Women's Health

How long should mothers breastfeed their babies?

The controversial question has cropped up again after the nation’s leading pediatrics group has issued new recommendations calling for women to breastfeed until their children turn 2, and possibly even longer.

The policy statement, Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk, was released on June 27 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. It calls out stigma, lack of support, and workplace barriers that make continued breastfeeding difficult for many mothers.

But the new policy statement isn’t going down smoothly with the Fed Is Best Foundation, a nonprofit group hoping to “debunk and sort out for the public” many of the proclamations in the AAP’s policies, said Christie del Castillo-Hegyi, MD, cofounder of the group and emergency physician at CHI St. Vincent, Little Rock, Ark.

The goal of Fed Is Best is to assist families and health care professionals with current research on the safe feeding of infants – whether with breast milk, formula, or a combination.

The AAP’s previous guidelines, issued in 2012, called for infants to be fed breast milk exclusively for their first 6 months. Continued breastfeeding was recommended while introducing complementary foods for a period of 1 year or longer, the policy stated. The updated policy extends the optimum time line for breastfeeding to up to 2 years, citing the health benefits for babies.
 

‘Tone deaf and one-sided’

The AAP policy is “tone deaf and one-sided to the 75% of the U.S. mothers who use formula either by necessity or choice,” Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi told this news organization.

She pointed to a long list of factors that could affect the health outcomes of infants with regard to breastfeeding versus formula-feeding. These include socioeconomic status, baseline maternal health and education, maternal genetics, and the effects of developing feeding complications from exclusive breastfeeding for infants whose mothers can’t produce enough milk. These issues can contribute to negative health outcomes and brain development in infants who go on to be formula fed, she said.

She also objected to the fact that the guidelines make little reference to a mother who needs to supplement breast milk with formula within 4 months – and even before that – to meet her infant’s nutritional requirements.

Mothers need to hear “that making sure their infant is adequately fed is the most important goal of any infant feeding recommendation,” Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi said. She noted that the AAP’s rigid guidelines may be impossible for many mothers to follow.

“The pressure to meet [the AAP’s] exceedingly high expectations is causing harm to mothers and babies,” she said, referring to earlier guidelines that contained similar suggestions.

If a mother’s milk is insufficient, babies are at risk for low growth rates, jaundice, and dehydration. Mothers also can be affected if they’re made to feel shame because they cannot provide adequate amounts of breast milk and must supplement their supply with formula.

The blanket nature of the AAPs recommendations is “irresponsible,” given the fact that only about one in four nursing people can produce sufficient breast milk to feed their baby, Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi said.

“Not only is there harm to the infant, who may suffer from developmental problems as a result of the malnutrition they experience, but it harms the mother who believes in the AAP to provide responsible guidelines that help them ensure the best nutrition to their infants,” she said.

Lori Feldman-Winter, MD, chair of the AAP Section on Breastfeeding, defended the updated guidance.

The policy aims “to clarify the evidence that breastfeeding matters and to use the best evidence to equip pediatricians with the ways they can support the mother’s choice,” Dr. Feldman-Winter said in an interview. “The bottom line is that most women can exclusively breastfeed according to our recommendation, but a growing number of women have conditions that make it difficult, such as obesity. Pediatricians are essential in recognizing suboptimal intake in the breastfed infant, and the policy delineates how to do this.”

Dr. Feldman-Winter added that the criticism of the policy “is not unexpected, given the many barriers in our society for women doing the work of mothering and trying to reach their personal breastfeeding goals. We know over 60% of mothers do not reach their intended goals. These barriers are even more apparent for the populations that are underserved and least likely to breastfeed.”

But Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi pushed back on the AAP’s claim that exclusive breastfeeding of infants up to 6 months of age confers significant benefits beyond combination breastfeeding and formula feeding. The policy “fails to address the fact that many mothers do not have the biological capacity to meet the recommendation and are simply unable to exclusively breastfeed their infants” for that length of time, she said.

While the differences of opinion might leave lactating mothers in limbo, another expert pointed out that “support” of mothers is critical.

Jessica Madden, MD, a pediatrician and lactation consultant in Cleveland, Ohio, said advocates should work to normalize extended breastfeeding in the general public.

“I think everyone should work to advocate together,” Dr. Madden said. “From the professional society standpoint, advocacy for extended breastfeeding should come from the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine and the AAP’s Section on Breastfeeding Medicine.”

She said more emphasis should be focused on the roles that pediatricians and health care providers play, along with insurers and employers, to ensure that moms are confident and comfortable with whatever breastfeeding journey they take.

The AAP will be revisiting the recommendations again soon, Dr. Feldman-Winter said. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has completed a systematic review but has not set a date to release findings, she said.

Among the issues the USPSTF will address are whether interventions that support breastfeeding improve outcomes for children and mothers; how to improve the initiation, duration, intensity, and exclusivity of breastfeeding; and the identification of any potential harms of interventions that support breastfeeding.

“The research plan illustrates that breastfeeding is now an active area for research, and we will continue to update our recommendations according to the best evidence,” Dr. Feldman-Winter said.

Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi, Dr. Feldman-Winter, and Dr. Madden have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

How long should mothers breastfeed their babies?

The controversial question has cropped up again after the nation’s leading pediatrics group has issued new recommendations calling for women to breastfeed until their children turn 2, and possibly even longer.

The policy statement, Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk, was released on June 27 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. It calls out stigma, lack of support, and workplace barriers that make continued breastfeeding difficult for many mothers.

But the new policy statement isn’t going down smoothly with the Fed Is Best Foundation, a nonprofit group hoping to “debunk and sort out for the public” many of the proclamations in the AAP’s policies, said Christie del Castillo-Hegyi, MD, cofounder of the group and emergency physician at CHI St. Vincent, Little Rock, Ark.

The goal of Fed Is Best is to assist families and health care professionals with current research on the safe feeding of infants – whether with breast milk, formula, or a combination.

The AAP’s previous guidelines, issued in 2012, called for infants to be fed breast milk exclusively for their first 6 months. Continued breastfeeding was recommended while introducing complementary foods for a period of 1 year or longer, the policy stated. The updated policy extends the optimum time line for breastfeeding to up to 2 years, citing the health benefits for babies.
 

‘Tone deaf and one-sided’

The AAP policy is “tone deaf and one-sided to the 75% of the U.S. mothers who use formula either by necessity or choice,” Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi told this news organization.

She pointed to a long list of factors that could affect the health outcomes of infants with regard to breastfeeding versus formula-feeding. These include socioeconomic status, baseline maternal health and education, maternal genetics, and the effects of developing feeding complications from exclusive breastfeeding for infants whose mothers can’t produce enough milk. These issues can contribute to negative health outcomes and brain development in infants who go on to be formula fed, she said.

She also objected to the fact that the guidelines make little reference to a mother who needs to supplement breast milk with formula within 4 months – and even before that – to meet her infant’s nutritional requirements.

Mothers need to hear “that making sure their infant is adequately fed is the most important goal of any infant feeding recommendation,” Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi said. She noted that the AAP’s rigid guidelines may be impossible for many mothers to follow.

“The pressure to meet [the AAP’s] exceedingly high expectations is causing harm to mothers and babies,” she said, referring to earlier guidelines that contained similar suggestions.

If a mother’s milk is insufficient, babies are at risk for low growth rates, jaundice, and dehydration. Mothers also can be affected if they’re made to feel shame because they cannot provide adequate amounts of breast milk and must supplement their supply with formula.

The blanket nature of the AAPs recommendations is “irresponsible,” given the fact that only about one in four nursing people can produce sufficient breast milk to feed their baby, Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi said.

“Not only is there harm to the infant, who may suffer from developmental problems as a result of the malnutrition they experience, but it harms the mother who believes in the AAP to provide responsible guidelines that help them ensure the best nutrition to their infants,” she said.

Lori Feldman-Winter, MD, chair of the AAP Section on Breastfeeding, defended the updated guidance.

The policy aims “to clarify the evidence that breastfeeding matters and to use the best evidence to equip pediatricians with the ways they can support the mother’s choice,” Dr. Feldman-Winter said in an interview. “The bottom line is that most women can exclusively breastfeed according to our recommendation, but a growing number of women have conditions that make it difficult, such as obesity. Pediatricians are essential in recognizing suboptimal intake in the breastfed infant, and the policy delineates how to do this.”

Dr. Feldman-Winter added that the criticism of the policy “is not unexpected, given the many barriers in our society for women doing the work of mothering and trying to reach their personal breastfeeding goals. We know over 60% of mothers do not reach their intended goals. These barriers are even more apparent for the populations that are underserved and least likely to breastfeed.”

But Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi pushed back on the AAP’s claim that exclusive breastfeeding of infants up to 6 months of age confers significant benefits beyond combination breastfeeding and formula feeding. The policy “fails to address the fact that many mothers do not have the biological capacity to meet the recommendation and are simply unable to exclusively breastfeed their infants” for that length of time, she said.

While the differences of opinion might leave lactating mothers in limbo, another expert pointed out that “support” of mothers is critical.

Jessica Madden, MD, a pediatrician and lactation consultant in Cleveland, Ohio, said advocates should work to normalize extended breastfeeding in the general public.

“I think everyone should work to advocate together,” Dr. Madden said. “From the professional society standpoint, advocacy for extended breastfeeding should come from the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine and the AAP’s Section on Breastfeeding Medicine.”

She said more emphasis should be focused on the roles that pediatricians and health care providers play, along with insurers and employers, to ensure that moms are confident and comfortable with whatever breastfeeding journey they take.

The AAP will be revisiting the recommendations again soon, Dr. Feldman-Winter said. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has completed a systematic review but has not set a date to release findings, she said.

Among the issues the USPSTF will address are whether interventions that support breastfeeding improve outcomes for children and mothers; how to improve the initiation, duration, intensity, and exclusivity of breastfeeding; and the identification of any potential harms of interventions that support breastfeeding.

“The research plan illustrates that breastfeeding is now an active area for research, and we will continue to update our recommendations according to the best evidence,” Dr. Feldman-Winter said.

Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi, Dr. Feldman-Winter, and Dr. Madden have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

How long should mothers breastfeed their babies?

The controversial question has cropped up again after the nation’s leading pediatrics group has issued new recommendations calling for women to breastfeed until their children turn 2, and possibly even longer.

The policy statement, Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk, was released on June 27 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. It calls out stigma, lack of support, and workplace barriers that make continued breastfeeding difficult for many mothers.

But the new policy statement isn’t going down smoothly with the Fed Is Best Foundation, a nonprofit group hoping to “debunk and sort out for the public” many of the proclamations in the AAP’s policies, said Christie del Castillo-Hegyi, MD, cofounder of the group and emergency physician at CHI St. Vincent, Little Rock, Ark.

The goal of Fed Is Best is to assist families and health care professionals with current research on the safe feeding of infants – whether with breast milk, formula, or a combination.

The AAP’s previous guidelines, issued in 2012, called for infants to be fed breast milk exclusively for their first 6 months. Continued breastfeeding was recommended while introducing complementary foods for a period of 1 year or longer, the policy stated. The updated policy extends the optimum time line for breastfeeding to up to 2 years, citing the health benefits for babies.
 

‘Tone deaf and one-sided’

The AAP policy is “tone deaf and one-sided to the 75% of the U.S. mothers who use formula either by necessity or choice,” Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi told this news organization.

She pointed to a long list of factors that could affect the health outcomes of infants with regard to breastfeeding versus formula-feeding. These include socioeconomic status, baseline maternal health and education, maternal genetics, and the effects of developing feeding complications from exclusive breastfeeding for infants whose mothers can’t produce enough milk. These issues can contribute to negative health outcomes and brain development in infants who go on to be formula fed, she said.

She also objected to the fact that the guidelines make little reference to a mother who needs to supplement breast milk with formula within 4 months – and even before that – to meet her infant’s nutritional requirements.

Mothers need to hear “that making sure their infant is adequately fed is the most important goal of any infant feeding recommendation,” Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi said. She noted that the AAP’s rigid guidelines may be impossible for many mothers to follow.

“The pressure to meet [the AAP’s] exceedingly high expectations is causing harm to mothers and babies,” she said, referring to earlier guidelines that contained similar suggestions.

If a mother’s milk is insufficient, babies are at risk for low growth rates, jaundice, and dehydration. Mothers also can be affected if they’re made to feel shame because they cannot provide adequate amounts of breast milk and must supplement their supply with formula.

The blanket nature of the AAPs recommendations is “irresponsible,” given the fact that only about one in four nursing people can produce sufficient breast milk to feed their baby, Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi said.

“Not only is there harm to the infant, who may suffer from developmental problems as a result of the malnutrition they experience, but it harms the mother who believes in the AAP to provide responsible guidelines that help them ensure the best nutrition to their infants,” she said.

Lori Feldman-Winter, MD, chair of the AAP Section on Breastfeeding, defended the updated guidance.

The policy aims “to clarify the evidence that breastfeeding matters and to use the best evidence to equip pediatricians with the ways they can support the mother’s choice,” Dr. Feldman-Winter said in an interview. “The bottom line is that most women can exclusively breastfeed according to our recommendation, but a growing number of women have conditions that make it difficult, such as obesity. Pediatricians are essential in recognizing suboptimal intake in the breastfed infant, and the policy delineates how to do this.”

Dr. Feldman-Winter added that the criticism of the policy “is not unexpected, given the many barriers in our society for women doing the work of mothering and trying to reach their personal breastfeeding goals. We know over 60% of mothers do not reach their intended goals. These barriers are even more apparent for the populations that are underserved and least likely to breastfeed.”

But Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi pushed back on the AAP’s claim that exclusive breastfeeding of infants up to 6 months of age confers significant benefits beyond combination breastfeeding and formula feeding. The policy “fails to address the fact that many mothers do not have the biological capacity to meet the recommendation and are simply unable to exclusively breastfeed their infants” for that length of time, she said.

While the differences of opinion might leave lactating mothers in limbo, another expert pointed out that “support” of mothers is critical.

Jessica Madden, MD, a pediatrician and lactation consultant in Cleveland, Ohio, said advocates should work to normalize extended breastfeeding in the general public.

“I think everyone should work to advocate together,” Dr. Madden said. “From the professional society standpoint, advocacy for extended breastfeeding should come from the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine and the AAP’s Section on Breastfeeding Medicine.”

She said more emphasis should be focused on the roles that pediatricians and health care providers play, along with insurers and employers, to ensure that moms are confident and comfortable with whatever breastfeeding journey they take.

The AAP will be revisiting the recommendations again soon, Dr. Feldman-Winter said. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has completed a systematic review but has not set a date to release findings, she said.

Among the issues the USPSTF will address are whether interventions that support breastfeeding improve outcomes for children and mothers; how to improve the initiation, duration, intensity, and exclusivity of breastfeeding; and the identification of any potential harms of interventions that support breastfeeding.

“The research plan illustrates that breastfeeding is now an active area for research, and we will continue to update our recommendations according to the best evidence,” Dr. Feldman-Winter said.

Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi, Dr. Feldman-Winter, and Dr. Madden have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ob.gyns. will not have to travel to Texas to take the board certification exam this fall. 

The announcement from the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology follows worries from physicians that gathering in large groups for the examination would leave them vulnerable to physical or political retaliation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

ABOG is headquartered in Dallas; Texas is one of many states with a near-complete ban on abortion.

Though certification is voluntary, many doctors opt to take the 3-hour oral test to enhance their medical expertise beyond what their state requires. 

ABOG held board certification exams online during the pandemic, with plans to return to in-person testing this fall. However, last week, the board said that online testing will continue “due to the increase in COVID-19 cases across the country and concerns regarding the U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.”

More than 500 physicians petitioned against having in-person board certification exams last month in a letter addressed to the board.

“The state of Texas has severely restricted access to abortion and has allowed private citizens to take legal action against anyone suspected of assisting or performing terminations,” the letter says. “Due to the ‘aid and abet’ clause included in SB8, we may be targeted for legal or political retribution.”

SB8 is shorthand for the Texas Heartbeat Act, which authorizes anyone in the state of Texas to sue any individual whom they believe to have performed or induced an abortion, as well as people who aid or abet abortions in any way, such as paying for the abortion through their insurance.

Pregnant exam-takers also feared having to seek care for potential complications in Texas.

“We see no justifiable reason to mandate in-person oral board exams in a state that restricts basic healthcare of pregnant people and whose laws encourage vigilante targeting of physicians who perform abortions,” the letter continues.

Alice Abernathy, MD, a national clinician scholar in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, signed the petition and would be required to travel to Texas for her certification exam next year if ABOG’s future exam cycles are held in person.

“My job is straightforward – I take care of patients. I will not expose myself to risk of prosecution for delivering the highest standard of comprehensive reproductive health care to my patients,” Dr. Abernathy told this news organization.

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

Ob.gyns. will not have to travel to Texas to take the board certification exam this fall. 

The announcement from the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology follows worries from physicians that gathering in large groups for the examination would leave them vulnerable to physical or political retaliation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

ABOG is headquartered in Dallas; Texas is one of many states with a near-complete ban on abortion.

Though certification is voluntary, many doctors opt to take the 3-hour oral test to enhance their medical expertise beyond what their state requires. 

ABOG held board certification exams online during the pandemic, with plans to return to in-person testing this fall. However, last week, the board said that online testing will continue “due to the increase in COVID-19 cases across the country and concerns regarding the U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.”

More than 500 physicians petitioned against having in-person board certification exams last month in a letter addressed to the board.

“The state of Texas has severely restricted access to abortion and has allowed private citizens to take legal action against anyone suspected of assisting or performing terminations,” the letter says. “Due to the ‘aid and abet’ clause included in SB8, we may be targeted for legal or political retribution.”

SB8 is shorthand for the Texas Heartbeat Act, which authorizes anyone in the state of Texas to sue any individual whom they believe to have performed or induced an abortion, as well as people who aid or abet abortions in any way, such as paying for the abortion through their insurance.

Pregnant exam-takers also feared having to seek care for potential complications in Texas.

“We see no justifiable reason to mandate in-person oral board exams in a state that restricts basic healthcare of pregnant people and whose laws encourage vigilante targeting of physicians who perform abortions,” the letter continues.

Alice Abernathy, MD, a national clinician scholar in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, signed the petition and would be required to travel to Texas for her certification exam next year if ABOG’s future exam cycles are held in person.

“My job is straightforward – I take care of patients. I will not expose myself to risk of prosecution for delivering the highest standard of comprehensive reproductive health care to my patients,” Dr. Abernathy told this news organization.

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

Ob.gyns. will not have to travel to Texas to take the board certification exam this fall. 

The announcement from the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology follows worries from physicians that gathering in large groups for the examination would leave them vulnerable to physical or political retaliation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

ABOG is headquartered in Dallas; Texas is one of many states with a near-complete ban on abortion.

Though certification is voluntary, many doctors opt to take the 3-hour oral test to enhance their medical expertise beyond what their state requires. 

ABOG held board certification exams online during the pandemic, with plans to return to in-person testing this fall. However, last week, the board said that online testing will continue “due to the increase in COVID-19 cases across the country and concerns regarding the U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.”

More than 500 physicians petitioned against having in-person board certification exams last month in a letter addressed to the board.

“The state of Texas has severely restricted access to abortion and has allowed private citizens to take legal action against anyone suspected of assisting or performing terminations,” the letter says. “Due to the ‘aid and abet’ clause included in SB8, we may be targeted for legal or political retribution.”

SB8 is shorthand for the Texas Heartbeat Act, which authorizes anyone in the state of Texas to sue any individual whom they believe to have performed or induced an abortion, as well as people who aid or abet abortions in any way, such as paying for the abortion through their insurance.

Pregnant exam-takers also feared having to seek care for potential complications in Texas.

“We see no justifiable reason to mandate in-person oral board exams in a state that restricts basic healthcare of pregnant people and whose laws encourage vigilante targeting of physicians who perform abortions,” the letter continues.

Alice Abernathy, MD, a national clinician scholar in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, signed the petition and would be required to travel to Texas for her certification exam next year if ABOG’s future exam cycles are held in person.

“My job is straightforward – I take care of patients. I will not expose myself to risk of prosecution for delivering the highest standard of comprehensive reproductive health care to my patients,” Dr. Abernathy told this news organization.

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

Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, my mind has been flooded with the emotions of disappointment, fear, helplessness, and rage. While I process the news and try to move forward, a sense of survivor’s guilt remains. Currently, I am a Complex Family Planning fellow in California, but prior to last year, I spent my entire life in Florida. I continue to provide abortion care without the fear of prosecution. Meanwhile, my family, friends, and colleagues back home remain trapped as they scramble to figure out what to do in the aftermath of this tragedy.

The day the Supreme Court decision was announced, I was in the operating room performing an abortion. As I went through a 24-week dilation and evacuation procedure, I could hear my phone vibrating as text messages and social media alerts started to flood in. Those who have met me know how much I care about reproductive rights. I was not surprised when family, friends, and former colleagues reached out to check on me. While I appreciated the support, I could not help but think how it was not me who needed the comforting. I did not have to question whether my team could complete our full day of abortion procedures. I knew there were providers across the country making devastating calls canceling and denying appointments for patients needing abortion care. They were meeting with their staffs, administrators, and lawyers, and fielding responses from the media. I thought about all the patients and the fear they must be experiencing as they scrambled to make arrangements for possible travel to other clinics or self-management of their abortion. I know that for many, their only option is forced pregnancy.

Like any other day, the patients we cared for that day were seeking an abortion for a variety of reasons. There was a patient who recently learned her desired pregnancy was complicated by a lethal fetal malformation. One patient shared that she experienced contraception failure. Another patient feared pregnancy because her last pregnancy was complicated by severe preeclampsia and hemorrhage. Our last patient told us she missed her period and knew she did not want to be pregnant. While each individual experience is unique, these stories are not exclusive to people living in California – these stories are the same ones I heard from patients and friends seeking an abortion in Florida - across the country.

The Supreme Court majority argued it was handing the question of abortion over to the states and their voters to decide. Recent surveys found 61% of U.S. adults believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases,¹ but in several states, within hours to days of the SCOTUS decision, patients were forced to make other plans as their prior fundamental right to an abortion was immediately removed. There were no further conversations, elections, or votes. It no longer matters what the majority supports or what the details are about the lives of those people making the personal decision to have an abortion. All that matters now is the ZIP code someone happens to reside in.

After I completed the first case, the graduating resident on our team expertly completed the remaining procedures. I felt confident that she would be leaving the program able to take care of any patient needing an abortion. She would also be able to manage any emergency that requires the quick evacuation of a uterus. Dread set in as I thought about the residents back home in Florida and other restrictive states. Many of these programs already struggle to provide abortion training, and their ability to do so in a post-Roe world will be near impossible. Around 50% of current ob.gyn. residents are training in a state that is expected to or already has banned abortions.² Even in states without abortion bans, residents often are not exposed to full spectrum abortion care for a variety of reasons.

During my time in residency, a family planning rotation was developed thanks to a few dedicated educators. While there were no laws prohibiting abortion at that time, like most hospitals in the state, our primary training site only allowed terminations for a select list of indications. An all too familiar story was the transfer of a patient from a nearby hospital after a failed multiday induction for a pregnancy loss or lethal fetal anomaly. They would arrive with heavy bleeding, infections, and hemodynamic instability. Most of these patients told us they were only offered an induction because there were no providers who could or would perform a dilation and evacuation. Even at our top-rated hospital, it was often a struggle coordinating emergent care for these patients because of the limited number of proficient abortion providers. These situations will become the new norm across the country as hundreds of residents will no longer learn these critical skills. As a result, these states will see more maternal morbidity and mortality for years to come.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade affects everyone, not just people who can become pregnant. It will have a devastating effect on medical training. It will change the trajectory of people’s careers and it will result in people losing their jobs. I am so proud to be an abortion provider and cannot imagine doing anything else. I am also a proud Floridian and always envisioned a future where I could live near family while caring for the people in my community. After this decision, I don’t what my future holds. I am concerned for the next generation of health care providers. I imagine many medical students may think twice about obstetrics and gynecology given concern about prosecution for exercising the full scope of the specialty. Most importantly, I am afraid for the patients who will no longer have access to essential abortion care. While we all process this traumatic event, the prochoice community of health care providers, lawyers, politicians, researchers, students, organizers, and volunteers will continue the fight for reproductive justice. For now, I will push this feeling of guilt aside as I take advantage of working in this protected space and embrace every opportunity to provide the best abortion care possible.
 

Dr. Brown is a complex family planning fellow at the University of California, Davis.

References

1. America’s Abortion Quandary [Internet]. Pew Res. Cent. Relig. Public Life Proj. 2022.

2. Vinekar K et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022.

Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, my mind has been flooded with the emotions of disappointment, fear, helplessness, and rage. While I process the news and try to move forward, a sense of survivor’s guilt remains. Currently, I am a Complex Family Planning fellow in California, but prior to last year, I spent my entire life in Florida. I continue to provide abortion care without the fear of prosecution. Meanwhile, my family, friends, and colleagues back home remain trapped as they scramble to figure out what to do in the aftermath of this tragedy.

The day the Supreme Court decision was announced, I was in the operating room performing an abortion. As I went through a 24-week dilation and evacuation procedure, I could hear my phone vibrating as text messages and social media alerts started to flood in. Those who have met me know how much I care about reproductive rights. I was not surprised when family, friends, and former colleagues reached out to check on me. While I appreciated the support, I could not help but think how it was not me who needed the comforting. I did not have to question whether my team could complete our full day of abortion procedures. I knew there were providers across the country making devastating calls canceling and denying appointments for patients needing abortion care. They were meeting with their staffs, administrators, and lawyers, and fielding responses from the media. I thought about all the patients and the fear they must be experiencing as they scrambled to make arrangements for possible travel to other clinics or self-management of their abortion. I know that for many, their only option is forced pregnancy.

Like any other day, the patients we cared for that day were seeking an abortion for a variety of reasons. There was a patient who recently learned her desired pregnancy was complicated by a lethal fetal malformation. One patient shared that she experienced contraception failure. Another patient feared pregnancy because her last pregnancy was complicated by severe preeclampsia and hemorrhage. Our last patient told us she missed her period and knew she did not want to be pregnant. While each individual experience is unique, these stories are not exclusive to people living in California – these stories are the same ones I heard from patients and friends seeking an abortion in Florida - across the country.

The Supreme Court majority argued it was handing the question of abortion over to the states and their voters to decide. Recent surveys found 61% of U.S. adults believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases,¹ but in several states, within hours to days of the SCOTUS decision, patients were forced to make other plans as their prior fundamental right to an abortion was immediately removed. There were no further conversations, elections, or votes. It no longer matters what the majority supports or what the details are about the lives of those people making the personal decision to have an abortion. All that matters now is the ZIP code someone happens to reside in.

After I completed the first case, the graduating resident on our team expertly completed the remaining procedures. I felt confident that she would be leaving the program able to take care of any patient needing an abortion. She would also be able to manage any emergency that requires the quick evacuation of a uterus. Dread set in as I thought about the residents back home in Florida and other restrictive states. Many of these programs already struggle to provide abortion training, and their ability to do so in a post-Roe world will be near impossible. Around 50% of current ob.gyn. residents are training in a state that is expected to or already has banned abortions.² Even in states without abortion bans, residents often are not exposed to full spectrum abortion care for a variety of reasons.

During my time in residency, a family planning rotation was developed thanks to a few dedicated educators. While there were no laws prohibiting abortion at that time, like most hospitals in the state, our primary training site only allowed terminations for a select list of indications. An all too familiar story was the transfer of a patient from a nearby hospital after a failed multiday induction for a pregnancy loss or lethal fetal anomaly. They would arrive with heavy bleeding, infections, and hemodynamic instability. Most of these patients told us they were only offered an induction because there were no providers who could or would perform a dilation and evacuation. Even at our top-rated hospital, it was often a struggle coordinating emergent care for these patients because of the limited number of proficient abortion providers. These situations will become the new norm across the country as hundreds of residents will no longer learn these critical skills. As a result, these states will see more maternal morbidity and mortality for years to come.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade affects everyone, not just people who can become pregnant. It will have a devastating effect on medical training. It will change the trajectory of people’s careers and it will result in people losing their jobs. I am so proud to be an abortion provider and cannot imagine doing anything else. I am also a proud Floridian and always envisioned a future where I could live near family while caring for the people in my community. After this decision, I don’t what my future holds. I am concerned for the next generation of health care providers. I imagine many medical students may think twice about obstetrics and gynecology given concern about prosecution for exercising the full scope of the specialty. Most importantly, I am afraid for the patients who will no longer have access to essential abortion care. While we all process this traumatic event, the prochoice community of health care providers, lawyers, politicians, researchers, students, organizers, and volunteers will continue the fight for reproductive justice. For now, I will push this feeling of guilt aside as I take advantage of working in this protected space and embrace every opportunity to provide the best abortion care possible.
 

Dr. Brown is a complex family planning fellow at the University of California, Davis.

References

1. America’s Abortion Quandary [Internet]. Pew Res. Cent. Relig. Public Life Proj. 2022.

2. Vinekar K et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022.

Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, my mind has been flooded with the emotions of disappointment, fear, helplessness, and rage. While I process the news and try to move forward, a sense of survivor’s guilt remains. Currently, I am a Complex Family Planning fellow in California, but prior to last year, I spent my entire life in Florida. I continue to provide abortion care without the fear of prosecution. Meanwhile, my family, friends, and colleagues back home remain trapped as they scramble to figure out what to do in the aftermath of this tragedy.

