OBG Management

CASE Patient concerned about hormonal contraception’s impact on lactation

A 19-year-old woman (G2P1102) is postpartum day 1 after delivering a baby at 26 weeks’ gestation. When you see her on postpartum rounds, she states that she does not want any hormonal contraception because she heard that it will decrease her milk supply. What are your next steps?
 

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently updated its policy statement on breastfeeding and the use of human milk to recommend exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months and continued breastfeeding, with complementary foods, as mutually desired for 2 years or beyond given evidence of maternal health benefits with breastfeeding longer than 1 year.¹

Breastfeeding prevalence—and challenges

Despite maternal and infant benefits associated with lactation, current breastfeeding prevalence in the United States remains suboptimal. In 2019, 24.9% of infants were exclusively breastfed through 6 months and 35.9% were breastfeeding at 12 months.² Furthermore, disparities in breastfeeding exist, which contribute to health inequities. For example, non-Hispanic Black infants had lower rates of exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months (19.1%) and any breastfeeding at 12 months (24.1%) compared with non-Hispanic White infants (26.9% and 39.4%, respectively).³

While many new mothers intend to breastfeed and initiate breastfeeding in the hospital after delivery, overall and exclusive breastfeeding continuation rates are low, indicating that patients face challenges with breastfeeding after hospital discharge. Many structural and societal barriers to breastfeeding exist, including inadequate social support and parental leave policies.⁴ Suboptimal maternity care practices during the birth hospitalization may lead to challenges with breastfeeding initiation. Health care practitioners may present additional barriers to breastfeeding due to a lack of knowledge of available resources for patients or incomplete training in breastfeeding counseling and support.

To address our case patient’s concerns, clinicians should be aware of how exogenous progestins may affect breastfeeding physiology, risk factors for breastfeeding difficulty, and the available evidence for safety of hormonal contraception use while breastfeeding.

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Physiology of breastfeeding

During the second half of pregnancy, secretory differentiation (lactogenesis I) of mammary alveolar epithelial cells into secretory cells occurs to allow the mammary gland to eventually produce milk.⁵ After delivery of the placenta, progesterone withdrawal triggers secretory activation (lactogenesis II), which refers to the onset of copious milk production within 2 to 3 days postpartum.⁵ Most patients experience secretory activation within 72 hours; however, a delay in secretory activation past 72 hours is associated with cessation of any and exclusive breastfeeding at 4 weeks postpartum.⁶

Impaired lactation can be related to a delay in secretory activation or to insufficient lactation related to low milk supply. Maternal medical comorbidities (for example, diabetes mellitus, thyroid dysfunction, obesity), breast anatomy (such as insufficient glandular tissue, prior breast reduction surgery), pregnancy-related events (preeclampsia, retained placenta, postpartum hemorrhage), and infant conditions (such as multiple gestation, premature birth, congenital anomalies) all contribute to a risk of impaired lactation.⁷

Guidance on breastfeeding and hormonal contraception initiation

Early initiation of hormonal contraception poses theoretical concerns about breastfeeding difficulty if exogenous progestin interferes with endogenous signals for onset of milk production. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention US Medical Eligibility Criteria (MEC) for Contraceptive Use provide recommendations on the safety of contraceptive use in the setting of various medical conditions or patient characteristics based on available data. The MEC uses 4 categories in assessing the safety of contraceptive method use for individuals with specific medical conditions or characteristics: 1, no restrictions exist for use of the contraceptive method; 2, advantages generally outweigh theoretical or proven risks; 3, theoretical or proven risks usually outweigh the advantages; and 4, conditions that represent an unacceptable health risk if the method is used.⁸

In the 2016 guidelines, combined hormonal contraceptives are considered category 4 at less than 21 days postpartum, regardless of breastfeeding status, due to the increased risk of venous thromboembolism in the immediate postpartum period (TABLE 1).⁸ Progestin-only contraception is considered category 1 in nonbreastfeeding individuals and category 2 in breastfeeding individuals based on overall evidence that found no adverse outcome with breastfeeding or infant outcomes with early initiation of progestin-only contraception (TABLE 1, TABLE 2).⁸

Since the publication of the 2016 MEC guidelines, several studies have continued to examine breastfeeding and infant outcomes with early initiation of hormonal contraception.

• In a noninferiority randomized controlled trial of immediate versus delayed initiation of a levonorgestrel intrauterine device (LNG IUD), any breastfeeding at 8 weeks in the immediate group was 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70%–85%), which was lower than but within the specified noninferiority margin of the delayed breastfeeding group (83%; 95% CI, 75%–90%), indicating that breastfeeding outcomes with immediate initiation of an LNG IUD were not worse compared with delayed initiation.⁹
• A secondary analysis of a randomized trial that compared intracesarean versus LNG IUD placement at 6 or more weeks postpartum showed no difference in breastfeeding at 6, 12, and 24 weeks after LNG IUD placement.¹⁰
• A randomized trial of early (up to 48 hours postpartum) versus placement of an etonogestrel (ENG) implant at 6 or more weeks postpartum showed no difference between groups in infant weight at 12 months.¹¹
• A randomized trial of immediate (within 5 days of delivery) or interval placement of the 2-rod LNG implant (not approved in the United States) showed no difference in change in infant weight from birth to 6 months after delivery, onset of secretory activation, or breastfeeding continuation at 3 and 6 months postpartum.¹²
• In a prospective cohort study that compared immediate postpartum initiation of ENG versus a 2-rod LNG implant (approved by the FDA but not marketed in the United States), there were no differences in breastfeeding continuation at 24 months and exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months postpartum.¹³
• In a noninferiority randomized controlled trial that compared ENG implant initiation in the delivery room (0–2 hours postdelivery) versus delayed initiation (24–48 hours postdelivery), the time to secretory activation in those who initiated an ENG implant in the delivery room (66.8 [SD, 25.2] hours) was noninferior to delayed initiation (66.0 [SD, 35.3] hours). There also was no difference in ongoing breastfeeding over the first year after delivery and implant use at 12 months.¹⁴
• A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial examined breastfeeding outcomes with receipt of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) prior to discharge in women who delivered infants who weighed 1,500 g or less at 32 weeks’ or less gestation. Time to secretory activation was longer in 29 women who received DMPA (103.7 hours) compared with 141 women who did not (88.6 hours; P = .028); however, there was no difference in daily milk production, lactation duration, or infant consumption of mother’s own milk.¹⁵

While the overall evidence suggests that early initiation of hormonal contraception does not affect breastfeeding or infant outcomes, it is important for clinicians to recognize the limitations of available data with regard to the populations included in these studies. Specifically, most studies did not include individuals with premature, low birth weight, or multiple gestation infants, who are at higher risk of impaired lactation, and individuals with a higher prevalence of breastfeeding were not included to determine whether early initiation of hormonal contraception would impact breastfeeding. Furthermore, while these studies enrolled participants who planned to breastfeed, data indicate that intentions to initiate and continue exclusive breastfeeding can vary.¹⁶ As the reported rates of any and exclusive breastfeeding are consistent with or lower than current US breastfeeding rates, any decrease in breastfeeding exclusivity or duration that may be attributable to hormonal contraception may be unacceptable to those who are strongly motivated to breastfeed.

