccinated don’t get as sick,” Dr. Sciscione said.

The research was funded by the Fetal Medicine Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Eckert have no disclosures. Dr. Sciscione is the associate editor of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, where the study appeared.

New evidence strongly suggests that COVID-19 disease causes an increased risk of preeclampsia and preterm birth in those who have an infection while pregnant, according to a retrospective observational study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Though the study was observational, its primary finding was a dose-response relationship between the severity of COVID-19 disease and the likelihood of preeclampsia or preterm birth, fulfilling a key criterion for establishing causality in an association.

“The fact that 43% (13/30) of the cases of preeclampsia diagnosed after SARS-Cov-2 infection were preterm preeclampsia (< 37 weeks) suggests that COVID-19 may be a cause for medically indicated preterm birth that contributes to the excess preterm birth delivery rate previously reported,” wrote Jonathan Lai, MD, of the Fetal Medicine Research Institute of King’s College Hospital, London, and colleagues. The study also found an increased likelihood of COVID-19 disease in those who had preeclampsia before their infection. “Whether preeclampsia can predispose COVID-19 some cases, or that the two conditions may co-occur because they share similar risk factors requires further investigation,” the authors wrote.

It’s also unclear whether the increased risk of pre-eclampsia is contributing to the higher preterm birth risk, according to Linda Eckert, MD, a professor of Ob.Gyn. at The University of Washington who specializes in maternal immunization.

“COVID is linked to preeclampsia in this study, and COVID is linked to preterm birth,” Dr. Eckert said in an interview. “The question of whether preeclampsia leading to preterm birth is also linked to infection is not possible to tease out in this study as all the factors are likely interrelated. There is a relationship between COVID and preterm birth absent preeclampsia.”

The researchers retrospectively examined data from 1,223 pregnant women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between February 2020 and March 2021 at any of 14 National Health Service maternity hospitals in the United Kingdom. The researchers compared the severity of disease among the women with their risk of preeclampsia as a primary outcome, followed by the outcomes of preterm birth and gestational age at delivery.

COVID-19 infections were classified as asymptomatic, mild illness (lacking shortness of breath, dyspnea, or abnormal chest imaging), moderate illness (evidence of lower respiratory disease but an oxygen saturation of at least 94%), and severe illness (requiring “high dependency or intensive care secondary to respiratory impairment/failure or multiorgan dysfunction”).

The researchers adjusted their analysis of preeclampsia to account for prior risk of preeclampsia based on maternal characteristics and medical history. Analysis of preterm birth risk included adjustment for maternal age, weight, height, race, method of conception, chronic hypertension, smoking, and diabetes.

Preeclampsia occurred in 4.2% of the women, and 17.6% of the women had a preterm birth. In addition, 1.3% of the cohort had a miscarriage, and there were 10 (0.81%) fetal deaths. Since 21 cases of preeclampsia occurred before the women tested positive, the researchers removed those cases from the analysis. Among the remaining 30 cases, 13 women had preterm preeclampsia and 17 had term preeclampsia.

When the researchers compared the study population’s risk of preeclampsia with that of a separate population with similar risk factors, they found a dose-response increased risk in those with COVID-19 infections. While 1.9% of asymptomatic patients had preeclampsia, incidence was 2.2% in patients with mild disease, 5.7% in those with moderate disease, and 11.1% in those with severe disease. Women with severe COVID-19 tended to be older and to have a higher body mass index.

After adjustments, women were nearly five times more likely to develop preeclampsia if they had severe COVID-19 compared to women with asymptomatic infection (adjusted relative risk [aRR] = 4.9). Those with moderate or severe disease had triple the risk of preeclampsia compared to those with mild or asymptomatic infection (aRR = 3.3).

To investigate whether having preeclampsia predisposes women to develop COVID-19 disease, the researchers compared the women who had preeclampsia before their infection with women in the study who never developed preeclampsia. Although they found a trend toward higher risk of moderate or severe COVID-19 following preeclampsia, the association was not significant before or after adjustment.

The researchers also found a dose-response relationship in risk of preterm birth. While 11.7% of asymptomatic patients had preterm birth, the incidence was 12.8% in those with mild COVID-19, 29.9% in those with moderate disease, and 69.4% in those with severe disease. Women with severe disease were more than five times more likely to have a preterm birth than were women with an asymptomatic infection (aRR = 5.64), and the risk of preterm birth was 2.5 times greater in women with moderate disease (aRR = 2.47).

“Moreover, there was a dose-response relationship between gestational age at delivery and the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the authors reported. Mean gestational age at delivery was 38.7 weeks in asymptomatic women compared to 37.5 weeks for those with moderate disease and 33 weeks in those with severe disease (P < .001).

”The more severe the infection with SARS-CoV-2, the greater the risk of preeclampsia and preterm birth,” the authors wrote. “SARS-CoV-2 infection can lead to endothelial dysfunction, intravascular inflammation, proteinuria, activation of thrombin, and hypertension, which are all features of preeclampsia. Therefore, a causal relationship must be considered.”

A dose-response association is only one criterion for causality, however, so it’s still premature to say definitively that a causal relationship exists, Dr. Eckert said.

“More investigation in different populations across different ethnicities is needed before causality can be confidently assured,” she said.

Anthony Sciscione, DO, director of maternal-fetal medicine and the ob.gyn. residency at ChristianaCare in Delaware, agreed that the precise relationship between the two remains unresolved.

”We don’t know what causes preeclampsia,” but “we strongly suspect it has to do with a placental dysfunction, or endothelial dysfunction, and it’s really clear that women who get COVID have a much higher risk of preeclampsia,” Dr. Sciscione said in an interview. It’s possible that no real relationship exists between the two (or that greater surveillance of women with COVID-19 is picking up the relationship) but it’s more likely that one of two other situations is happening, Dr. Sciscione said. Either COVID-19 involves a syndrome that looks like preeclampsia in pregnant women, or the disease “leads to the cascade that causes preeclampsia,” he said.

One clear clinical implication of these findings is that “women who have severe COVID early in pregnancy may need to be watched more closely for signs of developing preeclampsia” and that “women with severe COVID are more likely to have preterm births,” Dr. Eckert said. “This absolutely lends support to the need for pregnant individuals to receive a COVID vaccine.”

Dr. Sciscione said his experience counseling pregnant patients about the vaccine has made it clear that patients generally want to do what’s safest for their babies and may feel uneasiness about the safety of the vaccine. “The truth is, now there’s mounting evidence that there are fetal effects, not just maternal effects” from COVID-19 disease. He added that preterm birth is associated with a variety of long-term adverse outcomes, such as cerebral palsy and learning disabilities.

“At this time it’s critically important that women be offered and get the vaccine because we know that people that are vaccinated don’t get as sick,” Dr. Sciscione said.

The research was funded by the Fetal Medicine Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Eckert have no disclosures. Dr. Sciscione is the associate editor of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, where the study appeared.

If COVID-19 has caused millions of deaths, it may also have prevented or at least led to a postponement of many births.

In an assessment of the pandemic’s early effects, Arnstein Aassve, PhD, and colleagues found a significant COVID-19–related decline in crude birth rates (CBRs) in 7 of 22 high-income countries, particularly in Southwestern Europe.

Dr. Aassve, an economist at the Carlo F. Dondena Center for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy at the Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan, and colleagues report the results in an article published online August 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Defining the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as February 2020, the study identifies strong declines in Italy (-9.1%), Hungary (-8.5%), Spain (-8.4%), and Portugal (-6.6%) beyond those predicted by past trends. In the United States, CBRs fell by 7.1% relative to 2019 for births occurring in Nov. and Dec. 2020 following conceptions in February and March of that year.

Significant declines in CBR also occurred in Belgium, Austria, and Singapore.

A year-to-year comparison of the mean for monthly CBRs per 1,000 population before and during the pandemic suggests a negative difference for all countries studied except for Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands, Dr. Aassve and colleagues write. These findings may have policy implications for childcare, housing, and the labor market.

The Milan researchers compared monthly vital statistics data on live births from the international Human Fertility Database for the period of Jan. 2016 to March 2021. These figures reflect conceptions carried to term between April 2015 and June 2020. The 22 countries in the analysis represent 37% of the total reported COVID-19 cases and 34% of deaths worldwide.

The study findings align with surveys on “fertility intentions” collected early in the first COVID-19 wave in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These surveys indicated that 73% of people who were planning pregnancies in 2020 either decided to delay the pregnancy or they abandoned their plans.

“The popular media speculated that the lockdown would lead to a baby boom, as couples spent more time together,” Dr. Aassve told this news organization. “There’s very little evidence of this when you look to previous disasters and shocks, and the first data suggest more of an immediate collapse than a boom. But as you also see from the paper, the collapse is not seen everywhere.” Other current studies suggest the fertility drop is immediate but temporary, says Dr. Aassve, who is also a professor of demography.