The day the Supreme Court decision was announced, I was in the operating room performing an abortion. As I went through a 24-week dilation and evacuation procedure, I could hear my phone vibrating as text messages and social media alerts started to flood in. Those who have met me know how much I care about reproductive rights. I was not surprised when family, friends, and former colleagues reached out to check on me. While I appreciated the support, I could not help but think how it was not me who needed the comforting. I did not have to question whether my team could complete our full day of abortion procedures. I knew there were providers across the country making devastating calls canceling and denying appointments for patients needing abortion care. They were meeting with their staffs, administrators, and lawyers, and fielding responses from the media. I thought about all the patients and the fear they must be experiencing as they scrambled to make arrangements for possible travel to other clinics or self-management of their abortion. I know that for many, their only option is forced pregnancy.

Like any other day, the patients we cared for that day were seeking an abortion for a variety of reasons. There was a patient who recently learned her desired pregnancy was complicated by a lethal fetal malformation. One patient shared that she experienced contraception failure. Another patient feared pregnancy because her last pregnancy was complicated by severe preeclampsia and hemorrhage. Our last patient told us she missed her period and knew she did not want to be pregnant. While each individual experience is unique, these stories are not exclusive to people living in California – these stories are the same ones I heard from patients and friends seeking an abortion in Florida - across the country.

The Supreme Court majority argued it was handing the question of abortion over to the states and their voters to decide. Recent surveys found 61% of U.S. adults believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases,¹ but in several states, within hours to days of the SCOTUS decision, patients were forced to make other plans as their prior fundamental right to an abortion was immediately removed. There were no further conversations, elections, or votes. It no longer matters what the majority supports or what the details are about the lives of those people making the personal decision to have an abortion. All that matters now is the ZIP code someone happens to reside in.

After I completed the first case, the graduating resident on our team expertly completed the remaining procedures. I felt confident that she would be leaving the program able to take care of any patient needing an abortion. She would also be able to manage any emergency that requires the quick evacuation of a uterus. Dread set in as I thought about the residents back home in Florida and other restrictive states. Many of these programs already struggle to provide abortion training, and their ability to do so in a post-Roe world will be near impossible. Around 50% of current ob.gyn. residents are training in a state that is expected to or already has banned abortions.² Even in states without abortion bans, residents often are not exposed to full spectrum abortion care for a variety of reasons.

During my time in residency, a family planning rotation was developed thanks to a few dedicated educators. While there were no laws prohibiting abortion at that time, like most hospitals in the state, our primary training site only allowed terminations for a select list of indications. An all too familiar story was the transfer of a patient from a nearby hospital after a failed multiday induction for a pregnancy loss or lethal fetal anomaly. They would arrive with heavy bleeding, infections, and hemodynamic instability. Most of these patients told us they were only offered an induction because there were no providers who could or would perform a dilation and evacuation. Even at our top-rated hospital, it was often a struggle coordinating emergent care for these patients because of the limited number of proficient abortion providers. These situations will become the new norm across the country as hundreds of residents will no longer learn these critical skills. As a result, these states will see more maternal morbidity and mortality for years to come.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade affects everyone, not just people who can become pregnant. It will have a devastating effect on medical training. It will change the trajectory of people’s careers and it will result in people losing their jobs. I am so proud to be an abortion provider and cannot imagine doing anything else. I am also a proud Floridian and always envisioned a future where I could live near family while caring for the people in my community. After this decision, I don’t what my future holds. I am concerned for the next generation of health care providers. I imagine many medical students may think twice about obstetrics and gynecology given concern about prosecution for exercising the full scope of the specialty. Most importantly, I am afraid for the patients who will no longer have access to essential abortion care. While we all process this traumatic event, the prochoice community of health care providers, lawyers, politicians, researchers, students, organizers, and volunteers will continue the fight for reproductive justice. For now, I will push this feeling of guilt aside as I take advantage of working in this protected space and embrace every opportunity to provide the best abortion care possible.
 

Dr. Brown is a complex family planning fellow at the University of California, Davis.

References

1. America’s Abortion Quandary [Internet]. Pew Res. Cent. Relig. Public Life Proj. 2022.

2. Vinekar K et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022.

Taking up gardening is linked to improved mood and decreased stress, new research suggests.

The results of the small pilot study add to the growing body of evidence supporting the therapeutic value of gardening, study investigator Charles Guy, PhD, professor emeritus, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, told this news organization.

“If we can see therapeutic benefits among healthy individuals in a rigorously designed study, where variability was as controlled as you will see in this field, then now is the time to invest in some large-scale multi-institutional studies,” Dr. Guy added.

The study was published online in PLOS ONE.
 

Horticulture as therapy

Horticulture therapy involves engaging in gardening and plant-based activities facilitated by a trained therapist. Previous studies found that this intervention reduces apathy and improves cognitive function in some populations.

The current study included healthy, nonsmoking, and non–drug-using women, whose average age was about 32.5 years and whose body mass index was less than 32. The participants had no chronic conditions and were not allergic to pollen or plants.

Virtually all previous studies of therapeutic gardening included participants who had been diagnosed with conditions such as depression, chronic pain, or PTSD. “If we can see a therapeutic benefit with perfectly healthy people, then this is likely to have a therapeutic effect with whatever clinical population you might be interested in looking at,” said Dr. Guy.

In addition, including only women reduced variability, which is important in a small study, he said.

The researchers randomly assigned 20 participants to the gardening intervention and 20 to an art intervention. Each intervention consisted of twice-weekly 60-minute sessions for 4 weeks and a single follow-up session.

The art group was asked not to visit art galleries, museums, arts and crafts events, or art-related websites. Those in the gardening group were told not to visit parks or botanical gardens, not to engage in gardening activities, and not to visit gardening websites.

Activities in both groups involved a similar level of physical, cognitive, and social engagement. Gardeners were taught how to plant seeds and transplant and harvest edible crops, such as tomatoes, beans, and basil. Those in the art group learned papermaking and storytelling through drawing, printmaking, and mixed media collage.

At the beginning and end of the study, participants completed six questionnaires: the Profile of Mood States 2-A (POMS) short form, the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Adults, the Satisfaction With Participation in Discretionary Social Activities, and the 36-item Short-Form Survey.

Participants wore wrist cuff blood pressure and heart rate monitors.

The analysis included 15 persons in the gardening group and 17 in the art group.

Participants in both interventions improved on several scales. For example, the mean preintervention POMS TMD (T score) for gardeners was 53.1, which was reduced to a mean of 46.9 post intervention (P = .018). In the art group, the means score was 53.5 before the intervention and 47.0 after the intervention (P = .009).

For the PSS, mean scores went from 14.9 to 9.4 (P = .002) for gardening and from 15.8 to 10.0 (P = .001) for artmaking.

For the BDI-II, mean scores dropped from 8.2 to 2.8 (P = .001) for gardening and from 9.0 to 5.1 (P = .009) for art.

However, gardening was associated with less trait anxiety than artmaking. “We concluded that both interventions were roughly equally therapeutic, with one glaring exception, and that was with trait anxiety, where the gardening resulted in statistical separation from the art group,” said Dr. Guy.

There appeared to be dose responses for total mood disturbance, perceived stress, and depression symptomatology for both gardening and artmaking.

Neither intervention affected heart rate or blood pressure. A larger sample might be needed to detect treatment differences in healthy women, the investigators noted.

The therapeutic benefit of gardening may lie in the role of plants in human evolution, during which “we relied on plants for shelter; we relied on them for protection; we relied on them obviously for nutrition,” said Dr. Guy.

The study results support carrying out large, well-designed, rigorously designed trials “that will definitively and conclusively demonstrate treatment effects with quantitative descriptions of those treatment effects with respect to dosage,” he said.
 

Good for the mind

Commenting on the study, Sir Richard Thompson, MD, past president, Royal College of Physicians, London, who has written about the health benefits of gardening, said this new study provides “more evidence that both gardening and art therapy are good for the mind” with mostly equal benefits for the two interventions.

Anuradha Dullewe Wijeyeratne

“A much larger study would be needed to strengthen their case, but it fits in with much of the literature,” said Dr. Thompson.

However, he acknowledged the difficulty of carrying out scientifically robust studies in the field of alternative medicine, which “tends to be frowned upon” by some scientists.

Dr. Thompson identified some drawbacks of the study. In trying to measure so many parameters, the authors “may have had to resort to complex statistical analyses,” which may have led to some outcome changes being statistically positive by chance.

He noted that the study was small and that the gardening arm was “artificial” in that it was carried out in a greenhouse. “Maybe being outside would have been more beneficial; it would be interesting to test that hypothesis.”

As well, he pointed out initial differences between the two groups, including income and initial blood pressure, but he doubts these were significant.

He agreed that changes in cardiovascular parameters wouldn’t be expected in healthy young women, “as there’s little room for improvement.

“I wonder whether more improvement might have been seen in participants who were already suffering from anxiety, depression, etc.”

The study was supported by the Horticulture Research Institute, the Gene and Barbara Batson Endowed Nursery Fund, Florida Nursery Growers and Landscape Association, the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Wilmot Botanical Gardens, the Center for Arts in Medicine, Health Shands Arts in Medicine, and the department of environmental horticulture at the University of Florida. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking up gardening is linked to improved mood and decreased stress, new research suggests.

The results of the small pilot study add to the growing body of evidence supporting the therapeutic value of gardening, study investigator Charles Guy, PhD, professor emeritus, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, told this news organization.

“If we can see therapeutic benefits among healthy individuals in a rigorously designed study, where variability was as controlled as you will see in this field, then now is the time to invest in some large-scale multi-institutional studies,” Dr. Guy added.

The study was published online in PLOS ONE.
 

Horticulture as therapy

Horticulture therapy involves engaging in gardening and plant-based activities facilitated by a trained therapist. Previous studies found that this intervention reduces apathy and improves cognitive function in some populations.

The current study included healthy, nonsmoking, and non–drug-using women, whose average age was about 32.5 years and whose body mass index was less than 32. The participants had no chronic conditions and were not allergic to pollen or plants.

Virtually all previous studies of therapeutic gardening included participants who had been diagnosed with conditions such as depression, chronic pain, or PTSD. “If we can see a therapeutic benefit with perfectly healthy people, then this is likely to have a therapeutic effect with whatever clinical population you might be interested in looking at,” said Dr. Guy.

In addition, including only women reduced variability, which is important in a small study, he said.

The researchers randomly assigned 20 participants to the gardening intervention and 20 to an art intervention. Each intervention consisted of twice-weekly 60-minute sessions for 4 weeks and a single follow-up session.

The art group was asked not to visit art galleries, museums, arts and crafts events, or art-related websites. Those in the gardening group were told not to visit parks or botanical gardens, not to engage in gardening activities, and not to visit gardening websites.

Activities in both groups involved a similar level of physical, cognitive, and social engagement. Gardeners were taught how to plant seeds and transplant and harvest edible crops, such as tomatoes, beans, and basil. Those in the art group learned papermaking and storytelling through drawing, printmaking, and mixed media collage.

At the beginning and end of the study, participants completed six questionnaires: the Profile of Mood States 2-A (POMS) short form, the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Adults, the Satisfaction With Participation in Discretionary Social Activities, and the 36-item Short-Form Survey.

Participants wore wrist cuff blood pressure and heart rate monitors.

The analysis included 15 persons in the gardening group and 17 in the art group.

Participants in both interventions improved on several scales. For example, the mean preintervention POMS TMD (T score) for gardeners was 53.1, which was reduced to a mean of 46.9 post intervention (P = .018). In the art group, the means score was 53.5 before the intervention and 47.0 after the intervention (P = .009).

For the PSS, mean scores went from 14.9 to 9.4 (P = .002) for gardening and from 15.8 to 10.0 (P = .001) for artmaking.

For the BDI-II, mean scores dropped from 8.2 to 2.8 (P = .001) for gardening and from 9.0 to 5.1 (P = .009) for art.

However, gardening was associated with less trait anxiety than artmaking. “We concluded that both interventions were roughly equally therapeutic, with one glaring exception, and that was with trait anxiety, where the gardening resulted in statistical separation from the art group,” said Dr. Guy.

There appeared to be dose responses for total mood disturbance, perceived stress, and depression symptomatology for both gardening and artmaking.

Neither intervention affected heart rate or blood pressure. A larger sample might be needed to detect treatment differences in healthy women, the investigators noted.

The therapeutic benefit of gardening may lie in the role of plants in human evolution, during which “we relied on plants for shelter; we relied on them for protection; we relied on them obviously for nutrition,” said Dr. Guy.

The study results support carrying out large, well-designed, rigorously designed trials “that will definitively and conclusively demonstrate treatment effects with quantitative descriptions of those treatment effects with respect to dosage,” he said.
 

Good for the mind

Commenting on the study, Sir Richard Thompson, MD, past president, Royal College of Physicians, London, who has written about the health benefits of gardening, said this new study provides “more evidence that both gardening and art therapy are good for the mind” with mostly equal benefits for the two interventions.

Anuradha Dullewe Wijeyeratne

“A much larger study would be needed to strengthen their case, but it fits in with much of the literature,” said Dr. Thompson.

However, he acknowledged the difficulty of carrying out scientifically robust studies in the field of alternative medicine, which “tends to be frowned upon” by some scientists.

Dr. Thompson identified some drawbacks of the study. In trying to measure so many parameters, the authors “may have had to resort to complex statistical analyses,” which may have led to some outcome changes being statistically positive by chance.

He noted that the study was small and that the gardening arm was “artificial” in that it was carried out in a greenhouse. “Maybe being outside would have been more beneficial; it would be interesting to test that hypothesis.”

As well, he pointed out initial differences between the two groups, including income and initial blood pressure, but he doubts these were significant.

He agreed that changes in cardiovascular parameters wouldn’t be expected in healthy young women, “as there’s little room for improvement.

“I wonder whether more improvement might have been seen in participants who were already suffering from anxiety, depression, etc.”

The study was supported by the Horticulture Research Institute, the Gene and Barbara Batson Endowed Nursery Fund, Florida Nursery Growers and Landscape Association, the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Wilmot Botanical Gardens, the Center for Arts in Medicine, Health Shands Arts in Medicine, and the department of environmental horticulture at the University of Florida. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking up gardening is linked to improved mood and decreased stress, new research suggests.

The results of the small pilot study add to the growing body of evidence supporting the therapeutic value of gardening, study investigator Charles Guy, PhD, professor emeritus, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, told this news organization.

“If we can see therapeutic benefits among healthy individuals in a rigorously designed study, where variability was as controlled as you will see in this field, then now is the time to invest in some large-scale multi-institutional studies,” Dr. Guy added.

The study was published online in PLOS ONE.
 

Horticulture as therapy

Horticulture therapy involves engaging in gardening and plant-based activities facilitated by a trained therapist. Previous studies found that this intervention reduces apathy and improves cognitive function in some populations.

The current study included healthy, nonsmoking, and non–drug-using women, whose average age was about 32.5 years and whose body mass index was less than 32. The participants had no chronic conditions and were not allergic to pollen or plants.

Virtually all previous studies of therapeutic gardening included participants who had been diagnosed with conditions such as depression, chronic pain, or PTSD. “If we can see a therapeutic benefit with perfectly healthy people, then this is likely to have a therapeutic effect with whatever clinical population you might be interested in looking at,” said Dr. Guy.