Continue to: How can clinicians integrate evidence into contraception counseling?...

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine offer guidance for how clinicians can address the use of hormonal contraception in breastfeeding patients. Both organizations recommend discussing the risks and benefits of hormonal contraception within the context of each person’s desire to breastfeed, potential for breastfeeding difficulty, and risk of pregnancy so that individuals can make their own informed decisions.^17,18

Obstetric care clinicians have an important role in helping patients make informed infant feeding decisions without coercion or pressure. To start these discussions, clinicians can begin by assessing a patient’s breastfeeding goals by asking open-ended questions, such as:

• What have you heard about breastfeeding?
• What are your plans for returning to work or school after delivery?
• How did breastfeeding go with older children?
• What are your plans for feeding this baby?

In addition to gathering information about the patient’s priorities and goals, clinicians should identify any risk factors for breastfeeding challenges in the medical, surgical, or previous breastfeeding history. Clinicians can engage in a patient-centered approach to infant feeding decisions by anticipating any challenges and working together to develop strategies to address these challenges with the patient’s goals in mind.¹⁷

When counseling about contraception, a spectrum of approaches exists, from a nondirective information-sharing only model to directive counseling by the clinician. The shared decision-making model lies between these 2 approaches and recognizes the expertise of both the clinician and patient.¹⁹ To start these interactions, clinicians can ask about a patient’s reproductive goals by assessing the patient’s needs, values, and preferences for contraception. Potential questions include:

• What kinds of contraceptive methods have you used in the past?
• What is important to you in a contraceptive method?
• How important is it to you to avoid another pregnancy right now?

Clinicians can then share information about different contraceptive methods based on the desired qualities that the patient has identified and how each method fits or does not fit into the patient’s goals and preferences. This collaborative approach facilitates an open dialogue and supports patient autonomy in contraceptive decision-making.

Lastly, clinicians should be cognizant of their own potential biases that could affect their counseling, such as encouraging contraceptive use because of a patient’s young age, parity, or premature delivery, as in our case presentation. Similarly, clinicians also should recognize that breastfeeding and contraceptive decisions are personal and are made with cultural, historical, and social contexts in mind.²⁰ Ultimately, counseling should be patient centered and individualized for each person’s priorities related to infant feeding and pregnancy prevention. ●

CASE Patient concerned about hormonal contraception’s impact on lactation

A 19-year-old woman (G2P1102) is postpartum day 1 after delivering a baby at 26 weeks’ gestation. When you see her on postpartum rounds, she states that she does not want any hormonal contraception because she heard that it will decrease her milk supply. What are your next steps?
 

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently updated its policy statement on breastfeeding and the use of human milk to recommend exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months and continued breastfeeding, with complementary foods, as mutually desired for 2 years or beyond given evidence of maternal health benefits with breastfeeding longer than 1 year.¹

Breastfeeding prevalence—and challenges

Despite maternal and infant benefits associated with lactation, current breastfeeding prevalence in the United States remains suboptimal. In 2019, 24.9% of infants were exclusively breastfed through 6 months and 35.9% were breastfeeding at 12 months.² Furthermore, disparities in breastfeeding exist, which contribute to health inequities. For example, non-Hispanic Black infants had lower rates of exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months (19.1%) and any breastfeeding at 12 months (24.1%) compared with non-Hispanic White infants (26.9% and 39.4%, respectively).³

While many new mothers intend to breastfeed and initiate breastfeeding in the hospital after delivery, overall and exclusive breastfeeding continuation rates are low, indicating that patients face challenges with breastfeeding after hospital discharge. Many structural and societal barriers to breastfeeding exist, including inadequate social support and parental leave policies.⁴ Suboptimal maternity care practices during the birth hospitalization may lead to challenges with breastfeeding initiation. Health care practitioners may present additional barriers to breastfeeding due to a lack of knowledge of available resources for patients or incomplete training in breastfeeding counseling and support.

To address our case patient’s concerns, clinicians should be aware of how exogenous progestins may affect breastfeeding physiology, risk factors for breastfeeding difficulty, and the available evidence for safety of hormonal contraception use while breastfeeding.

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Physiology of breastfeeding

During the second half of pregnancy, secretory differentiation (lactogenesis I) of mammary alveolar epithelial cells into secretory cells occurs to allow the mammary gland to eventually produce milk.⁵ After delivery of the placenta, progesterone withdrawal triggers secretory activation (lactogenesis II), which refers to the onset of copious milk production within 2 to 3 days postpartum.⁵ Most patients experience secretory activation within 72 hours; however, a delay in secretory activation past 72 hours is associated with cessation of any and exclusive breastfeeding at 4 weeks postpartum.⁶

Impaired lactation can be related to a delay in secretory activation or to insufficient lactation related to low milk supply. Maternal medical comorbidities (for example, diabetes mellitus, thyroid dysfunction, obesity), breast anatomy (such as insufficient glandular tissue, prior breast reduction surgery), pregnancy-related events (preeclampsia, retained placenta, postpartum hemorrhage), and infant conditions (such as multiple gestation, premature birth, congenital anomalies) all contribute to a risk of impaired lactation.⁷

Guidance on breastfeeding and hormonal contraception initiation

Early initiation of hormonal contraception poses theoretical concerns about breastfeeding difficulty if exogenous progestin interferes with endogenous signals for onset of milk production. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention US Medical Eligibility Criteria (MEC) for Contraceptive Use provide recommendations on the safety of contraceptive use in the setting of various medical conditions or patient characteristics based on available data. The MEC uses 4 categories in assessing the safety of contraceptive method use for individuals with specific medical conditions or characteristics: 1, no restrictions exist for use of the contraceptive method; 2, advantages generally outweigh theoretical or proven risks; 3, theoretical or proven risks usually outweigh the advantages; and 4, conditions that represent an unacceptable health risk if the method is used.⁸

In the 2016 guidelines, combined hormonal contraceptives are considered category 4 at less than 21 days postpartum, regardless of breastfeeding status, due to the increased risk of venous thromboembolism in the immediate postpartum period (TABLE 1).⁸ Progestin-only contraception is considered category 1 in nonbreastfeeding individuals and category 2 in breastfeeding individuals based on overall evidence that found no adverse outcome with breastfeeding or infant outcomes with early initiation of progestin-only contraception (TABLE 1, TABLE 2).⁸

Since the publication of the 2016 MEC guidelines, several studies have continued to examine breastfeeding and infant outcomes with early initiation of hormonal contraception.