Interestingly, Dr. Aassve and colleagues found that CBRs were relatively stable in Northern Europe. The authors point to supportive social and family policies in that region that might have reduced the effect of the pandemic on births. “These factors are likely to affect CBRs in the subsequent pandemic waves,” they write. They call for future studies to assess the full population implications of the pandemic, the moderating impact of policy interventions, and the nexus between short- and long-run effects in relation to the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Rebounds

Some regions have already reported a rebound from the COVID-19 fertility trough. Molly J. Stout, MD, director of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues used electronic medical records to predict a surge in births after the initial decline.

“The surge we’ve seen at the end of this summer is exceeding the usual annual birth rate, as predicted,” she said in an interview. “But I think there’ll be a return to normal after this transient escalation. I don’t think birth rates will stay elevated above the normal because the birth surge is a temporary response to an event, although there will likely be regional differences.”

Looking ahead, Dr. Stout, who was not involved in Dr. Aassve’s analysis, is not certain how a fourth pandemic wave might ultimately modify a couple’s overall family size. But the toll the health crisis has taken on working women who have been forced to withdraw from the economy because of a lack of childcare points to a societal need that should be addressed.

According to Philip N. Cohen, PhD, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, who’s been tracking fertility trends since the onset of the COVID-19 emergency, the pandemic has combined a health crisis with an economic crisis, along with “the additional factor of social distancing and isolation, which all contributed to the decline in birth rates. Some people changed their plans to hold off on having children, while others didn’t get pregnant because they weren’t socializing and meeting people as much.”

Dr. Cohen, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Aassve and associates, said his provisional data show that although in many places, birth rates have rebounded more or less to prepandemic levels after a nadir around Jan. 2021, some areas of the United States still show substantially lower rates, including California, Hawaii, and Oregon.

As to the duration of the pandemic effect, Dr. Aassve cautions that his group’s estimates refer to the first wave only. “We then have the second, third, and currently the fourth wave. We can’t be sure about the impact of these waves on fertility since the data are not there yet, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t continue to have an impact on fertility rates,” he said.

Dr. Cohen agreed: “Some people who delayed childbearing will make up the delay. However, whenever there’s a delay, there’s inevitably some portion of the decline that’s not recouped.”

As for the wider effect across the world, Dr. Aassve said his team’s figures derive from high-income countries where data are readily available. For middle- and low-income countries, fewer data exist, and the quality of those data is not as good.

The lessons from this and other upheavals teach us that unforeseen shocks almost always have a negative impact on fertility, says Dr. Aassve. “[B]ut these effects may be separate from existing declining trends. The issue here is that those overall declining trends may be driven by other factors. In contrast, the shock of the pandemic is short-lived, and we may return to normal rather quickly. But if the pandemic also impacts other societal structures, such as the occupational and industrial sectors, then the pandemic might exacerbate the negative trend.”

The study was supported by funding from the European Research Council for funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The study authors, Dr. Stout, and Dr. Cohen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

If COVID-19 has caused millions of deaths, it may also have prevented or at least led to a postponement of many births.

In an assessment of the pandemic’s early effects, Arnstein Aassve, PhD, and colleagues found a significant COVID-19–related decline in crude birth rates (CBRs) in 7 of 22 high-income countries, particularly in Southwestern Europe.

Dr. Aassve, an economist at the Carlo F. Dondena Center for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy at the Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan, and colleagues report the results in an article published online August 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Defining the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as February 2020, the study identifies strong declines in Italy (-9.1%), Hungary (-8.5%), Spain (-8.4%), and Portugal (-6.6%) beyond those predicted by past trends. In the United States, CBRs fell by 7.1% relative to 2019 for births occurring in Nov. and Dec. 2020 following conceptions in February and March of that year.

Significant declines in CBR also occurred in Belgium, Austria, and Singapore.

A year-to-year comparison of the mean for monthly CBRs per 1,000 population before and during the pandemic suggests a negative difference for all countries studied except for Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands, Dr. Aassve and colleagues write. These findings may have policy implications for childcare, housing, and the labor market.

The Milan researchers compared monthly vital statistics data on live births from the international Human Fertility Database for the period of Jan. 2016 to March 2021. These figures reflect conceptions carried to term between April 2015 and June 2020. The 22 countries in the analysis represent 37% of the total reported COVID-19 cases and 34% of deaths worldwide.

The study findings align with surveys on “fertility intentions” collected early in the first COVID-19 wave in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These surveys indicated that 73% of people who were planning pregnancies in 2020 either decided to delay the pregnancy or they abandoned their plans.

“The popular media speculated that the lockdown would lead to a baby boom, as couples spent more time together,” Dr. Aassve told this news organization. “There’s very little evidence of this when you look to previous disasters and shocks, and the first data suggest more of an immediate collapse than a boom. But as you also see from the paper, the collapse is not seen everywhere.” Other current studies suggest the fertility drop is immediate but temporary, says Dr. Aassve, who is also a professor of demography.

Interestingly, Dr. Aassve and colleagues found that CBRs were relatively stable in Northern Europe. The authors point to supportive social and family policies in that region that might have reduced the effect of the pandemic on births. “These factors are likely to affect CBRs in the subsequent pandemic waves,” they write. They call for future studies to assess the full population implications of the pandemic, the moderating impact of policy interventions, and the nexus between short- and long-run effects in relation to the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Rebounds

Some regions have already reported a rebound from the COVID-19 fertility trough. Molly J. Stout, MD, director of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues used electronic medical records to predict a surge in births after the initial decline.

“The surge we’ve seen at the end of this summer is exceeding the usual annual birth rate, as predicted,” she said in an interview. “But I think there’ll be a return to normal after this transient escalation. I don’t think birth rates will stay elevated above the normal because the birth surge is a temporary response to an event, although there will likely be regional differences.”

Looking ahead, Dr. Stout, who was not involved in Dr. Aassve’s analysis, is not certain how a fourth pandemic wave might ultimately modify a couple’s overall family size. But the toll the health crisis has taken on working women who have been forced to withdraw from the economy because of a lack of childcare points to a societal need that should be addressed.

According to Philip N. Cohen, PhD, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, who’s been tracking fertility trends since the onset of the COVID-19 emergency, the pandemic has combined a health crisis with an economic crisis, along with “the additional factor of social distancing and isolation, which all contributed to the decline in birth rates. Some people changed their plans to hold off on having children, while others didn’t get pregnant because they weren’t socializing and meeting people as much.”

Dr. Cohen, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Aassve and associates, said his provisional data show that although in many places, birth rates have rebounded more or less to prepandemic levels after a nadir around Jan. 2021, some areas of the United States still show substantially lower rates, including California, Hawaii, and Oregon.

As to the duration of the pandemic effect, Dr. Aassve cautions that his group’s estimates refer to the first wave only. “We then have the second, third, and currently the fourth wave. We can’t be sure about the impact of these waves on fertility since the data are not there yet, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t continue to have an impact on fertility rates,” he said.

Dr. Cohen agreed: “Some people who delayed childbearing will make up the delay. However, whenever there’s a delay, there’s inevitably some portion of the decline that’s not recouped.”

As for the wider effect across the world, Dr. Aassve said his team’s figures derive from high-income countries where data are readily available. For middle- and low-income countries, fewer data exist, and the quality of those data is not as good.

The lessons from this and other upheavals teach us that unforeseen shocks almost always have a negative impact on fertility, says Dr. Aassve. “[B]ut these effects may be separate from existing declining trends. The issue here is that those overall declining trends may be driven by other factors. In contrast, the shock of the pandemic is short-lived, and we may return to normal rather quickly. But if the pandemic also impacts other societal structures, such as the occupational and industrial sectors, then the pandemic might exacerbate the negative trend.”

The study was supported by funding from the European Research Council for funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The study authors, Dr. Stout, and Dr. Cohen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

If COVID-19 has caused millions of deaths, it may also have prevented or at least led to a postponement of many births.

In an assessment of the pandemic’s early effects, Arnstein Aassve, PhD, and colleagues found a significant COVID-19–related decline in crude birth rates (CBRs) in 7 of 22 high-income countries, particularly in Southwestern Europe.

Dr. Aassve, an economist at the Carlo F. Dondena Center for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy at the Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan, and colleagues report the results in an article published online August 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Defining the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as February 2020, the study identifies strong declines in Italy (-9.1%), Hungary (-8.5%), Spain (-8.4%), and Portugal (-6.6%) beyond those predicted by past trends. In the United States, CBRs fell by 7.1% relative to 2019 for births occurring in Nov. and Dec. 2020 following conceptions in February and March of that year.

Significant declines in CBR also occurred in Belgium, Austria, and Singapore.

A year-to-year comparison of the mean for monthly CBRs per 1,000 population before and during the pandemic suggests a negative difference for all countries studied except for Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands, Dr. Aassve and colleagues write. These findings may have policy implications for childcare, housing, and the labor market.

The Milan researchers compared monthly vital statistics data on live births from the international Human Fertility Database for the period of Jan. 2016 to March 2021. These figures reflect conceptions carried to term between April 2015 and June 2020. The 22 countries in the analysis represent 37% of the total reported COVID-19 cases and 34% of deaths worldwide.

