Women's Health

A small, and likely decreasing, number of health care providers in the United States perform abortions, and there is a risk that the count will be shrinking in the face of legislative attacks on the service, researchers have found.

Until now, producing an accurate count of abortion service providers in the United States has been difficult, leaving researchers to rely on indirect assessments of abortion clinics rather than counts of physicians who perform the procedure.

But the authors of a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine have come up with a number: Roughly 3,550 clinicians provide procedural and medication abortions, while 22,001 manage pregnancy loss with the same procedures and medications. More than half of all abortions in the United States now are achieved by medication.

The small number of providers is a cause for concern as a growing number of states move to restrict access to abortions, experts say.

“Abortions are only available if clinicians provide them,” said Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, senior research scientist at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the research. “This study finds that a variety of clinician types provide abortion care. But the number of abortion providers is low, and increasing restrictions will only make this worse.”

For their census, Dr. Strasser and her colleagues evaluated medical claims covering a full year from a private data company. They focused on two sets of services: medications (misoprostol and mifepristone) used in abortion care and pregnancy loss and procedures such as dilation and curettage and dilation and evacuation. Services were categorized as induced abortion or management by pregnancy loss on the basis of medical coding.

The researchers found that there were 3,550 abortion providers and 22,001 clinicians who managed pregnancy loss. Of those who induced abortions, 88% were physicians and 12% were advanced practice clinicians.

The clinicians who most frequently provided induced abortions were ob/gyns (72%), followed by family physicians (9%), advanced practice registered nurses (8%), and nurse midwives (3%). Several other specialists performed about 1% of abortions each.

Dr. Strasser said that 3,550 is an undercount because many providers do offer abortions but cannot or do not bill for them. Even so, the number likely will fall because fewer medical students are being trained for abortion procedures, according to Kaiser Health News.

Despite recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for standardized training on abortion care during medical residency, the number of programs that prohibit that training has surged in recent years, the report notes.
 

Restrictions looming

Compounding the problem, the researchers say, is the recent spate of state-level legislation regarding access to abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule soon on a Mississippi law banning all abortions over 15 weeks’ gestational age, except in medical emergencies and in the case of severe fetal abnormalities.

Last May, Texas passed a law outlawing termination of pregnancy after 6 weeks of gestation – before many women know they’re pregnant. The law created a bounty system that permits essentially anyone in the United States to sue a woman in the state who seeks an abortion outside the law or anyone who assists her – including health care professionals. The Supreme Court in December refused to overturn the law – which reportedly has triggered a surge in women seeking abortion services in neighboring Oklahoma.

The legal environment is greatly increasing the risk that more clinicians will drop out of the workforce, Dr. Strasser told this news organization.

“As this happens, abortion care will undoubtedly become harder to access, especially for vulnerable populations,” she said. “Patients will have to travel farther, pay more money, or forgo necessary care.”

Another major variable is insurance coverage, the researchers found. Abortion coverage is highly restricted under private insurance and Medicaid, they note. Beyond increasingly restrictive payment issues, policies seen as punitive toward clinicians may cause many to stop offering medication and procedural services, Dr. Strasser said.

“The national political climate will likely see more barriers and less access to care in the coming months and years,” she told this news organization. “However, some states are taking concrete steps to protect abortion access for their residents and for others out of state. In supportive environments like these, enhanced training, expanded scope of practice, and improved reimbursement policies can increase access.”

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Kaiser Health News reported, 26 states would likely ban abortion, triggering a flood of patients to states where the procedure remains more widely available.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, states that have expanded access are Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Another 12 states offer protected access, in which abortion is likely to remain legal even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, since in many of them, abortion is protected under their state constitutions.
 

Pivot to telehealth?

Another study, published in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, evaluated health outcomes for 3,779 women. That study found that eligibility screening for medical abortions by history alone, without pelvic examination or ultrasonography, was safe and effective. That study found that medications were either dispensed in person or through the mail.

Taken together, the two studies suggest that more abortion services may shift toward telehealth, which could expand the number of health care professionals performing such services. Providers could include nurse practitioners, midwives, and physician assistants, said Melissa Grant, chief operating officer of carafem, a reproductive health and abortion service provider.

The service, which has offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Nashville, and Washington, D.C., has found that many patients prefer online appointments, especially if they live in rural areas, Ms. Grant said. The pandemic created a push toward online services.

“Even before the current breadth of restrictive legislation, we were seeing in increase because of COVID,” she said. “Most likely, abortion providers will continue to be pushed out of the profession, so having an option that’s widely available no matter where you live is essential. The United States is moving toward a system where the ZIP code you live in will foretell what care you get. That’s chilling.”

Those who currently provide abortion care have two advantages over what was available previously, Ms. Grant said. First, medical abortion is much more common, and data show that it is safe and effective for most pregnant people, as long as they undergo a health screening. Second, the boom in telehealth during the pandemic means providers are much more experienced in this type of service than before.

As more services such as carafem crop up, costs will drop, since a telehealth clinic – even one that uses health care professionals – has fewer expenses, such as for rent and equipment, than a physical facility.

“Because of the stigma around abortion, this is not likely to prompt a big rush of start-ups, but I do think we’re going to see a shake-up in the way services are being offered, and both patients and providers will likely turn toward technology,” Ms. Grant said. “An environment like this will require flexibility, innovation, and some real grit. We may take some time to get there, but it’s possible this moment is a pivot point in how abortion care is provided.”

Some of the researchers received grants from the Susan T. Buffett Foundation.

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

A small, and likely decreasing, number of health care providers in the United States perform abortions, and there is a risk that the count will be shrinking in the face of legislative attacks on the service, researchers have found.

Until now, producing an accurate count of abortion service providers in the United States has been difficult, leaving researchers to rely on indirect assessments of abortion clinics rather than counts of physicians who perform the procedure.

But the authors of a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine have come up with a number: Roughly 3,550 clinicians provide procedural and medication abortions, while 22,001 manage pregnancy loss with the same procedures and medications. More than half of all abortions in the United States now are achieved by medication.

The small number of providers is a cause for concern as a growing number of states move to restrict access to abortions, experts say.

“Abortions are only available if clinicians provide them,” said Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, senior research scientist at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the research. “This study finds that a variety of clinician types provide abortion care. But the number of abortion providers is low, and increasing restrictions will only make this worse.”

For their census, Dr. Strasser and her colleagues evaluated medical claims covering a full year from a private data company. They focused on two sets of services: medications (misoprostol and mifepristone) used in abortion care and pregnancy loss and procedures such as dilation and curettage and dilation and evacuation. Services were categorized as induced abortion or management by pregnancy loss on the basis of medical coding.

The researchers found that there were 3,550 abortion providers and 22,001 clinicians who managed pregnancy loss. Of those who induced abortions, 88% were physicians and 12% were advanced practice clinicians.

The clinicians who most frequently provided induced abortions were ob/gyns (72%), followed by family physicians (9%), advanced practice registered nurses (8%), and nurse midwives (3%). Several other specialists performed about 1% of abortions each.

Dr. Strasser said that 3,550 is an undercount because many providers do offer abortions but cannot or do not bill for them. Even so, the number likely will fall because fewer medical students are being trained for abortion procedures, according to Kaiser Health News.

Despite recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for standardized training on abortion care during medical residency, the number of programs that prohibit that training has surged in recent years, the report notes.
 

Restrictions looming

Compounding the problem, the researchers say, is the recent spate of state-level legislation regarding access to abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule soon on a Mississippi law banning all abortions over 15 weeks’ gestational age, except in medical emergencies and in the case of severe fetal abnormalities.

Last May, Texas passed a law outlawing termination of pregnancy after 6 weeks of gestation – before many women know they’re pregnant. The law created a bounty system that permits essentially anyone in the United States to sue a woman in the state who seeks an abortion outside the law or anyone who assists her – including health care professionals. The Supreme Court in December refused to overturn the law – which reportedly has triggered a surge in women seeking abortion services in neighboring Oklahoma.

The legal environment is greatly increasing the risk that more clinicians will drop out of the workforce, Dr. Strasser told this news organization.

“As this happens, abortion care will undoubtedly become harder to access, especially for vulnerable populations,” she said. “Patients will have to travel farther, pay more money, or forgo necessary care.”

Another major variable is insurance coverage, the researchers found. Abortion coverage is highly restricted under private insurance and Medicaid, they note. Beyond increasingly restrictive payment issues, policies seen as punitive toward clinicians may cause many to stop offering medication and procedural services, Dr. Strasser said.

“The national political climate will likely see more barriers and less access to care in the coming months and years,” she told this news organization. “However, some states are taking concrete steps to protect abortion access for their residents and for others out of state. In supportive environments like these, enhanced training, expanded scope of practice, and improved reimbursement policies can increase access.”

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Kaiser Health News reported, 26 states would likely ban abortion, triggering a flood of patients to states where the procedure remains more widely available.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, states that have expanded access are Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Another 12 states offer protected access, in which abortion is likely to remain legal even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, since in many of them, abortion is protected under their state constitutions.
 

Pivot to telehealth?

Another study, published in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, evaluated health outcomes for 3,779 women. That study found that eligibility screening for medical abortions by history alone, without pelvic examination or ultrasonography, was safe and effective. That study found that medications were either dispensed in person or through the mail.

Taken together, the two studies suggest that more abortion services may shift toward telehealth, which could expand the number of health care professionals performing such services. Providers could include nurse practitioners, midwives, and physician assistants, said Melissa Grant, chief operating officer of carafem, a reproductive health and abortion service provider.

The service, which has offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Nashville, and Washington, D.C., has found that many patients prefer online appointments, especially if they live in rural areas, Ms. Grant said. The pandemic created a push toward online services.

“Even before the current breadth of restrictive legislation, we were seeing in increase because of COVID,” she said. “Most likely, abortion providers will continue to be pushed out of the profession, so having an option that’s widely available no matter where you live is essential. The United States is moving toward a system where the ZIP code you live in will foretell what care you get. That’s chilling.”

Those who currently provide abortion care have two advantages over what was available previously, Ms. Grant said. First, medical abortion is much more common, and data show that it is safe and effective for most pregnant people, as long as they undergo a health screening. Second, the boom in telehealth during the pandemic means providers are much more experienced in this type of service than before.

As more services such as carafem crop up, costs will drop, since a telehealth clinic – even one that uses health care professionals – has fewer expenses, such as for rent and equipment, than a physical facility.

“Because of the stigma around abortion, this is not likely to prompt a big rush of start-ups, but I do think we’re going to see a shake-up in the way services are being offered, and both patients and providers will likely turn toward technology,” Ms. Grant said. “An environment like this will require flexibility, innovation, and some real grit. We may take some time to get there, but it’s possible this moment is a pivot point in how abortion care is provided.”

Some of the researchers received grants from the Susan T. Buffett Foundation.

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

A small, and likely decreasing, number of health care providers in the United States perform abortions, and there is a risk that the count will be shrinking in the face of legislative attacks on the service, researchers have found.

Until now, producing an accurate count of abortion service providers in the United States has been difficult, leaving researchers to rely on indirect assessments of abortion clinics rather than counts of physicians who perform the procedure.

But the authors of a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine have come up with a number: Roughly 3,550 clinicians provide procedural and medication abortions, while 22,001 manage pregnancy loss with the same procedures and medications. More than half of all abortions in the United States now are achieved by medication.

The small number of providers is a cause for concern as a growing number of states move to restrict access to abortions, experts say.

“Abortions are only available if clinicians provide them,” said Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, senior research scientist at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the research. “This study finds that a variety of clinician types provide abortion care. But the number of abortion providers is low, and increasing restrictions will only make this worse.”

For their census, Dr. Strasser and her colleagues evaluated medical claims covering a full year from a private data company. They focused on two sets of services: medications (misoprostol and mifepristone) used in abortion care and pregnancy loss and procedures such as dilation and curettage and dilation and evacuation. Services were categorized as induced abortion or management by pregnancy loss on the basis of medical coding.

The researchers found that there were 3,550 abortion providers and 22,001 clinicians who managed pregnancy loss. Of those who induced abortions, 88% were physicians and 12% were advanced practice clinicians.

The clinicians who most frequently provided induced abortions were ob/gyns (72%), followed by family physicians (9%), advanced practice registered nurses (8%), and nurse midwives (3%). Several other specialists performed about 1% of abortions each.

Dr. Strasser said that 3,550 is an undercount because many providers do offer abortions but cannot or do not bill for them. Even so, the number likely will fall because fewer medical students are being trained for abortion procedures, according to Kaiser Health News.

Despite recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for standardized training on abortion care during medical residency, the number of programs that prohibit that training has surged in recent years, the report notes.
 

Restrictions looming

Compounding the problem, the researchers say, is the recent spate of state-level legislation regarding access to abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule soon on a Mississippi law banning all abortions over 15 weeks’ gestational age, except in medical emergencies and in the case of severe fetal abnormalities.

Last May, Texas passed a law outlawing termination of pregnancy after 6 weeks of gestation – before many women know they’re pregnant. The law created a bounty system that permits essentially anyone in the United States to sue a woman in the state who seeks an abortion outside the law or anyone who assists her – including health care professionals. The Supreme Court in December refused to overturn the law – which reportedly has triggered a surge in women seeking abortion services in neighboring Oklahoma.

The legal environment is greatly increasing the risk that more clinicians will drop out of the workforce, Dr. Strasser told this news organization.

“As this happens, abortion care will undoubtedly become harder to access, especially for vulnerable populations,” she said. “Patients will have to travel farther, pay more money, or forgo necessary care.”

Another major variable is insurance coverage, the researchers found. Abortion coverage is highly restricted under private insurance and Medicaid, they note. Beyond increasingly restrictive payment issues, policies seen as punitive toward clinicians may cause many to stop offering medication and procedural services, Dr. Strasser said.