• In a noninferiority randomized controlled trial of immediate versus delayed initiation of a levonorgestrel intrauterine device (LNG IUD), any breastfeeding at 8 weeks in the immediate group was 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70%–85%), which was lower than but within the specified noninferiority margin of the delayed breastfeeding group (83%; 95% CI, 75%–90%), indicating that breastfeeding outcomes with immediate initiation of an LNG IUD were not worse compared with delayed initiation.⁹
• A secondary analysis of a randomized trial that compared intracesarean versus LNG IUD placement at 6 or more weeks postpartum showed no difference in breastfeeding at 6, 12, and 24 weeks after LNG IUD placement.¹⁰
• A randomized trial of early (up to 48 hours postpartum) versus placement of an etonogestrel (ENG) implant at 6 or more weeks postpartum showed no difference between groups in infant weight at 12 months.¹¹
• A randomized trial of immediate (within 5 days of delivery) or interval placement of the 2-rod LNG implant (not approved in the United States) showed no difference in change in infant weight from birth to 6 months after delivery, onset of secretory activation, or breastfeeding continuation at 3 and 6 months postpartum.¹²
• In a prospective cohort study that compared immediate postpartum initiation of ENG versus a 2-rod LNG implant (approved by the FDA but not marketed in the United States), there were no differences in breastfeeding continuation at 24 months and exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months postpartum.¹³
• In a noninferiority randomized controlled trial that compared ENG implant initiation in the delivery room (0–2 hours postdelivery) versus delayed initiation (24–48 hours postdelivery), the time to secretory activation in those who initiated an ENG implant in the delivery room (66.8 [SD, 25.2] hours) was noninferior to delayed initiation (66.0 [SD, 35.3] hours). There also was no difference in ongoing breastfeeding over the first year after delivery and implant use at 12 months.¹⁴
• A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial examined breastfeeding outcomes with receipt of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) prior to discharge in women who delivered infants who weighed 1,500 g or less at 32 weeks’ or less gestation. Time to secretory activation was longer in 29 women who received DMPA (103.7 hours) compared with 141 women who did not (88.6 hours; P = .028); however, there was no difference in daily milk production, lactation duration, or infant consumption of mother’s own milk.¹⁵

While the overall evidence suggests that early initiation of hormonal contraception does not affect breastfeeding or infant outcomes, it is important for clinicians to recognize the limitations of available data with regard to the populations included in these studies. Specifically, most studies did not include individuals with premature, low birth weight, or multiple gestation infants, who are at higher risk of impaired lactation, and individuals with a higher prevalence of breastfeeding were not included to determine whether early initiation of hormonal contraception would impact breastfeeding. Furthermore, while these studies enrolled participants who planned to breastfeed, data indicate that intentions to initiate and continue exclusive breastfeeding can vary.¹⁶ As the reported rates of any and exclusive breastfeeding are consistent with or lower than current US breastfeeding rates, any decrease in breastfeeding exclusivity or duration that may be attributable to hormonal contraception may be unacceptable to those who are strongly motivated to breastfeed.

Continue to: How can clinicians integrate evidence into contraception counseling?...

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine offer guidance for how clinicians can address the use of hormonal contraception in breastfeeding patients. Both organizations recommend discussing the risks and benefits of hormonal contraception within the context of each person’s desire to breastfeed, potential for breastfeeding difficulty, and risk of pregnancy so that individuals can make their own informed decisions.^17,18

Obstetric care clinicians have an important role in helping patients make informed infant feeding decisions without coercion or pressure. To start these discussions, clinicians can begin by assessing a patient’s breastfeeding goals by asking open-ended questions, such as:

• What have you heard about breastfeeding?
• What are your plans for returning to work or school after delivery?
• How did breastfeeding go with older children?
• What are your plans for feeding this baby?

In addition to gathering information about the patient’s priorities and goals, clinicians should identify any risk factors for breastfeeding challenges in the medical, surgical, or previous breastfeeding history. Clinicians can engage in a patient-centered approach to infant feeding decisions by anticipating any challenges and working together to develop strategies to address these challenges with the patient’s goals in mind.¹⁷

When counseling about contraception, a spectrum of approaches exists, from a nondirective information-sharing only model to directive counseling by the clinician. The shared decision-making model lies between these 2 approaches and recognizes the expertise of both the clinician and patient.¹⁹ To start these interactions, clinicians can ask about a patient’s reproductive goals by assessing the patient’s needs, values, and preferences for contraception. Potential questions include:

• What kinds of contraceptive methods have you used in the past?
• What is important to you in a contraceptive method?
• How important is it to you to avoid another pregnancy right now?

Clinicians can then share information about different contraceptive methods based on the desired qualities that the patient has identified and how each method fits or does not fit into the patient’s goals and preferences. This collaborative approach facilitates an open dialogue and supports patient autonomy in contraceptive decision-making.

Lastly, clinicians should be cognizant of their own potential biases that could affect their counseling, such as encouraging contraceptive use because of a patient’s young age, parity, or premature delivery, as in our case presentation. Similarly, clinicians also should recognize that breastfeeding and contraceptive decisions are personal and are made with cultural, historical, and social contexts in mind.²⁰ Ultimately, counseling should be patient centered and individualized for each person’s priorities related to infant feeding and pregnancy prevention. ●

CASE Patient concerned about hormonal contraception’s impact on lactation

A 19-year-old woman (G2P1102) is postpartum day 1 after delivering a baby at 26 weeks’ gestation. When you see her on postpartum rounds, she states that she does not want any hormonal contraception because she heard that it will decrease her milk supply. What are your next steps?
 

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently updated its policy statement on breastfeeding and the use of human milk to recommend exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months and continued breastfeeding, with complementary foods, as mutually desired for 2 years or beyond given evidence of maternal health benefits with breastfeeding longer than 1 year.¹

Breastfeeding prevalence—and challenges

Despite maternal and infant benefits associated with lactation, current breastfeeding prevalence in the United States remains suboptimal. In 2019, 24.9% of infants were exclusively breastfed through 6 months and 35.9% were breastfeeding at 12 months.² Furthermore, disparities in breastfeeding exist, which contribute to health inequities. For example, non-Hispanic Black infants had lower rates of exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months (19.1%) and any breastfeeding at 12 months (24.1%) compared with non-Hispanic White infants (26.9% and 39.4%, respectively).³

While many new mothers intend to breastfeed and initiate breastfeeding in the hospital after delivery, overall and exclusive breastfeeding continuation rates are low, indicating that patients face challenges with breastfeeding after hospital discharge. Many structural and societal barriers to breastfeeding exist, including inadequate social support and parental leave policies.⁴ Suboptimal maternity care practices during the birth hospitalization may lead to challenges with breastfeeding initiation. Health care practitioners may present additional barriers to breastfeeding due to a lack of knowledge of available resources for patients or incomplete training in breastfeeding counseling and support.