The study findings align with surveys on “fertility intentions” collected early in the first COVID-19 wave in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These surveys indicated that 73% of people who were planning pregnancies in 2020 either decided to delay the pregnancy or they abandoned their plans.

“The popular media speculated that the lockdown would lead to a baby boom, as couples spent more time together,” Dr. Aassve told this news organization. “There’s very little evidence of this when you look to previous disasters and shocks, and the first data suggest more of an immediate collapse than a boom. But as you also see from the paper, the collapse is not seen everywhere.” Other current studies suggest the fertility drop is immediate but temporary, says Dr. Aassve, who is also a professor of demography.

Interestingly, Dr. Aassve and colleagues found that CBRs were relatively stable in Northern Europe. The authors point to supportive social and family policies in that region that might have reduced the effect of the pandemic on births. “These factors are likely to affect CBRs in the subsequent pandemic waves,” they write. They call for future studies to assess the full population implications of the pandemic, the moderating impact of policy interventions, and the nexus between short- and long-run effects in relation to the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Rebounds

Some regions have already reported a rebound from the COVID-19 fertility trough. Molly J. Stout, MD, director of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues used electronic medical records to predict a surge in births after the initial decline.

“The surge we’ve seen at the end of this summer is exceeding the usual annual birth rate, as predicted,” she said in an interview. “But I think there’ll be a return to normal after this transient escalation. I don’t think birth rates will stay elevated above the normal because the birth surge is a temporary response to an event, although there will likely be regional differences.”

Looking ahead, Dr. Stout, who was not involved in Dr. Aassve’s analysis, is not certain how a fourth pandemic wave might ultimately modify a couple’s overall family size. But the toll the health crisis has taken on working women who have been forced to withdraw from the economy because of a lack of childcare points to a societal need that should be addressed.

According to Philip N. Cohen, PhD, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, who’s been tracking fertility trends since the onset of the COVID-19 emergency, the pandemic has combined a health crisis with an economic crisis, along with “the additional factor of social distancing and isolation, which all contributed to the decline in birth rates. Some people changed their plans to hold off on having children, while others didn’t get pregnant because they weren’t socializing and meeting people as much.”

Dr. Cohen, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Aassve and associates, said his provisional data show that although in many places, birth rates have rebounded more or less to prepandemic levels after a nadir around Jan. 2021, some areas of the United States still show substantially lower rates, including California, Hawaii, and Oregon.

As to the duration of the pandemic effect, Dr. Aassve cautions that his group’s estimates refer to the first wave only. “We then have the second, third, and currently the fourth wave. We can’t be sure about the impact of these waves on fertility since the data are not there yet, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t continue to have an impact on fertility rates,” he said.

Dr. Cohen agreed: “Some people who delayed childbearing will make up the delay. However, whenever there’s a delay, there’s inevitably some portion of the decline that’s not recouped.”

As for the wider effect across the world, Dr. Aassve said his team’s figures derive from high-income countries where data are readily available. For middle- and low-income countries, fewer data exist, and the quality of those data is not as good.

The lessons from this and other upheavals teach us that unforeseen shocks almost always have a negative impact on fertility, says Dr. Aassve. “[B]ut these effects may be separate from existing declining trends. The issue here is that those overall declining trends may be driven by other factors. In contrast, the shock of the pandemic is short-lived, and we may return to normal rather quickly. But if the pandemic also impacts other societal structures, such as the occupational and industrial sectors, then the pandemic might exacerbate the negative trend.”

The study was supported by funding from the European Research Council for funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The study authors, Dr. Stout, and Dr. Cohen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Breast cancer screening rates at community health centers (CHCs) in the United States declined during the pandemic, particularly among Black and uninsured individuals, based on a retrospective look at 32 sites.

Still, drops in screening were less dramatic than national declines previously reported, possibly because of the American Cancer Society–directed CHANGE program, which was simultaneously underway at the CHCs involved, reported lead author Stacey A. Fedewa, PhD, senior principal scientist at the ACS in Atlanta, and colleagues.

“This is one of the first studies to examine breast cancer screening rates during the pandemic specifically among clinics providing care to communities of color and lower income populations, a group with lower utilization of and greater barriers to [breast cancer] screening,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “This is important because these populations have longstanding barriers to accessing care, lower breast screening rates, higher breast cancer mortality rates, and are especially vulnerable to health care disruptions.”

According to a previous analysis of electronic health records by Mast and Munoz del Rio, breast cancer screening rates in the United States dropped 94% in March/April 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a national emergency. Although a recent follow-up report showed a rebound in breast cancer screening, the estimated rate remains 13% below average.

The present study evaluated data from 32 out of 1,385 CHCs in the United States. All centers were involved in the ACS-run CHANGE grant program, which funded the clinics for 2 years, during which time they implemented at least three evidence-based provider and client interventions, such as patient navigation or electronic medical record enhancements. The clinics reported breast cancer screening rates on a routine basis throughout the 2-year period, beginning August 2018.

Breast cancer screening rate was defined as the percentage of women aged 50-74 years who had a screening mammogram within the past 27 months, out of a total pool of women who had a medical visit within the past year. For 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively, 142,207; 142,003; and 150,630 women had a medical visit. Screening rates were compared across years in either June or July. Findings were further characterized by demographic characteristics, urban/rural status, and clinic region.

From 2018 to 2019 breast cancer screening rates rose 18%, from 45.8% to 53.9%. This increase was followed by an 8% decline during the 2019-2020 period, from 53.9% to 49.6%.

The investigators estimated the number of missed mammograms and breast cancer diagnoses for two comparative, hypothetical scenarios: first, if the rising trend from 2018 to 2019 had continued through 2020, and second, if the rate had plateaued at 53.9%.

The rising trend model suggested that 47,517 fewer mammograms than normal were conducted during 2019-2020, resulting in 242 missed breast cancer diagnoses, of which 166 were invasive and 76 were ductal carcinoma in situ. The plateau model suggested that 6,477 fewer mammograms were conducted, leading to 33 missed diagnoses.

Compared with the 8% decline in screening overall, the rate among Black patients dropped 12%, while rates at clinics with a lower proportion of uninsured patients dropped an average of 15%. In contrast, clinics in the South did not have a significant reduction in screening, “possibly reflecting lower baseline rates or impact of stay-at-home orders,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Fedewa and colleagues also noted that their findings were less dramatic than those reported by Mast and Munoz del Rio. They suggested that the CHANGE program may have softened the blow dealt by the pandemic.

“The CHANGE program–funded interventions – that were established before and continued through 2020 – may have mitigated the pandemic’s effects on breast cancer screening services among the 32 CHCs that were studied,” they wrote. “Further investigation of breast cancer screening rates among additional CHCs will further inform where targeted interventions (e.g., client reminders, education on return to screening) are most needed.”

According to Madeline Sutton, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, “Progress seen with the CHANGE program should be duplicated in other clinical venues based on improvements seen in numbers of mammograms and breast cancers detected.”

Still, Dr. Sutton noted that the racial/ethnic disparities remain cause for concern.

“This study has implications for persons served at CHCs, especially if breast cancer racial/ethnic disparities are unintentionally widened during this pandemic,” Dr. Sutton said in a written comment. “Policy-level changes that decrease BCSR [breast cancer screen rate] gaps for women are warranted.”

Ana Velázquez Mañana, MD, a medical oncology fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, suggested that the effects of the pandemic may have been even more pronounced among medically underserved patients in whom interventions to increase screening were not being conducted, as they were through the CHANGE program.

“One must wonder to what degree these interventions reduced the decline in screening mammography rates observed during the pandemic and to what degree could disparities in screening be magnified in community health centers with less resources,” Dr. Velázquez said in a written comment. “Therefore, understanding barriers to breast cancer screening among our specific health care systems is key to guide resource allocation and the development of evidence-based multilevel interventions that can address these barriers, and ultimately increase screening rates.”

Dr. Velázquez also noted that the study by Dr. Fedewa and colleagues may have missed drops in screening among vulnerable populations that occurred later in the pandemic and in geographic hotspots. In a recent JAMA Network Open study, Dr. Velázquez reported a 41% drop in breast cancer screening at a safety-net hospital in San Francisco during the first stay-at-home order, which lasted from Feb. 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020.

The Breast Health Equity CHANGE grant was funded by the National Football League in partnership with the American Cancer Society. The investigators reported employment by the American Cancer Society. Dr. Wehling and Dr. Wysocki disclosed grants from Pfizer unrelated to this research. Dr. Sutton and Dr. Velázquez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Breast cancer screening rates at community health centers (CHCs) in the United States declined during the pandemic, particularly among Black and uninsured individuals, based on a retrospective look at 32 sites.

Still, drops in screening were less dramatic than national declines previously reported, possibly because of the American Cancer Society–directed CHANGE program, which was simultaneously underway at the CHCs involved, reported lead author Stacey A. Fedewa, PhD, senior principal scientist at the ACS in Atlanta, and colleagues.