“The national political climate will likely see more barriers and less access to care in the coming months and years,” she told this news organization. “However, some states are taking concrete steps to protect abortion access for their residents and for others out of state. In supportive environments like these, enhanced training, expanded scope of practice, and improved reimbursement policies can increase access.”

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Kaiser Health News reported, 26 states would likely ban abortion, triggering a flood of patients to states where the procedure remains more widely available.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, states that have expanded access are Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Another 12 states offer protected access, in which abortion is likely to remain legal even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, since in many of them, abortion is protected under their state constitutions.
 

Pivot to telehealth?

Another study, published in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, evaluated health outcomes for 3,779 women. That study found that eligibility screening for medical abortions by history alone, without pelvic examination or ultrasonography, was safe and effective. That study found that medications were either dispensed in person or through the mail.

Taken together, the two studies suggest that more abortion services may shift toward telehealth, which could expand the number of health care professionals performing such services. Providers could include nurse practitioners, midwives, and physician assistants, said Melissa Grant, chief operating officer of carafem, a reproductive health and abortion service provider.

The service, which has offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Nashville, and Washington, D.C., has found that many patients prefer online appointments, especially if they live in rural areas, Ms. Grant said. The pandemic created a push toward online services.

“Even before the current breadth of restrictive legislation, we were seeing in increase because of COVID,” she said. “Most likely, abortion providers will continue to be pushed out of the profession, so having an option that’s widely available no matter where you live is essential. The United States is moving toward a system where the ZIP code you live in will foretell what care you get. That’s chilling.”

Those who currently provide abortion care have two advantages over what was available previously, Ms. Grant said. First, medical abortion is much more common, and data show that it is safe and effective for most pregnant people, as long as they undergo a health screening. Second, the boom in telehealth during the pandemic means providers are much more experienced in this type of service than before.

As more services such as carafem crop up, costs will drop, since a telehealth clinic – even one that uses health care professionals – has fewer expenses, such as for rent and equipment, than a physical facility.

“Because of the stigma around abortion, this is not likely to prompt a big rush of start-ups, but I do think we’re going to see a shake-up in the way services are being offered, and both patients and providers will likely turn toward technology,” Ms. Grant said. “An environment like this will require flexibility, innovation, and some real grit. We may take some time to get there, but it’s possible this moment is a pivot point in how abortion care is provided.”

Some of the researchers received grants from the Susan T. Buffett Foundation.

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

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at fpnews@mdedge.com.

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at fpnews@mdedge.com.

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Note: In this article, “women” refers to ciswomen – those who identify as women and were assigned female sex at birth. Menopause also affects transmen and nonbinary people, but published research on the menopause experience has included only ciswomen participants.

Gina Brown was boarding an early morning flight in 2016 when suddenly she started to overheat. “As soon as I stepped on the plane, I immediately was drenched in sweat,” she said. Not knowing what to do, she stood still until a fellow female passenger noticed her alarm and asked a flight attendant to grab her a cup of ice. “Is this the first time this has happened to you?” the woman asked, and Ms. Brown nodded. “It’s called a hot flash,” the woman continued, “and you’re going to be okay.”

As soon as Ms. Brown returned from her trip, she visited her doctor for blood work and learned that her hormone levels were decreasing. “I knew something was going on, but [my provider and I] didn’t have a conversation about menopause,” she said. Ms. Brown, who is 56 years old, has been living with HIV for nearly 28 years, and is part of a growing group of women with HIV now entering menopause.

In 1996, a person diagnosed with HIV at 20 years of age could expect to live only to age 39. Because of antiretroviral therapy (ART), an HIV diagnosis is not nearly so dire. Now, someone with HIV who adheres to the ART regimen is estimated to have a lifespan close to that of the general population.

For women with HIV, this means going through menopause. Though this transition can be challenging for any woman, experiencing menopause with HIV adds another level of complication. On top of adhering to daily ART regimens, the woman must also deal with the hormonal changes of menopause and the symptoms that come with it. And the limited research in this area suggests that women with HIV and their clinicians may not be prepared.

“Those of us long-term survivors who have been around for a while never expected to be here, and I don’t think providers or the health care system expected us to be here,” said Vickie A. Lynn, PhD, 56, who has been living with HIV for 37 years and received an AIDS diagnosis in 1991. Her work focuses on health care interventions for people with HIV. “So now that we’re here, I don’t know that we have enough information or research to inform some of our treatment options.” Instead, these women are met with a series of unknowns due to limited studies and conflicting findings.
 

Earlier menopause?

The onset of menopause can be difficult to determine in women living with HIV, said Sara Looby, PhD, ANP-BC, a researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Her research focuses on metabolic disorders, including bone loss, cardiovascular disease risk, and menopause in women living with HIV. This population is at an increased risk for amenorrhea, due to both behavioral and clinical factors, and sometimes this amenorrhea is mistakenly assumed to be menopause, she explained. A history of smoking, low weight, methadone use, or use of other psychotropic medications are common in women with HIV and can lead to missed periods. Some factors specific to HIV – including a low CD4 count and a history of an AIDS diagnosis – have also been linked to amenorrhea.

This is likely why research studies on the age of onset of menopause with women with HIV can reach conflicting conclusions. Some studies suggest that women with HIV tend to go through menopause 3-5 years earlier than women without HIV. Other studies suggest no difference in the age of onset in menopause between women living with and without HIV. But how menopause status has been accessed can vary from study to study, Dr. Looby said. Future research needs to consider participants’ complete menstrual and reproductive history, as well as relevant medical, social, and behavioral factors, she added, so that the findings are reliably capturing the age of onset of menopause rather than amenorrhea from other causes.

If menopause does occur earlier in women with HIV, there could be additional health implications. Estrogen regulates bone mass, and some research suggests the hormone may be cardioprotective. Estrogen is also thought to increase production of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which could affect mood and cognition. Women with HIV are already at higher risk for bone loss, cardiovascular disease, and depressed mood compared to women without HIV, Dr. Looby said, and as estrogen levels fall during menopause, these conditions may be deleteriously affected.

“If it is determined that women with HIV experience menopause at an earlier age, maybe early to mid-40s instead of 51 and older, they may be at increased risk for cardiovascular and bone conditions as well as mood symptoms associated with estrogen loss at an earlier age than women without HIV, which could be highly detrimental to their physical and mental health,” Dr. Looby said.
 

More frequent and severe menopausal symptoms?

Women with HIV may not only go through menopause earlier than women without HIV, but their symptoms may also be more frequent and more severe. In a 2017 study of both HIV-positive and HIV-negative Nigerian women, participants with HIV had more menopause symptoms overall and were three times as likely to report severe symptoms compared to women without HIV. A 2005 study conducted in New York found HIV-positive women were 24% more likely to report menopause symptoms compared to HIV-negative women in the study.

Looby’s own research has also found a similar pattern. In a study comparing 33 women with HIV to 33 women without HIV – all were close to menopause and matched for age, race, body mass index, and menstrual patterns – women with HIV reported more severe hot flashes and more days with hot flashes. These women also reported that their hot flashes interfered to a much greater degree with daily activities and quality of life compared to participants without HIV.

But studies of women with HIV who are entering menopause are rare, and most include only small numbers of women. As a result, many women with HIV do not know what to expect entering menopause. “I always say, I wish somebody would do some real research on HIV and menopause, because I want to know if it is worse for us or if it is the same,” said Ms. Brown, who works as the director of strategic partnership and community engagement at the Southern Aids Coalition in Powder Springs, Ga. “I would think it’s worse for me.”

More frequent and severe symptoms can have downstream effects, with some evidence suggesting that women with HIV who experience severe menopause symptoms are less likely to stick to their ART regimen. “There’s a clear picture emerging that menopausal symptoms in this group really matter,” said Shema Tariq, PhD, FRCP, an HIV physician-scientist at the University College London Institute for Global Health in England. “They really impact women’s well-being, as well as impacting their ability to look after their long-term condition.”
 

Providers wary of treating menopause symptoms in women with HIV

The little research we do have about women with HIV experiencing menopause suggests that this population could greatly benefit from treatment prescribed in women without HIV for menopause symptoms and conditions, including hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Women with HIV regularly experience night sweats and hot flashes during the menopause transition and may have more severe symptoms than women not living with the virus. If women with HIV also frequently enter early menopause (entering menopause before the age of 45), then this group meets two indications for hormone replacement therapy.

Despite the potential benefits of HRT in this population, some studies suggest this intervention is underutilized. In Dr. Tariq’s Positive Transitions through Menopause (PRIME) study, which explores how menopause affects more than 800 women living with HIV, only 8% of respondents reported using HRT. In a Canadian study that has not yet gone through peer review, 11.8% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women reported ever using HRT, about half the rate of women in North America without HIV.

Provider discomfort with managing menopause-related care in women with HIV is one reason for such low HRT use in this population, Dr. Tariq said. In a survey of 88 general practitioners in the United Kingdom, nearly all (> 95%) respondents said they were comfortable managing menopause in a general population, but just 46% said they felt comfortable managing menopause in women with HIV. Their top concerns included the potential for drug-to-drug interactions between ART and HRT, missing an HIV-related diagnosis, and risks of menopausal hormone therapy in HIV. Nearly half of respondents (46%) said only specialists should be providing menopause-related care for women with HIV.

But specialists may also feel conflicted about managing menopause-related care in women with HIV, said Dr. Tariq. “If you’re looking at people who manage HIV, you’re looking primarily at infectious disease physicians and HIV physicians. We’re not trained as gynecologists. We’re not used to prescribing HRT,” she said. “And the problem is gynecologists aren’t used to managing HIV. They get nervous about prescribing anything when they see antiretroviral medication because all that people think of is a drug-drug interaction.”

This leaves women with HIV seeking care and treatment for menopause in a difficult situation, where they are “just being ping-ponged around between different health care providers,” said Susan Cole-Haley, 53, an HIV-activist in London who has been living with the virus for 23 years. “So many women with HIV have multiple health conditions and multiple health care providers, which can just make it really problematic and really exhausting in terms of getting help.”
 

Many unknowns

Providers may also be uncomfortable with prescribing hormone therapy because of alarming research in the early 2000s, which found that hormone replacement therapy increased the risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. Later analyses have found no increased cardiovascular disease risk in women who were younger than 60 or were less than 10 years beyond the onset of menopause. Still, the “media frenzy” around the initial findings “has put off a whole load of patients and a whole load of clinicians from even thinking of HRT,” Dr. Tariq said.

Providers may be even more hesitant because people with HIV already have a higher risk for heart disease, due to behaviors such as smoking and HIV-specific factors. (Research has yet to tease out whether these cardiovascular effects are a result of the virus, a result of the antiretroviral therapy, or a result of both factors.) In addition, there have been no prospective studies looking directly at the efficacy and safety of hormone replacement therapy in women with HIV, so providers generally rely on the guidelines for the use of menopausal hormone therapy for women without HIV. While researchers from Canada and the United Kingdom have compiled recommendations for HRT in women with HIV, there is great need for a large-scale clinical trial to establish consistent guidelines for the use of HRT for women with HIV globally, Dr. Looby said.

There are also hormonal preparations and drug-to-drug interactions to consider, though none of the interactions identified so far rise to the level of contraindications. Because of how the liver metabolizes ART and HRT, hormone doses may need to be adjusted, or perhaps administered transdermally via a patch versus a pill form. (Estrogen delivered via skin patch may have reduced cardiovascular disease risk compared to other methods of delivery, some studies in women without HIV suggest.) These expected interactions are based on data from contraceptives, noted Elizabeth King, MD, whose research at the Women’s Health Research Institute at BC Women’s Hospital in Vancouver, B.C., focuses on menopause and HIV. Studies have not been done on drug-drug interactions between ART and HRT specifically, she said, and formulations for HRT are a bit different from contraceptives.

While these unknowns do need to be discussed in shared decision-making around starting HRT in women with HIV, they should not dissuade providers from considering the treatment, Dr. King said. “If women are having extremely troublesome symptoms, then withholding therapy that is potentially beneficial because of worries about some of the things we do not know – I don’t know if that is any better,” she said.

Many women with HIV may not want to start HRT – as was the case for Dr. Lynn. “I’ve taken a lot of medication in my time, and I really try to avoid it as much as possible,” she said. Uncertainties around drug interactions were the main concern for Dawn Averitt, 53, founder of the Well Project, an HIV nonprofit focused on women and girls. Ms. Averitt has lived with HIV for 34 years. “What if some of the things that I’m dealing with could be managed by HRT?” she said. “Or what if taking it exacerbates problems in a way that nobody knows to look for?” In this case, providers may work with patients to discuss nonhormonal treatment options for menopause symptom management.

While some women with HIV may not want HRT, “It’s important that women have that option, and from what we are seeing right now, not a lot of women are even being offered the therapy,” Dr. King said.

There are other nonhormonal treatments available for managing menopause symptoms, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as well as nonmedicinal interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy, but these also have not been studied specifically in women with HIV.
 

The path forward

Dr. Tariq and Dr. Looby agreed the next step in expanding our knowledge around HIV and menopause should be to better engage women with HIV in research and clinical care around their experience with menopause. This includes studies on the symptoms they regularly experience and how these symptoms affect their quality of life, including their physical, psychological, cognitive, and social health. These studies could also help researchers and clinicians understand what these women with HIV want for their menopause care, whether that be medication, psychotherapy, and/or peer support groups. These interventions, whether pharmaceutical based or not, can then be assessed based on outcomes in women with HIV, Dr. Tariq noted.

Another important factor is increasing education, on both the patient and provider side, Dr. Looby said. Many women may not know what menopause is, what symptoms look like, and how these hormonal changes can affect their health. If providers keep an open dialogue with female patients around menopause throughout their adult care, that can better prepare women for the menopause transition and alert them to common symptoms they may experience. There also is a great need for provider education, Dr. Looby added. Infectious disease specialists may need further education on menopause management, while women’s health specialists may need additional training for managing care for patients with HIV. Ideally, this information could be shared among a team of providers, including infectious disease, primary care, and women’s health specialists, so that clinicians can collaborate in prescribing treatment for women with HIV, Dr. Looby said.