To address our case patient’s concerns, clinicians should be aware of how exogenous progestins may affect breastfeeding physiology, risk factors for breastfeeding difficulty, and the available evidence for safety of hormonal contraception use while breastfeeding.

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Physiology of breastfeeding

During the second half of pregnancy, secretory differentiation (lactogenesis I) of mammary alveolar epithelial cells into secretory cells occurs to allow the mammary gland to eventually produce milk.⁵ After delivery of the placenta, progesterone withdrawal triggers secretory activation (lactogenesis II), which refers to the onset of copious milk production within 2 to 3 days postpartum.⁵ Most patients experience secretory activation within 72 hours; however, a delay in secretory activation past 72 hours is associated with cessation of any and exclusive breastfeeding at 4 weeks postpartum.⁶

Impaired lactation can be related to a delay in secretory activation or to insufficient lactation related to low milk supply. Maternal medical comorbidities (for example, diabetes mellitus, thyroid dysfunction, obesity), breast anatomy (such as insufficient glandular tissue, prior breast reduction surgery), pregnancy-related events (preeclampsia, retained placenta, postpartum hemorrhage), and infant conditions (such as multiple gestation, premature birth, congenital anomalies) all contribute to a risk of impaired lactation.⁷

Guidance on breastfeeding and hormonal contraception initiation

Early initiation of hormonal contraception poses theoretical concerns about breastfeeding difficulty if exogenous progestin interferes with endogenous signals for onset of milk production. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention US Medical Eligibility Criteria (MEC) for Contraceptive Use provide recommendations on the safety of contraceptive use in the setting of various medical conditions or patient characteristics based on available data. The MEC uses 4 categories in assessing the safety of contraceptive method use for individuals with specific medical conditions or characteristics: 1, no restrictions exist for use of the contraceptive method; 2, advantages generally outweigh theoretical or proven risks; 3, theoretical or proven risks usually outweigh the advantages; and 4, conditions that represent an unacceptable health risk if the method is used.⁸

In the 2016 guidelines, combined hormonal contraceptives are considered category 4 at less than 21 days postpartum, regardless of breastfeeding status, due to the increased risk of venous thromboembolism in the immediate postpartum period (TABLE 1).⁸ Progestin-only contraception is considered category 1 in nonbreastfeeding individuals and category 2 in breastfeeding individuals based on overall evidence that found no adverse outcome with breastfeeding or infant outcomes with early initiation of progestin-only contraception (TABLE 1, TABLE 2).⁸

Since the publication of the 2016 MEC guidelines, several studies have continued to examine breastfeeding and infant outcomes with early initiation of hormonal contraception.

• In a noninferiority randomized controlled trial of immediate versus delayed initiation of a levonorgestrel intrauterine device (LNG IUD), any breastfeeding at 8 weeks in the immediate group was 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70%–85%), which was lower than but within the specified noninferiority margin of the delayed breastfeeding group (83%; 95% CI, 75%–90%), indicating that breastfeeding outcomes with immediate initiation of an LNG IUD were not worse compared with delayed initiation.⁹
• A secondary analysis of a randomized trial that compared intracesarean versus LNG IUD placement at 6 or more weeks postpartum showed no difference in breastfeeding at 6, 12, and 24 weeks after LNG IUD placement.¹⁰
• A randomized trial of early (up to 48 hours postpartum) versus placement of an etonogestrel (ENG) implant at 6 or more weeks postpartum showed no difference between groups in infant weight at 12 months.¹¹
• A randomized trial of immediate (within 5 days of delivery) or interval placement of the 2-rod LNG implant (not approved in the United States) showed no difference in change in infant weight from birth to 6 months after delivery, onset of secretory activation, or breastfeeding continuation at 3 and 6 months postpartum.¹²
• In a prospective cohort study that compared immediate postpartum initiation of ENG versus a 2-rod LNG implant (approved by the FDA but not marketed in the United States), there were no differences in breastfeeding continuation at 24 months and exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months postpartum.¹³
• In a noninferiority randomized controlled trial that compared ENG implant initiation in the delivery room (0–2 hours postdelivery) versus delayed initiation (24–48 hours postdelivery), the time to secretory activation in those who initiated an ENG implant in the delivery room (66.8 [SD, 25.2] hours) was noninferior to delayed initiation (66.0 [SD, 35.3] hours). There also was no difference in ongoing breastfeeding over the first year after delivery and implant use at 12 months.¹⁴
• A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial examined breastfeeding outcomes with receipt of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) prior to discharge in women who delivered infants who weighed 1,500 g or less at 32 weeks’ or less gestation. Time to secretory activation was longer in 29 women who received DMPA (103.7 hours) compared with 141 women who did not (88.6 hours; P = .028); however, there was no difference in daily milk production, lactation duration, or infant consumption of mother’s own milk.¹⁵

While the overall evidence suggests that early initiation of hormonal contraception does not affect breastfeeding or infant outcomes, it is important for clinicians to recognize the limitations of available data with regard to the populations included in these studies. Specifically, most studies did not include individuals with premature, low birth weight, or multiple gestation infants, who are at higher risk of impaired lactation, and individuals with a higher prevalence of breastfeeding were not included to determine whether early initiation of hormonal contraception would impact breastfeeding. Furthermore, while these studies enrolled participants who planned to breastfeed, data indicate that intentions to initiate and continue exclusive breastfeeding can vary.¹⁶ As the reported rates of any and exclusive breastfeeding are consistent with or lower than current US breastfeeding rates, any decrease in breastfeeding exclusivity or duration that may be attributable to hormonal contraception may be unacceptable to those who are strongly motivated to breastfeed.

Continue to: How can clinicians integrate evidence into contraception counseling?...

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine offer guidance for how clinicians can address the use of hormonal contraception in breastfeeding patients. Both organizations recommend discussing the risks and benefits of hormonal contraception within the context of each person’s desire to breastfeed, potential for breastfeeding difficulty, and risk of pregnancy so that individuals can make their own informed decisions.^17,18

Obstetric care clinicians have an important role in helping patients make informed infant feeding decisions without coercion or pressure. To start these discussions, clinicians can begin by assessing a patient’s breastfeeding goals by asking open-ended questions, such as:

• What have you heard about breastfeeding?
• What are your plans for returning to work or school after delivery?
• How did breastfeeding go with older children?
• What are your plans for feeding this baby?