“This is one of the first studies to examine breast cancer screening rates during the pandemic specifically among clinics providing care to communities of color and lower income populations, a group with lower utilization of and greater barriers to [breast cancer] screening,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “This is important because these populations have longstanding barriers to accessing care, lower breast screening rates, higher breast cancer mortality rates, and are especially vulnerable to health care disruptions.”

According to a previous analysis of electronic health records by Mast and Munoz del Rio, breast cancer screening rates in the United States dropped 94% in March/April 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a national emergency. Although a recent follow-up report showed a rebound in breast cancer screening, the estimated rate remains 13% below average.

The present study evaluated data from 32 out of 1,385 CHCs in the United States. All centers were involved in the ACS-run CHANGE grant program, which funded the clinics for 2 years, during which time they implemented at least three evidence-based provider and client interventions, such as patient navigation or electronic medical record enhancements. The clinics reported breast cancer screening rates on a routine basis throughout the 2-year period, beginning August 2018.

Breast cancer screening rate was defined as the percentage of women aged 50-74 years who had a screening mammogram within the past 27 months, out of a total pool of women who had a medical visit within the past year. For 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively, 142,207; 142,003; and 150,630 women had a medical visit. Screening rates were compared across years in either June or July. Findings were further characterized by demographic characteristics, urban/rural status, and clinic region.

From 2018 to 2019 breast cancer screening rates rose 18%, from 45.8% to 53.9%. This increase was followed by an 8% decline during the 2019-2020 period, from 53.9% to 49.6%.

The investigators estimated the number of missed mammograms and breast cancer diagnoses for two comparative, hypothetical scenarios: first, if the rising trend from 2018 to 2019 had continued through 2020, and second, if the rate had plateaued at 53.9%.

The rising trend model suggested that 47,517 fewer mammograms than normal were conducted during 2019-2020, resulting in 242 missed breast cancer diagnoses, of which 166 were invasive and 76 were ductal carcinoma in situ. The plateau model suggested that 6,477 fewer mammograms were conducted, leading to 33 missed diagnoses.

Compared with the 8% decline in screening overall, the rate among Black patients dropped 12%, while rates at clinics with a lower proportion of uninsured patients dropped an average of 15%. In contrast, clinics in the South did not have a significant reduction in screening, “possibly reflecting lower baseline rates or impact of stay-at-home orders,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Fedewa and colleagues also noted that their findings were less dramatic than those reported by Mast and Munoz del Rio. They suggested that the CHANGE program may have softened the blow dealt by the pandemic.

“The CHANGE program–funded interventions – that were established before and continued through 2020 – may have mitigated the pandemic’s effects on breast cancer screening services among the 32 CHCs that were studied,” they wrote. “Further investigation of breast cancer screening rates among additional CHCs will further inform where targeted interventions (e.g., client reminders, education on return to screening) are most needed.”

According to Madeline Sutton, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, “Progress seen with the CHANGE program should be duplicated in other clinical venues based on improvements seen in numbers of mammograms and breast cancers detected.”

Still, Dr. Sutton noted that the racial/ethnic disparities remain cause for concern.

“This study has implications for persons served at CHCs, especially if breast cancer racial/ethnic disparities are unintentionally widened during this pandemic,” Dr. Sutton said in a written comment. “Policy-level changes that decrease BCSR [breast cancer screen rate] gaps for women are warranted.”

Ana Velázquez Mañana, MD, a medical oncology fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, suggested that the effects of the pandemic may have been even more pronounced among medically underserved patients in whom interventions to increase screening were not being conducted, as they were through the CHANGE program.

“One must wonder to what degree these interventions reduced the decline in screening mammography rates observed during the pandemic and to what degree could disparities in screening be magnified in community health centers with less resources,” Dr. Velázquez said in a written comment. “Therefore, understanding barriers to breast cancer screening among our specific health care systems is key to guide resource allocation and the development of evidence-based multilevel interventions that can address these barriers, and ultimately increase screening rates.”

Dr. Velázquez also noted that the study by Dr. Fedewa and colleagues may have missed drops in screening among vulnerable populations that occurred later in the pandemic and in geographic hotspots. In a recent JAMA Network Open study, Dr. Velázquez reported a 41% drop in breast cancer screening at a safety-net hospital in San Francisco during the first stay-at-home order, which lasted from Feb. 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020.

The Breast Health Equity CHANGE grant was funded by the National Football League in partnership with the American Cancer Society. The investigators reported employment by the American Cancer Society. Dr. Wehling and Dr. Wysocki disclosed grants from Pfizer unrelated to this research. Dr. Sutton and Dr. Velázquez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Breast cancer screening rates at community health centers (CHCs) in the United States declined during the pandemic, particularly among Black and uninsured individuals, based on a retrospective look at 32 sites.

Still, drops in screening were less dramatic than national declines previously reported, possibly because of the American Cancer Society–directed CHANGE program, which was simultaneously underway at the CHCs involved, reported lead author Stacey A. Fedewa, PhD, senior principal scientist at the ACS in Atlanta, and colleagues.

“This is one of the first studies to examine breast cancer screening rates during the pandemic specifically among clinics providing care to communities of color and lower income populations, a group with lower utilization of and greater barriers to [breast cancer] screening,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “This is important because these populations have longstanding barriers to accessing care, lower breast screening rates, higher breast cancer mortality rates, and are especially vulnerable to health care disruptions.”

According to a previous analysis of electronic health records by Mast and Munoz del Rio, breast cancer screening rates in the United States dropped 94% in March/April 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a national emergency. Although a recent follow-up report showed a rebound in breast cancer screening, the estimated rate remains 13% below average.

The present study evaluated data from 32 out of 1,385 CHCs in the United States. All centers were involved in the ACS-run CHANGE grant program, which funded the clinics for 2 years, during which time they implemented at least three evidence-based provider and client interventions, such as patient navigation or electronic medical record enhancements. The clinics reported breast cancer screening rates on a routine basis throughout the 2-year period, beginning August 2018.

Breast cancer screening rate was defined as the percentage of women aged 50-74 years who had a screening mammogram within the past 27 months, out of a total pool of women who had a medical visit within the past year. For 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively, 142,207; 142,003; and 150,630 women had a medical visit. Screening rates were compared across years in either June or July. Findings were further characterized by demographic characteristics, urban/rural status, and clinic region.

From 2018 to 2019 breast cancer screening rates rose 18%, from 45.8% to 53.9%. This increase was followed by an 8% decline during the 2019-2020 period, from 53.9% to 49.6%.

The investigators estimated the number of missed mammograms and breast cancer diagnoses for two comparative, hypothetical scenarios: first, if the rising trend from 2018 to 2019 had continued through 2020, and second, if the rate had plateaued at 53.9%.

The rising trend model suggested that 47,517 fewer mammograms than normal were conducted during 2019-2020, resulting in 242 missed breast cancer diagnoses, of which 166 were invasive and 76 were ductal carcinoma in situ. The plateau model suggested that 6,477 fewer mammograms were conducted, leading to 33 missed diagnoses.

Compared with the 8% decline in screening overall, the rate among Black patients dropped 12%, while rates at clinics with a lower proportion of uninsured patients dropped an average of 15%. In contrast, clinics in the South did not have a significant reduction in screening, “possibly reflecting lower baseline rates or impact of stay-at-home orders,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Fedewa and colleagues also noted that their findings were less dramatic than those reported by Mast and Munoz del Rio. They suggested that the CHANGE program may have softened the blow dealt by the pandemic.

“The CHANGE program–funded interventions – that were established before and continued through 2020 – may have mitigated the pandemic’s effects on breast cancer screening services among the 32 CHCs that were studied,” they wrote. “Further investigation of breast cancer screening rates among additional CHCs will further inform where targeted interventions (e.g., client reminders, education on return to screening) are most needed.”

According to Madeline Sutton, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, “Progress seen with the CHANGE program should be duplicated in other clinical venues based on improvements seen in numbers of mammograms and breast cancers detected.”

Still, Dr. Sutton noted that the racial/ethnic disparities remain cause for concern.

“This study has implications for persons served at CHCs, especially if breast cancer racial/ethnic disparities are unintentionally widened during this pandemic,” Dr. Sutton said in a written comment. “Policy-level changes that decrease BCSR [breast cancer screen rate] gaps for women are warranted.”

Ana Velázquez Mañana, MD, a medical oncology fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, suggested that the effects of the pandemic may have been even more pronounced among medically underserved patients in whom interventions to increase screening were not being conducted, as they were through the CHANGE program.

“One must wonder to what degree these interventions reduced the decline in screening mammography rates observed during the pandemic and to what degree could disparities in screening be magnified in community health centers with less resources,” Dr. Velázquez said in a written comment. “Therefore, understanding barriers to breast cancer screening among our specific health care systems is key to guide resource allocation and the development of evidence-based multilevel interventions that can address these barriers, and ultimately increase screening rates.”