In addition, including only women reduced variability, which is important in a small study, he said.

The researchers randomly assigned 20 participants to the gardening intervention and 20 to an art intervention. Each intervention consisted of twice-weekly 60-minute sessions for 4 weeks and a single follow-up session.

The art group was asked not to visit art galleries, museums, arts and crafts events, or art-related websites. Those in the gardening group were told not to visit parks or botanical gardens, not to engage in gardening activities, and not to visit gardening websites.

Activities in both groups involved a similar level of physical, cognitive, and social engagement. Gardeners were taught how to plant seeds and transplant and harvest edible crops, such as tomatoes, beans, and basil. Those in the art group learned papermaking and storytelling through drawing, printmaking, and mixed media collage.

At the beginning and end of the study, participants completed six questionnaires: the Profile of Mood States 2-A (POMS) short form, the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Adults, the Satisfaction With Participation in Discretionary Social Activities, and the 36-item Short-Form Survey.

Participants wore wrist cuff blood pressure and heart rate monitors.

The analysis included 15 persons in the gardening group and 17 in the art group.

Participants in both interventions improved on several scales. For example, the mean preintervention POMS TMD (T score) for gardeners was 53.1, which was reduced to a mean of 46.9 post intervention (P = .018). In the art group, the means score was 53.5 before the intervention and 47.0 after the intervention (P = .009).

For the PSS, mean scores went from 14.9 to 9.4 (P = .002) for gardening and from 15.8 to 10.0 (P = .001) for artmaking.

For the BDI-II, mean scores dropped from 8.2 to 2.8 (P = .001) for gardening and from 9.0 to 5.1 (P = .009) for art.

However, gardening was associated with less trait anxiety than artmaking. “We concluded that both interventions were roughly equally therapeutic, with one glaring exception, and that was with trait anxiety, where the gardening resulted in statistical separation from the art group,” said Dr. Guy.

There appeared to be dose responses for total mood disturbance, perceived stress, and depression symptomatology for both gardening and artmaking.

Neither intervention affected heart rate or blood pressure. A larger sample might be needed to detect treatment differences in healthy women, the investigators noted.

The therapeutic benefit of gardening may lie in the role of plants in human evolution, during which “we relied on plants for shelter; we relied on them for protection; we relied on them obviously for nutrition,” said Dr. Guy.

The study results support carrying out large, well-designed, rigorously designed trials “that will definitively and conclusively demonstrate treatment effects with quantitative descriptions of those treatment effects with respect to dosage,” he said.
 

Good for the mind

Commenting on the study, Sir Richard Thompson, MD, past president, Royal College of Physicians, London, who has written about the health benefits of gardening, said this new study provides “more evidence that both gardening and art therapy are good for the mind” with mostly equal benefits for the two interventions.

Anuradha Dullewe Wijeyeratne

“A much larger study would be needed to strengthen their case, but it fits in with much of the literature,” said Dr. Thompson.

However, he acknowledged the difficulty of carrying out scientifically robust studies in the field of alternative medicine, which “tends to be frowned upon” by some scientists.

Dr. Thompson identified some drawbacks of the study. In trying to measure so many parameters, the authors “may have had to resort to complex statistical analyses,” which may have led to some outcome changes being statistically positive by chance.

He noted that the study was small and that the gardening arm was “artificial” in that it was carried out in a greenhouse. “Maybe being outside would have been more beneficial; it would be interesting to test that hypothesis.”

As well, he pointed out initial differences between the two groups, including income and initial blood pressure, but he doubts these were significant.

He agreed that changes in cardiovascular parameters wouldn’t be expected in healthy young women, “as there’s little room for improvement.

“I wonder whether more improvement might have been seen in participants who were already suffering from anxiety, depression, etc.”

The study was supported by the Horticulture Research Institute, the Gene and Barbara Batson Endowed Nursery Fund, Florida Nursery Growers and Landscape Association, the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Wilmot Botanical Gardens, the Center for Arts in Medicine, Health Shands Arts in Medicine, and the department of environmental horticulture at the University of Florida. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women who’ve had endometriosis carry an elevated risk of stroke with them for the rest of their lives, with the greatest risk found in women who’ve had a hysterectomy with an oophorectomy, according to a cohort study of the Nurses’ Health Study.

“This is yet additional evidence that those girls and women with endometriosis are having effects across their lives and in multiple aspects of their health and well-being,” senior study author Stacey A. Missmer, ScD, of the Michigan State University, East Lansing, said in an interview. “This is not, in quotes ‘just a gynecologic condition,’ ” Dr. Missmer added. “It is not strictly about the pelvic pain or infertility, but it really is about the whole health across the life course.”

The study included 112,056 women in the NHSII cohort study who were followed from 1989 to June 2017, documenting 893 incident cases of stroke among them – an incidence of less than 1%. Endometriosis was reported in 5,244 women, and 93% of the cohort were White.

Multivariate adjusted models showed that women who had laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis had a 34% greater risk of stroke than women without a history of endometriosis. Leslie V. Farland, ScD, of the University of Arizona, Tucson, was lead author of the study.

While previous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, heart attack, angina, and atherosclerosis in women who’ve had endometriosis, this is the first study that has confirmed an additional increased risk of stroke, Dr. Missmer said.

Another novel finding, Dr. Missmer said, is that while the CVD risks for these women “seem to peak at an earlier age,” the study found no age differences for stroke risk. “That also reinforces that these stroke events are often happening in an age range typical for stroke, which is further removed from when women are thinking about their gynecologic health specifically.”

These findings don’t translate into a significantly greater risk for stroke overall in women who’ve had endometriosis, Dr. Missmer said. She characterized the risk as “not negligible, but it’s not a huge increased risk.” The absolute risk is still fairly low, she said.

“We don’t want to give the impression that all women with endometriosis need to be panicked or fearful about stroke, she said. “Rather, the messaging is that this yet another bit of evidence that whole health care for those with endometriosis is important.”

Women who’ve had endometriosis and their primary care providers need to be attuned to stroke risk, she said. “This is a critical condition that primary care physicians need to engage around, and perhaps if symptoms related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease emerge in their patients, they need to be engaging cardiology and similar types of support. This is not just about the gynecologists.”

The study also explored other factors that may contribute to stroke risk, with the most significant being hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy, Dr. Missmer said.

This study was unique because it used laparoscopically confirmed rather than self-reported endometriosis, said Louise D. McCullough, MD, neurology chair at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. Another strength of the study she noted was its longitudinal design, although the cohort study design yielded a low number of stroke patients.

“Regardless, I do think it was a very important study because we have a growing recognition about how women’s health and factors such as pregnancy, infertility, parity, complications, and gonadal hormones such as estrogen can influence a woman’s stroke risk much later in life,” Dr. McCullough said in an interview.

Future studies into the relationship between endometriosis and CVD and stroke risk should focus on the mechanism behind the inflammation that occurs in endometriosis, Dr. McCullough said. “Part of it is probably the loss of hormones if a patient has to have an oophorectomy, but part of it is just what do these diseases do for a woman’s later risk – and for primary care physicians, ob.gyns., and stroke neurologists to recognize that these are questions we should ask: Have you ever  had eclampsia or preeclampsia? Did you have endometriosis? Have you had miscarriages?”

The study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Missmer disclosed relationships with Shanghai Huilun Biotechnology, Roche, and AbbVie. Dr. McCullough has no relevant disclosures.


 

Women who’ve had endometriosis carry an elevated risk of stroke with them for the rest of their lives, with the greatest risk found in women who’ve had a hysterectomy with an oophorectomy, according to a cohort study of the Nurses’ Health Study.

“This is yet additional evidence that those girls and women with endometriosis are having effects across their lives and in multiple aspects of their health and well-being,” senior study author Stacey A. Missmer, ScD, of the Michigan State University, East Lansing, said in an interview. “This is not, in quotes ‘just a gynecologic condition,’ ” Dr. Missmer added. “It is not strictly about the pelvic pain or infertility, but it really is about the whole health across the life course.”

The study included 112,056 women in the NHSII cohort study who were followed from 1989 to June 2017, documenting 893 incident cases of stroke among them – an incidence of less than 1%. Endometriosis was reported in 5,244 women, and 93% of the cohort were White.

Multivariate adjusted models showed that women who had laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis had a 34% greater risk of stroke than women without a history of endometriosis. Leslie V. Farland, ScD, of the University of Arizona, Tucson, was lead author of the study.

While previous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, heart attack, angina, and atherosclerosis in women who’ve had endometriosis, this is the first study that has confirmed an additional increased risk of stroke, Dr. Missmer said.

Another novel finding, Dr. Missmer said, is that while the CVD risks for these women “seem to peak at an earlier age,” the study found no age differences for stroke risk. “That also reinforces that these stroke events are often happening in an age range typical for stroke, which is further removed from when women are thinking about their gynecologic health specifically.”

These findings don’t translate into a significantly greater risk for stroke overall in women who’ve had endometriosis, Dr. Missmer said. She characterized the risk as “not negligible, but it’s not a huge increased risk.” The absolute risk is still fairly low, she said.

“We don’t want to give the impression that all women with endometriosis need to be panicked or fearful about stroke, she said. “Rather, the messaging is that this yet another bit of evidence that whole health care for those with endometriosis is important.”

Women who’ve had endometriosis and their primary care providers need to be attuned to stroke risk, she said. “This is a critical condition that primary care physicians need to engage around, and perhaps if symptoms related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease emerge in their patients, they need to be engaging cardiology and similar types of support. This is not just about the gynecologists.”

The study also explored other factors that may contribute to stroke risk, with the most significant being hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy, Dr. Missmer said.

This study was unique because it used laparoscopically confirmed rather than self-reported endometriosis, said Louise D. McCullough, MD, neurology chair at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. Another strength of the study she noted was its longitudinal design, although the cohort study design yielded a low number of stroke patients.

“Regardless, I do think it was a very important study because we have a growing recognition about how women’s health and factors such as pregnancy, infertility, parity, complications, and gonadal hormones such as estrogen can influence a woman’s stroke risk much later in life,” Dr. McCullough said in an interview.

Future studies into the relationship between endometriosis and CVD and stroke risk should focus on the mechanism behind the inflammation that occurs in endometriosis, Dr. McCullough said. “Part of it is probably the loss of hormones if a patient has to have an oophorectomy, but part of it is just what do these diseases do for a woman’s later risk – and for primary care physicians, ob.gyns., and stroke neurologists to recognize that these are questions we should ask: Have you ever  had eclampsia or preeclampsia? Did you have endometriosis? Have you had miscarriages?”

The study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Missmer disclosed relationships with Shanghai Huilun Biotechnology, Roche, and AbbVie. Dr. McCullough has no relevant disclosures.


 

Women who’ve had endometriosis carry an elevated risk of stroke with them for the rest of their lives, with the greatest risk found in women who’ve had a hysterectomy with an oophorectomy, according to a cohort study of the Nurses’ Health Study.

“This is yet additional evidence that those girls and women with endometriosis are having effects across their lives and in multiple aspects of their health and well-being,” senior study author Stacey A. Missmer, ScD, of the Michigan State University, East Lansing, said in an interview. “This is not, in quotes ‘just a gynecologic condition,’ ” Dr. Missmer added. “It is not strictly about the pelvic pain or infertility, but it really is about the whole health across the life course.”

The study included 112,056 women in the NHSII cohort study who were followed from 1989 to June 2017, documenting 893 incident cases of stroke among them – an incidence of less than 1%. Endometriosis was reported in 5,244 women, and 93% of the cohort were White.

Multivariate adjusted models showed that women who had laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis had a 34% greater risk of stroke than women without a history of endometriosis. Leslie V. Farland, ScD, of the University of Arizona, Tucson, was lead author of the study.

While previous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, heart attack, angina, and atherosclerosis in women who’ve had endometriosis, this is the first study that has confirmed an additional increased risk of stroke, Dr. Missmer said.

Another novel finding, Dr. Missmer said, is that while the CVD risks for these women “seem to peak at an earlier age,” the study found no age differences for stroke risk. “That also reinforces that these stroke events are often happening in an age range typical for stroke, which is further removed from when women are thinking about their gynecologic health specifically.”

These findings don’t translate into a significantly greater risk for stroke overall in women who’ve had endometriosis, Dr. Missmer said. She characterized the risk as “not negligible, but it’s not a huge increased risk.” The absolute risk is still fairly low, she said.

“We don’t want to give the impression that all women with endometriosis need to be panicked or fearful about stroke, she said. “Rather, the messaging is that this yet another bit of evidence that whole health care for those with endometriosis is important.”

Women who’ve had endometriosis and their primary care providers need to be attuned to stroke risk, she said. “This is a critical condition that primary care physicians need to engage around, and perhaps if symptoms related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease emerge in their patients, they need to be engaging cardiology and similar types of support. This is not just about the gynecologists.”

The study also explored other factors that may contribute to stroke risk, with the most significant being hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy, Dr. Missmer said.

This study was unique because it used laparoscopically confirmed rather than self-reported endometriosis, said Louise D. McCullough, MD, neurology chair at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. Another strength of the study she noted was its longitudinal design, although the cohort study design yielded a low number of stroke patients.

“Regardless, I do think it was a very important study because we have a growing recognition about how women’s health and factors such as pregnancy, infertility, parity, complications, and gonadal hormones such as estrogen can influence a woman’s stroke risk much later in life,” Dr. McCullough said in an interview.

Future studies into the relationship between endometriosis and CVD and stroke risk should focus on the mechanism behind the inflammation that occurs in endometriosis, Dr. McCullough said. “Part of it is probably the loss of hormones if a patient has to have an oophorectomy, but part of it is just what do these diseases do for a woman’s later risk – and for primary care physicians, ob.gyns., and stroke neurologists to recognize that these are questions we should ask: Have you ever  had eclampsia or preeclampsia? Did you have endometriosis? Have you had miscarriages?”

The study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Missmer disclosed relationships with Shanghai Huilun Biotechnology, Roche, and AbbVie. Dr. McCullough has no relevant disclosures.


 

Hormone therapy did not increase mortality in postmenopausal women treated for early-stage estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, but, in longitudinal data from Denmark, there was a recurrence risk with vaginal estrogen therapy among those treated with aromatase inhibitors.

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) – including vaginal dryness, burning, and urinary incontinence – is common in women treated for breast cancer. Adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly aromatase inhibitors, can aggravate these symptoms. Both local and systemic estrogen therapy are recommended for alleviating GSM symptoms in healthy women, but concerns have been raised about their use in women with breast cancer. Previous studies examining this have suggested possible risks for breast cancer recurrence, but those studies have had several limitations including small samples and short follow-up, particularly for vaginal estrogen therapy.