Lastly, there needs to be more research funding allocated toward answering questions related to menopause and HIV, including the age of onset of menopause in women with HIV, the severity of symptoms, how HIV may influence the menopause transition and vice versa, and regarding the effectiveness of treatment – pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical – for women with HIV going through the menopause transition. “If we don’t have funding for these studies, then we won’t have answers to establish clinical care guidelines necessary to support the health, well-being, and quality of life of women with HIV,” Dr. Looby said.

And the number of women living with HIV entering menopause is expected to keep growing, Dr. King added. “It was only a couple of decades ago when women were being told they wouldn’t even live to experience menopause, and now we are at a point where this is the highest proportion of menopausal women ever that we have seen in our HIV clinics,” she said. “It speaks to the success of antiretrovirals,” Dr. King acknowledged, but that also means identifying new challenges and addressing recognized gaps in care.

“We are charting a new course, in some ways,” she added. “There is a lot of work to be done.”

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

Note: In this article, “women” refers to ciswomen – those who identify as women and were assigned female sex at birth. Menopause also affects transmen and nonbinary people, but published research on the menopause experience has included only ciswomen participants.

Gina Brown was boarding an early morning flight in 2016 when suddenly she started to overheat. “As soon as I stepped on the plane, I immediately was drenched in sweat,” she said. Not knowing what to do, she stood still until a fellow female passenger noticed her alarm and asked a flight attendant to grab her a cup of ice. “Is this the first time this has happened to you?” the woman asked, and Ms. Brown nodded. “It’s called a hot flash,” the woman continued, “and you’re going to be okay.”

As soon as Ms. Brown returned from her trip, she visited her doctor for blood work and learned that her hormone levels were decreasing. “I knew something was going on, but [my provider and I] didn’t have a conversation about menopause,” she said. Ms. Brown, who is 56 years old, has been living with HIV for nearly 28 years, and is part of a growing group of women with HIV now entering menopause.

In 1996, a person diagnosed with HIV at 20 years of age could expect to live only to age 39. Because of antiretroviral therapy (ART), an HIV diagnosis is not nearly so dire. Now, someone with HIV who adheres to the ART regimen is estimated to have a lifespan close to that of the general population.

For women with HIV, this means going through menopause. Though this transition can be challenging for any woman, experiencing menopause with HIV adds another level of complication. On top of adhering to daily ART regimens, the woman must also deal with the hormonal changes of menopause and the symptoms that come with it. And the limited research in this area suggests that women with HIV and their clinicians may not be prepared.

“Those of us long-term survivors who have been around for a while never expected to be here, and I don’t think providers or the health care system expected us to be here,” said Vickie A. Lynn, PhD, 56, who has been living with HIV for 37 years and received an AIDS diagnosis in 1991. Her work focuses on health care interventions for people with HIV. “So now that we’re here, I don’t know that we have enough information or research to inform some of our treatment options.” Instead, these women are met with a series of unknowns due to limited studies and conflicting findings.
 

Earlier menopause?

The onset of menopause can be difficult to determine in women living with HIV, said Sara Looby, PhD, ANP-BC, a researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Her research focuses on metabolic disorders, including bone loss, cardiovascular disease risk, and menopause in women living with HIV. This population is at an increased risk for amenorrhea, due to both behavioral and clinical factors, and sometimes this amenorrhea is mistakenly assumed to be menopause, she explained. A history of smoking, low weight, methadone use, or use of other psychotropic medications are common in women with HIV and can lead to missed periods. Some factors specific to HIV – including a low CD4 count and a history of an AIDS diagnosis – have also been linked to amenorrhea.

This is likely why research studies on the age of onset of menopause with women with HIV can reach conflicting conclusions. Some studies suggest that women with HIV tend to go through menopause 3-5 years earlier than women without HIV. Other studies suggest no difference in the age of onset in menopause between women living with and without HIV. But how menopause status has been accessed can vary from study to study, Dr. Looby said. Future research needs to consider participants’ complete menstrual and reproductive history, as well as relevant medical, social, and behavioral factors, she added, so that the findings are reliably capturing the age of onset of menopause rather than amenorrhea from other causes.

If menopause does occur earlier in women with HIV, there could be additional health implications. Estrogen regulates bone mass, and some research suggests the hormone may be cardioprotective. Estrogen is also thought to increase production of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which could affect mood and cognition. Women with HIV are already at higher risk for bone loss, cardiovascular disease, and depressed mood compared to women without HIV, Dr. Looby said, and as estrogen levels fall during menopause, these conditions may be deleteriously affected.

“If it is determined that women with HIV experience menopause at an earlier age, maybe early to mid-40s instead of 51 and older, they may be at increased risk for cardiovascular and bone conditions as well as mood symptoms associated with estrogen loss at an earlier age than women without HIV, which could be highly detrimental to their physical and mental health,” Dr. Looby said.
 

More frequent and severe menopausal symptoms?

Women with HIV may not only go through menopause earlier than women without HIV, but their symptoms may also be more frequent and more severe. In a 2017 study of both HIV-positive and HIV-negative Nigerian women, participants with HIV had more menopause symptoms overall and were three times as likely to report severe symptoms compared to women without HIV. A 2005 study conducted in New York found HIV-positive women were 24% more likely to report menopause symptoms compared to HIV-negative women in the study.

Looby’s own research has also found a similar pattern. In a study comparing 33 women with HIV to 33 women without HIV – all were close to menopause and matched for age, race, body mass index, and menstrual patterns – women with HIV reported more severe hot flashes and more days with hot flashes. These women also reported that their hot flashes interfered to a much greater degree with daily activities and quality of life compared to participants without HIV.

But studies of women with HIV who are entering menopause are rare, and most include only small numbers of women. As a result, many women with HIV do not know what to expect entering menopause. “I always say, I wish somebody would do some real research on HIV and menopause, because I want to know if it is worse for us or if it is the same,” said Ms. Brown, who works as the director of strategic partnership and community engagement at the Southern Aids Coalition in Powder Springs, Ga. “I would think it’s worse for me.”

More frequent and severe symptoms can have downstream effects, with some evidence suggesting that women with HIV who experience severe menopause symptoms are less likely to stick to their ART regimen. “There’s a clear picture emerging that menopausal symptoms in this group really matter,” said Shema Tariq, PhD, FRCP, an HIV physician-scientist at the University College London Institute for Global Health in England. “They really impact women’s well-being, as well as impacting their ability to look after their long-term condition.”
 

Providers wary of treating menopause symptoms in women with HIV

The little research we do have about women with HIV experiencing menopause suggests that this population could greatly benefit from treatment prescribed in women without HIV for menopause symptoms and conditions, including hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Women with HIV regularly experience night sweats and hot flashes during the menopause transition and may have more severe symptoms than women not living with the virus. If women with HIV also frequently enter early menopause (entering menopause before the age of 45), then this group meets two indications for hormone replacement therapy.

Despite the potential benefits of HRT in this population, some studies suggest this intervention is underutilized. In Dr. Tariq’s Positive Transitions through Menopause (PRIME) study, which explores how menopause affects more than 800 women living with HIV, only 8% of respondents reported using HRT. In a Canadian study that has not yet gone through peer review, 11.8% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women reported ever using HRT, about half the rate of women in North America without HIV.

Provider discomfort with managing menopause-related care in women with HIV is one reason for such low HRT use in this population, Dr. Tariq said. In a survey of 88 general practitioners in the United Kingdom, nearly all (> 95%) respondents said they were comfortable managing menopause in a general population, but just 46% said they felt comfortable managing menopause in women with HIV. Their top concerns included the potential for drug-to-drug interactions between ART and HRT, missing an HIV-related diagnosis, and risks of menopausal hormone therapy in HIV. Nearly half of respondents (46%) said only specialists should be providing menopause-related care for women with HIV.

But specialists may also feel conflicted about managing menopause-related care in women with HIV, said Dr. Tariq. “If you’re looking at people who manage HIV, you’re looking primarily at infectious disease physicians and HIV physicians. We’re not trained as gynecologists. We’re not used to prescribing HRT,” she said. “And the problem is gynecologists aren’t used to managing HIV. They get nervous about prescribing anything when they see antiretroviral medication because all that people think of is a drug-drug interaction.”

This leaves women with HIV seeking care and treatment for menopause in a difficult situation, where they are “just being ping-ponged around between different health care providers,” said Susan Cole-Haley, 53, an HIV-activist in London who has been living with the virus for 23 years. “So many women with HIV have multiple health conditions and multiple health care providers, which can just make it really problematic and really exhausting in terms of getting help.”
 

Many unknowns

Providers may also be uncomfortable with prescribing hormone therapy because of alarming research in the early 2000s, which found that hormone replacement therapy increased the risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. Later analyses have found no increased cardiovascular disease risk in women who were younger than 60 or were less than 10 years beyond the onset of menopause. Still, the “media frenzy” around the initial findings “has put off a whole load of patients and a whole load of clinicians from even thinking of HRT,” Dr. Tariq said.

Providers may be even more hesitant because people with HIV already have a higher risk for heart disease, due to behaviors such as smoking and HIV-specific factors. (Research has yet to tease out whether these cardiovascular effects are a result of the virus, a result of the antiretroviral therapy, or a result of both factors.) In addition, there have been no prospective studies looking directly at the efficacy and safety of hormone replacement therapy in women with HIV, so providers generally rely on the guidelines for the use of menopausal hormone therapy for women without HIV. While researchers from Canada and the United Kingdom have compiled recommendations for HRT in women with HIV, there is great need for a large-scale clinical trial to establish consistent guidelines for the use of HRT for women with HIV globally, Dr. Looby said.

There are also hormonal preparations and drug-to-drug interactions to consider, though none of the interactions identified so far rise to the level of contraindications. Because of how the liver metabolizes ART and HRT, hormone doses may need to be adjusted, or perhaps administered transdermally via a patch versus a pill form. (Estrogen delivered via skin patch may have reduced cardiovascular disease risk compared to other methods of delivery, some studies in women without HIV suggest.) These expected interactions are based on data from contraceptives, noted Elizabeth King, MD, whose research at the Women’s Health Research Institute at BC Women’s Hospital in Vancouver, B.C., focuses on menopause and HIV. Studies have not been done on drug-drug interactions between ART and HRT specifically, she said, and formulations for HRT are a bit different from contraceptives.

While these unknowns do need to be discussed in shared decision-making around starting HRT in women with HIV, they should not dissuade providers from considering the treatment, Dr. King said. “If women are having extremely troublesome symptoms, then withholding therapy that is potentially beneficial because of worries about some of the things we do not know – I don’t know if that is any better,” she said.

Many women with HIV may not want to start HRT – as was the case for Dr. Lynn. “I’ve taken a lot of medication in my time, and I really try to avoid it as much as possible,” she said. Uncertainties around drug interactions were the main concern for Dawn Averitt, 53, founder of the Well Project, an HIV nonprofit focused on women and girls. Ms. Averitt has lived with HIV for 34 years. “What if some of the things that I’m dealing with could be managed by HRT?” she said. “Or what if taking it exacerbates problems in a way that nobody knows to look for?” In this case, providers may work with patients to discuss nonhormonal treatment options for menopause symptom management.

While some women with HIV may not want HRT, “It’s important that women have that option, and from what we are seeing right now, not a lot of women are even being offered the therapy,” Dr. King said.

There are other nonhormonal treatments available for managing menopause symptoms, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as well as nonmedicinal interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy, but these also have not been studied specifically in women with HIV.
 

The path forward

Dr. Tariq and Dr. Looby agreed the next step in expanding our knowledge around HIV and menopause should be to better engage women with HIV in research and clinical care around their experience with menopause. This includes studies on the symptoms they regularly experience and how these symptoms affect their quality of life, including their physical, psychological, cognitive, and social health. These studies could also help researchers and clinicians understand what these women with HIV want for their menopause care, whether that be medication, psychotherapy, and/or peer support groups. These interventions, whether pharmaceutical based or not, can then be assessed based on outcomes in women with HIV, Dr. Tariq noted.

Another important factor is increasing education, on both the patient and provider side, Dr. Looby said. Many women may not know what menopause is, what symptoms look like, and how these hormonal changes can affect their health. If providers keep an open dialogue with female patients around menopause throughout their adult care, that can better prepare women for the menopause transition and alert them to common symptoms they may experience. There also is a great need for provider education, Dr. Looby added. Infectious disease specialists may need further education on menopause management, while women’s health specialists may need additional training for managing care for patients with HIV. Ideally, this information could be shared among a team of providers, including infectious disease, primary care, and women’s health specialists, so that clinicians can collaborate in prescribing treatment for women with HIV, Dr. Looby said.

Lastly, there needs to be more research funding allocated toward answering questions related to menopause and HIV, including the age of onset of menopause in women with HIV, the severity of symptoms, how HIV may influence the menopause transition and vice versa, and regarding the effectiveness of treatment – pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical – for women with HIV going through the menopause transition. “If we don’t have funding for these studies, then we won’t have answers to establish clinical care guidelines necessary to support the health, well-being, and quality of life of women with HIV,” Dr. Looby said.

And the number of women living with HIV entering menopause is expected to keep growing, Dr. King added. “It was only a couple of decades ago when women were being told they wouldn’t even live to experience menopause, and now we are at a point where this is the highest proportion of menopausal women ever that we have seen in our HIV clinics,” she said. “It speaks to the success of antiretrovirals,” Dr. King acknowledged, but that also means identifying new challenges and addressing recognized gaps in care.

“We are charting a new course, in some ways,” she added. “There is a lot of work to be done.”