Dr. Velázquez also noted that the study by Dr. Fedewa and colleagues may have missed drops in screening among vulnerable populations that occurred later in the pandemic and in geographic hotspots. In a recent JAMA Network Open study, Dr. Velázquez reported a 41% drop in breast cancer screening at a safety-net hospital in San Francisco during the first stay-at-home order, which lasted from Feb. 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020.

The Breast Health Equity CHANGE grant was funded by the National Football League in partnership with the American Cancer Society. The investigators reported employment by the American Cancer Society. Dr. Wehling and Dr. Wysocki disclosed grants from Pfizer unrelated to this research. Dr. Sutton and Dr. Velázquez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Telehealth abortion may be just as safe and effective as in-person care, according to a small study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.

“There was no reason to expect that the medications prescribed [via telemedicine] and delivered through the mail would have different outcomes from when a patient traveled to a clinic,” study author Ushma D. Upadhyay, PhD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Medication abortion, which usually involves taking mifepristone (Mifeprex) followed by misoprostol (Cytotec) during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, has been available in the United States since 2000. The Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy requires that mifepristone be dispensed in a medical office, clinic, or hospital, prohibiting dispensing from pharmacies in an effort to reduce potential risk for complications.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Dr. Upadhyay hopes the findings of her current study will make this suspension permanent.

For the study, Dr. Upadhyay and colleagues examined the safety and efficacy of fully remote, medication abortion care. Eligibility for the medication was assessed using an online form that relies on patient history, or patients recalling their last period, to assess pregnancy duration and screen for ectopic pregnancy risks. Nurse practitioners reviewed the form and referred patients with unknown last menstrual period date or ectopic pregnancy risk factors for ultrasonography. A mail-order pharmacy delivered medications to eligible patients. The protocol involved three follow-up contacts: confirmation of medication administration, a 3-day assessment of symptoms, and a home pregnancy test after 4 weeks. Follow-up interactions were conducted by text, secure messaging, or telephone.

Researchers found that in addition to the 95% of the patients having a complete abortion without intervention, 5% (five) of patients required addition medical care to complete the abortion. Two of those patients were treated in EDs.

Gillian Burkhardt, MD, who was not involved in the study, said Dr. Upadhyay’s study proves what has been known all along, that medication is super safe and that women “can help to determine their own eligibility as well as in conjunction with the provider.”

“I hope that this will be one more study that the FDA can use when thinking about changing the risk evaluation administration strategy so that it’s removing the requirement that a person be in the dispensing medical office,” Dr. Burkhardt, assistant professor of family planning in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at the University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “I hope it also makes providers feel more comfortable as well, because I think there’s some hesitancy among providers to provide abortion without doing an ultrasound or without seeing the patient typically in front of them.”

This isn’t the first study to suggest the safety of telemedicine abortion. A 2019 study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, which analyzed records from nearly 6,000 patients receiving medication abortion either through telemedicine or in person at 26 Planned Parenthood health centers in four states found that ongoing pregnancy and aspiration procedures were less common among telemedicine patients. Another 2017 study published in BMJ found that women who used an online consultation service and self-sourced medical abortion during a 3-year period were able to successfully end their pregnancies with few adverse events.

Dr. Upadhyay said one limitation of the current study is its sample size, so more studies should be conducted to prove telemedicine abortion’s safety.

“I think that we need continued research on this model of care just so we have more multiple studies that contribute to the evidence that can convince providers as well that they don’t need a lot of tests and that they can mail,” Dr. Upadhyay said.

Neither Dr. Upadhyay nor Dr. Burkhardt reported conflicts of interests.

Telehealth abortion may be just as safe and effective as in-person care, according to a small study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.

“There was no reason to expect that the medications prescribed [via telemedicine] and delivered through the mail would have different outcomes from when a patient traveled to a clinic,” study author Ushma D. Upadhyay, PhD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Medication abortion, which usually involves taking mifepristone (Mifeprex) followed by misoprostol (Cytotec) during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, has been available in the United States since 2000. The Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy requires that mifepristone be dispensed in a medical office, clinic, or hospital, prohibiting dispensing from pharmacies in an effort to reduce potential risk for complications.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Dr. Upadhyay hopes the findings of her current study will make this suspension permanent.

For the study, Dr. Upadhyay and colleagues examined the safety and efficacy of fully remote, medication abortion care. Eligibility for the medication was assessed using an online form that relies on patient history, or patients recalling their last period, to assess pregnancy duration and screen for ectopic pregnancy risks. Nurse practitioners reviewed the form and referred patients with unknown last menstrual period date or ectopic pregnancy risk factors for ultrasonography. A mail-order pharmacy delivered medications to eligible patients. The protocol involved three follow-up contacts: confirmation of medication administration, a 3-day assessment of symptoms, and a home pregnancy test after 4 weeks. Follow-up interactions were conducted by text, secure messaging, or telephone.

Researchers found that in addition to the 95% of the patients having a complete abortion without intervention, 5% (five) of patients required addition medical care to complete the abortion. Two of those patients were treated in EDs.

Gillian Burkhardt, MD, who was not involved in the study, said Dr. Upadhyay’s study proves what has been known all along, that medication is super safe and that women “can help to determine their own eligibility as well as in conjunction with the provider.”

“I hope that this will be one more study that the FDA can use when thinking about changing the risk evaluation administration strategy so that it’s removing the requirement that a person be in the dispensing medical office,” Dr. Burkhardt, assistant professor of family planning in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at the University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “I hope it also makes providers feel more comfortable as well, because I think there’s some hesitancy among providers to provide abortion without doing an ultrasound or without seeing the patient typically in front of them.”

This isn’t the first study to suggest the safety of telemedicine abortion. A 2019 study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, which analyzed records from nearly 6,000 patients receiving medication abortion either through telemedicine or in person at 26 Planned Parenthood health centers in four states found that ongoing pregnancy and aspiration procedures were less common among telemedicine patients. Another 2017 study published in BMJ found that women who used an online consultation service and self-sourced medical abortion during a 3-year period were able to successfully end their pregnancies with few adverse events.

Dr. Upadhyay said one limitation of the current study is its sample size, so more studies should be conducted to prove telemedicine abortion’s safety.

“I think that we need continued research on this model of care just so we have more multiple studies that contribute to the evidence that can convince providers as well that they don’t need a lot of tests and that they can mail,” Dr. Upadhyay said.

Neither Dr. Upadhyay nor Dr. Burkhardt reported conflicts of interests.

Telehealth abortion may be just as safe and effective as in-person care, according to a small study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.

“There was no reason to expect that the medications prescribed [via telemedicine] and delivered through the mail would have different outcomes from when a patient traveled to a clinic,” study author Ushma D. Upadhyay, PhD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Medication abortion, which usually involves taking mifepristone (Mifeprex) followed by misoprostol (Cytotec) during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, has been available in the United States since 2000. The Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy requires that mifepristone be dispensed in a medical office, clinic, or hospital, prohibiting dispensing from pharmacies in an effort to reduce potential risk for complications.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Dr. Upadhyay hopes the findings of her current study will make this suspension permanent.

For the study, Dr. Upadhyay and colleagues examined the safety and efficacy of fully remote, medication abortion care. Eligibility for the medication was assessed using an online form that relies on patient history, or patients recalling their last period, to assess pregnancy duration and screen for ectopic pregnancy risks. Nurse practitioners reviewed the form and referred patients with unknown last menstrual period date or ectopic pregnancy risk factors for ultrasonography. A mail-order pharmacy delivered medications to eligible patients. The protocol involved three follow-up contacts: confirmation of medication administration, a 3-day assessment of symptoms, and a home pregnancy test after 4 weeks. Follow-up interactions were conducted by text, secure messaging, or telephone.

Researchers found that in addition to the 95% of the patients having a complete abortion without intervention, 5% (five) of patients required addition medical care to complete the abortion. Two of those patients were treated in EDs.

Gillian Burkhardt, MD, who was not involved in the study, said Dr. Upadhyay’s study proves what has been known all along, that medication is super safe and that women “can help to determine their own eligibility as well as in conjunction with the provider.”

“I hope that this will be one more study that the FDA can use when thinking about changing the risk evaluation administration strategy so that it’s removing the requirement that a person be in the dispensing medical office,” Dr. Burkhardt, assistant professor of family planning in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at the University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “I hope it also makes providers feel more comfortable as well, because I think there’s some hesitancy among providers to provide abortion without doing an ultrasound or without seeing the patient typically in front of them.”

This isn’t the first study to suggest the safety of telemedicine abortion. A 2019 study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, which analyzed records from nearly 6,000 patients receiving medication abortion either through telemedicine or in person at 26 Planned Parenthood health centers in four states found that ongoing pregnancy and aspiration procedures were less common among telemedicine patients. Another 2017 study published in BMJ found that women who used an online consultation service and self-sourced medical abortion during a 3-year period were able to successfully end their pregnancies with few adverse events.