In addition to gathering information about the patient’s priorities and goals, clinicians should identify any risk factors for breastfeeding challenges in the medical, surgical, or previous breastfeeding history. Clinicians can engage in a patient-centered approach to infant feeding decisions by anticipating any challenges and working together to develop strategies to address these challenges with the patient’s goals in mind.¹⁷

When counseling about contraception, a spectrum of approaches exists, from a nondirective information-sharing only model to directive counseling by the clinician. The shared decision-making model lies between these 2 approaches and recognizes the expertise of both the clinician and patient.¹⁹ To start these interactions, clinicians can ask about a patient’s reproductive goals by assessing the patient’s needs, values, and preferences for contraception. Potential questions include:

• What kinds of contraceptive methods have you used in the past?
• What is important to you in a contraceptive method?
• How important is it to you to avoid another pregnancy right now?

Clinicians can then share information about different contraceptive methods based on the desired qualities that the patient has identified and how each method fits or does not fit into the patient’s goals and preferences. This collaborative approach facilitates an open dialogue and supports patient autonomy in contraceptive decision-making.

Lastly, clinicians should be cognizant of their own potential biases that could affect their counseling, such as encouraging contraceptive use because of a patient’s young age, parity, or premature delivery, as in our case presentation. Similarly, clinicians also should recognize that breastfeeding and contraceptive decisions are personal and are made with cultural, historical, and social contexts in mind.²⁰ Ultimately, counseling should be patient centered and individualized for each person’s priorities related to infant feeding and pregnancy prevention. ●

Meaningful progress has been made in reducing deaths due to breast cancer over the last half century, with a 43% decrease in mortality rate (breast cancer deaths per 100,000 population).¹ Screening mammography (SM) has contributed greatly to that success, accounting for 30% to 70% of the reduced mortality rate, with the remainder due to advancements in breast cancer treatment.² Despite these improvements, invasive breast cancer remains the highest incident cancer in the United States and in the world, is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, and results in more years of life lost than any other cancer (TABLE 1).^1,3

While the benefits and harms of SM are reasonably well understood, different guidelines groups have approached the relative value of the risks and benefits differently, which has led to challenges in implementation of shared decision making, particularly around the age to initiate routine screening.^4-6 In this article, we will focus on the data behind the controversy, current gaps in knowledge, challenges related to breast density and screening in diverse groups, and emerging technologies to address these gaps and provide a construct for appropriate counseling of the patient across the risk spectrum.

Breast cancer risk

Variables that affect risk

While female sex and older age are the 2 greatest risks for the development of breast cancer, many other factors can either increase or decrease breast cancer risk in a person’s lifetime. The importance of identifying risk factors is 3-fold:

1. to perform risk assessment to determine if individuals would benefit from average-risk versus high-risk breast cancer surveillance
2. to identify persons who might benefit from BRCA genetic counseling and screening, risk reduction medications or procedures, and
3. to allow patients to determine whether any modification in their lifestyle or reproductive choices would make sense to them to reduce their future breast cancer risk.

Most of these risk variables are largely inalterable (for example, family history of breast cancer, carriage of genetic pathogenic variants such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, age of menarche and menopause), but some are potentially modifiable, such as parity, age at first birth, lactation and duration, and dietary factors, among others. TABLE 2 lists common breast cancer risk factors.

Breast cancer risk assessment

Several validated tools have been developed to estimate a person’s breast cancer risk (TABLE 3). These tools combine known risk factors and, depending on the specific tool, can provide estimates of 5-year, 10-year, or lifetime risk of breast cancer. Patients at highest risk can benefit from earlier screening, supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or risk reduction (see the section, “High-risk screening”). Ideally, a risk assessment should be done by age 30 so that patients at high risk can be identified for earlier or more intensive screening and for possible genetic testing in those at risk for carriage of the BRCA or other breast cancer gene pathogenic variants.^5,7

Continue to: Breast cancer screening: Efficacy and harms...

Breast cancer screening: Efficacy and harms

The earliest studies of breast cancer screening with mammography were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared screened and unscreened patients aged 40 to 74. Nearly all the RCTs and numerous well-designed incidence-based and case-control studies have demonstrated that SM results in a clinically and statistically significant reduction in breast cancer mortality (TABLE 4).^4,6,8 Since the mid-1980s and continuing to the current day, SM programs are routinely recommended in the United States. In addition to the mortality benefit outlined in TABLE 4, SM also is associated with a need for less invasive treatments if breast cancer is diagnosed.^9,10

With several decades of experience, SM programs have demonstrated that multiple harms are associated with SM, including callbacks, false-positive mammograms that result in a benign biopsy, and overdiagnosis of breast cancer (TABLE 4). Overdiagnosis is a mammographic detection of a breast cancer that would not have harmed that woman in her lifetime. Overdiagnosis leads to overtreatment of breast cancers with its attendant side effects, the emotional harms of a breast cancer diagnosis, and the substantial financial cost of cancer treatment. Estimates of overdiagnosis range from 0% to 50%, with the most likely estimate of invasive breast cancer overdiagnosis from SM between 5% and 15%.^11-13 Some of these overdiagnosed cancers are due to very slow growing cancers or breast cancers that may even regress. However, the higher rates of overdiagnosis occur in older persons who are screened and in whom competing causes of mortality become more prevalent. It is estimated that overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer in patients younger than age 60 is less than 1%, but it exceeds 14% in those older than age 80 (TABLE 4).¹⁴

A structured approach is needed to counsel patients about SM so that they understand both the substantial benefit (earlier-stage diagnosis, reduced need for treatment, reduced breast cancer and all-cause mortality) and the potential harms (callback, false-positive results, and overdiagnosis). Moreover, the relative balance of the benefits and harms are influenced throughout their lifetime by both aging and changes in their personal and family medical history.

Counseling should consider factors beyond just the performance of mammography (sensitivity and specificity), such as the patient’s current health and age (competing causes of mortality), likelihood of developing breast cancer based on risk assessment (more benefit in higher-risk persons), and the individual patient’s values on the importance of the benefits and harms. The differing emphases on mammography performance and the relative value of the benefits and harms have led experts to produce disparate national guideline recommendations (TABLE 5).

Should SM start at age 40, 45, or 50 in average-risk persons?

There is not clear consensus about the age at which to begin to recommend routine SM in patients at average risk. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN),⁷ American Cancer Society (ACS),⁴ and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)⁵ recommend that those at average risk start SM at age 40, 45, and 50, respectively (TABLE 5). While the guideline groups listed in TABLE 5 agree that there is level 1 evidence that SM reduces breast cancer mortality in the general population for persons starting at age 40, because the incidence of breast cancer is lower in younger persons (TABLE 6),⁴ the net population-based screening benefit is lower in this group, and the number needed to invite to screening to save a single life due to breast cancer varies.