In the new study, from a national Danish cohort of 8,461 postmenopausal women diagnosed between 1997 and 2004 and treated for early-stage invasive estrogen receptor–positive nonmetastatic breast cancer, neither systemic menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) nor local vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) were associated with an overall increased risk for either breast cancer recurrence or mortality. However, in the subset who had received an aromatase inhibitor – with or without tamoxifen – there was a statistically significant increased risk for breast cancer recurrence, but not mortality.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“The data are reassuring for the majority of women with no adjuvant therapy or tamoxifen. But for those using adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, there might be a small risk,” study lead author Søren Cold, MD, PhD, senior oncologist in the department of oncology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, Odense, said in an interview.

Moreover, Dr. Cold noted, while this study didn’t find an increased recurrence risk with MHT for women taking aromatase inhibitors, other studies have. One in particular was stopped because of harm. The reason for the difference here is likely that the previous sample was small – just 133 women.

“Our study is mainly focusing on the use of vaginal estrogen. We had so few patients using systemic menopausal hormone therapy, those data don’t mean much. ... The risk with systemic therapy has been established. The vaginal use hasn’t been thoroughly studied before,” he noted.
 

Breast cancer recurrence elevated with VET and aromatase inhibitors

The study pool was 9,710 women who underwent complete resection for estrogen-positive breast cancer and were all allocated to 5 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment or no adjuvant treatment, according to guidelines. Overall, 3,112 received no adjuvant endocrine treatment, 2,007 were treated with tamoxifen only, 403 with an aromatase inhibitor, and 2,939 with a sequence of tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor.

After exclusion of 1,249 who had received VET or MHT prior to breast cancer diagnosis, there were 6,391 not prescribed any estrogen hormonal treatment, 1,957 prescribed VET, and 133 prescribed MHT with or without VET.

During an estimated median 9.8 years’ follow-up, 1,333 women (16%) had a breast cancer recurrence. Of those, 111 had received VET, 16 MHT, and 1,206 neither. Compared with those receiving no hormonal treatment, the adjusted risk of recurrence was similar for the VET users (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.32).

However, there was an increased risk for recurrence associated with initiating VET during aromatase inhibitor treatment (HR, 1.39, 95% CI, 1.04-1.85). For women receiving MHT, the adjusted relative risk of recurrence with aromatase inhibitors wasn’t significant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.62-1.78).

Overall, compared with women who never used hormonal treatment, the absolute 10-year breast cancer recurrence risk was 19.2% for never-users of VET or MHT, 15.4% in VET users, and 17.1% in MHT users.
 

No differences found for mortality

Of the 8,461 women in the study, 40% (3,370) died during an estimated median follow-up of 15.2 years. Of those, 497 had received VET, 47 MHT, and 2,826 neither. Compared with the never-users of estrogen therapy, the adjusted HR for overall survival in VET users was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.87). The analysis stratified by adjuvant endocrine therapy didn’t show an increase in VET users by use of aromatase inhibitors (aHR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.70-1.26). The same was found for women prescribed MHT, compared with never-users (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.26).

Never-users of VET or MHT had an absolute 10-year overall survival of 73.8% versus 79.5% and 80.5% among the women who used VET or MHT, respectively.

Asked to comment, Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and E. Stewart Taylor Chair of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview: “It is important to look at this issue. These findings raise but don’t answer the question that vaginal estradiol may not be as safe as we hope it is for women with breast cancer using an aromatase inhibitor.”

However, she also pointed out that “the overall increase in risk is not enormous; mortality risk was not increased. Women need to consider that there may be some risk associated with this option in their decision making about taking it. Having a satisfying sex life is also important for many women! It is really compassionate use for quality of life, so there is always that unknown element of risk in the discussion. That unknown risk has to be balanced against the benefit that the estrogen provides.”

And, Dr. Santoro also noted that the use of prescription data poses limitations. “It cannot tell us what was going on in the minds of the patient and the prescriber. There may be differences in the prescriber’s impression of the patient’s risk of recurrence that influenced the decision to provide a prescription. ... Women using AIs [aromatase inhibitors] often get pretty severe vaginal dryness symptoms and may need more estrogen to be comfortable with intercourse, but we really cannot tell this from what is in this paper.”

Indeed, Dr. Cold said: “We admit it’s not a randomized study, but we’ve done what was possible to take [confounding] factors into account, including age, tumor size, nodal status, histology, and comorbidities.”

He suggested that a potential therapeutic approach to reducing the recurrence risk might be to switch VET-treated women to tamoxifen after 2-3 years of aromatase inhibitors.

This work was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold received support from Breast Friends for the current study. Some of the other coauthors have pharmaceutical company disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory boards for Astellas, Menogenix, Que Oncology, and Amazon Ember, and is a consultant for Ansh Labs.

Hormone therapy did not increase mortality in postmenopausal women treated for early-stage estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, but, in longitudinal data from Denmark, there was a recurrence risk with vaginal estrogen therapy among those treated with aromatase inhibitors.

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) – including vaginal dryness, burning, and urinary incontinence – is common in women treated for breast cancer. Adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly aromatase inhibitors, can aggravate these symptoms. Both local and systemic estrogen therapy are recommended for alleviating GSM symptoms in healthy women, but concerns have been raised about their use in women with breast cancer. Previous studies examining this have suggested possible risks for breast cancer recurrence, but those studies have had several limitations including small samples and short follow-up, particularly for vaginal estrogen therapy.

In the new study, from a national Danish cohort of 8,461 postmenopausal women diagnosed between 1997 and 2004 and treated for early-stage invasive estrogen receptor–positive nonmetastatic breast cancer, neither systemic menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) nor local vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) were associated with an overall increased risk for either breast cancer recurrence or mortality. However, in the subset who had received an aromatase inhibitor – with or without tamoxifen – there was a statistically significant increased risk for breast cancer recurrence, but not mortality.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“The data are reassuring for the majority of women with no adjuvant therapy or tamoxifen. But for those using adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, there might be a small risk,” study lead author Søren Cold, MD, PhD, senior oncologist in the department of oncology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, Odense, said in an interview.

Moreover, Dr. Cold noted, while this study didn’t find an increased recurrence risk with MHT for women taking aromatase inhibitors, other studies have. One in particular was stopped because of harm. The reason for the difference here is likely that the previous sample was small – just 133 women.

“Our study is mainly focusing on the use of vaginal estrogen. We had so few patients using systemic menopausal hormone therapy, those data don’t mean much. ... The risk with systemic therapy has been established. The vaginal use hasn’t been thoroughly studied before,” he noted.
 

Breast cancer recurrence elevated with VET and aromatase inhibitors

The study pool was 9,710 women who underwent complete resection for estrogen-positive breast cancer and were all allocated to 5 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment or no adjuvant treatment, according to guidelines. Overall, 3,112 received no adjuvant endocrine treatment, 2,007 were treated with tamoxifen only, 403 with an aromatase inhibitor, and 2,939 with a sequence of tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor.

After exclusion of 1,249 who had received VET or MHT prior to breast cancer diagnosis, there were 6,391 not prescribed any estrogen hormonal treatment, 1,957 prescribed VET, and 133 prescribed MHT with or without VET.

During an estimated median 9.8 years’ follow-up, 1,333 women (16%) had a breast cancer recurrence. Of those, 111 had received VET, 16 MHT, and 1,206 neither. Compared with those receiving no hormonal treatment, the adjusted risk of recurrence was similar for the VET users (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.32).

However, there was an increased risk for recurrence associated with initiating VET during aromatase inhibitor treatment (HR, 1.39, 95% CI, 1.04-1.85). For women receiving MHT, the adjusted relative risk of recurrence with aromatase inhibitors wasn’t significant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.62-1.78).

Overall, compared with women who never used hormonal treatment, the absolute 10-year breast cancer recurrence risk was 19.2% for never-users of VET or MHT, 15.4% in VET users, and 17.1% in MHT users.
 

No differences found for mortality

Of the 8,461 women in the study, 40% (3,370) died during an estimated median follow-up of 15.2 years. Of those, 497 had received VET, 47 MHT, and 2,826 neither. Compared with the never-users of estrogen therapy, the adjusted HR for overall survival in VET users was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.87). The analysis stratified by adjuvant endocrine therapy didn’t show an increase in VET users by use of aromatase inhibitors (aHR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.70-1.26). The same was found for women prescribed MHT, compared with never-users (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.26).

Never-users of VET or MHT had an absolute 10-year overall survival of 73.8% versus 79.5% and 80.5% among the women who used VET or MHT, respectively.

Asked to comment, Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and E. Stewart Taylor Chair of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview: “It is important to look at this issue. These findings raise but don’t answer the question that vaginal estradiol may not be as safe as we hope it is for women with breast cancer using an aromatase inhibitor.”

However, she also pointed out that “the overall increase in risk is not enormous; mortality risk was not increased. Women need to consider that there may be some risk associated with this option in their decision making about taking it. Having a satisfying sex life is also important for many women! It is really compassionate use for quality of life, so there is always that unknown element of risk in the discussion. That unknown risk has to be balanced against the benefit that the estrogen provides.”

And, Dr. Santoro also noted that the use of prescription data poses limitations. “It cannot tell us what was going on in the minds of the patient and the prescriber. There may be differences in the prescriber’s impression of the patient’s risk of recurrence that influenced the decision to provide a prescription. ... Women using AIs [aromatase inhibitors] often get pretty severe vaginal dryness symptoms and may need more estrogen to be comfortable with intercourse, but we really cannot tell this from what is in this paper.”

Indeed, Dr. Cold said: “We admit it’s not a randomized study, but we’ve done what was possible to take [confounding] factors into account, including age, tumor size, nodal status, histology, and comorbidities.”

He suggested that a potential therapeutic approach to reducing the recurrence risk might be to switch VET-treated women to tamoxifen after 2-3 years of aromatase inhibitors.

This work was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold received support from Breast Friends for the current study. Some of the other coauthors have pharmaceutical company disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory boards for Astellas, Menogenix, Que Oncology, and Amazon Ember, and is a consultant for Ansh Labs.

Hormone therapy did not increase mortality in postmenopausal women treated for early-stage estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, but, in longitudinal data from Denmark, there was a recurrence risk with vaginal estrogen therapy among those treated with aromatase inhibitors.

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) – including vaginal dryness, burning, and urinary incontinence – is common in women treated for breast cancer. Adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly aromatase inhibitors, can aggravate these symptoms. Both local and systemic estrogen therapy are recommended for alleviating GSM symptoms in healthy women, but concerns have been raised about their use in women with breast cancer. Previous studies examining this have suggested possible risks for breast cancer recurrence, but those studies have had several limitations including small samples and short follow-up, particularly for vaginal estrogen therapy.

In the new study, from a national Danish cohort of 8,461 postmenopausal women diagnosed between 1997 and 2004 and treated for early-stage invasive estrogen receptor–positive nonmetastatic breast cancer, neither systemic menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) nor local vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) were associated with an overall increased risk for either breast cancer recurrence or mortality. However, in the subset who had received an aromatase inhibitor – with or without tamoxifen – there was a statistically significant increased risk for breast cancer recurrence, but not mortality.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“The data are reassuring for the majority of women with no adjuvant therapy or tamoxifen. But for those using adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, there might be a small risk,” study lead author Søren Cold, MD, PhD, senior oncologist in the department of oncology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, Odense, said in an interview.

Moreover, Dr. Cold noted, while this study didn’t find an increased recurrence risk with MHT for women taking aromatase inhibitors, other studies have. One in particular was stopped because of harm. The reason for the difference here is likely that the previous sample was small – just 133 women.

“Our study is mainly focusing on the use of vaginal estrogen. We had so few patients using systemic menopausal hormone therapy, those data don’t mean much. ... The risk with systemic therapy has been established. The vaginal use hasn’t been thoroughly studied before,” he noted.
 

Breast cancer recurrence elevated with VET and aromatase inhibitors

The study pool was 9,710 women who underwent complete resection for estrogen-positive breast cancer and were all allocated to 5 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment or no adjuvant treatment, according to guidelines. Overall, 3,112 received no adjuvant endocrine treatment, 2,007 were treated with tamoxifen only, 403 with an aromatase inhibitor, and 2,939 with a sequence of tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor.

After exclusion of 1,249 who had received VET or MHT prior to breast cancer diagnosis, there were 6,391 not prescribed any estrogen hormonal treatment, 1,957 prescribed VET, and 133 prescribed MHT with or without VET.

During an estimated median 9.8 years’ follow-up, 1,333 women (16%) had a breast cancer recurrence. Of those, 111 had received VET, 16 MHT, and 1,206 neither. Compared with those receiving no hormonal treatment, the adjusted risk of recurrence was similar for the VET users (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.32).

However, there was an increased risk for recurrence associated with initiating VET during aromatase inhibitor treatment (HR, 1.39, 95% CI, 1.04-1.85). For women receiving MHT, the adjusted relative risk of recurrence with aromatase inhibitors wasn’t significant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.62-1.78).

Overall, compared with women who never used hormonal treatment, the absolute 10-year breast cancer recurrence risk was 19.2% for never-users of VET or MHT, 15.4% in VET users, and 17.1% in MHT users.
 

No differences found for mortality

Of the 8,461 women in the study, 40% (3,370) died during an estimated median follow-up of 15.2 years. Of those, 497 had received VET, 47 MHT, and 2,826 neither. Compared with the never-users of estrogen therapy, the adjusted HR for overall survival in VET users was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.87). The analysis stratified by adjuvant endocrine therapy didn’t show an increase in VET users by use of aromatase inhibitors (aHR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.70-1.26). The same was found for women prescribed MHT, compared with never-users (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.26).

Never-users of VET or MHT had an absolute 10-year overall survival of 73.8% versus 79.5% and 80.5% among the women who used VET or MHT, respectively.

Asked to comment, Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and E. Stewart Taylor Chair of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview: “It is important to look at this issue. These findings raise but don’t answer the question that vaginal estradiol may not be as safe as we hope it is for women with breast cancer using an aromatase inhibitor.”

However, she also pointed out that “the overall increase in risk is not enormous; mortality risk was not increased. Women need to consider that there may be some risk associated with this option in their decision making about taking it. Having a satisfying sex life is also important for many women! It is really compassionate use for quality of life, so there is always that unknown element of risk in the discussion. That unknown risk has to be balanced against the benefit that the estrogen provides.”

And, Dr. Santoro also noted that the use of prescription data poses limitations. “It cannot tell us what was going on in the minds of the patient and the prescriber. There may be differences in the prescriber’s impression of the patient’s risk of recurrence that influenced the decision to provide a prescription. ... Women using AIs [aromatase inhibitors] often get pretty severe vaginal dryness symptoms and may need more estrogen to be comfortable with intercourse, but we really cannot tell this from what is in this paper.”

Indeed, Dr. Cold said: “We admit it’s not a randomized study, but we’ve done what was possible to take [confounding] factors into account, including age, tumor size, nodal status, histology, and comorbidities.”

He suggested that a potential therapeutic approach to reducing the recurrence risk might be to switch VET-treated women to tamoxifen after 2-3 years of aromatase inhibitors.