Dr. Upadhyay said one limitation of the current study is its sample size, so more studies should be conducted to prove telemedicine abortion’s safety.

“I think that we need continued research on this model of care just so we have more multiple studies that contribute to the evidence that can convince providers as well that they don’t need a lot of tests and that they can mail,” Dr. Upadhyay said.

Neither Dr. Upadhyay nor Dr. Burkhardt reported conflicts of interests.

In medical school, I remember thinking that telling a patient “you have cancer” would be the most professionally challenging phrase I would ever utter. And don’t get me wrong – it certainly isn’t easy; but, compared with telling someone “you are infertile,” it’s a cakewalk.

Maybe it’s because people “have” cancer and cancer is something you “fight.” Or maybe because, unlike infertility, cancer has become a part of public life (think lapel pins and support groups) and is now easier to accept. On the other hand, someone “is” infertile. The condition is a source of embarrassment for the couple and is often hidden from society.

Here’s another concerning point of contrast: While the overall rate of cancer death has declined since the early 1990s, infertility is increasing. Reports now show that one in six couples have problems conceiving and the use of assisted reproductive technologies is increasing by 5%-10% per year. Many theories exist to explain these trends, chief among them the rise in average maternal age and the increasing incidence of obesity, as well as various other male- and female-specific factors.

But interestingly, recent data suggest that the most male of all male-specific factors – total sperm count – may be specifically to blame.

According to a recent meta-analysis, the average total sperm count in men declined by 59.3% between 1973 and 2011. While these data certainly have limitations – including the exclusion of non-English publications, the reliance on total sperm count and not sperm motility, and the potential bias of those patients willing to give a semen sample – the overall trend nevertheless seems to be clearly downward. What’s more concerning, if you believe the data presented, is that there does not appear to be a leveling off of the downward curve in total sperm count.

Think about that last statement. At the current rate of decline, the average sperm count will be zero in 2045. One of the lead authors on the meta-analysis, Hagai Levine, MD, MPH, goes so far as to state, “We should hope for the best and prepare for the worst.”

As a matter of personal philosophy, I’m not a huge fan of end-of-the-world predictions because they tend not to come true (think Montanism back in the 2nd century; the 2012 Mayan calendar scare; or my personal favorite, the Prophet Hen of Leeds). On the other hand, the overall trend of decreased total sperm count in the English-speaking world seems to be true and it raises the interesting question of why.

According to the Mayo Clinic, causes of decreased sperm count include everything from anatomical factors (like varicoceles and ejaculatory issues) and lifestyle issues (such as recreational drugs, weight gain, and emotional stress) to environmental exposures (heavy metal or radiation). The senior author of the aforementioned meta-analysis, Shanna Swan, PhD, has championed another theory: the widespread exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in everyday plastics.

It turns out that at least two chemicals used in the plastics industry, bisphenol A and phthalates, can mimic the effect of estrogen when ingested into the body. Even low levels of these chemicals in our bodies can lead to health problems.

Consider for a moment the presence of plastics in your life: the plastic wrappings on your food, plastic containers for shampoos and beauty products, and even the coatings of our oral supplements. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at the urine of people participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and found detectable concentrations of both of these chemicals in nearly all participants.

In 2045, I intend to be retired. But in the meantime, I think we all need to be aware of the potential impact that various endocrine-disrupting chemicals could be having on humanity. We need more research. If indeed the connection between endocrine disruptors and decreased sperm count is borne out, changes in our environmental exposure to these chemicals need to be made.

Henry Rosevear, MD, is a private-practice urologist based in Colorado Springs. He comes from a long line of doctors, but before entering medicine he served in the U.S. Navy as an officer aboard the USS Pittsburgh, a fast-attack submarine based out of New London, Conn. During his time in the Navy, he served in two deployments to the Persian Gulf, including combat experience as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Dr. Rosevear disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In medical school, I remember thinking that telling a patient “you have cancer” would be the most professionally challenging phrase I would ever utter. And don’t get me wrong – it certainly isn’t easy; but, compared with telling someone “you are infertile,” it’s a cakewalk.

Maybe it’s because people “have” cancer and cancer is something you “fight.” Or maybe because, unlike infertility, cancer has become a part of public life (think lapel pins and support groups) and is now easier to accept. On the other hand, someone “is” infertile. The condition is a source of embarrassment for the couple and is often hidden from society.

Here’s another concerning point of contrast: While the overall rate of cancer death has declined since the early 1990s, infertility is increasing. Reports now show that one in six couples have problems conceiving and the use of assisted reproductive technologies is increasing by 5%-10% per year. Many theories exist to explain these trends, chief among them the rise in average maternal age and the increasing incidence of obesity, as well as various other male- and female-specific factors.

But interestingly, recent data suggest that the most male of all male-specific factors – total sperm count – may be specifically to blame.

According to a recent meta-analysis, the average total sperm count in men declined by 59.3% between 1973 and 2011. While these data certainly have limitations – including the exclusion of non-English publications, the reliance on total sperm count and not sperm motility, and the potential bias of those patients willing to give a semen sample – the overall trend nevertheless seems to be clearly downward. What’s more concerning, if you believe the data presented, is that there does not appear to be a leveling off of the downward curve in total sperm count.

Think about that last statement. At the current rate of decline, the average sperm count will be zero in 2045. One of the lead authors on the meta-analysis, Hagai Levine, MD, MPH, goes so far as to state, “We should hope for the best and prepare for the worst.”

As a matter of personal philosophy, I’m not a huge fan of end-of-the-world predictions because they tend not to come true (think Montanism back in the 2nd century; the 2012 Mayan calendar scare; or my personal favorite, the Prophet Hen of Leeds). On the other hand, the overall trend of decreased total sperm count in the English-speaking world seems to be true and it raises the interesting question of why.

According to the Mayo Clinic, causes of decreased sperm count include everything from anatomical factors (like varicoceles and ejaculatory issues) and lifestyle issues (such as recreational drugs, weight gain, and emotional stress) to environmental exposures (heavy metal or radiation). The senior author of the aforementioned meta-analysis, Shanna Swan, PhD, has championed another theory: the widespread exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in everyday plastics.

It turns out that at least two chemicals used in the plastics industry, bisphenol A and phthalates, can mimic the effect of estrogen when ingested into the body. Even low levels of these chemicals in our bodies can lead to health problems.

Consider for a moment the presence of plastics in your life: the plastic wrappings on your food, plastic containers for shampoos and beauty products, and even the coatings of our oral supplements. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at the urine of people participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and found detectable concentrations of both of these chemicals in nearly all participants.

In 2045, I intend to be retired. But in the meantime, I think we all need to be aware of the potential impact that various endocrine-disrupting chemicals could be having on humanity. We need more research. If indeed the connection between endocrine disruptors and decreased sperm count is borne out, changes in our environmental exposure to these chemicals need to be made.

Henry Rosevear, MD, is a private-practice urologist based in Colorado Springs. He comes from a long line of doctors, but before entering medicine he served in the U.S. Navy as an officer aboard the USS Pittsburgh, a fast-attack submarine based out of New London, Conn. During his time in the Navy, he served in two deployments to the Persian Gulf, including combat experience as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Dr. Rosevear disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In medical school, I remember thinking that telling a patient “you have cancer” would be the most professionally challenging phrase I would ever utter. And don’t get me wrong – it certainly isn’t easy; but, compared with telling someone “you are infertile,” it’s a cakewalk.

Maybe it’s because people “have” cancer and cancer is something you “fight.” Or maybe because, unlike infertility, cancer has become a part of public life (think lapel pins and support groups) and is now easier to accept. On the other hand, someone “is” infertile. The condition is a source of embarrassment for the couple and is often hidden from society.

Here’s another concerning point of contrast: While the overall rate of cancer death has declined since the early 1990s, infertility is increasing. Reports now show that one in six couples have problems conceiving and the use of assisted reproductive technologies is increasing by 5%-10% per year. Many theories exist to explain these trends, chief among them the rise in average maternal age and the increasing incidence of obesity, as well as various other male- and female-specific factors.

But interestingly, recent data suggest that the most male of all male-specific factors – total sperm count – may be specifically to blame.

According to a recent meta-analysis, the average total sperm count in men declined by 59.3% between 1973 and 2011. While these data certainly have limitations – including the exclusion of non-English publications, the reliance on total sperm count and not sperm motility, and the potential bias of those patients willing to give a semen sample – the overall trend nevertheless seems to be clearly downward. What’s more concerning, if you believe the data presented, is that there does not appear to be a leveling off of the downward curve in total sperm count.

Think about that last statement. At the current rate of decline, the average sperm count will be zero in 2045. One of the lead authors on the meta-analysis, Hagai Levine, MD, MPH, goes so far as to state, “We should hope for the best and prepare for the worst.”

As a matter of personal philosophy, I’m not a huge fan of end-of-the-world predictions because they tend not to come true (think Montanism back in the 2nd century; the 2012 Mayan calendar scare; or my personal favorite, the Prophet Hen of Leeds). On the other hand, the overall trend of decreased total sperm count in the English-speaking world seems to be true and it raises the interesting question of why.