For patients in their 40s, it is estimated that 1,904 individuals need to be invited to SM to save 1 life, whereas for patients in their 50s, it is 1,339.¹⁵ However, for patients in their 40s, the number needed to screen to save 1 life due to breast cancer decreases from 1 in 1,904 if invited to be screened to 1 in 588 if they are actually screened.¹⁶ Furthermore, if a patient is diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40–50, the likelihood of dying is reduced at least 22% and perhaps as high as 48% if her cancer was diagnosed on SM compared with an unscreened individual with a symptomatic presentation (for example, palpable mass).^4,15,17,18 Another benefit of SM in the fifth decade of life (40s) is the decreased need for more extensive treatment, including a higher risk of need for chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 2.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–6.84); need for mastectomy (OR, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.36–8.52); and need for axillary lymph node dissection (OR, 5.76; 95% CI, 2.40–13.82) in unscreened (compared with screened) patients diagnosed with breast cancer.¹⁰

The harms associated with SM are not inconsequential and include callbacks (approximately 1 in 10), false-positive biopsy (approximately 1 in 100), and overdiagnosis (likely <1% of all breast cancers in persons younger than age 50). Because most patients in their 40s will not develop breast cancer (TABLE 6), the benefit of reduced breast cancer mortality will not be experienced by most in this decade of life, but they are still just as likely to experience a callback, false-positive biopsy, or the possibility of overdiagnosis. Interpretation of this balance on a population level is the crux of the various guideline groups’ development of differing recommendations as to when screening should start. Despite this seeming disagreement, all the guideline groups listed in TABLE 5 concur that persons at average risk for breast cancer should be offered SM if they desire starting at age 40 after a shared decision-making conversation that incorporates the patient’s view on the relative value of the benefits and risks.

Continue to: High-risk screening...

Unlike in screening average-risk patients, there is less disagreement about screening in high-risk groups. TABLE 7 outlines the various categories and recommended strategies that qualify for screening at younger ages or more intensive screening. Adding breast MRI to SM in high-risk individuals results in both higher cancer detection rates and less interval breast cancers (cancers diagnosed between screening rounds) diagnosed compared with SM alone.^19,20 Interval breast cancer tends to be more aggressive and is used as a surrogate marker for more recognized factors, such as breast cancer mortality. In addition to less interval breast cancers, high-risk patients are more likely to be diagnosed with node-negative disease if screening breast MRI is added to SM.

Long-term mortality benefit studies using MRI have not been conducted due to the prolonged follow-up times needed. Expense, lower specificity compared with mammography (that is, more false-positive results), and need for the use of gadolinium limit more widespread use of breast MRI screening in average-risk persons.

Screening in patients with dense breasts

Half of patients undergoing SM in the United States have dense breasts (heterogeneously dense breasts, 40%; extremely dense breasts, 10%). Importantly, increasing breast density is associated with a lower cancer detection rate with SM and is an independent risk factor for developing breast cancer. While most states already require patients to be notified if they have dense breasts identified on SM, the US Food and Drug Administration will soon make breast density patient notification a national standard (see: https://delauro.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/delauro-secures-timeline-fda-rollout-breast-density-notification-rule).

Most of the risk assessment tools listed in TABLE 3 incorporate breast density into their calculation of breast cancer risk. If that calculation places a patient into one of the highest-risk groups (based on additional factors like strong family history of breast cancer, reproductive risk factors, BRCA carriage, and so on), more intensive surveillance should be recommended (TABLE 7).⁷ However, once these risk calculations are done, most persons with dense breasts will remain in an average-risk category.

Because of the frequency and risks associated with dense breasts, different and alternative strategies have been recommended for screening persons who are at average risk with dense breasts. Supplemental screening with MRI, ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced mammography, and molecular breast imaging are all being considered but have not been studied sufficiently to demonstrate mortality benefit or cost-effectiveness.

Of all the supplemental modalities used to screen patients with dense breasts, MRI has been the best studied. A large RCT in the Netherlands evaluated supplemental MRI screening in persons with extremely dense breasts after a negative mammogram.²¹ Compared with no supplemental screening, the MRI group had 17 additional cancers detected per 1,000 screened and a 50% reduction in interval breast cancers; in addition, MRI was associated with a positive predictive value of 26% for biopsies. At present, high cost and limited access to standard breast MRI has not allowed its routine use for persons with dense breasts in the United States, but this may change with more experience and more widespread introduction and experience with abbreviated (or rapid) breast MRI in the future (TABLE 8).

Equitable screening

Black persons who are diagnosed with breast cancer have a 40% higher risk of dying than White patients due to multiple factors, including systemic racial factors (implicit and unconscious bias), reduced access to care, and a lower likelihood of receiving standard of care once diagnosed.^22-24 In addition, Black patients have twice the likelihood of being diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancers, a biologically more aggressive tumor.^22-24 Among Black, Asian, and Hispanic persons diagnosed with breast cancer, one-third are diagnosed younger than age 50, which is higher than for non-Hispanic White persons. Prior to the age of 50, Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients also have a 72% more likelihood of being diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, have a 58% greater risk of advanced-stage disease, and have a 127% higher risk of dying from breast cancer compared with White patients.^25,26 Based on all of these factors, delaying SM until age 50 may adversely affect the Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations.

Persons in the LGBTQ+ community do not present for SM as frequently as the general population, often because they feel threatened or unwelcome.²⁷ Clinicians and breast imaging units should review their inclusivity policies and training to provide a welcoming and respectful environment to all persons in an effort to reduce these barriers. While data are limited and largely depend on expert opinion, current recommendations for screening in the transgender patient depend on sex assigned at birth, the type and duration of hormone use, and surgical history. In patients assigned female sex at birth, average-risk and high-risk screening recommendations are similar to those for the general population unless bilateral mastectomy has been performed.²⁸ In transfeminine patients who have used hormones for longer than 5 years, some groups recommend annual screening starting at age 40, although well-designed studies are lacking.²⁹

Continue to: We have done well, can we do better?...

Screening mammography clearly has been an important and effective tool in the effort to reduce breast cancer mortality, but there are clear limitations. These include moderate sensitivity of mammography, particularly in patients with dense breasts, and a specificity that results in either callbacks (10%), breast biopsies for benign disease (1%), or the reality of overdiagnosis, which becomes increasingly important in older patients.