This work was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold received support from Breast Friends for the current study. Some of the other coauthors have pharmaceutical company disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory boards for Astellas, Menogenix, Que Oncology, and Amazon Ember, and is a consultant for Ansh Labs.

As states grapple with the future of abortion in the United States, Michigan, California, and Vermont could become the first states to let voters decide whether the right to abortion should be written into the state constitution.

In Michigan, a proposed constitutional amendment would override a 90-year-old state law that makes abortion a felony even in cases of rape or incest. The U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade could revive that abortion ban – and has galvanized abortion-rights advocates to secure new protections.

Some of the momentum is coming from activists getting involved for the first time.

“I wanted to do something, but I had no political experience or really any experience in activism,” said Amanda Mazur, who lives in rural northwestern Michigan. “But I thought, ‘Maybe I can volunteer and just offer something tangible to the movement.’”

Michigan organizers like Ms. Mazur submitted more than 750,000 signatures – a record number, they said – to state election officials in hopes of having the amendment appear on the November ballot.

If just over half those signatures are validated, Michigan voters will decide whether to amend the state’s constitution to guarantee broad individual rights to “reproductive freedom” that would cover abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments. It would also prevent the state from regulating abortions later in pregnancy if the patient’s “physical or mental health” is at risk.

The ballot initiative has the backing of medical groups like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, while conservative groups have called it radical and dangerous, claiming it would “allow late-term abortions for practically any reason.”

In California, the push to expand abortion access starts from a very different vantage point: The right to abortion is protected in state statute. And voters will be asked whether they want to enshrine it in the constitution. Proposition 1, which will be on the ballot in November, would prohibit the state from interfering with Californians’ reproductive health decisions, including those related to abortion or contraception.

“I want to know for sure that that right is protected,” state Sen. Toni Atkins (D-Calif.), the Democratic leader in the Senate and lead author of the amendment, said at a legislative hearing in June. “We are protecting ourselves from future courts and future politicians.”

The amendment is one strategy that several California lawmakers are pursuing to protect abortion access in the state. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has signed legislation to eliminate out-of-pocket expenses for abortion for most Californians and to protect California providers that offer abortion services from lawsuits in other states. The recent state budget deal also includes $200 million for reproductive and abortion care.

Earlier in July, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, announced that Proposal 5 will be on the November ballot. He said in a statement: “In Vermont, we solidified the right to choose in law, and now Vermonters have the opportunity to further protect that right in our constitution.”

For Ms. Mazur, the desire to “do something” started in 2017, when she and her husband gave their daughter, then 2 years old, some happy news: She was going to be a big sister. The family was thrilled.

But then doctors told Ms. Mazur something was wrong.

“I found out halfway through the pregnancy that the baby my husband and I hoped for suffered from a rare and life-limiting genetic condition,” Ms. Mazur said. “We ultimately made the compassionate choice to end the pregnancy for my well-being, and for the well-being of our family, and the life of what we thought would be our child.”

Devastated, Ms. Mazur turned to a national online support group and met people having similar experiences. But many group members said they were having a tough time finding a way to terminate their pregnancies.

“It really broke my heart that you’re going through this already devastating experience but have to travel far away from your home across the country ... [and] advocate for yourself like crazy just to get care that you have decided with your doctor is best for you,” Ms. Mazur said.

At the time, abortion rights in Michigan seemed pretty stable, but Ms. Mazur’s political awakening found an outlet this year.

Reproductive Freedom for All, a petition group backed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan, was gathering signatures for the constitutional amendment to enshrine abortion protections in state law. The effort took on new urgency in May after a draft of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was leaked and then published.

“Folks realized that this big, scary thing that they did not think would happen might actually happen,” said Jessica Ayoub, a field organizer with the ACLU of Michigan.

Some Michiganders were registering to vote just to be eligible to sign the petition. Jaynie Hoerauf, a 62-year-old attorney in Farwell, drove 40 miles to attend a rally where she knew she could sign it.

“A bunch of us were so ticked off [about Roe being overturned], and we were talking about it. And I was like, ‘I’m just going to go on and find where I can sign the stupid petition,’” Ms. Hoerauf said.

Activists on both sides of the abortion-rights debate expect to spend millions of dollars. They predict that donations will pour in from outside Michigan and that voters in other states will be watching.

“This is just the start of our fight,” Ms. Ayoub said. “We know that it is a long road to November.”

KHN correspondent Rachel Bluth contributed to this report. This story is part of a partnership that includes Michigan Radio, NPR, and KHN. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

As states grapple with the future of abortion in the United States, Michigan, California, and Vermont could become the first states to let voters decide whether the right to abortion should be written into the state constitution.

In Michigan, a proposed constitutional amendment would override a 90-year-old state law that makes abortion a felony even in cases of rape or incest. The U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade could revive that abortion ban – and has galvanized abortion-rights advocates to secure new protections.

Some of the momentum is coming from activists getting involved for the first time.

“I wanted to do something, but I had no political experience or really any experience in activism,” said Amanda Mazur, who lives in rural northwestern Michigan. “But I thought, ‘Maybe I can volunteer and just offer something tangible to the movement.’”

Michigan organizers like Ms. Mazur submitted more than 750,000 signatures – a record number, they said – to state election officials in hopes of having the amendment appear on the November ballot.

If just over half those signatures are validated, Michigan voters will decide whether to amend the state’s constitution to guarantee broad individual rights to “reproductive freedom” that would cover abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments. It would also prevent the state from regulating abortions later in pregnancy if the patient’s “physical or mental health” is at risk.

The ballot initiative has the backing of medical groups like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, while conservative groups have called it radical and dangerous, claiming it would “allow late-term abortions for practically any reason.”

In California, the push to expand abortion access starts from a very different vantage point: The right to abortion is protected in state statute. And voters will be asked whether they want to enshrine it in the constitution. Proposition 1, which will be on the ballot in November, would prohibit the state from interfering with Californians’ reproductive health decisions, including those related to abortion or contraception.

“I want to know for sure that that right is protected,” state Sen. Toni Atkins (D-Calif.), the Democratic leader in the Senate and lead author of the amendment, said at a legislative hearing in June. “We are protecting ourselves from future courts and future politicians.”

The amendment is one strategy that several California lawmakers are pursuing to protect abortion access in the state. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has signed legislation to eliminate out-of-pocket expenses for abortion for most Californians and to protect California providers that offer abortion services from lawsuits in other states. The recent state budget deal also includes $200 million for reproductive and abortion care.

Earlier in July, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, announced that Proposal 5 will be on the November ballot. He said in a statement: “In Vermont, we solidified the right to choose in law, and now Vermonters have the opportunity to further protect that right in our constitution.”

For Ms. Mazur, the desire to “do something” started in 2017, when she and her husband gave their daughter, then 2 years old, some happy news: She was going to be a big sister. The family was thrilled.

But then doctors told Ms. Mazur something was wrong.

“I found out halfway through the pregnancy that the baby my husband and I hoped for suffered from a rare and life-limiting genetic condition,” Ms. Mazur said. “We ultimately made the compassionate choice to end the pregnancy for my well-being, and for the well-being of our family, and the life of what we thought would be our child.”

Devastated, Ms. Mazur turned to a national online support group and met people having similar experiences. But many group members said they were having a tough time finding a way to terminate their pregnancies.

“It really broke my heart that you’re going through this already devastating experience but have to travel far away from your home across the country ... [and] advocate for yourself like crazy just to get care that you have decided with your doctor is best for you,” Ms. Mazur said.

At the time, abortion rights in Michigan seemed pretty stable, but Ms. Mazur’s political awakening found an outlet this year.

Reproductive Freedom for All, a petition group backed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan, was gathering signatures for the constitutional amendment to enshrine abortion protections in state law. The effort took on new urgency in May after a draft of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was leaked and then published.

“Folks realized that this big, scary thing that they did not think would happen might actually happen,” said Jessica Ayoub, a field organizer with the ACLU of Michigan.

Some Michiganders were registering to vote just to be eligible to sign the petition. Jaynie Hoerauf, a 62-year-old attorney in Farwell, drove 40 miles to attend a rally where she knew she could sign it.

“A bunch of us were so ticked off [about Roe being overturned], and we were talking about it. And I was like, ‘I’m just going to go on and find where I can sign the stupid petition,’” Ms. Hoerauf said.

Activists on both sides of the abortion-rights debate expect to spend millions of dollars. They predict that donations will pour in from outside Michigan and that voters in other states will be watching.

“This is just the start of our fight,” Ms. Ayoub said. “We know that it is a long road to November.”

KHN correspondent Rachel Bluth contributed to this report. This story is part of a partnership that includes Michigan Radio, NPR, and KHN. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

As states grapple with the future of abortion in the United States, Michigan, California, and Vermont could become the first states to let voters decide whether the right to abortion should be written into the state constitution.

In Michigan, a proposed constitutional amendment would override a 90-year-old state law that makes abortion a felony even in cases of rape or incest. The U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade could revive that abortion ban – and has galvanized abortion-rights advocates to secure new protections.

Some of the momentum is coming from activists getting involved for the first time.

“I wanted to do something, but I had no political experience or really any experience in activism,” said Amanda Mazur, who lives in rural northwestern Michigan. “But I thought, ‘Maybe I can volunteer and just offer something tangible to the movement.’”

Michigan organizers like Ms. Mazur submitted more than 750,000 signatures – a record number, they said – to state election officials in hopes of having the amendment appear on the November ballot.

If just over half those signatures are validated, Michigan voters will decide whether to amend the state’s constitution to guarantee broad individual rights to “reproductive freedom” that would cover abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments. It would also prevent the state from regulating abortions later in pregnancy if the patient’s “physical or mental health” is at risk.

The ballot initiative has the backing of medical groups like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, while conservative groups have called it radical and dangerous, claiming it would “allow late-term abortions for practically any reason.”

In California, the push to expand abortion access starts from a very different vantage point: The right to abortion is protected in state statute. And voters will be asked whether they want to enshrine it in the constitution. Proposition 1, which will be on the ballot in November, would prohibit the state from interfering with Californians’ reproductive health decisions, including those related to abortion or contraception.

“I want to know for sure that that right is protected,” state Sen. Toni Atkins (D-Calif.), the Democratic leader in the Senate and lead author of the amendment, said at a legislative hearing in June. “We are protecting ourselves from future courts and future politicians.”

The amendment is one strategy that several California lawmakers are pursuing to protect abortion access in the state. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has signed legislation to eliminate out-of-pocket expenses for abortion for most Californians and to protect California providers that offer abortion services from lawsuits in other states. The recent state budget deal also includes $200 million for reproductive and abortion care.

Earlier in July, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, announced that Proposal 5 will be on the November ballot. He said in a statement: “In Vermont, we solidified the right to choose in law, and now Vermonters have the opportunity to further protect that right in our constitution.”

For Ms. Mazur, the desire to “do something” started in 2017, when she and her husband gave their daughter, then 2 years old, some happy news: She was going to be a big sister. The family was thrilled.

But then doctors told Ms. Mazur something was wrong.

“I found out halfway through the pregnancy that the baby my husband and I hoped for suffered from a rare and life-limiting genetic condition,” Ms. Mazur said. “We ultimately made the compassionate choice to end the pregnancy for my well-being, and for the well-being of our family, and the life of what we thought would be our child.”

Devastated, Ms. Mazur turned to a national online support group and met people having similar experiences. But many group members said they were having a tough time finding a way to terminate their pregnancies.

“It really broke my heart that you’re going through this already devastating experience but have to travel far away from your home across the country ... [and] advocate for yourself like crazy just to get care that you have decided with your doctor is best for you,” Ms. Mazur said.

At the time, abortion rights in Michigan seemed pretty stable, but Ms. Mazur’s political awakening found an outlet this year.

Reproductive Freedom for All, a petition group backed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan, was gathering signatures for the constitutional amendment to enshrine abortion protections in state law. The effort took on new urgency in May after a draft of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was leaked and then published.

“Folks realized that this big, scary thing that they did not think would happen might actually happen,” said Jessica Ayoub, a field organizer with the ACLU of Michigan.

Some Michiganders were registering to vote just to be eligible to sign the petition. Jaynie Hoerauf, a 62-year-old attorney in Farwell, drove 40 miles to attend a rally where she knew she could sign it.

“A bunch of us were so ticked off [about Roe being overturned], and we were talking about it. And I was like, ‘I’m just going to go on and find where I can sign the stupid petition,’” Ms. Hoerauf said.

Activists on both sides of the abortion-rights debate expect to spend millions of dollars. They predict that donations will pour in from outside Michigan and that voters in other states will be watching.

“This is just the start of our fight,” Ms. Ayoub said. “We know that it is a long road to November.”

KHN correspondent Rachel Bluth contributed to this report. This story is part of a partnership that includes Michigan Radio, NPR, and KHN. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Pregnant women who get infected with SARS-CoV-2 in their third trimester are almost three times as likely to have a preterm birth, while infection after 34 weeks’ gestation raises this risk sevenfold, based on the largest matched population-based cohort study published to date.

These findings support previous studies, underscoring the need for pregnant women and their families to take preventive measures against infection, lead author Noga Fallach, MA, of the Kahn-Sagol-Maccabi Research and Innovation Center, Tel Aviv, and colleagues reported.

ArtMarie/E+/Getty Images

Past research has suggested that COVID-19 may cause low birth weights and preterm birth in pregnant women, but those studies didn’t report outcomes for each trimester, the investigators wrote in PLoS ONE, noting that “timing of viral infection during fetal development may affect birth and other health outcomes.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators looked back at data from 2,703 pregnant women in Israel who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from Feb. 21, 2020, to July 2, 2021. Pregnancy outcomes in these women were compared with outcomes in an equal number of uninfected pregnant women. Vaccination status was not reported.

Comparing the two groups showed that catching COVID-19 in the third trimester was linked with nearly triple the risk of preterm birth (odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-4.67), and more than quadruple the risk if COVID-19 symptoms were present (OR, 4.28; 95% CI, 1.94-9.41). Women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after 34 weeks’ gestation were seven times more likely than uninfected women to deliver early (OR, 7.10; 95% CI, 2.44-20.61).

Pregnant women who caught COVID-19 in the first two trimesters were not significantly more likely to have a preterm birth. Infection was not associated with abnormally low birth rates, or pregnancy loss, in any trimester.

Tal Patalon, MD, coauthor and head of the Kahn-Sagol-Maccabi Research and Innovation Center, focused on these more optimistic findings in an interview.

“The results are encouraging, and reassuring that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy is not associated with any type of pregnancy loss,” Dr. Patalon said.

She also pointed out that the women in the study were infected with SARS-CoV-2 variants that are no longer common.

“It should be remembered that the research group tested the COVID-19 pre-Delta variants, and does not refer to the dominant variant today, which is Omicron,” Dr. Patalon said.

Still, the investigators concluded that the “results underline the importance of preventive measures taken against SARS-CoV-2 infection among pregnant women and their families.”

Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said that the issue with out-of-date variants in published research has been one of the “real challenges” in studying the ever-evolving COVID-19 pandemic; however, it’s not a good enough reason to dismiss this study.

“I think at this point, we need to assume that it applies to Omicron too,” Dr. Rasmussen said, noting that other respiratory viruses, like influenza, have also been shown to increase the risk of preterm birth when contracted in late pregnancy.

While the present findings highlight the risk of infection in the third trimester, Dr. Rasmussen advised women in all stages of pregnancy to protect themselves against COVID-19, based on the knowledge that illness in a mother can affect normal growth and development in a fetus, even if it doesn’t lead to preterm birth.

“A mom getting sick during pregnancy is not good for the baby,” Dr. Rasmussen said. “The baby’s really dependent on the mom. So you want that baby to have good nutrition throughout the pregnancy. It’s just as important earlier on as later. And you want that baby to get good oxygenation no matter what time [in the pregnancy]. I know that people want a little bit of a break [from preventive measures]. But I would emphasize that if you’re pregnant, we do all sorts of things during pregnancy to make sure that our babies are safe and healthy, and I would continue that for the whole pregnancy.”

Specifically, Dr. Rasmussen advised social distancing, use of an N95 mask, and vaccination. Getting vaccinated during pregnancy helps newborns fight off infection until 6 months of age, she added, when they become eligible for vaccination themselves. This added benefit was recently reported in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine , for which Dr. Rasmussen cowrote an editorial .

“Vaccines have been approved for 6 months and older,” Dr. Rasmussen said. “But what do you do in those first 6 months of life? That’s a high-risk time for kids.”

Despite these risks, convincing pregnant women to get vaccinated remains a key challenge for health care providers, according to Dr. Rasmussen, even with an abundance of safety data. “Early on [in the pandemic], we said we didn’t know a lot about risks. We knew that other vaccines were safe during pregnancy, but we didn’t have a lot of information about a COVID-19 vaccine. But now we have a lot of data on safety during pregnancy, and these vaccines appear to be completely safe, based on the information we have. There have been many, many pregnant women vaccinated in the United States and in other countries.”

For reluctant expecting mothers, Dr. Rasmussen offered some words of advice: “I know that you worry about anything you do when you’re pregnant. But this is something that you can do to help your baby – now, to make a preterm birth less likely, and later, after the baby is born.

“The most important thing is for the pregnant person to hear this [vaccine recommendation] from their doctor,” she added. “If they’re going to listen to anybody, they’re going to listen to their physician. That’s what the data have shown for a long time.”

The investigators and Dr. Rasmussen disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women who get infected with SARS-CoV-2 in their third trimester are almost three times as likely to have a preterm birth, while infection after 34 weeks’ gestation raises this risk sevenfold, based on the largest matched population-based cohort study published to date.

These findings support previous studies, underscoring the need for pregnant women and their families to take preventive measures against infection, lead author Noga Fallach, MA, of the Kahn-Sagol-Maccabi Research and Innovation Center, Tel Aviv, and colleagues reported.

ArtMarie/E+/Getty Images

Past research has suggested that COVID-19 may cause low birth weights and preterm birth in pregnant women, but those studies didn’t report outcomes for each trimester, the investigators wrote in PLoS ONE, noting that “timing of viral infection during fetal development may affect birth and other health outcomes.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators looked back at data from 2,703 pregnant women in Israel who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from Feb. 21, 2020, to July 2, 2021. Pregnancy outcomes in these women were compared with outcomes in an equal number of uninfected pregnant women. Vaccination status was not reported.

Comparing the two groups showed that catching COVID-19 in the third trimester was linked with nearly triple the risk of preterm birth (odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-4.67), and more than quadruple the risk if COVID-19 symptoms were present (OR, 4.28; 95% CI, 1.94-9.41). Women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after 34 weeks’ gestation were seven times more likely than uninfected women to deliver early (OR, 7.10; 95% CI, 2.44-20.61).

Pregnant women who caught COVID-19 in the first two trimesters were not significantly more likely to have a preterm birth. Infection was not associated with abnormally low birth rates, or pregnancy loss, in any trimester.

Tal Patalon, MD, coauthor and head of the Kahn-Sagol-Maccabi Research and Innovation Center, focused on these more optimistic findings in an interview.

“The results are encouraging, and reassuring that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy is not associated with any type of pregnancy loss,” Dr. Patalon said.

She also pointed out that the women in the study were infected with SARS-CoV-2 variants that are no longer common.

“It should be remembered that the research group tested the COVID-19 pre-Delta variants, and does not refer to the dominant variant today, which is Omicron,” Dr. Patalon said.

Still, the investigators concluded that the “results underline the importance of preventive measures taken against SARS-CoV-2 infection among pregnant women and their families.”

Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said that the issue with out-of-date variants in published research has been one of the “real challenges” in studying the ever-evolving COVID-19 pandemic; however, it’s not a good enough reason to dismiss this study.

“I think at this point, we need to assume that it applies to Omicron too,” Dr. Rasmussen said, noting that other respiratory viruses, like influenza, have also been shown to increase the risk of preterm birth when contracted in late pregnancy.

While the present findings highlight the risk of infection in the third trimester, Dr. Rasmussen advised women in all stages of pregnancy to protect themselves against COVID-19, based on the knowledge that illness in a mother can affect normal growth and development in a fetus, even if it doesn’t lead to preterm birth.

“A mom getting sick during pregnancy is not good for the baby,” Dr. Rasmussen said. “The baby’s really dependent on the mom. So you want that baby to have good nutrition throughout the pregnancy. It’s just as important earlier on as later. And you want that baby to get good oxygenation no matter what time [in the pregnancy]. I know that people want a little bit of a break [from preventive measures]. But I would emphasize that if you’re pregnant, we do all sorts of things during pregnancy to make sure that our babies are safe and healthy, and I would continue that for the whole pregnancy.”

Specifically, Dr. Rasmussen advised social distancing, use of an N95 mask, and vaccination. Getting vaccinated during pregnancy helps newborns fight off infection until 6 months of age, she added, when they become eligible for vaccination themselves. This added benefit was recently reported in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine , for which Dr. Rasmussen cowrote an editorial .

“Vaccines have been approved for 6 months and older,” Dr. Rasmussen said. “But what do you do in those first 6 months of life? That’s a high-risk time for kids.”

Despite these risks, convincing pregnant women to get vaccinated remains a key challenge for health care providers, according to Dr. Rasmussen, even with an abundance of safety data. “Early on [in the pandemic], we said we didn’t know a lot about risks. We knew that other vaccines were safe during pregnancy, but we didn’t have a lot of information about a COVID-19 vaccine. But now we have a lot of data on safety during pregnancy, and these vaccines appear to be completely safe, based on the information we have. There have been many, many pregnant women vaccinated in the United States and in other countries.”

For reluctant expecting mothers, Dr. Rasmussen offered some words of advice: “I know that you worry about anything you do when you’re pregnant. But this is something that you can do to help your baby – now, to make a preterm birth less likely, and later, after the baby is born.

“The most important thing is for the pregnant person to hear this [vaccine recommendation] from their doctor,” she added. “If they’re going to listen to anybody, they’re going to listen to their physician. That’s what the data have shown for a long time.”

The investigators and Dr. Rasmussen disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women who get infected with SARS-CoV-2 in their third trimester are almost three times as likely to have a preterm birth, while infection after 34 weeks’ gestation raises this risk sevenfold, based on the largest matched population-based cohort study published to date.

These findings support previous studies, underscoring the need for pregnant women and their families to take preventive measures against infection, lead author Noga Fallach, MA, of the Kahn-Sagol-Maccabi Research and Innovation Center, Tel Aviv, and colleagues reported.

ArtMarie/E+/Getty Images

Past research has suggested that COVID-19 may cause low birth weights and preterm birth in pregnant women, but those studies didn’t report outcomes for each trimester, the investigators wrote in PLoS ONE, noting that “timing of viral infection during fetal development may affect birth and other health outcomes.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators looked back at data from 2,703 pregnant women in Israel who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from Feb. 21, 2020, to July 2, 2021. Pregnancy outcomes in these women were compared with outcomes in an equal number of uninfected pregnant women. Vaccination status was not reported.

Comparing the two groups showed that catching COVID-19 in the third trimester was linked with nearly triple the risk of preterm birth (odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-4.67), and more than quadruple the risk if COVID-19 symptoms were present (OR, 4.28; 95% CI, 1.94-9.41). Women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after 34 weeks’ gestation were seven times more likely than uninfected women to deliver early (OR, 7.10; 95% CI, 2.44-20.61).

Pregnant women who caught COVID-19 in the first two trimesters were not significantly more likely to have a preterm birth. Infection was not associated with abnormally low birth rates, or pregnancy loss, in any trimester.

Tal Patalon, MD, coauthor and head of the Kahn-Sagol-Maccabi Research and Innovation Center, focused on these more optimistic findings in an interview.

“The results are encouraging, and reassuring that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy is not associated with any type of pregnancy loss,” Dr. Patalon said.

She also pointed out that the women in the study were infected with SARS-CoV-2 variants that are no longer common.

“It should be remembered that the research group tested the COVID-19 pre-Delta variants, and does not refer to the dominant variant today, which is Omicron,” Dr. Patalon said.

Still, the investigators concluded that the “results underline the importance of preventive measures taken against SARS-CoV-2 infection among pregnant women and their families.”

Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said that the issue with out-of-date variants in published research has been one of the “real challenges” in studying the ever-evolving COVID-19 pandemic; however, it’s not a good enough reason to dismiss this study.

“I think at this point, we need to assume that it applies to Omicron too,” Dr. Rasmussen said, noting that other respiratory viruses, like influenza, have also been shown to increase the risk of preterm birth when contracted in late pregnancy.

While the present findings highlight the risk of infection in the third trimester, Dr. Rasmussen advised women in all stages of pregnancy to protect themselves against COVID-19, based on the knowledge that illness in a mother can affect normal growth and development in a fetus, even if it doesn’t lead to preterm birth.

“A mom getting sick during pregnancy is not good for the baby,” Dr. Rasmussen said. “The baby’s really dependent on the mom. So you want that baby to have good nutrition throughout the pregnancy. It’s just as important earlier on as later. And you want that baby to get good oxygenation no matter what time [in the pregnancy]. I know that people want a little bit of a break [from preventive measures]. But I would emphasize that if you’re pregnant, we do all sorts of things during pregnancy to make sure that our babies are safe and healthy, and I would continue that for the whole pregnancy.”

Specifically, Dr. Rasmussen advised social distancing, use of an N95 mask, and vaccination. Getting vaccinated during pregnancy helps newborns fight off infection until 6 months of age, she added, when they become eligible for vaccination themselves. This added benefit was recently reported in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine , for which Dr. Rasmussen cowrote an editorial .

“Vaccines have been approved for 6 months and older,” Dr. Rasmussen said. “But what do you do in those first 6 months of life? That’s a high-risk time for kids.”

Despite these risks, convincing pregnant women to get vaccinated remains a key challenge for health care providers, according to Dr. Rasmussen, even with an abundance of safety data. “Early on [in the pandemic], we said we didn’t know a lot about risks. We knew that other vaccines were safe during pregnancy, but we didn’t have a lot of information about a COVID-19 vaccine. But now we have a lot of data on safety during pregnancy, and these vaccines appear to be completely safe, based on the information we have. There have been many, many pregnant women vaccinated in the United States and in other countries.”

For reluctant expecting mothers, Dr. Rasmussen offered some words of advice: “I know that you worry about anything you do when you’re pregnant. But this is something that you can do to help your baby – now, to make a preterm birth less likely, and later, after the baby is born.

“The most important thing is for the pregnant person to hear this [vaccine recommendation] from their doctor,” she added. “If they’re going to listen to anybody, they’re going to listen to their physician. That’s what the data have shown for a long time.”

The investigators and Dr. Rasmussen disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Children whose mothers have polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have increased rates of hospitalization for various conditions, including asthma, pneumonia, and ear infection, a study of more than 1 million children shows.

The associations were not particularly strong, according to the researchers. But they raise questions about the reasons for the increased risk and whether interventions such as diet, exercise, or medications could lead to healthier outcomes for children whose mothers have PCOS.

“The findings suggest that maternal PCOS may have a negative impact on offspring development, enough to lead to a measurable increase in the risk of childhood hospitalization,” study coauthor Nathalie Auger, MD, associate professor of epidemiology at University of Montreal, and colleagues reported in Human Reproduction.

“They are minor differences, just enough that we can statistically identify them. They’re not something where everyone should be worrying at this point,” Dr. Auger told this news organization.

Still, some of the hospitalizations, such as those related to infection or allergy, could be prevented with earlier ambulatory care, so some degree of greater awareness among parents and clinicians may be warranted, she said.
 

Thirteen years of follow-up

PCOS – a reproductive disorder characterized by irregular periods, increased male hormones, and metabolic complications – affects some 10% of women. People with the condition are at increased risk for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Although prior research has shown that maternal PCOS may be associated with higher body mass index and attention deficit disorder in children, data on long-term childhood health outcomes have been limited, Dr. Auger’s group noted.

To examine illness in children exposed to maternal PCOS, the investigators analyzed hospitalization rates for nearly 1.04 million children in Quebec between 2006 and 2020; 7,160 of the children had mothers with PCOS.

In all, 275,354 children were hospitalized during 13 years of follow-up, including 2,314 whose mothers had PCOS.

Children exposed to PCOS were hospitalized at a rate of 68.9 per 1,000 person-years – roughly 50% more often than the rate of 45.3 per 1,000 person-years for children not exposed to maternal PCOS.

In an analysis that adjusted for maternal characteristics, childhood hospitalization for any reason was 1.32 times more likely for children exposed to maternal PCOS.

Hospitalizations linked to infectious diseases – such as for bronchitis, bronchiolitis, pneumonia, nephritis, otitis media, or meningitis – were 1.31 times more likely among children exposed to PCOS. Allergy-related hospitalizations, such as for allergic asthma and anaphylaxis, were 1.47 times more likely, according to the researchers.

Metabolic hospitalizations were 1.59 times more likely. For gastrointestinal hospitalizations, the hazard ratio was 1.72. For central nervous system hospitalizations, it was 1.74.

The associations were stronger in earlier childhood, and results were similar for boys and girls, the investigators reported.

Hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal conditions, or malignancy were not increased.
 

‘Surprising’ links

“The findings are surprising in that some of the conditions that they showed increased risk for, like asthma and some infections, are not conditions that we think of as being typically associated with PCOS,” said Andrea E. Dunaif, MD, chief of the Hilda and J. Lester Gabrilove Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Disease at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not part of the study team.

Earlier studies of offspring of women with PCOS have suggested that children may be at increased risk for insulin resistance and obesity.

Differences in genetics, intrauterine environments, patterns of health care use by women with PCOS, and behavioral factors, such as diet and how children are raised, are variables that could have contributed to the different hospitalization rates among children exposed to maternal PCOS, Dr. Auger said.