According to the Mayo Clinic, causes of decreased sperm count include everything from anatomical factors (like varicoceles and ejaculatory issues) and lifestyle issues (such as recreational drugs, weight gain, and emotional stress) to environmental exposures (heavy metal or radiation). The senior author of the aforementioned meta-analysis, Shanna Swan, PhD, has championed another theory: the widespread exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in everyday plastics.

It turns out that at least two chemicals used in the plastics industry, bisphenol A and phthalates, can mimic the effect of estrogen when ingested into the body. Even low levels of these chemicals in our bodies can lead to health problems.

Consider for a moment the presence of plastics in your life: the plastic wrappings on your food, plastic containers for shampoos and beauty products, and even the coatings of our oral supplements. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at the urine of people participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and found detectable concentrations of both of these chemicals in nearly all participants.

In 2045, I intend to be retired. But in the meantime, I think we all need to be aware of the potential impact that various endocrine-disrupting chemicals could be having on humanity. We need more research. If indeed the connection between endocrine disruptors and decreased sperm count is borne out, changes in our environmental exposure to these chemicals need to be made.

Henry Rosevear, MD, is a private-practice urologist based in Colorado Springs. He comes from a long line of doctors, but before entering medicine he served in the U.S. Navy as an officer aboard the USS Pittsburgh, a fast-attack submarine based out of New London, Conn. During his time in the Navy, he served in two deployments to the Persian Gulf, including combat experience as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Dr. Rosevear disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Young women who received the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine had fewer and fewer infections with high-risk HPV strains covered by the vaccine year after year, but the incidence of high-risk strains that were not covered by the vaccine increased over the same 12-year period, researchers report in a study published August 23 in JAMA Open Network.

“One of the unique contributions that this study provides is the evaluation of a real-world example of the HPV infection rates following immunization in a population of adolescent girls and young adult women at a single health center in a large U.S. city, reflecting strong evidence of vaccine effectiveness,” write Nicolas F. Schlecht, PhD, a professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, and his colleagues. “Previous surveillance studies from the U.S. have involved older women and populations with relatively low vaccine coverage.”

In addition to supporting the value of continuing to vaccinate teens against HPV, the findings underscore the importance of continuing to screen women for cervical cancer, Dr. Schlecht said in an interview.

“HPV has not and is not going away,” he said. “We need to keep on our toes with screening and other measures to continue to prevent the development of cervix cancer,” including monitoring different high-risk HPV types and keeping a close eye on cervical precancer rates, particularly CIN3 and cervix cancer, he said. “The vaccines are definitely a good thing. Just getting rid of HPV16 is an amazing accomplishment.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor of ob/gyn and academic specialist director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, told this news organization that other studies have had similar findings, but this one is larger with longer follow-up.

“The take-home message is that vaccines work, and this is especially true for the HPV vaccine,” said Dr. Ault, who was not involved in the research. “The vaccine prevents HPV infections and the consequences of these infections, such as cervical cancer. The results are consistent with other studies in different settings, so they are likely generalizable.”

The researchers collected data from October 2007, shortly after the vaccine was approved, through September 2019 on sexually active adolescent and young women aged 13 to 21 years who had received the HPV vaccine and had agreed to follow-up assessments every 6 months until they turned 26. Each follow-up included the collecting of samples of cervical and anal cells for polymerase chain reaction testing for the presence of HPV types.

More than half of the 1,453 participants were Hispanic (58.8%), and half were Black (50.4%), including 15% Hispanic and Black patients. The average age of the participants was 18 years. They were tracked for a median 2.4 years. Nearly half the participants (48%) received the HPV vaccine prior to sexual debut.

For the longitudinal study, the researchers adjusted for participants’ age, the year they received the vaccine, and the years since they were vaccinated. They also tracked breakthrough infections for the four types of HPV covered by the vaccine in participants who received the vaccine before sexual debut.

“We evaluated whether infection rates for HPV have changed since the administration of the vaccine by assessing longitudinally the probability of HPV detection over time among vaccinated participants while adjusting for changes in cohort characteristics over time,” the researchers write. In their statistical analysis, they made adjustments for the number of vaccine doses participants received before their first study visit, age at sexual debut, age at first vaccine dose, number of sexual partners in the preceding 6 months, consistency of condom use during sex, history of a positive chlamydia test, and, for anal HPV analyses, whether the participants had had anal sex in the previous 6 months.

The average age at first intercourse remained steady at 15 years throughout the study, but the average age of vaccination dropped from 18 years in 2008 to 12 years in 2019 (P < .001). More than half the participants (64%) had had at least three lifetime sexual partners at baseline.

After adjustment for age, the researchers found that the incidence of the four HPV types covered by the vaccine – HPV-6, HPV-11, HPV-16, and HPV-18 – dropped more each year, shifting from 9.1% from 2008-2010 to 4.7% from 2017-2019. The effect was even greater among those vaccinated prior to sexual debut; for those patients, the incidence of the four vaccine types dropped from 8.8% to 1.7% over the course of the study. Declines over time also occurred for anal types HPV-31 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.76) and HPV-45 (aOR = 0.77). Those vaccinated prior to any sexual intercourse had 19% lower odds of infection per year with a vaccine-covered HPV type.

“We were really excited to see that the types targeted by the vaccines were considerably lower over time in our population,” Dr. Schlecht told this news organization. “This is an important observation, since most of these types are the most worrisome for cervical cancer.”

They were surprised, however, to see overall HPV prevalence increase over time, particularly with the high-risk HPV types that were not covered by the quadrivalent vaccine.

Prevalence of cervical high-risk types not in the vaccine increased from 25.1% from 2008-2010 to 30.5% from 2017-2019. Odds of detection of high-risk HPV types not covered by the vaccine increased 8% each year, particularly for HPV-56 and HPV-68; anal HPV types increased 11% each year. Neither age nor recent number of sexual partners affected the findings.

“The underlying mechanisms for the observed increased detection of specific non-vaccine HPV types over time are not yet clear.”

“We hope this doesn’t translate into some increase in cervical neoplasia that is unanticipated,” Dr. Schlecht said. He noted that the attributable risks for cancer associated with nonvaccine high-risk HPV types remain low. “Theoretical concerns are one thing; actual data is what drives the show,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Schlecht has served on advisory boards for Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and PDS Biotechnology. One author previously served on a GSK advisory board, and another worked with Merck on an early vaccine trial. Dr. Ault has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Young women who received the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine had fewer and fewer infections with high-risk HPV strains covered by the vaccine year after year, but the incidence of high-risk strains that were not covered by the vaccine increased over the same 12-year period, researchers report in a study published August 23 in JAMA Open Network.

“One of the unique contributions that this study provides is the evaluation of a real-world example of the HPV infection rates following immunization in a population of adolescent girls and young adult women at a single health center in a large U.S. city, reflecting strong evidence of vaccine effectiveness,” write Nicolas F. Schlecht, PhD, a professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, and his colleagues. “Previous surveillance studies from the U.S. have involved older women and populations with relatively low vaccine coverage.”

In addition to supporting the value of continuing to vaccinate teens against HPV, the findings underscore the importance of continuing to screen women for cervical cancer, Dr. Schlecht said in an interview.

“HPV has not and is not going away,” he said. “We need to keep on our toes with screening and other measures to continue to prevent the development of cervix cancer,” including monitoring different high-risk HPV types and keeping a close eye on cervical precancer rates, particularly CIN3 and cervix cancer, he said. “The vaccines are definitely a good thing. Just getting rid of HPV16 is an amazing accomplishment.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor of ob/gyn and academic specialist director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, told this news organization that other studies have had similar findings, but this one is larger with longer follow-up.

“The take-home message is that vaccines work, and this is especially true for the HPV vaccine,” said Dr. Ault, who was not involved in the research. “The vaccine prevents HPV infections and the consequences of these infections, such as cervical cancer. The results are consistent with other studies in different settings, so they are likely generalizable.”

The researchers collected data from October 2007, shortly after the vaccine was approved, through September 2019 on sexually active adolescent and young women aged 13 to 21 years who had received the HPV vaccine and had agreed to follow-up assessments every 6 months until they turned 26. Each follow-up included the collecting of samples of cervical and anal cells for polymerase chain reaction testing for the presence of HPV types.

More than half of the 1,453 participants were Hispanic (58.8%), and half were Black (50.4%), including 15% Hispanic and Black patients. The average age of the participants was 18 years. They were tracked for a median 2.4 years. Nearly half the participants (48%) received the HPV vaccine prior to sexual debut.

For the longitudinal study, the researchers adjusted for participants’ age, the year they received the vaccine, and the years since they were vaccinated. They also tracked breakthrough infections for the four types of HPV covered by the vaccine in participants who received the vaccine before sexual debut.