With the introduction of mammography in the mid-1980s, a one-size-fits-all approach has proved challenging more recently due to an increased recognition of the harms of screening. As a result of this evolving understanding, different recommendations for average-risk screening have emerged. With the advent of breast MRI, risk-based screening is an important but underutilized tool to identify highest-risk individuals, which is associated with improved cancer detection rates, reduced node-positive disease, and fewer diagnosed interval breast cancers. Assuring that nearly all of this highest-risk group is identified through routine breast cancer risk assessment remains a challenge for clinicians.

But what SM recommendations should be offered to persons who fall into an intermediate-risk group (15%–20%), very low-risk groups (<5%), or patients with dense breasts? These are challenges that could be met through novel and individualized approaches (for example, polygenic risk scoring, further research on newer modalities of screening [TABLE 8]), improved screening algorithms for persons with dense breasts, and enhanced clinician engagement to achieve universal breast cancer and BRCA risk assessment of patients by age 25 to 30.

In 2023, best practice and consensus guidelines for intermediate- and low-risk breast cancer groups remain unclear, and one of the many ongoing challenges is to further reduce the impact of breast cancer on the lives of persons affected and the recognized harms of SM.

In the meantime, there is consensus in average-risk patients to provide counseling about SM by age 40. My approach has been to counsel all average-risk patients on the risks and benefits of mammography using the acronym TIP-V:

• Use a Tool to calculate breast cancer risk (TABLE 3). If they are at high risk, provide recommendations for high-risk management (TABLE 7).⁷
• For average-risk patients, counsel that their Incidence of developing breast cancer in the next decade is approximately 1 in 70 (TABLE 6).⁴
• Provide data and guidance on the benefits of SM for patients in their 40s (mortality improvement, decreased treatment) and the likelihood of harm from breast cancer screening (10% callback, 1% benign biopsy, and <1% likelihood of overdiagnosis [TABLE 4]).^4,14,15
• Engage the patient to better understand their relative Values of the benefits and harms and make a shared decision on screening starting at age 40, 45, or 50.

Looking forward

In summary, SM remains an important tool in the effort to decrease the risk of mortality due to breast cancer. Given the limitations of SM, however, newer tools and methods—abbreviated MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography, molecular breast imaging, customized screening intervals depending on individual risk/polygenic risk score, and customized counseling and screening based on risk factors (TABLES 2 and 7)—will play an increased role in recommendations for breast cancer screening in the future. ●

Meaningful progress has been made in reducing deaths due to breast cancer over the last half century, with a 43% decrease in mortality rate (breast cancer deaths per 100,000 population).¹ Screening mammography (SM) has contributed greatly to that success, accounting for 30% to 70% of the reduced mortality rate, with the remainder due to advancements in breast cancer treatment.² Despite these improvements, invasive breast cancer remains the highest incident cancer in the United States and in the world, is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, and results in more years of life lost than any other cancer (TABLE 1).^1,3

While the benefits and harms of SM are reasonably well understood, different guidelines groups have approached the relative value of the risks and benefits differently, which has led to challenges in implementation of shared decision making, particularly around the age to initiate routine screening.^4-6 In this article, we will focus on the data behind the controversy, current gaps in knowledge, challenges related to breast density and screening in diverse groups, and emerging technologies to address these gaps and provide a construct for appropriate counseling of the patient across the risk spectrum.

Breast cancer risk

Variables that affect risk

While female sex and older age are the 2 greatest risks for the development of breast cancer, many other factors can either increase or decrease breast cancer risk in a person’s lifetime. The importance of identifying risk factors is 3-fold:

1. to perform risk assessment to determine if individuals would benefit from average-risk versus high-risk breast cancer surveillance
2. to identify persons who might benefit from BRCA genetic counseling and screening, risk reduction medications or procedures, and
3. to allow patients to determine whether any modification in their lifestyle or reproductive choices would make sense to them to reduce their future breast cancer risk.

Most of these risk variables are largely inalterable (for example, family history of breast cancer, carriage of genetic pathogenic variants such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, age of menarche and menopause), but some are potentially modifiable, such as parity, age at first birth, lactation and duration, and dietary factors, among others. TABLE 2 lists common breast cancer risk factors.

Breast cancer risk assessment

Several validated tools have been developed to estimate a person’s breast cancer risk (TABLE 3). These tools combine known risk factors and, depending on the specific tool, can provide estimates of 5-year, 10-year, or lifetime risk of breast cancer. Patients at highest risk can benefit from earlier screening, supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or risk reduction (see the section, “High-risk screening”). Ideally, a risk assessment should be done by age 30 so that patients at high risk can be identified for earlier or more intensive screening and for possible genetic testing in those at risk for carriage of the BRCA or other breast cancer gene pathogenic variants.^5,7

Continue to: Breast cancer screening: Efficacy and harms...

Breast cancer screening: Efficacy and harms

The earliest studies of breast cancer screening with mammography were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared screened and unscreened patients aged 40 to 74. Nearly all the RCTs and numerous well-designed incidence-based and case-control studies have demonstrated that SM results in a clinically and statistically significant reduction in breast cancer mortality (TABLE 4).^4,6,8 Since the mid-1980s and continuing to the current day, SM programs are routinely recommended in the United States. In addition to the mortality benefit outlined in TABLE 4, SM also is associated with a need for less invasive treatments if breast cancer is diagnosed.^9,10

With several decades of experience, SM programs have demonstrated that multiple harms are associated with SM, including callbacks, false-positive mammograms that result in a benign biopsy, and overdiagnosis of breast cancer (TABLE 4). Overdiagnosis is a mammographic detection of a breast cancer that would not have harmed that woman in her lifetime. Overdiagnosis leads to overtreatment of breast cancers with its attendant side effects, the emotional harms of a breast cancer diagnosis, and the substantial financial cost of cancer treatment. Estimates of overdiagnosis range from 0% to 50%, with the most likely estimate of invasive breast cancer overdiagnosis from SM between 5% and 15%.^11-13 Some of these overdiagnosed cancers are due to very slow growing cancers or breast cancers that may even regress. However, the higher rates of overdiagnosis occur in older persons who are screened and in whom competing causes of mortality become more prevalent. It is estimated that overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer in patients younger than age 60 is less than 1%, but it exceeds 14% in those older than age 80 (TABLE 4).¹⁴

A structured approach is needed to counsel patients about SM so that they understand both the substantial benefit (earlier-stage diagnosis, reduced need for treatment, reduced breast cancer and all-cause mortality) and the potential harms (callback, false-positive results, and overdiagnosis). Moreover, the relative balance of the benefits and harms are influenced throughout their lifetime by both aging and changes in their personal and family medical history.