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

Note: In this article, “women” refers to ciswomen – those who identify as women and were assigned female sex at birth. Menopause also affects transmen and nonbinary people, but published research on the menopause experience has included only ciswomen participants.

Gina Brown was boarding an early morning flight in 2016 when suddenly she started to overheat. “As soon as I stepped on the plane, I immediately was drenched in sweat,” she said. Not knowing what to do, she stood still until a fellow female passenger noticed her alarm and asked a flight attendant to grab her a cup of ice. “Is this the first time this has happened to you?” the woman asked, and Ms. Brown nodded. “It’s called a hot flash,” the woman continued, “and you’re going to be okay.”

As soon as Ms. Brown returned from her trip, she visited her doctor for blood work and learned that her hormone levels were decreasing. “I knew something was going on, but [my provider and I] didn’t have a conversation about menopause,” she said. Ms. Brown, who is 56 years old, has been living with HIV for nearly 28 years, and is part of a growing group of women with HIV now entering menopause.

In 1996, a person diagnosed with HIV at 20 years of age could expect to live only to age 39. Because of antiretroviral therapy (ART), an HIV diagnosis is not nearly so dire. Now, someone with HIV who adheres to the ART regimen is estimated to have a lifespan close to that of the general population.

For women with HIV, this means going through menopause. Though this transition can be challenging for any woman, experiencing menopause with HIV adds another level of complication. On top of adhering to daily ART regimens, the woman must also deal with the hormonal changes of menopause and the symptoms that come with it. And the limited research in this area suggests that women with HIV and their clinicians may not be prepared.

“Those of us long-term survivors who have been around for a while never expected to be here, and I don’t think providers or the health care system expected us to be here,” said Vickie A. Lynn, PhD, 56, who has been living with HIV for 37 years and received an AIDS diagnosis in 1991. Her work focuses on health care interventions for people with HIV. “So now that we’re here, I don’t know that we have enough information or research to inform some of our treatment options.” Instead, these women are met with a series of unknowns due to limited studies and conflicting findings.
 

Earlier menopause?

The onset of menopause can be difficult to determine in women living with HIV, said Sara Looby, PhD, ANP-BC, a researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Her research focuses on metabolic disorders, including bone loss, cardiovascular disease risk, and menopause in women living with HIV. This population is at an increased risk for amenorrhea, due to both behavioral and clinical factors, and sometimes this amenorrhea is mistakenly assumed to be menopause, she explained. A history of smoking, low weight, methadone use, or use of other psychotropic medications are common in women with HIV and can lead to missed periods. Some factors specific to HIV – including a low CD4 count and a history of an AIDS diagnosis – have also been linked to amenorrhea.

This is likely why research studies on the age of onset of menopause with women with HIV can reach conflicting conclusions. Some studies suggest that women with HIV tend to go through menopause 3-5 years earlier than women without HIV. Other studies suggest no difference in the age of onset in menopause between women living with and without HIV. But how menopause status has been accessed can vary from study to study, Dr. Looby said. Future research needs to consider participants’ complete menstrual and reproductive history, as well as relevant medical, social, and behavioral factors, she added, so that the findings are reliably capturing the age of onset of menopause rather than amenorrhea from other causes.

If menopause does occur earlier in women with HIV, there could be additional health implications. Estrogen regulates bone mass, and some research suggests the hormone may be cardioprotective. Estrogen is also thought to increase production of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which could affect mood and cognition. Women with HIV are already at higher risk for bone loss, cardiovascular disease, and depressed mood compared to women without HIV, Dr. Looby said, and as estrogen levels fall during menopause, these conditions may be deleteriously affected.

“If it is determined that women with HIV experience menopause at an earlier age, maybe early to mid-40s instead of 51 and older, they may be at increased risk for cardiovascular and bone conditions as well as mood symptoms associated with estrogen loss at an earlier age than women without HIV, which could be highly detrimental to their physical and mental health,” Dr. Looby said.
 

More frequent and severe menopausal symptoms?

Women with HIV may not only go through menopause earlier than women without HIV, but their symptoms may also be more frequent and more severe. In a 2017 study of both HIV-positive and HIV-negative Nigerian women, participants with HIV had more menopause symptoms overall and were three times as likely to report severe symptoms compared to women without HIV. A 2005 study conducted in New York found HIV-positive women were 24% more likely to report menopause symptoms compared to HIV-negative women in the study.

Looby’s own research has also found a similar pattern. In a study comparing 33 women with HIV to 33 women without HIV – all were close to menopause and matched for age, race, body mass index, and menstrual patterns – women with HIV reported more severe hot flashes and more days with hot flashes. These women also reported that their hot flashes interfered to a much greater degree with daily activities and quality of life compared to participants without HIV.

But studies of women with HIV who are entering menopause are rare, and most include only small numbers of women. As a result, many women with HIV do not know what to expect entering menopause. “I always say, I wish somebody would do some real research on HIV and menopause, because I want to know if it is worse for us or if it is the same,” said Ms. Brown, who works as the director of strategic partnership and community engagement at the Southern Aids Coalition in Powder Springs, Ga. “I would think it’s worse for me.”

More frequent and severe symptoms can have downstream effects, with some evidence suggesting that women with HIV who experience severe menopause symptoms are less likely to stick to their ART regimen. “There’s a clear picture emerging that menopausal symptoms in this group really matter,” said Shema Tariq, PhD, FRCP, an HIV physician-scientist at the University College London Institute for Global Health in England. “They really impact women’s well-being, as well as impacting their ability to look after their long-term condition.”
 

Providers wary of treating menopause symptoms in women with HIV

The little research we do have about women with HIV experiencing menopause suggests that this population could greatly benefit from treatment prescribed in women without HIV for menopause symptoms and conditions, including hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Women with HIV regularly experience night sweats and hot flashes during the menopause transition and may have more severe symptoms than women not living with the virus. If women with HIV also frequently enter early menopause (entering menopause before the age of 45), then this group meets two indications for hormone replacement therapy.

Despite the potential benefits of HRT in this population, some studies suggest this intervention is underutilized. In Dr. Tariq’s Positive Transitions through Menopause (PRIME) study, which explores how menopause affects more than 800 women living with HIV, only 8% of respondents reported using HRT. In a Canadian study that has not yet gone through peer review, 11.8% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women reported ever using HRT, about half the rate of women in North America without HIV.

Provider discomfort with managing menopause-related care in women with HIV is one reason for such low HRT use in this population, Dr. Tariq said. In a survey of 88 general practitioners in the United Kingdom, nearly all (> 95%) respondents said they were comfortable managing menopause in a general population, but just 46% said they felt comfortable managing menopause in women with HIV. Their top concerns included the potential for drug-to-drug interactions between ART and HRT, missing an HIV-related diagnosis, and risks of menopausal hormone therapy in HIV. Nearly half of respondents (46%) said only specialists should be providing menopause-related care for women with HIV.

But specialists may also feel conflicted about managing menopause-related care in women with HIV, said Dr. Tariq. “If you’re looking at people who manage HIV, you’re looking primarily at infectious disease physicians and HIV physicians. We’re not trained as gynecologists. We’re not used to prescribing HRT,” she said. “And the problem is gynecologists aren’t used to managing HIV. They get nervous about prescribing anything when they see antiretroviral medication because all that people think of is a drug-drug interaction.”

This leaves women with HIV seeking care and treatment for menopause in a difficult situation, where they are “just being ping-ponged around between different health care providers,” said Susan Cole-Haley, 53, an HIV-activist in London who has been living with the virus for 23 years. “So many women with HIV have multiple health conditions and multiple health care providers, which can just make it really problematic and really exhausting in terms of getting help.”
 

Many unknowns

Providers may also be uncomfortable with prescribing hormone therapy because of alarming research in the early 2000s, which found that hormone replacement therapy increased the risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. Later analyses have found no increased cardiovascular disease risk in women who were younger than 60 or were less than 10 years beyond the onset of menopause. Still, the “media frenzy” around the initial findings “has put off a whole load of patients and a whole load of clinicians from even thinking of HRT,” Dr. Tariq said.

Providers may be even more hesitant because people with HIV already have a higher risk for heart disease, due to behaviors such as smoking and HIV-specific factors. (Research has yet to tease out whether these cardiovascular effects are a result of the virus, a result of the antiretroviral therapy, or a result of both factors.) In addition, there have been no prospective studies looking directly at the efficacy and safety of hormone replacement therapy in women with HIV, so providers generally rely on the guidelines for the use of menopausal hormone therapy for women without HIV. While researchers from Canada and the United Kingdom have compiled recommendations for HRT in women with HIV, there is great need for a large-scale clinical trial to establish consistent guidelines for the use of HRT for women with HIV globally, Dr. Looby said.

There are also hormonal preparations and drug-to-drug interactions to consider, though none of the interactions identified so far rise to the level of contraindications. Because of how the liver metabolizes ART and HRT, hormone doses may need to be adjusted, or perhaps administered transdermally via a patch versus a pill form. (Estrogen delivered via skin patch may have reduced cardiovascular disease risk compared to other methods of delivery, some studies in women without HIV suggest.) These expected interactions are based on data from contraceptives, noted Elizabeth King, MD, whose research at the Women’s Health Research Institute at BC Women’s Hospital in Vancouver, B.C., focuses on menopause and HIV. Studies have not been done on drug-drug interactions between ART and HRT specifically, she said, and formulations for HRT are a bit different from contraceptives.

While these unknowns do need to be discussed in shared decision-making around starting HRT in women with HIV, they should not dissuade providers from considering the treatment, Dr. King said. “If women are having extremely troublesome symptoms, then withholding therapy that is potentially beneficial because of worries about some of the things we do not know – I don’t know if that is any better,” she said.

Many women with HIV may not want to start HRT – as was the case for Dr. Lynn. “I’ve taken a lot of medication in my time, and I really try to avoid it as much as possible,” she said. Uncertainties around drug interactions were the main concern for Dawn Averitt, 53, founder of the Well Project, an HIV nonprofit focused on women and girls. Ms. Averitt has lived with HIV for 34 years. “What if some of the things that I’m dealing with could be managed by HRT?” she said. “Or what if taking it exacerbates problems in a way that nobody knows to look for?” In this case, providers may work with patients to discuss nonhormonal treatment options for menopause symptom management.

While some women with HIV may not want HRT, “It’s important that women have that option, and from what we are seeing right now, not a lot of women are even being offered the therapy,” Dr. King said.

There are other nonhormonal treatments available for managing menopause symptoms, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as well as nonmedicinal interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy, but these also have not been studied specifically in women with HIV.
 

The path forward

Dr. Tariq and Dr. Looby agreed the next step in expanding our knowledge around HIV and menopause should be to better engage women with HIV in research and clinical care around their experience with menopause. This includes studies on the symptoms they regularly experience and how these symptoms affect their quality of life, including their physical, psychological, cognitive, and social health. These studies could also help researchers and clinicians understand what these women with HIV want for their menopause care, whether that be medication, psychotherapy, and/or peer support groups. These interventions, whether pharmaceutical based or not, can then be assessed based on outcomes in women with HIV, Dr. Tariq noted.

Another important factor is increasing education, on both the patient and provider side, Dr. Looby said. Many women may not know what menopause is, what symptoms look like, and how these hormonal changes can affect their health. If providers keep an open dialogue with female patients around menopause throughout their adult care, that can better prepare women for the menopause transition and alert them to common symptoms they may experience. There also is a great need for provider education, Dr. Looby added. Infectious disease specialists may need further education on menopause management, while women’s health specialists may need additional training for managing care for patients with HIV. Ideally, this information could be shared among a team of providers, including infectious disease, primary care, and women’s health specialists, so that clinicians can collaborate in prescribing treatment for women with HIV, Dr. Looby said.

Lastly, there needs to be more research funding allocated toward answering questions related to menopause and HIV, including the age of onset of menopause in women with HIV, the severity of symptoms, how HIV may influence the menopause transition and vice versa, and regarding the effectiveness of treatment – pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical – for women with HIV going through the menopause transition. “If we don’t have funding for these studies, then we won’t have answers to establish clinical care guidelines necessary to support the health, well-being, and quality of life of women with HIV,” Dr. Looby said.

And the number of women living with HIV entering menopause is expected to keep growing, Dr. King added. “It was only a couple of decades ago when women were being told they wouldn’t even live to experience menopause, and now we are at a point where this is the highest proportion of menopausal women ever that we have seen in our HIV clinics,” she said. “It speaks to the success of antiretrovirals,” Dr. King acknowledged, but that also means identifying new challenges and addressing recognized gaps in care.

“We are charting a new course, in some ways,” she added. “There is a lot of work to be done.”

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

The infants of obese pregnant women had a 55% higher adjusted perinatal death rate, compared with those of normal-weight pregnant women, but lower gestational age had a mediating effect, based on data from nearly 400,000 women-infant pairs.

“While some obesity-related causes of fetal death are known, the exact pathophysiology behind the effects of obesity on perinatal death are not completely understood,” Jeffrey N. Bone, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote. Higher body mass index prior to pregnancy also is associated with preterm delivery, but the effect of gestational age on the association between BMI and infant mortality has not been well explored.

In a study published in PLOS ONE, the researchers reviewed data from nearly 400,000 women obtained through the British Columbia Perinatal Database Registry, which collects obstetric and neonatal data from hospital charts and from delivery records of home births. Births at less than 20 weeks’ gestation and late pregnancy terminations were excluded.

BMI was based on self-reported prepregnancy height and weight; of the 392,820 included women, 12.8% were classified as obese, 20.6% were overweight, 60.6% were normal weight, and 6.0% were underweight. Infants of women with higher BMI had a lower gestational age at delivery. Perinatal mortality occurred in 1,834 pregnancies (0.5%). In adjusted analysis, infant perinatal death was significantly more likely for obese women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.55) and overweight women (aOR, 1.22).