“We evaluated whether infection rates for HPV have changed since the administration of the vaccine by assessing longitudinally the probability of HPV detection over time among vaccinated participants while adjusting for changes in cohort characteristics over time,” the researchers write. In their statistical analysis, they made adjustments for the number of vaccine doses participants received before their first study visit, age at sexual debut, age at first vaccine dose, number of sexual partners in the preceding 6 months, consistency of condom use during sex, history of a positive chlamydia test, and, for anal HPV analyses, whether the participants had had anal sex in the previous 6 months.

The average age at first intercourse remained steady at 15 years throughout the study, but the average age of vaccination dropped from 18 years in 2008 to 12 years in 2019 (P < .001). More than half the participants (64%) had had at least three lifetime sexual partners at baseline.

After adjustment for age, the researchers found that the incidence of the four HPV types covered by the vaccine – HPV-6, HPV-11, HPV-16, and HPV-18 – dropped more each year, shifting from 9.1% from 2008-2010 to 4.7% from 2017-2019. The effect was even greater among those vaccinated prior to sexual debut; for those patients, the incidence of the four vaccine types dropped from 8.8% to 1.7% over the course of the study. Declines over time also occurred for anal types HPV-31 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.76) and HPV-45 (aOR = 0.77). Those vaccinated prior to any sexual intercourse had 19% lower odds of infection per year with a vaccine-covered HPV type.

“We were really excited to see that the types targeted by the vaccines were considerably lower over time in our population,” Dr. Schlecht told this news organization. “This is an important observation, since most of these types are the most worrisome for cervical cancer.”

They were surprised, however, to see overall HPV prevalence increase over time, particularly with the high-risk HPV types that were not covered by the quadrivalent vaccine.

Prevalence of cervical high-risk types not in the vaccine increased from 25.1% from 2008-2010 to 30.5% from 2017-2019. Odds of detection of high-risk HPV types not covered by the vaccine increased 8% each year, particularly for HPV-56 and HPV-68; anal HPV types increased 11% each year. Neither age nor recent number of sexual partners affected the findings.

“The underlying mechanisms for the observed increased detection of specific non-vaccine HPV types over time are not yet clear.”

“We hope this doesn’t translate into some increase in cervical neoplasia that is unanticipated,” Dr. Schlecht said. He noted that the attributable risks for cancer associated with nonvaccine high-risk HPV types remain low. “Theoretical concerns are one thing; actual data is what drives the show,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Schlecht has served on advisory boards for Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and PDS Biotechnology. One author previously served on a GSK advisory board, and another worked with Merck on an early vaccine trial. Dr. Ault has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Young women who received the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine had fewer and fewer infections with high-risk HPV strains covered by the vaccine year after year, but the incidence of high-risk strains that were not covered by the vaccine increased over the same 12-year period, researchers report in a study published August 23 in JAMA Open Network.

“One of the unique contributions that this study provides is the evaluation of a real-world example of the HPV infection rates following immunization in a population of adolescent girls and young adult women at a single health center in a large U.S. city, reflecting strong evidence of vaccine effectiveness,” write Nicolas F. Schlecht, PhD, a professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, and his colleagues. “Previous surveillance studies from the U.S. have involved older women and populations with relatively low vaccine coverage.”

In addition to supporting the value of continuing to vaccinate teens against HPV, the findings underscore the importance of continuing to screen women for cervical cancer, Dr. Schlecht said in an interview.

“HPV has not and is not going away,” he said. “We need to keep on our toes with screening and other measures to continue to prevent the development of cervix cancer,” including monitoring different high-risk HPV types and keeping a close eye on cervical precancer rates, particularly CIN3 and cervix cancer, he said. “The vaccines are definitely a good thing. Just getting rid of HPV16 is an amazing accomplishment.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor of ob/gyn and academic specialist director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, told this news organization that other studies have had similar findings, but this one is larger with longer follow-up.

“The take-home message is that vaccines work, and this is especially true for the HPV vaccine,” said Dr. Ault, who was not involved in the research. “The vaccine prevents HPV infections and the consequences of these infections, such as cervical cancer. The results are consistent with other studies in different settings, so they are likely generalizable.”

The researchers collected data from October 2007, shortly after the vaccine was approved, through September 2019 on sexually active adolescent and young women aged 13 to 21 years who had received the HPV vaccine and had agreed to follow-up assessments every 6 months until they turned 26. Each follow-up included the collecting of samples of cervical and anal cells for polymerase chain reaction testing for the presence of HPV types.

More than half of the 1,453 participants were Hispanic (58.8%), and half were Black (50.4%), including 15% Hispanic and Black patients. The average age of the participants was 18 years. They were tracked for a median 2.4 years. Nearly half the participants (48%) received the HPV vaccine prior to sexual debut.

For the longitudinal study, the researchers adjusted for participants’ age, the year they received the vaccine, and the years since they were vaccinated. They also tracked breakthrough infections for the four types of HPV covered by the vaccine in participants who received the vaccine before sexual debut.

“We evaluated whether infection rates for HPV have changed since the administration of the vaccine by assessing longitudinally the probability of HPV detection over time among vaccinated participants while adjusting for changes in cohort characteristics over time,” the researchers write. In their statistical analysis, they made adjustments for the number of vaccine doses participants received before their first study visit, age at sexual debut, age at first vaccine dose, number of sexual partners in the preceding 6 months, consistency of condom use during sex, history of a positive chlamydia test, and, for anal HPV analyses, whether the participants had had anal sex in the previous 6 months.

The average age at first intercourse remained steady at 15 years throughout the study, but the average age of vaccination dropped from 18 years in 2008 to 12 years in 2019 (P < .001). More than half the participants (64%) had had at least three lifetime sexual partners at baseline.

After adjustment for age, the researchers found that the incidence of the four HPV types covered by the vaccine – HPV-6, HPV-11, HPV-16, and HPV-18 – dropped more each year, shifting from 9.1% from 2008-2010 to 4.7% from 2017-2019. The effect was even greater among those vaccinated prior to sexual debut; for those patients, the incidence of the four vaccine types dropped from 8.8% to 1.7% over the course of the study. Declines over time also occurred for anal types HPV-31 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.76) and HPV-45 (aOR = 0.77). Those vaccinated prior to any sexual intercourse had 19% lower odds of infection per year with a vaccine-covered HPV type.

“We were really excited to see that the types targeted by the vaccines were considerably lower over time in our population,” Dr. Schlecht told this news organization. “This is an important observation, since most of these types are the most worrisome for cervical cancer.”

They were surprised, however, to see overall HPV prevalence increase over time, particularly with the high-risk HPV types that were not covered by the quadrivalent vaccine.

Prevalence of cervical high-risk types not in the vaccine increased from 25.1% from 2008-2010 to 30.5% from 2017-2019. Odds of detection of high-risk HPV types not covered by the vaccine increased 8% each year, particularly for HPV-56 and HPV-68; anal HPV types increased 11% each year. Neither age nor recent number of sexual partners affected the findings.

“The underlying mechanisms for the observed increased detection of specific non-vaccine HPV types over time are not yet clear.”

“We hope this doesn’t translate into some increase in cervical neoplasia that is unanticipated,” Dr. Schlecht said. He noted that the attributable risks for cancer associated with nonvaccine high-risk HPV types remain low. “Theoretical concerns are one thing; actual data is what drives the show,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Schlecht has served on advisory boards for Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and PDS Biotechnology. One author previously served on a GSK advisory board, and another worked with Merck on an early vaccine trial. Dr. Ault has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.

Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.

While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets

In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.

The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.

After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.

PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.

In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.

The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.

“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.

First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.

“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.

In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”

Higher morality among African American women

While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.

Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”

Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.

Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
 

Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias

The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.

For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.

A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.

Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.

Confluence project

Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.

Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.

“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.

Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.

“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.

NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.

Direct-to-consumer global PRS

In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”

The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.

A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.

In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.

However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).

According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.

“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”

“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.

“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”

Commercial PRSs may benefit research

While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.

“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”

In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.

“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”

Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.

The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.

Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.

While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets

In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.

The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.

After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.

PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.

In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.

The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.

“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.

First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.

“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.

In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”

Higher morality among African American women

While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.

Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”

Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.

Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
 

Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias

The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.

For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.

A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.

Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.

Confluence project

Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.

Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.

“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.

Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.

“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.

NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.

Direct-to-consumer global PRS

In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”

The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.

A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.

In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.

However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).

According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.

“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”

“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.

“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”

Commercial PRSs may benefit research

While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.

“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”

In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.

“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”

Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.

The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.

Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.

While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets

In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.

The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.

After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.

PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.

In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.

The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.

“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.

First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.

“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.

In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”

Higher morality among African American women

While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.

Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”

Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.

Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
 

Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias

The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.

For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.

A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.

Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.

Confluence project

Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.

Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.

“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.

Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.

“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.

NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.

Direct-to-consumer global PRS

In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”

The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.

A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.

In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.

However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).

According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.

“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”

“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.

“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”

Commercial PRSs may benefit research

While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.

“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”

In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.

“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”

Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.