“Everything is interconnected,” she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Auger has received a career award from Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé. Dr. Dunaif has consulted for Novo Nordisk and Fractyl Laboratories (now Fractyl Health).

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

Children whose mothers have polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have increased rates of hospitalization for various conditions, including asthma, pneumonia, and ear infection, a study of more than 1 million children shows.

The associations were not particularly strong, according to the researchers. But they raise questions about the reasons for the increased risk and whether interventions such as diet, exercise, or medications could lead to healthier outcomes for children whose mothers have PCOS.

“The findings suggest that maternal PCOS may have a negative impact on offspring development, enough to lead to a measurable increase in the risk of childhood hospitalization,” study coauthor Nathalie Auger, MD, associate professor of epidemiology at University of Montreal, and colleagues reported in Human Reproduction.

“They are minor differences, just enough that we can statistically identify them. They’re not something where everyone should be worrying at this point,” Dr. Auger told this news organization.

Still, some of the hospitalizations, such as those related to infection or allergy, could be prevented with earlier ambulatory care, so some degree of greater awareness among parents and clinicians may be warranted, she said.
 

Thirteen years of follow-up

PCOS – a reproductive disorder characterized by irregular periods, increased male hormones, and metabolic complications – affects some 10% of women. People with the condition are at increased risk for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Although prior research has shown that maternal PCOS may be associated with higher body mass index and attention deficit disorder in children, data on long-term childhood health outcomes have been limited, Dr. Auger’s group noted.

To examine illness in children exposed to maternal PCOS, the investigators analyzed hospitalization rates for nearly 1.04 million children in Quebec between 2006 and 2020; 7,160 of the children had mothers with PCOS.

In all, 275,354 children were hospitalized during 13 years of follow-up, including 2,314 whose mothers had PCOS.

Children exposed to PCOS were hospitalized at a rate of 68.9 per 1,000 person-years – roughly 50% more often than the rate of 45.3 per 1,000 person-years for children not exposed to maternal PCOS.

In an analysis that adjusted for maternal characteristics, childhood hospitalization for any reason was 1.32 times more likely for children exposed to maternal PCOS.

Hospitalizations linked to infectious diseases – such as for bronchitis, bronchiolitis, pneumonia, nephritis, otitis media, or meningitis – were 1.31 times more likely among children exposed to PCOS. Allergy-related hospitalizations, such as for allergic asthma and anaphylaxis, were 1.47 times more likely, according to the researchers.

Metabolic hospitalizations were 1.59 times more likely. For gastrointestinal hospitalizations, the hazard ratio was 1.72. For central nervous system hospitalizations, it was 1.74.

The associations were stronger in earlier childhood, and results were similar for boys and girls, the investigators reported.

Hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal conditions, or malignancy were not increased.
 

‘Surprising’ links

“The findings are surprising in that some of the conditions that they showed increased risk for, like asthma and some infections, are not conditions that we think of as being typically associated with PCOS,” said Andrea E. Dunaif, MD, chief of the Hilda and J. Lester Gabrilove Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Disease at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not part of the study team.

Earlier studies of offspring of women with PCOS have suggested that children may be at increased risk for insulin resistance and obesity.

Differences in genetics, intrauterine environments, patterns of health care use by women with PCOS, and behavioral factors, such as diet and how children are raised, are variables that could have contributed to the different hospitalization rates among children exposed to maternal PCOS, Dr. Auger said.

“Everything is interconnected,” she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Auger has received a career award from Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé. Dr. Dunaif has consulted for Novo Nordisk and Fractyl Laboratories (now Fractyl Health).

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

Children whose mothers have polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have increased rates of hospitalization for various conditions, including asthma, pneumonia, and ear infection, a study of more than 1 million children shows.

The associations were not particularly strong, according to the researchers. But they raise questions about the reasons for the increased risk and whether interventions such as diet, exercise, or medications could lead to healthier outcomes for children whose mothers have PCOS.

“The findings suggest that maternal PCOS may have a negative impact on offspring development, enough to lead to a measurable increase in the risk of childhood hospitalization,” study coauthor Nathalie Auger, MD, associate professor of epidemiology at University of Montreal, and colleagues reported in Human Reproduction.

“They are minor differences, just enough that we can statistically identify them. They’re not something where everyone should be worrying at this point,” Dr. Auger told this news organization.

Still, some of the hospitalizations, such as those related to infection or allergy, could be prevented with earlier ambulatory care, so some degree of greater awareness among parents and clinicians may be warranted, she said.
 

Thirteen years of follow-up

PCOS – a reproductive disorder characterized by irregular periods, increased male hormones, and metabolic complications – affects some 10% of women. People with the condition are at increased risk for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Although prior research has shown that maternal PCOS may be associated with higher body mass index and attention deficit disorder in children, data on long-term childhood health outcomes have been limited, Dr. Auger’s group noted.

To examine illness in children exposed to maternal PCOS, the investigators analyzed hospitalization rates for nearly 1.04 million children in Quebec between 2006 and 2020; 7,160 of the children had mothers with PCOS.

In all, 275,354 children were hospitalized during 13 years of follow-up, including 2,314 whose mothers had PCOS.

Children exposed to PCOS were hospitalized at a rate of 68.9 per 1,000 person-years – roughly 50% more often than the rate of 45.3 per 1,000 person-years for children not exposed to maternal PCOS.

In an analysis that adjusted for maternal characteristics, childhood hospitalization for any reason was 1.32 times more likely for children exposed to maternal PCOS.

Hospitalizations linked to infectious diseases – such as for bronchitis, bronchiolitis, pneumonia, nephritis, otitis media, or meningitis – were 1.31 times more likely among children exposed to PCOS. Allergy-related hospitalizations, such as for allergic asthma and anaphylaxis, were 1.47 times more likely, according to the researchers.

Metabolic hospitalizations were 1.59 times more likely. For gastrointestinal hospitalizations, the hazard ratio was 1.72. For central nervous system hospitalizations, it was 1.74.

The associations were stronger in earlier childhood, and results were similar for boys and girls, the investigators reported.

Hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal conditions, or malignancy were not increased.
 

‘Surprising’ links

“The findings are surprising in that some of the conditions that they showed increased risk for, like asthma and some infections, are not conditions that we think of as being typically associated with PCOS,” said Andrea E. Dunaif, MD, chief of the Hilda and J. Lester Gabrilove Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Disease at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not part of the study team.

Earlier studies of offspring of women with PCOS have suggested that children may be at increased risk for insulin resistance and obesity.

Differences in genetics, intrauterine environments, patterns of health care use by women with PCOS, and behavioral factors, such as diet and how children are raised, are variables that could have contributed to the different hospitalization rates among children exposed to maternal PCOS, Dr. Auger said.

“Everything is interconnected,” she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Auger has received a career award from Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé. Dr. Dunaif has consulted for Novo Nordisk and Fractyl Laboratories (now Fractyl Health).

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

Tragic, embarrassing, criminal ... Choose your own adjective. The maternal mortality rate in this country is the worst of any developed nation in the world. And the numbers are getting worse with an increase of 14% over the previous year. One-third of these deaths occur weeks or months after the delivery.

In a recent issue of Harvard Public Health, researchers at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health discuss some of the possible remedies for what they describe as a crisis. While some of the solutions they list will require major restructuring of how we deliver health care to mothers, others could take advantage of our current systems by employing a slight shift in emphasis. And here is where those of us on the frontline of care delivery can make a difference.

The researchers point out that “More than 90% of maternal deaths could be prevented if women had access to quality care.” They also observe that most mothers have a single postpartum check with the ob.gyn. facility that delivered the baby and then are often left to navigate the health system because transfer to their primary care and/or mental health professional is haphazard or lacking in follow-up.

As I read through the article it struck me that as pediatricians we could and should be playing a larger role in this critical postpartum period when so many women seem to be falling through the cracks in our health care nonsystem. This is not a great “Ah-ha” moment for which I deserve any credit. In 2010 the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that mothers be screened for depression at the 1-, 2-, and 4-month visits using either a validated 10-question screening instrument or a more direct 2-question tool (Pediatrics 2010;126[5]:1032-9). However, a periodic survey of AAP members 3 years later revealed that less than a third of the respondents were screening regularly for postpartum depression. In 2019 the academy reemphasized the important role that pediatric primary care givers can play in the detection and early management of the condition.

The reasons for the disappointing response include the list of usual suspects of inadequate training, workload demands, reimbursement, liability concerns, and the difficulty in finding and establishing effective referral networks. Unfortunately, these factors continue to exist, and many cases have multiplied in the wake of the pandemic.

In some states, educational outreach, funding, and changes in the reimbursement structure have resulted in improved outcomes. Not all of us are fortunate enough to live in a state that has made postpartum depression detection and management a priority. However, simply making it our own professional priority can save lives, ease suffering, and improve postpartum outcomes. Here I am talking about first caring and then inquiring about a mother’s mental health. Asking how much sleep she is getting. And then spending the time to give personalized advice on feeding and sleep schedules. Even, if this means ignoring half of the topics on the recommended health maintenance. It doesn’t take but a few minutes to convince yourself that the baby is healthy, and you know that 90% of them are.

However, a new mother who is sleep deprived and already has one foot on the spiral staircase down into postpartum depression represents an emergency. And, you should have the skills to turn it around. But, you have to care about the problem and make it your own priority – high enough on the list to make a follow-up appointment or call in a week instead of waiting a month or 2 until the next visit.

Unfortunately, even with your best efforts there are some families who need services beyond the scope of your practice. Making the necessary referrals can be frustrating and time consuming but not dropping ball until it lands in the appropriate place may save a life.
 

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

Tragic, embarrassing, criminal ... Choose your own adjective. The maternal mortality rate in this country is the worst of any developed nation in the world. And the numbers are getting worse with an increase of 14% over the previous year. One-third of these deaths occur weeks or months after the delivery.

In a recent issue of Harvard Public Health, researchers at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health discuss some of the possible remedies for what they describe as a crisis. While some of the solutions they list will require major restructuring of how we deliver health care to mothers, others could take advantage of our current systems by employing a slight shift in emphasis. And here is where those of us on the frontline of care delivery can make a difference.

The researchers point out that “More than 90% of maternal deaths could be prevented if women had access to quality care.” They also observe that most mothers have a single postpartum check with the ob.gyn. facility that delivered the baby and then are often left to navigate the health system because transfer to their primary care and/or mental health professional is haphazard or lacking in follow-up.

As I read through the article it struck me that as pediatricians we could and should be playing a larger role in this critical postpartum period when so many women seem to be falling through the cracks in our health care nonsystem. This is not a great “Ah-ha” moment for which I deserve any credit. In 2010 the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that mothers be screened for depression at the 1-, 2-, and 4-month visits using either a validated 10-question screening instrument or a more direct 2-question tool (Pediatrics 2010;126[5]:1032-9). However, a periodic survey of AAP members 3 years later revealed that less than a third of the respondents were screening regularly for postpartum depression. In 2019 the academy reemphasized the important role that pediatric primary care givers can play in the detection and early management of the condition.

The reasons for the disappointing response include the list of usual suspects of inadequate training, workload demands, reimbursement, liability concerns, and the difficulty in finding and establishing effective referral networks. Unfortunately, these factors continue to exist, and many cases have multiplied in the wake of the pandemic.

In some states, educational outreach, funding, and changes in the reimbursement structure have resulted in improved outcomes. Not all of us are fortunate enough to live in a state that has made postpartum depression detection and management a priority. However, simply making it our own professional priority can save lives, ease suffering, and improve postpartum outcomes. Here I am talking about first caring and then inquiring about a mother’s mental health. Asking how much sleep she is getting. And then spending the time to give personalized advice on feeding and sleep schedules. Even, if this means ignoring half of the topics on the recommended health maintenance. It doesn’t take but a few minutes to convince yourself that the baby is healthy, and you know that 90% of them are.

However, a new mother who is sleep deprived and already has one foot on the spiral staircase down into postpartum depression represents an emergency. And, you should have the skills to turn it around. But, you have to care about the problem and make it your own priority – high enough on the list to make a follow-up appointment or call in a week instead of waiting a month or 2 until the next visit.

Unfortunately, even with your best efforts there are some families who need services beyond the scope of your practice. Making the necessary referrals can be frustrating and time consuming but not dropping ball until it lands in the appropriate place may save a life.
 

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

Tragic, embarrassing, criminal ... Choose your own adjective. The maternal mortality rate in this country is the worst of any developed nation in the world. And the numbers are getting worse with an increase of 14% over the previous year. One-third of these deaths occur weeks or months after the delivery.

In a recent issue of Harvard Public Health, researchers at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health discuss some of the possible remedies for what they describe as a crisis. While some of the solutions they list will require major restructuring of how we deliver health care to mothers, others could take advantage of our current systems by employing a slight shift in emphasis. And here is where those of us on the frontline of care delivery can make a difference.

The researchers point out that “More than 90% of maternal deaths could be prevented if women had access to quality care.” They also observe that most mothers have a single postpartum check with the ob.gyn. facility that delivered the baby and then are often left to navigate the health system because transfer to their primary care and/or mental health professional is haphazard or lacking in follow-up.

As I read through the article it struck me that as pediatricians we could and should be playing a larger role in this critical postpartum period when so many women seem to be falling through the cracks in our health care nonsystem. This is not a great “Ah-ha” moment for which I deserve any credit. In 2010 the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that mothers be screened for depression at the 1-, 2-, and 4-month visits using either a validated 10-question screening instrument or a more direct 2-question tool (Pediatrics 2010;126[5]:1032-9). However, a periodic survey of AAP members 3 years later revealed that less than a third of the respondents were screening regularly for postpartum depression. In 2019 the academy reemphasized the important role that pediatric primary care givers can play in the detection and early management of the condition.

The reasons for the disappointing response include the list of usual suspects of inadequate training, workload demands, reimbursement, liability concerns, and the difficulty in finding and establishing effective referral networks. Unfortunately, these factors continue to exist, and many cases have multiplied in the wake of the pandemic.

In some states, educational outreach, funding, and changes in the reimbursement structure have resulted in improved outcomes. Not all of us are fortunate enough to live in a state that has made postpartum depression detection and management a priority. However, simply making it our own professional priority can save lives, ease suffering, and improve postpartum outcomes. Here I am talking about first caring and then inquiring about a mother’s mental health. Asking how much sleep she is getting. And then spending the time to give personalized advice on feeding and sleep schedules. Even, if this means ignoring half of the topics on the recommended health maintenance. It doesn’t take but a few minutes to convince yourself that the baby is healthy, and you know that 90% of them are.

However, a new mother who is sleep deprived and already has one foot on the spiral staircase down into postpartum depression represents an emergency. And, you should have the skills to turn it around. But, you have to care about the problem and make it your own priority – high enough on the list to make a follow-up appointment or call in a week instead of waiting a month or 2 until the next visit.

Unfortunately, even with your best efforts there are some families who need services beyond the scope of your practice. Making the necessary referrals can be frustrating and time consuming but not dropping ball until it lands in the appropriate place may save a life.
 

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