However, 63.1% of this association in obese women was mediated by gestational age of the infant at delivery, with aORs of 1.32 and 1.18 for natural indirect and natural direct effects, respectively, compared with that of normal-weight women. Similar, but lesser effects were noted for overweight women, with aORs of 1.11 and 1.10, respectively. “Direct effects were higher, and mediation was lower for stillbirth than for neonatal death, where the total effect was entirely indirect,” but the confidence intervals remained consistent with the primary analyses, the researchers noted.

The increased perinatal death rates of infants of obese and overweight women reflect data from previous studies, but the current study’s use of mediation analysis offers new insight on the mechanism by which perinatal death rates increase with higher maternal BMI, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the need to consider potential common risk factors for both perinatal death and early delivery that would be affected by maternal obesity, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of gestational age at stillbirth, which represents an approximation of fetal death in some cases, and the use of self-reports for prepregnancy maternal BMI.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, population-based design and information on potential confounding variables, and suggest that early gestational age at delivery may play a role in maternal obesity-related perinatal death risk.

“To better inform the pregnancy management in obese women, further studies should continue to disentangle the causal pathways under which obesity increases the risk of perinatal death, including, for example, gestational diabetes and other obesity-related pregnancy complications,” they concluded.
 

More testing and counseling are needed

The current study is important because obesity rates continue to increase in the reproductive-age population, Marissa Platner, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Obesity has become a known risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes, specifically the risk of stillbirth and perinatal death. However, the authors correctly point out that the underlying cause of these perinatal deaths in women with obesity is unclear. Additionally, ACOG recently updated their clinical guidelines to recommend routine antenatal testing for women with obesity due to these increased rates of stillbirth.

“I was not surprised by these findings; similar to previous literature, the risks of perinatal death seem to have a dose-response relationship with increasing BMI. We know that women with prepregnancy obesity are also at higher risk of perinatal complications in the preterm period, which would increase the risk of perinatal death,” Dr. Platner said

“I think the take-home message for clinicians is twofold,” Dr. Platner said. First, “we need to take the updated antenatal testing guidelines from ACOG very seriously and implement these in our practices.” Second, “in the preconception or early antepartum period, these patients should be thoroughly counseled on the associated risks of pregnancy and discuss appropriate gestational weight gain guidelines and lifestyle modifications.”

However, “additional research is needed in a U.S. population with higher rates of obesity to determine the true effects of obesity on perinatal deaths and to further elucidate the underlying pathophysiology and disease processes that may lead to increased risk of both stillbirth and perinatal deaths,” Dr. Platner emphasized.

*This story was updated on March 23, 2022.

The study was supported by the Sick Kids Foundation and the Canadian Institute of Health Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The infants of obese pregnant women had a 55% higher adjusted perinatal death rate, compared with those of normal-weight pregnant women, but lower gestational age had a mediating effect, based on data from nearly 400,000 women-infant pairs.

“While some obesity-related causes of fetal death are known, the exact pathophysiology behind the effects of obesity on perinatal death are not completely understood,” Jeffrey N. Bone, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote. Higher body mass index prior to pregnancy also is associated with preterm delivery, but the effect of gestational age on the association between BMI and infant mortality has not been well explored.

In a study published in PLOS ONE, the researchers reviewed data from nearly 400,000 women obtained through the British Columbia Perinatal Database Registry, which collects obstetric and neonatal data from hospital charts and from delivery records of home births. Births at less than 20 weeks’ gestation and late pregnancy terminations were excluded.

BMI was based on self-reported prepregnancy height and weight; of the 392,820 included women, 12.8% were classified as obese, 20.6% were overweight, 60.6% were normal weight, and 6.0% were underweight. Infants of women with higher BMI had a lower gestational age at delivery. Perinatal mortality occurred in 1,834 pregnancies (0.5%). In adjusted analysis, infant perinatal death was significantly more likely for obese women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.55) and overweight women (aOR, 1.22).

However, 63.1% of this association in obese women was mediated by gestational age of the infant at delivery, with aORs of 1.32 and 1.18 for natural indirect and natural direct effects, respectively, compared with that of normal-weight women. Similar, but lesser effects were noted for overweight women, with aORs of 1.11 and 1.10, respectively. “Direct effects were higher, and mediation was lower for stillbirth than for neonatal death, where the total effect was entirely indirect,” but the confidence intervals remained consistent with the primary analyses, the researchers noted.

The increased perinatal death rates of infants of obese and overweight women reflect data from previous studies, but the current study’s use of mediation analysis offers new insight on the mechanism by which perinatal death rates increase with higher maternal BMI, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the need to consider potential common risk factors for both perinatal death and early delivery that would be affected by maternal obesity, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of gestational age at stillbirth, which represents an approximation of fetal death in some cases, and the use of self-reports for prepregnancy maternal BMI.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, population-based design and information on potential confounding variables, and suggest that early gestational age at delivery may play a role in maternal obesity-related perinatal death risk.

“To better inform the pregnancy management in obese women, further studies should continue to disentangle the causal pathways under which obesity increases the risk of perinatal death, including, for example, gestational diabetes and other obesity-related pregnancy complications,” they concluded.
 

More testing and counseling are needed

The current study is important because obesity rates continue to increase in the reproductive-age population, Marissa Platner, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Obesity has become a known risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes, specifically the risk of stillbirth and perinatal death. However, the authors correctly point out that the underlying cause of these perinatal deaths in women with obesity is unclear. Additionally, ACOG recently updated their clinical guidelines to recommend routine antenatal testing for women with obesity due to these increased rates of stillbirth.

“I was not surprised by these findings; similar to previous literature, the risks of perinatal death seem to have a dose-response relationship with increasing BMI. We know that women with prepregnancy obesity are also at higher risk of perinatal complications in the preterm period, which would increase the risk of perinatal death,” Dr. Platner said

“I think the take-home message for clinicians is twofold,” Dr. Platner said. First, “we need to take the updated antenatal testing guidelines from ACOG very seriously and implement these in our practices.” Second, “in the preconception or early antepartum period, these patients should be thoroughly counseled on the associated risks of pregnancy and discuss appropriate gestational weight gain guidelines and lifestyle modifications.”

However, “additional research is needed in a U.S. population with higher rates of obesity to determine the true effects of obesity on perinatal deaths and to further elucidate the underlying pathophysiology and disease processes that may lead to increased risk of both stillbirth and perinatal deaths,” Dr. Platner emphasized.

*This story was updated on March 23, 2022.

The study was supported by the Sick Kids Foundation and the Canadian Institute of Health Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The infants of obese pregnant women had a 55% higher adjusted perinatal death rate, compared with those of normal-weight pregnant women, but lower gestational age had a mediating effect, based on data from nearly 400,000 women-infant pairs.

“While some obesity-related causes of fetal death are known, the exact pathophysiology behind the effects of obesity on perinatal death are not completely understood,” Jeffrey N. Bone, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote. Higher body mass index prior to pregnancy also is associated with preterm delivery, but the effect of gestational age on the association between BMI and infant mortality has not been well explored.

In a study published in PLOS ONE, the researchers reviewed data from nearly 400,000 women obtained through the British Columbia Perinatal Database Registry, which collects obstetric and neonatal data from hospital charts and from delivery records of home births. Births at less than 20 weeks’ gestation and late pregnancy terminations were excluded.

BMI was based on self-reported prepregnancy height and weight; of the 392,820 included women, 12.8% were classified as obese, 20.6% were overweight, 60.6% were normal weight, and 6.0% were underweight. Infants of women with higher BMI had a lower gestational age at delivery. Perinatal mortality occurred in 1,834 pregnancies (0.5%). In adjusted analysis, infant perinatal death was significantly more likely for obese women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.55) and overweight women (aOR, 1.22).

However, 63.1% of this association in obese women was mediated by gestational age of the infant at delivery, with aORs of 1.32 and 1.18 for natural indirect and natural direct effects, respectively, compared with that of normal-weight women. Similar, but lesser effects were noted for overweight women, with aORs of 1.11 and 1.10, respectively. “Direct effects were higher, and mediation was lower for stillbirth than for neonatal death, where the total effect was entirely indirect,” but the confidence intervals remained consistent with the primary analyses, the researchers noted.

The increased perinatal death rates of infants of obese and overweight women reflect data from previous studies, but the current study’s use of mediation analysis offers new insight on the mechanism by which perinatal death rates increase with higher maternal BMI, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the need to consider potential common risk factors for both perinatal death and early delivery that would be affected by maternal obesity, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of gestational age at stillbirth, which represents an approximation of fetal death in some cases, and the use of self-reports for prepregnancy maternal BMI.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, population-based design and information on potential confounding variables, and suggest that early gestational age at delivery may play a role in maternal obesity-related perinatal death risk.

“To better inform the pregnancy management in obese women, further studies should continue to disentangle the causal pathways under which obesity increases the risk of perinatal death, including, for example, gestational diabetes and other obesity-related pregnancy complications,” they concluded.
 

More testing and counseling are needed

The current study is important because obesity rates continue to increase in the reproductive-age population, Marissa Platner, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Obesity has become a known risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes, specifically the risk of stillbirth and perinatal death. However, the authors correctly point out that the underlying cause of these perinatal deaths in women with obesity is unclear. Additionally, ACOG recently updated their clinical guidelines to recommend routine antenatal testing for women with obesity due to these increased rates of stillbirth.

“I was not surprised by these findings; similar to previous literature, the risks of perinatal death seem to have a dose-response relationship with increasing BMI. We know that women with prepregnancy obesity are also at higher risk of perinatal complications in the preterm period, which would increase the risk of perinatal death,” Dr. Platner said

“I think the take-home message for clinicians is twofold,” Dr. Platner said. First, “we need to take the updated antenatal testing guidelines from ACOG very seriously and implement these in our practices.” Second, “in the preconception or early antepartum period, these patients should be thoroughly counseled on the associated risks of pregnancy and discuss appropriate gestational weight gain guidelines and lifestyle modifications.”

However, “additional research is needed in a U.S. population with higher rates of obesity to determine the true effects of obesity on perinatal deaths and to further elucidate the underlying pathophysiology and disease processes that may lead to increased risk of both stillbirth and perinatal deaths,” Dr. Platner emphasized.

*This story was updated on March 23, 2022.

The study was supported by the Sick Kids Foundation and the Canadian Institute of Health Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

There is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force says in their first-ever statement on the topic.

Eating disorders (binge eating disorder, bulimia nervosa, and anorexia nervosa) can cause “serious harms to physical and psychosocial health and take a tremendous toll on individuals and families,” task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, told this news organization.

“Screening for eating disorders has the potential to improve health by leading to early detection and effective treatment,” said Dr. Pbert, with the department of population and quantitative health sciences, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

However, a “deep dive” into the available literature failed to turn up adequate evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for eating disorders for children and adolescents aged 10 years and older and for adults who have no signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or concerns about their eating and who have not previously been diagnosed with an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert said.

The task force, therefore, issued an “I” statement (insufficient evidence), meaning it cannot at this time recommend for or against screening for eating disorders.

An “I” statement is “fundamentally a call for more research,” Dr. Pbert noted.

Adolescents and adults who have signs and symptoms of an eating disorder – which include rapid weight loss; weight gain or pronounced deviation from growth trajectory; pubertal delay; bradycardia; oligomenorrhea; and amenorrhea – are not included in this recommendation.

The USPSTF recommendation statement and accompanying evidence report were published online March 15 in JAMA.
 

Clinical judgment key

In the absence of evidence, clinicians should use their judgment when determining whether or not to screen an individual patient for an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert advised.

One thing to consider is whether the patient is in a group at higher risk for eating disorders, such as athletes, females, young adults aged 18-29, and transgender individuals.

Another is whether the patient reports engaging in unhealthy weight control behaviors, such as fasting or skipping meals, Dr. Pbert said.

Importantly, any patient who has signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or is expressing concerns about their eating should be assessed and referred for appropriate care, Dr. Pbert said.

“The good news is that eating disorders can be treated,” she said.

Several organizations currently recommend screening in the context of monitoring changes in weight and other vital signs or signs and symptoms to determine whether a patient might have an eating disorder.

Dr. Pbert said it’s important to recognize that the USPSTF statement “doesn’t really conflict” with the recommendations of other organizations. “We all agree that patients who present with signs or symptoms of an eating disorder should be assessed further.”
 

Evidence gaps

The authors of an invited commentary in JAMA) say the task force has identified several “notable deficiencies” in the available data on screening for eating disorders.

“Directing attention to rigorous research to close this evidence gap will be important to find optimal approaches to identify patients with these complex disorders and improve their health outcomes,” write Evelyn Attia, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and Angela Guarda, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This “I” statement, they say, “highlights the need to prioritize research aimed at closing the evidence gap identified by USPSTF in a timely manner and underscores the need for new studies that address screening for eating disorders, treatment trials that enroll screen-detected populations from primary care settings, and screening in specific populations.

“Research on screening in primary care also should be paired with development and assessment of early brief intervention strategies for those individuals who screen positive, especially adolescents,” Dr. Attia and Dr. Guarda say.

Members of the USPSTF have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Attia has received research support from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Hilda & Preston David Foundation; royalties from UpToDate; and has served as a clinical advisor to Equip Health. Dr. Guarda has received support from the Stephen and Jean Robinson Fund and research funding from the Klarman Family Foundation.

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

There is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force says in their first-ever statement on the topic.

Eating disorders (binge eating disorder, bulimia nervosa, and anorexia nervosa) can cause “serious harms to physical and psychosocial health and take a tremendous toll on individuals and families,” task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, told this news organization.

“Screening for eating disorders has the potential to improve health by leading to early detection and effective treatment,” said Dr. Pbert, with the department of population and quantitative health sciences, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

However, a “deep dive” into the available literature failed to turn up adequate evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for eating disorders for children and adolescents aged 10 years and older and for adults who have no signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or concerns about their eating and who have not previously been diagnosed with an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert said.

The task force, therefore, issued an “I” statement (insufficient evidence), meaning it cannot at this time recommend for or against screening for eating disorders.

An “I” statement is “fundamentally a call for more research,” Dr. Pbert noted.

Adolescents and adults who have signs and symptoms of an eating disorder – which include rapid weight loss; weight gain or pronounced deviation from growth trajectory; pubertal delay; bradycardia; oligomenorrhea; and amenorrhea – are not included in this recommendation.

The USPSTF recommendation statement and accompanying evidence report were published online March 15 in JAMA.
 

Clinical judgment key

In the absence of evidence, clinicians should use their judgment when determining whether or not to screen an individual patient for an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert advised.

One thing to consider is whether the patient is in a group at higher risk for eating disorders, such as athletes, females, young adults aged 18-29, and transgender individuals.

Another is whether the patient reports engaging in unhealthy weight control behaviors, such as fasting or skipping meals, Dr. Pbert said.

Importantly, any patient who has signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or is expressing concerns about their eating should be assessed and referred for appropriate care, Dr. Pbert said.

“The good news is that eating disorders can be treated,” she said.

Several organizations currently recommend screening in the context of monitoring changes in weight and other vital signs or signs and symptoms to determine whether a patient might have an eating disorder.

Dr. Pbert said it’s important to recognize that the USPSTF statement “doesn’t really conflict” with the recommendations of other organizations. “We all agree that patients who present with signs or symptoms of an eating disorder should be assessed further.”
 

Evidence gaps

The authors of an invited commentary in JAMA) say the task force has identified several “notable deficiencies” in the available data on screening for eating disorders.

“Directing attention to rigorous research to close this evidence gap will be important to find optimal approaches to identify patients with these complex disorders and improve their health outcomes,” write Evelyn Attia, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and Angela Guarda, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This “I” statement, they say, “highlights the need to prioritize research aimed at closing the evidence gap identified by USPSTF in a timely manner and underscores the need for new studies that address screening for eating disorders, treatment trials that enroll screen-detected populations from primary care settings, and screening in specific populations.

“Research on screening in primary care also should be paired with development and assessment of early brief intervention strategies for those individuals who screen positive, especially adolescents,” Dr. Attia and Dr. Guarda say.

Members of the USPSTF have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Attia has received research support from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Hilda & Preston David Foundation; royalties from UpToDate; and has served as a clinical advisor to Equip Health. Dr. Guarda has received support from the Stephen and Jean Robinson Fund and research funding from the Klarman Family Foundation.

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

There is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force says in their first-ever statement on the topic.

Eating disorders (binge eating disorder, bulimia nervosa, and anorexia nervosa) can cause “serious harms to physical and psychosocial health and take a tremendous toll on individuals and families,” task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, told this news organization.

“Screening for eating disorders has the potential to improve health by leading to early detection and effective treatment,” said Dr. Pbert, with the department of population and quantitative health sciences, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

However, a “deep dive” into the available literature failed to turn up adequate evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for eating disorders for children and adolescents aged 10 years and older and for adults who have no signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or concerns about their eating and who have not previously been diagnosed with an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert said.

The task force, therefore, issued an “I” statement (insufficient evidence), meaning it cannot at this time recommend for or against screening for eating disorders.

An “I” statement is “fundamentally a call for more research,” Dr. Pbert noted.

Adolescents and adults who have signs and symptoms of an eating disorder – which include rapid weight loss; weight gain or pronounced deviation from growth trajectory; pubertal delay; bradycardia; oligomenorrhea; and amenorrhea – are not included in this recommendation.

The USPSTF recommendation statement and accompanying evidence report were published online March 15 in JAMA.
 

Clinical judgment key

In the absence of evidence, clinicians should use their judgment when determining whether or not to screen an individual patient for an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert advised.

One thing to consider is whether the patient is in a group at higher risk for eating disorders, such as athletes, females, young adults aged 18-29, and transgender individuals.

Another is whether the patient reports engaging in unhealthy weight control behaviors, such as fasting or skipping meals, Dr. Pbert said.

Importantly, any patient who has signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or is expressing concerns about their eating should be assessed and referred for appropriate care, Dr. Pbert said.

“The good news is that eating disorders can be treated,” she said.

Several organizations currently recommend screening in the context of monitoring changes in weight and other vital signs or signs and symptoms to determine whether a patient might have an eating disorder.

Dr. Pbert said it’s important to recognize that the USPSTF statement “doesn’t really conflict” with the recommendations of other organizations. “We all agree that patients who present with signs or symptoms of an eating disorder should be assessed further.”
 

Evidence gaps

The authors of an invited commentary in JAMA) say the task force has identified several “notable deficiencies” in the available data on screening for eating disorders.

“Directing attention to rigorous research to close this evidence gap will be important to find optimal approaches to identify patients with these complex disorders and improve their health outcomes,” write Evelyn Attia, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and Angela Guarda, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This “I” statement, they say, “highlights the need to prioritize research aimed at closing the evidence gap identified by USPSTF in a timely manner and underscores the need for new studies that address screening for eating disorders, treatment trials that enroll screen-detected populations from primary care settings, and screening in specific populations.

“Research on screening in primary care also should be paired with development and assessment of early brief intervention strategies for those individuals who screen positive, especially adolescents,” Dr. Attia and Dr. Guarda say.

Members of the USPSTF have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Attia has received research support from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Hilda & Preston David Foundation; royalties from UpToDate; and has served as a clinical advisor to Equip Health. Dr. Guarda has received support from the Stephen and Jean Robinson Fund and research funding from the Klarman Family Foundation.

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

The last 15-20 years have brought enormous attention to the relevant clinical issues regarding prescribing antidepressants during pregnancy. Concern about the effects of fetal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is appropriate given the consistent data that approximately 7% of women use antidepressants during pregnancy, and that risk for relapse of depression during pregnancy in women who have stopped antidepressants during pregnancy is very high.

We have learned so much from studies of relevant questions regarding SSRI exposure. Concerns about increased risk for organ malformation have been set aside. An extraordinary number of studies across a broad range of patients around the globe looked at the issue of risk for organ malformation following in utero SSRI exposure – even looking specifically at risk for cardiac malformations, which had been an earlier concern in the literature – with the evidence supporting absence of increased risk. Also clarified has been, first, the absence of risk of complications such as persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) and, second, a delineation of the prevalence and clinical implications of transient neonatal symptoms such as jitteriness and tachypnea in offspring of women who used antidepressants during pregnancy – so-called “poor neonatal adaptation syndrome.”

However, for so many clinicians and for patients, the missing piece in the risk-benefit equation has been the issue of long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in children whose mothers used antidepressants during pregnancy. While the accumulated data have shown sparse evidence linking SSRI exposure with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the evidence has been mixed regarding neurobehavioral sequelae associated with fetal exposure using developmental outcomes such as language ability, cognition, academic performance, language, math, and other cognitive outcomes. As far back as the 1990s, colleagues in Canada failed to show a difference in neurobehavioral outcomes in 5- to 7-year-old children whose mothers used SSRIs or older tricyclic antidepressants during pregnancy compared to nonexposed women (N Engl J Med. 1997 Jan 23;336[4]:258-62). Even early on, it was noted that one of the strongest predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome was untreated maternal psychiatric illness.

Since those early studies and over the last decade, there have been numerous small studies with conflicting data regarding a whole host of neurodevelopmental outcomes with inconsistent methodologies, different assessments, and failure to control for the presence or absence of maternal psychiatric illness during pregnancy – one of the most critical predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome and one we are beginning to appreciate plays a very significant role.

Most recently, the authors of a very large population-based retrospective cohort study in Denmark linked population-based registries with obstetrical data and examined language and math performance among 575,369 public schoolchildren whose mothers used or didn’t use antidepressants during pregnancy (JAMA. 2021 Nov 2;326[17]:1725-35). These investigators found a decrease in mean test scores for language (53.4 vs. 56.6) and math (52.1 vs. 57.4) in children whose mothers received antidepressant prescriptions during pregnancy compared with children who did not have that exposure. However, when they adjusted for maternal psychiatric illness and other relevant confounders, the finding went to null for language (adjusted difference, –0.1; 95% confidence interval, –0.6 to 0.3), but did not for math (adjusted difference, −2.2; 95% CI, −2.7 to −1.6). The results ultimately showed a modest finding for exposure and a small decrement in mathematical performance. The takeaway is that antidepressant use may be a proxy for neurodevelopmental deficit but is unlikely to be the etiology or direct cause of that deficit.

With that said, patients and their doctors can be reassured with respect to how much we have learned about SSRIs during pregnancy across the last decade. Yet there are appropriate concerns about long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in this patient population. I think that what we can say in 2022 is that there is a growing appreciation for the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on long-term outcomes in children and the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on risk for postpartum depression, which we know influences long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in children. Perhaps more than in years past, there is now also an appreciation of the effect of a dysregulated stress axis on the intrauterine fetal neuronal programming, which is perhaps the newest frontier, and which may hold the answers with respect to how to weigh the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on decisions about psychotropic use during pregnancy. But for today, there is an appreciation that exposure to maternal psychopathology is not a benign exposure.

Although some of the data remain incomplete, in 2022, patients will continue to make individual decisions based on the available data, factoring in the effect of maternal adversity in a more deliberate way and with a refined lens through with which to see their options with respect to using or not using SSRIs during pregnancy.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

The last 15-20 years have brought enormous attention to the relevant clinical issues regarding prescribing antidepressants during pregnancy. Concern about the effects of fetal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is appropriate given the consistent data that approximately 7% of women use antidepressants during pregnancy, and that risk for relapse of depression during pregnancy in women who have stopped antidepressants during pregnancy is very high.

We have learned so much from studies of relevant questions regarding SSRI exposure. Concerns about increased risk for organ malformation have been set aside. An extraordinary number of studies across a broad range of patients around the globe looked at the issue of risk for organ malformation following in utero SSRI exposure – even looking specifically at risk for cardiac malformations, which had been an earlier concern in the literature – with the evidence supporting absence of increased risk. Also clarified has been, first, the absence of risk of complications such as persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) and, second, a delineation of the prevalence and clinical implications of transient neonatal symptoms such as jitteriness and tachypnea in offspring of women who used antidepressants during pregnancy – so-called “poor neonatal adaptation syndrome.”

However, for so many clinicians and for patients, the missing piece in the risk-benefit equation has been the issue of long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in children whose mothers used antidepressants during pregnancy. While the accumulated data have shown sparse evidence linking SSRI exposure with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the evidence has been mixed regarding neurobehavioral sequelae associated with fetal exposure using developmental outcomes such as language ability, cognition, academic performance, language, math, and other cognitive outcomes. As far back as the 1990s, colleagues in Canada failed to show a difference in neurobehavioral outcomes in 5- to 7-year-old children whose mothers used SSRIs or older tricyclic antidepressants during pregnancy compared to nonexposed women (N Engl J Med. 1997 Jan 23;336[4]:258-62). Even early on, it was noted that one of the strongest predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome was untreated maternal psychiatric illness.

Since those early studies and over the last decade, there have been numerous small studies with conflicting data regarding a whole host of neurodevelopmental outcomes with inconsistent methodologies, different assessments, and failure to control for the presence or absence of maternal psychiatric illness during pregnancy – one of the most critical predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome and one we are beginning to appreciate plays a very significant role.

Most recently, the authors of a very large population-based retrospective cohort study in Denmark linked population-based registries with obstetrical data and examined language and math performance among 575,369 public schoolchildren whose mothers used or didn’t use antidepressants during pregnancy (JAMA. 2021 Nov 2;326[17]:1725-35). These investigators found a decrease in mean test scores for language (53.4 vs. 56.6) and math (52.1 vs. 57.4) in children whose mothers received antidepressant prescriptions during pregnancy compared with children who did not have that exposure. However, when they adjusted for maternal psychiatric illness and other relevant confounders, the finding went to null for language (adjusted difference, –0.1; 95% confidence interval, –0.6 to 0.3), but did not for math (adjusted difference, −2.2; 95% CI, −2.7 to −1.6). The results ultimately showed a modest finding for exposure and a small decrement in mathematical performance. The takeaway is that antidepressant use may be a proxy for neurodevelopmental deficit but is unlikely to be the etiology or direct cause of that deficit.

With that said, patients and their doctors can be reassured with respect to how much we have learned about SSRIs during pregnancy across the last decade. Yet there are appropriate concerns about long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in this patient population. I think that what we can say in 2022 is that there is a growing appreciation for the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on long-term outcomes in children and the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on risk for postpartum depression, which we know influences long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in children. Perhaps more than in years past, there is now also an appreciation of the effect of a dysregulated stress axis on the intrauterine fetal neuronal programming, which is perhaps the newest frontier, and which may hold the answers with respect to how to weigh the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on decisions about psychotropic use during pregnancy. But for today, there is an appreciation that exposure to maternal psychopathology is not a benign exposure.

Although some of the data remain incomplete, in 2022, patients will continue to make individual decisions based on the available data, factoring in the effect of maternal adversity in a more deliberate way and with a refined lens through with which to see their options with respect to using or not using SSRIs during pregnancy.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

The last 15-20 years have brought enormous attention to the relevant clinical issues regarding prescribing antidepressants during pregnancy. Concern about the effects of fetal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is appropriate given the consistent data that approximately 7% of women use antidepressants during pregnancy, and that risk for relapse of depression during pregnancy in women who have stopped antidepressants during pregnancy is very high.

We have learned so much from studies of relevant questions regarding SSRI exposure. Concerns about increased risk for organ malformation have been set aside. An extraordinary number of studies across a broad range of patients around the globe looked at the issue of risk for organ malformation following in utero SSRI exposure – even looking specifically at risk for cardiac malformations, which had been an earlier concern in the literature – with the evidence supporting absence of increased risk. Also clarified has been, first, the absence of risk of complications such as persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) and, second, a delineation of the prevalence and clinical implications of transient neonatal symptoms such as jitteriness and tachypnea in offspring of women who used antidepressants during pregnancy – so-called “poor neonatal adaptation syndrome.”

However, for so many clinicians and for patients, the missing piece in the risk-benefit equation has been the issue of long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in children whose mothers used antidepressants during pregnancy. While the accumulated data have shown sparse evidence linking SSRI exposure with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the evidence has been mixed regarding neurobehavioral sequelae associated with fetal exposure using developmental outcomes such as language ability, cognition, academic performance, language, math, and other cognitive outcomes. As far back as the 1990s, colleagues in Canada failed to show a difference in neurobehavioral outcomes in 5- to 7-year-old children whose mothers used SSRIs or older tricyclic antidepressants during pregnancy compared to nonexposed women (N Engl J Med. 1997 Jan 23;336[4]:258-62). Even early on, it was noted that one of the strongest predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome was untreated maternal psychiatric illness.

Since those early studies and over the last decade, there have been numerous small studies with conflicting data regarding a whole host of neurodevelopmental outcomes with inconsistent methodologies, different assessments, and failure to control for the presence or absence of maternal psychiatric illness during pregnancy – one of the most critical predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome and one we are beginning to appreciate plays a very significant role.

Most recently, the authors of a very large population-based retrospective cohort study in Denmark linked population-based registries with obstetrical data and examined language and math performance among 575,369 public schoolchildren whose mothers used or didn’t use antidepressants during pregnancy (JAMA. 2021 Nov 2;326[17]:1725-35). These investigators found a decrease in mean test scores for language (53.4 vs. 56.6) and math (52.1 vs. 57.4) in children whose mothers received antidepressant prescriptions during pregnancy compared with children who did not have that exposure. However, when they adjusted for maternal psychiatric illness and other relevant confounders, the finding went to null for language (adjusted difference, –0.1; 95% confidence interval, –0.6 to 0.3), but did not for math (adjusted difference, −2.2; 95% CI, −2.7 to −1.6). The results ultimately showed a modest finding for exposure and a small decrement in mathematical performance. The takeaway is that antidepressant use may be a proxy for neurodevelopmental deficit but is unlikely to be the etiology or direct cause of that deficit.

With that said, patients and their doctors can be reassured with respect to how much we have learned about SSRIs during pregnancy across the last decade. Yet there are appropriate concerns about long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae in this patient population. I think that what we can say in 2022 is that there is a growing appreciation for the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on long-term outcomes in children and the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on risk for postpartum depression, which we know influences long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in children. Perhaps more than in years past, there is now also an appreciation of the effect of a dysregulated stress axis on the intrauterine fetal neuronal programming, which is perhaps the newest frontier, and which may hold the answers with respect to how to weigh the effect of maternal psychiatric illness on decisions about psychotropic use during pregnancy. But for today, there is an appreciation that exposure to maternal psychopathology is not a benign exposure.

Although some of the data remain incomplete, in 2022, patients will continue to make individual decisions based on the available data, factoring in the effect of maternal adversity in a more deliberate way and with a refined lens through with which to see their options with respect to using or not using SSRIs during pregnancy.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.

The use of preimplantation genetic tests (PGT) in in vitro fertilization cycles, including tests for nonmedical sex selection, increased significantly in states without mandated insurance coverage, based on data from a study of 300,000 IVF cycles.

Previous studies have shown associations between IVF insurance coverage and various IVF practice patterns, but trends in genetic testing according to state-mandated insurance have not been explored, Bronwyn S. Bedrick, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.

“Preimplantation genetic testing was introduced into clinical practice to prevent transmission of genetic disease and to improve uptake of single embryo transfer, but in the real world there are many potential applications,” corresponding author Emily Jungheim, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “We wanted to know how PGT is being applied given that its use is on the rise.”

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers analyzed genetic testing in deidentified autologous, nonbanking IVF cycles from 2014 to 2016 obtained through the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS). The data set included 301,465 IVF cycles and 224,235 unique patients over the 3-year study period. Of these, 78,578 cycles (26%) used PGT, and overall, the proportion of IVF cycles using PGT approximately doubled, from 17% in 2014 to 34% in 2016 – a significant increase over time (risk ratio, 1.37). As of 2021, 13 states had mandates that health insurance include IVF costs.

In states with insurance mandates versus nonmandated states, the proportion of any PGT was 28.8% vs. 19.6%, and the probability was 32% lower in states with mandates (RR. 0.68; P < .001).

Aneuploidy was the most common indication for PGT, and accounted for 60% of the cycles; however, the number of cycles using PGT for elective sex selection increased from 1,314 cycles in 2014 to 2,184 in 2016 (approximately 66% increase).

In a multivariate analysis, IVF cycles for elective sex selection was 56% lower in states with mandates, compared with those without (RR, 0.44; P < .001).

In addition, cycles involving nonmedical sex selection were significantly more likely to result in male offspring, the researchers said.

“The increase in the number of cycles using elective sex selection seen in this study may reflect the growing number of clinics offering [PGT] for nonmedical sex selection as well as increasing public awareness of preimplantation genetic testing,” the researchers wrote.

However, the socioeconomic characteristics of women may play a role in the use of PGT, as those living in states with no mandate must be able pay the cost of IVF procedures, as well as the cost of PGT if desired, they noted.

“Because fertility centers may offer patients the choice to select the sex of their embryo after preimplantation genetic testing, this may in effect permit elective sex selection,” the researchers said. The shift in the male-female sex ratio in these cases “is concerning given the implications for future social demographics as IVF and preimplantation genetic testing utilization increase, and the negative effect outcomes could have on medical insurance policy and allocation of resources for medically indicated IVF and preimplantation genetic testing.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of clinic identifiers and lack of data characteristics including, race, ethnicity, and previous live births, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on the sex preferences of the couple, and whether the sex of the embryo was known, and whether male and female embryos were transferred. Also, no states have mandates to cover PGT, and the limited study period may not generalize to current practices.

However, the study strengths include the large size and comprehensive database, and have implications for future policies and expansion of insurance coverage for infertility treatment and for preventing transmission of genetic diseases, they said.
 

Be mindful of consequences of testing

In an interview, Dr. Jungheim said she was surprised by some of the findings. “I thought we would see that PGT-A utilization was lower in states without mandates given the already high cost of IVF for patients paying out of pocket. I was also surprised to see that more males were born after PGT-A; it suggests that overall, patients using PGT-A favor males.

“For clinicians, we need to be mindful of the long-term impact of our practices,” she emphasized. “Shifting the sex ratio in favor of one sex or the other is an unintended consequence of IVF with PGT-A that can have negative implications for future generations.”

In the study, the researchers proposed a revision to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee opinion on sex selection to provide guidance in keeping with ASRM’s mission of “accessible, ethical, and quality reproductive care for every person.”

However, “even if the ASRM Ethics Committee Opinion was revised, it’s up to clinicians to decide what they are comfortable with,” said Dr. Jungheim. “When patients are paying out of pocket for expensive treatments that require emotional investment and time, it can be difficult to keep medical decision making strictly evidence based.” Improved insurance coverage and access to fertility care may help with some of these decisions, but more real-world evidence is needed. 
 

Let’s talk about sex (selection)

The study findings are both “novel and sobering,” and enhance the current body of evidence of associations between state insurance mandates and IVF outcomes, Jennifer Eaton, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The association between mandate status and elective sex selection is particularly eye-opening,” said Dr. Eaton. The overall increased use of PGT for sex selection does not account for sex selection as part of testing for aneuploidy. In fact, “patients with euploid embryos of both sexes are frequently given the opportunity to select which embryo to transfer.”

The current study provides “compelling evidence that it is time to revisit the ethical dilemma of elective sex selection in the United States,” Dr. Eaton emphasized. The current ASRM guidance states that IVF clinics are not obligated to provide or refuse to provide nonmedically indicated methods of sex selection, but in light of the current study and other studies, a revision to the existing ASRM Ethics Committee opinion is needed.

The study received no outside funding. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Eaton had any financial conflicts to disclose.

The use of preimplantation genetic tests (PGT) in in vitro fertilization cycles, including tests for nonmedical sex selection, increased significantly in states without mandated insurance coverage, based on data from a study of 300,000 IVF cycles.

Previous studies have shown associations between IVF insurance coverage and various IVF practice patterns, but trends in genetic testing according to state-mandated insurance have not been explored, Bronwyn S. Bedrick, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.

“Preimplantation genetic testing was introduced into clinical practice to prevent transmission of genetic disease and to improve uptake of single embryo transfer, but in the real world there are many potential applications,” corresponding author Emily Jungheim, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “We wanted to know how PGT is being applied given that its use is on the rise.”

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers analyzed genetic testing in deidentified autologous, nonbanking IVF cycles from 2014 to 2016 obtained through the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS). The data set included 301,465 IVF cycles and 224,235 unique patients over the 3-year study period. Of these, 78,578 cycles (26%) used PGT, and overall, the proportion of IVF cycles using PGT approximately doubled, from 17% in 2014 to 34% in 2016 – a significant increase over time (risk ratio, 1.37). As of 2021, 13 states had mandates that health insurance include IVF costs.

In states with insurance mandates versus nonmandated states, the proportion of any PGT was 28.8% vs. 19.6%, and the probability was 32% lower in states with mandates (RR. 0.68; P < .001).

Aneuploidy was the most common indication for PGT, and accounted for 60% of the cycles; however, the number of cycles using PGT for elective sex selection increased from 1,314 cycles in 2014 to 2,184 in 2016 (approximately 66% increase).

In a multivariate analysis, IVF cycles for elective sex selection was 56% lower in states with mandates, compared with those without (RR, 0.44; P < .001).

In addition, cycles involving nonmedical sex selection were significantly more likely to result in male offspring, the researchers said.

“The increase in the number of cycles using elective sex selection seen in this study may reflect the growing number of clinics offering [PGT] for nonmedical sex selection as well as increasing public awareness of preimplantation genetic testing,” the researchers wrote.

However, the socioeconomic characteristics of women may play a role in the use of PGT, as those living in states with no mandate must be able pay the cost of IVF procedures, as well as the cost of PGT if desired, they noted.

“Because fertility centers may offer patients the choice to select the sex of their embryo after preimplantation genetic testing, this may in effect permit elective sex selection,” the researchers said. The shift in the male-female sex ratio in these cases “is concerning given the implications for future social demographics as IVF and preimplantation genetic testing utilization increase, and the negative effect outcomes could have on medical insurance policy and allocation of resources for medically indicated IVF and preimplantation genetic testing.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of clinic identifiers and lack of data characteristics including, race, ethnicity, and previous live births, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on the sex preferences of the couple, and whether the sex of the embryo was known, and whether male and female embryos were transferred. Also, no states have mandates to cover PGT, and the limited study period may not generalize to current practices.

However, the study strengths include the large size and comprehensive database, and have implications for future policies and expansion of insurance coverage for infertility treatment and for preventing transmission of genetic diseases, they said.
 

Be mindful of consequences of testing

In an interview, Dr. Jungheim said she was surprised by some of the findings. “I thought we would see that PGT-A utilization was lower in states without mandates given the already high cost of IVF for patients paying out of pocket. I was also surprised to see that more males were born after PGT-A; it suggests that overall, patients using PGT-A favor males.

“For clinicians, we need to be mindful of the long-term impact of our practices,” she emphasized. “Shifting the sex ratio in favor of one sex or the other is an unintended consequence of IVF with PGT-A that can have negative implications for future generations.”

In the study, the researchers proposed a revision to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee opinion on sex selection to provide guidance in keeping with ASRM’s mission of “accessible, ethical, and quality reproductive care for every person.”

However, “even if the ASRM Ethics Committee Opinion was revised, it’s up to clinicians to decide what they are comfortable with,” said Dr. Jungheim. “When patients are paying out of pocket for expensive treatments that require emotional investment and time, it can be difficult to keep medical decision making strictly evidence based.” Improved insurance coverage and access to fertility care may help with some of these decisions, but more real-world evidence is needed. 
 

Let’s talk about sex (selection)

The study findings are both “novel and sobering,” and enhance the current body of evidence of associations between state insurance mandates and IVF outcomes, Jennifer Eaton, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The association between mandate status and elective sex selection is particularly eye-opening,” said Dr. Eaton. The overall increased use of PGT for sex selection does not account for sex selection as part of testing for aneuploidy. In fact, “patients with euploid embryos of both sexes are frequently given the opportunity to select which embryo to transfer.”

The current study provides “compelling evidence that it is time to revisit the ethical dilemma of elective sex selection in the United States,” Dr. Eaton emphasized. The current ASRM guidance states that IVF clinics are not obligated to provide or refuse to provide nonmedically indicated methods of sex selection, but in light of the current study and other studies, a revision to the existing ASRM Ethics Committee opinion is needed.

The study received no outside funding. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Eaton had any financial conflicts to disclose.

The use of preimplantation genetic tests (PGT) in in vitro fertilization cycles, including tests for nonmedical sex selection, increased significantly in states without mandated insurance coverage, based on data from a study of 300,000 IVF cycles.

Previous studies have shown associations between IVF insurance coverage and various IVF practice patterns, but trends in genetic testing according to state-mandated insurance have not been explored, Bronwyn S. Bedrick, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.

“Preimplantation genetic testing was introduced into clinical practice to prevent transmission of genetic disease and to improve uptake of single embryo transfer, but in the real world there are many potential applications,” corresponding author Emily Jungheim, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “We wanted to know how PGT is being applied given that its use is on the rise.”

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers analyzed genetic testing in deidentified autologous, nonbanking IVF cycles from 2014 to 2016 obtained through the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS). The data set included 301,465 IVF cycles and 224,235 unique patients over the 3-year study period. Of these, 78,578 cycles (26%) used PGT, and overall, the proportion of IVF cycles using PGT approximately doubled, from 17% in 2014 to 34% in 2016 – a significant increase over time (risk ratio, 1.37). As of 2021, 13 states had mandates that health insurance include IVF costs.

In states with insurance mandates versus nonmandated states, the proportion of any PGT was 28.8% vs. 19.6%, and the probability was 32% lower in states with mandates (RR. 0.68; P < .001).

Aneuploidy was the most common indication for PGT, and accounted for 60% of the cycles; however, the number of cycles using PGT for elective sex selection increased from 1,314 cycles in 2014 to 2,184 in 2016 (approximately 66% increase).

In a multivariate analysis, IVF cycles for elective sex selection was 56% lower in states with mandates, compared with those without (RR, 0.44; P < .001).

In addition, cycles involving nonmedical sex selection were significantly more likely to result in male offspring, the researchers said.

“The increase in the number of cycles using elective sex selection seen in this study may reflect the growing number of clinics offering [PGT] for nonmedical sex selection as well as increasing public awareness of preimplantation genetic testing,” the researchers wrote.

However, the socioeconomic characteristics of women may play a role in the use of PGT, as those living in states with no mandate must be able pay the cost of IVF procedures, as well as the cost of PGT if desired, they noted.

“Because fertility centers may offer patients the choice to select the sex of their embryo after preimplantation genetic testing, this may in effect permit elective sex selection,” the researchers said. The shift in the male-female sex ratio in these cases “is concerning given the implications for future social demographics as IVF and preimplantation genetic testing utilization increase, and the negative effect outcomes could have on medical insurance policy and allocation of resources for medically indicated IVF and preimplantation genetic testing.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of clinic identifiers and lack of data characteristics including, race, ethnicity, and previous live births, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on the sex preferences of the couple, and whether the sex of the embryo was known, and whether male and female embryos were transferred. Also, no states have mandates to cover PGT, and the limited study period may not generalize to current practices.

However, the study strengths include the large size and comprehensive database, and have implications for future policies and expansion of insurance coverage for infertility treatment and for preventing transmission of genetic diseases, they said.
 

Be mindful of consequences of testing

In an interview, Dr. Jungheim said she was surprised by some of the findings. “I thought we would see that PGT-A utilization was lower in states without mandates given the already high cost of IVF for patients paying out of pocket. I was also surprised to see that more males were born after PGT-A; it suggests that overall, patients using PGT-A favor males.

“For clinicians, we need to be mindful of the long-term impact of our practices,” she emphasized. “Shifting the sex ratio in favor of one sex or the other is an unintended consequence of IVF with PGT-A that can have negative implications for future generations.”

In the study, the researchers proposed a revision to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee opinion on sex selection to provide guidance in keeping with ASRM’s mission of “accessible, ethical, and quality reproductive care for every person.”

However, “even if the ASRM Ethics Committee Opinion was revised, it’s up to clinicians to decide what they are comfortable with,” said Dr. Jungheim. “When patients are paying out of pocket for expensive treatments that require emotional investment and time, it can be difficult to keep medical decision making strictly evidence based.” Improved insurance coverage and access to fertility care may help with some of these decisions, but more real-world evidence is needed. 
 

Let’s talk about sex (selection)

The study findings are both “novel and sobering,” and enhance the current body of evidence of associations between state insurance mandates and IVF outcomes, Jennifer Eaton, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The association between mandate status and elective sex selection is particularly eye-opening,” said Dr. Eaton. The overall increased use of PGT for sex selection does not account for sex selection as part of testing for aneuploidy. In fact, “patients with euploid embryos of both sexes are frequently given the opportunity to select which embryo to transfer.”

The current study provides “compelling evidence that it is time to revisit the ethical dilemma of elective sex selection in the United States,” Dr. Eaton emphasized. The current ASRM guidance states that IVF clinics are not obligated to provide or refuse to provide nonmedically indicated methods of sex selection, but in light of the current study and other studies, a revision to the existing ASRM Ethics Committee opinion is needed.

The study received no outside funding. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Eaton had any financial conflicts to disclose.

A genomic study has revealed new insights into the function of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in the context of reproductive biology and fertility.

Insights into the physiological, and potentially therapeutic, function were identified based on data from single-cell RNA sequencing, derived from transcriptomic analysis and immunolabeling of antral follicles.

“The specific contribution of elevated AMH to the molecular pathology of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and its defining clinical features is unclear, as no study, to date, has examined the effect of chronically elevated AMH in an experimentally controlled in vivo model,” study author Limor Man, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues wrote. The group’s findings were published in Science Advances.

The researchers used ovarian cortical xenografts with cotransplantation of engineered endothelial cells to examine the effect of chronic paracrine AMH stimulus on human folliculogenesis.

They cotransplanted human ovarian cortex with control or AMH-expressing endothelial cells in immunocompromised mice and recovered antral follicles for purification and subsequent analysis. Overall, 38 antral follicles were observed (19 control and 19 AMH) at long-term intervals, defined as intervals greater than 10 weeks.

The researchers found that long-term xenografts showed an accelerated growth rate in the setting of chronically elevated AMH and exhibited a molecular signature indicative of more advanced stages of follicle maturation, including that of luteinization.

In mice, exogenous AMH follicles showed a decreased ratio of primordial to growing follicles and antral follicles of increased diameter.

In addition, transcriptomic and immunolabeling analyses revealed that chronic high AMH had a marked influence on the growth and transcriptomic signature of antral-stage follicles, with a universal increase in factors related to the synthesis and/or metabolism of cholesterol and sex steroid hormones, as well as early expression of factors often seen at later stages of folliculogenesis.

“These data decouple elevated AMH from the metabolic and hyperandrogenic conditions that define PCOS and suggest that chronically elevated AMH induces a molecular cascade that contributes, at least in part, to the anovulatory phenotype in these patients,” the researchers wrote.

Furthermore, they found evidence to suggest that chronic high AMH can induce expression of the luteinizing hormone receptor at earlier stages of folliculogenesis, thereby worsening the disruptive effect of elevated luteinizing hormone from the pituitary.

“[These] findings underscore the broad influence of AMH on transcriptional activity and maturation state of follicles and support an independent role for dysregulation of AMH signaling in driving anovulation in women with PCOS,” they wrote.

While these findings are intriguing, the researchers cautioned against drawing conclusions from the study since elevated AMH is almost always seen in combination with one or more symptomatic hallmarks in PCOS.

“Despite [some] limitations, [our] analysis provides a deep and high-resolution examination of AMH action on human folliculogenesis and suggests a prominent effect on antral follicle maturation,” they explained.
 

Expert perspective

“From age 25, AMH levels begin their decline until reaching undetectable levels at menopause,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “Women with PCOS experience a chronic and frustrating pathophysiologic problem whose origins and mechanism have evaded researchers for decades.

“As AMH elevations in utero may contribute to fetal susceptibility to PCOS, this study provides another potential link by suggesting that chronically elevated AMH induces anovulation,” he added. “We await, with great anticipation, future clinical studies to potentially further illustrate the apparent and intriguing role of AMH in the development of PCOS.”

This study was supported by the Queenie Victorina Neri Scholarship and a Research Grant from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. One author reported financial relationships with Oviva Therapeutics; no other conflicts of interest were reported.

A genomic study has revealed new insights into the function of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in the context of reproductive biology and fertility.

Insights into the physiological, and potentially therapeutic, function were identified based on data from single-cell RNA sequencing, derived from transcriptomic analysis and immunolabeling of antral follicles.

“The specific contribution of elevated AMH to the molecular pathology of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and its defining clinical features is unclear, as no study, to date, has examined the effect of chronically elevated AMH in an experimentally controlled in vivo model,” study author Limor Man, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues wrote. The group’s findings were published in Science Advances.

The researchers used ovarian cortical xenografts with cotransplantation of engineered endothelial cells to examine the effect of chronic paracrine AMH stimulus on human folliculogenesis.

They cotransplanted human ovarian cortex with control or AMH-expressing endothelial cells in immunocompromised mice and recovered antral follicles for purification and subsequent analysis. Overall, 38 antral follicles were observed (19 control and 19 AMH) at long-term intervals, defined as intervals greater than 10 weeks.

The researchers found that long-term xenografts showed an accelerated growth rate in the setting of chronically elevated AMH and exhibited a molecular signature indicative of more advanced stages of follicle maturation, including that of luteinization.

In mice, exogenous AMH follicles showed a decreased ratio of primordial to growing follicles and antral follicles of increased diameter.

In addition, transcriptomic and immunolabeling analyses revealed that chronic high AMH had a marked influence on the growth and transcriptomic signature of antral-stage follicles, with a universal increase in factors related to the synthesis and/or metabolism of cholesterol and sex steroid hormones, as well as early expression of factors often seen at later stages of folliculogenesis.

“These data decouple elevated AMH from the metabolic and hyperandrogenic conditions that define PCOS and suggest that chronically elevated AMH induces a molecular cascade that contributes, at least in part, to the anovulatory phenotype in these patients,” the researchers wrote.

Furthermore, they found evidence to suggest that chronic high AMH can induce expression of the luteinizing hormone receptor at earlier stages of folliculogenesis, thereby worsening the disruptive effect of elevated luteinizing hormone from the pituitary.

“[These] findings underscore the broad influence of AMH on transcriptional activity and maturation state of follicles and support an independent role for dysregulation of AMH signaling in driving anovulation in women with PCOS,” they wrote.

While these findings are intriguing, the researchers cautioned against drawing conclusions from the study since elevated AMH is almost always seen in combination with one or more symptomatic hallmarks in PCOS.

“Despite [some] limitations, [our] analysis provides a deep and high-resolution examination of AMH action on human folliculogenesis and suggests a prominent effect on antral follicle maturation,” they explained.
 

Expert perspective

“From age 25, AMH levels begin their decline until reaching undetectable levels at menopause,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “Women with PCOS experience a chronic and frustrating pathophysiologic problem whose origins and mechanism have evaded researchers for decades.

“As AMH elevations in utero may contribute to fetal susceptibility to PCOS, this study provides another potential link by suggesting that chronically elevated AMH induces anovulation,” he added. “We await, with great anticipation, future clinical studies to potentially further illustrate the apparent and intriguing role of AMH in the development of PCOS.”

This study was supported by the Queenie Victorina Neri Scholarship and a Research Grant from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. One author reported financial relationships with Oviva Therapeutics; no other conflicts of interest were reported.

A genomic study has revealed new insights into the function of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in the context of reproductive biology and fertility.

Insights into the physiological, and potentially therapeutic, function were identified based on data from single-cell RNA sequencing, derived from transcriptomic analysis and immunolabeling of antral follicles.

“The specific contribution of elevated AMH to the molecular pathology of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and its defining clinical features is unclear, as no study, to date, has examined the effect of chronically elevated AMH in an experimentally controlled in vivo model,” study author Limor Man, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues wrote. The group’s findings were published in Science Advances.

The researchers used ovarian cortical xenografts with cotransplantation of engineered endothelial cells to examine the effect of chronic paracrine AMH stimulus on human folliculogenesis.

They cotransplanted human ovarian cortex with control or AMH-expressing endothelial cells in immunocompromised mice and recovered antral follicles for purification and subsequent analysis. Overall, 38 antral follicles were observed (19 control and 19 AMH) at long-term intervals, defined as intervals greater than 10 weeks.

The researchers found that long-term xenografts showed an accelerated growth rate in the setting of chronically elevated AMH and exhibited a molecular signature indicative of more advanced stages of follicle maturation, including that of luteinization.

In mice, exogenous AMH follicles showed a decreased ratio of primordial to growing follicles and antral follicles of increased diameter.

In addition, transcriptomic and immunolabeling analyses revealed that chronic high AMH had a marked influence on the growth and transcriptomic signature of antral-stage follicles, with a universal increase in factors related to the synthesis and/or metabolism of cholesterol and sex steroid hormones, as well as early expression of factors often seen at later stages of folliculogenesis.

“These data decouple elevated AMH from the metabolic and hyperandrogenic conditions that define PCOS and suggest that chronically elevated AMH induces a molecular cascade that contributes, at least in part, to the anovulatory phenotype in these patients,” the researchers wrote.

Furthermore, they found evidence to suggest that chronic high AMH can induce expression of the luteinizing hormone receptor at earlier stages of folliculogenesis, thereby worsening the disruptive effect of elevated luteinizing hormone from the pituitary.

“[These] findings underscore the broad influence of AMH on transcriptional activity and maturation state of follicles and support an independent role for dysregulation of AMH signaling in driving anovulation in women with PCOS,” they wrote.

While these findings are intriguing, the researchers cautioned against drawing conclusions from the study since elevated AMH is almost always seen in combination with one or more symptomatic hallmarks in PCOS.

“Despite [some] limitations, [our] analysis provides a deep and high-resolution examination of AMH action on human folliculogenesis and suggests a prominent effect on antral follicle maturation,” they explained.
 

Expert perspective

“From age 25, AMH levels begin their decline until reaching undetectable levels at menopause,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “Women with PCOS experience a chronic and frustrating pathophysiologic problem whose origins and mechanism have evaded researchers for decades.

“As AMH elevations in utero may contribute to fetal susceptibility to PCOS, this study provides another potential link by suggesting that chronically elevated AMH induces anovulation,” he added. “We await, with great anticipation, future clinical studies to potentially further illustrate the apparent and intriguing role of AMH in the development of PCOS.”

This study was supported by the Queenie Victorina Neri Scholarship and a Research Grant from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. One author reported financial relationships with Oviva Therapeutics; no other conflicts of interest were reported.

The PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in early-stage breast cancer and later-stage disease. Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.

The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.

The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.

The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.

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

The PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in early-stage breast cancer and later-stage disease. Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.

The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.

The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.

The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.

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

The PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in early-stage breast cancer and later-stage disease. Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.

The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.

The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.

The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.

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