Counseling should consider factors beyond just the performance of mammography (sensitivity and specificity), such as the patient’s current health and age (competing causes of mortality), likelihood of developing breast cancer based on risk assessment (more benefit in higher-risk persons), and the individual patient’s values on the importance of the benefits and harms. The differing emphases on mammography performance and the relative value of the benefits and harms have led experts to produce disparate national guideline recommendations (TABLE 5).

Should SM start at age 40, 45, or 50 in average-risk persons?

There is not clear consensus about the age at which to begin to recommend routine SM in patients at average risk. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN),⁷ American Cancer Society (ACS),⁴ and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)⁵ recommend that those at average risk start SM at age 40, 45, and 50, respectively (TABLE 5). While the guideline groups listed in TABLE 5 agree that there is level 1 evidence that SM reduces breast cancer mortality in the general population for persons starting at age 40, because the incidence of breast cancer is lower in younger persons (TABLE 6),⁴ the net population-based screening benefit is lower in this group, and the number needed to invite to screening to save a single life due to breast cancer varies.

For patients in their 40s, it is estimated that 1,904 individuals need to be invited to SM to save 1 life, whereas for patients in their 50s, it is 1,339.¹⁵ However, for patients in their 40s, the number needed to screen to save 1 life due to breast cancer decreases from 1 in 1,904 if invited to be screened to 1 in 588 if they are actually screened.¹⁶ Furthermore, if a patient is diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40–50, the likelihood of dying is reduced at least 22% and perhaps as high as 48% if her cancer was diagnosed on SM compared with an unscreened individual with a symptomatic presentation (for example, palpable mass).^4,15,17,18 Another benefit of SM in the fifth decade of life (40s) is the decreased need for more extensive treatment, including a higher risk of need for chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 2.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–6.84); need for mastectomy (OR, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.36–8.52); and need for axillary lymph node dissection (OR, 5.76; 95% CI, 2.40–13.82) in unscreened (compared with screened) patients diagnosed with breast cancer.¹⁰

The harms associated with SM are not inconsequential and include callbacks (approximately 1 in 10), false-positive biopsy (approximately 1 in 100), and overdiagnosis (likely <1% of all breast cancers in persons younger than age 50). Because most patients in their 40s will not develop breast cancer (TABLE 6), the benefit of reduced breast cancer mortality will not be experienced by most in this decade of life, but they are still just as likely to experience a callback, false-positive biopsy, or the possibility of overdiagnosis. Interpretation of this balance on a population level is the crux of the various guideline groups’ development of differing recommendations as to when screening should start. Despite this seeming disagreement, all the guideline groups listed in TABLE 5 concur that persons at average risk for breast cancer should be offered SM if they desire starting at age 40 after a shared decision-making conversation that incorporates the patient’s view on the relative value of the benefits and risks.

Continue to: High-risk screening...

Unlike in screening average-risk patients, there is less disagreement about screening in high-risk groups. TABLE 7 outlines the various categories and recommended strategies that qualify for screening at younger ages or more intensive screening. Adding breast MRI to SM in high-risk individuals results in both higher cancer detection rates and less interval breast cancers (cancers diagnosed between screening rounds) diagnosed compared with SM alone.^19,20 Interval breast cancer tends to be more aggressive and is used as a surrogate marker for more recognized factors, such as breast cancer mortality. In addition to less interval breast cancers, high-risk patients are more likely to be diagnosed with node-negative disease if screening breast MRI is added to SM.

Long-term mortality benefit studies using MRI have not been conducted due to the prolonged follow-up times needed. Expense, lower specificity compared with mammography (that is, more false-positive results), and need for the use of gadolinium limit more widespread use of breast MRI screening in average-risk persons.

Screening in patients with dense breasts

Half of patients undergoing SM in the United States have dense breasts (heterogeneously dense breasts, 40%; extremely dense breasts, 10%). Importantly, increasing breast density is associated with a lower cancer detection rate with SM and is an independent risk factor for developing breast cancer. While most states already require patients to be notified if they have dense breasts identified on SM, the US Food and Drug Administration will soon make breast density patient notification a national standard (see: https://delauro.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/delauro-secures-timeline-fda-rollout-breast-density-notification-rule).

Most of the risk assessment tools listed in TABLE 3 incorporate breast density into their calculation of breast cancer risk. If that calculation places a patient into one of the highest-risk groups (based on additional factors like strong family history of breast cancer, reproductive risk factors, BRCA carriage, and so on), more intensive surveillance should be recommended (TABLE 7).⁷ However, once these risk calculations are done, most persons with dense breasts will remain in an average-risk category.

Because of the frequency and risks associated with dense breasts, different and alternative strategies have been recommended for screening persons who are at average risk with dense breasts. Supplemental screening with MRI, ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced mammography, and molecular breast imaging are all being considered but have not been studied sufficiently to demonstrate mortality benefit or cost-effectiveness.

Of all the supplemental modalities used to screen patients with dense breasts, MRI has been the best studied. A large RCT in the Netherlands evaluated supplemental MRI screening in persons with extremely dense breasts after a negative mammogram.²¹ Compared with no supplemental screening, the MRI group had 17 additional cancers detected per 1,000 screened and a 50% reduction in interval breast cancers; in addition, MRI was associated with a positive predictive value of 26% for biopsies. At present, high cost and limited access to standard breast MRI has not allowed its routine use for persons with dense breasts in the United States, but this may change with more experience and more widespread introduction and experience with abbreviated (or rapid) breast MRI in the future (TABLE 8).

Equitable screening

Black persons who are diagnosed with breast cancer have a 40% higher risk of dying than White patients due to multiple factors, including systemic racial factors (implicit and unconscious bias), reduced access to care, and a lower likelihood of receiving standard of care once diagnosed.^22-24 In addition, Black patients have twice the likelihood of being diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancers, a biologically more aggressive tumor.^22-24 Among Black, Asian, and Hispanic persons diagnosed with breast cancer, one-third are diagnosed younger than age 50, which is higher than for non-Hispanic White persons. Prior to the age of 50, Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients also have a 72% more likelihood of being diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, have a 58% greater risk of advanced-stage disease, and have a 127% higher risk of dying from breast cancer compared with White patients.^25,26 Based on all of these factors, delaying SM until age 50 may adversely affect the Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations.

Persons in the LGBTQ+ community do not present for SM as frequently as the general population, often because they feel threatened or unwelcome.²⁷ Clinicians and breast imaging units should review their inclusivity policies and training to provide a welcoming and respectful environment to all persons in an effort to reduce these barriers. While data are limited and largely depend on expert opinion, current recommendations for screening in the transgender patient depend on sex assigned at birth, the type and duration of hormone use, and surgical history. In patients assigned female sex at birth, average-risk and high-risk screening recommendations are similar to those for the general population unless bilateral mastectomy has been performed.²⁸ In transfeminine patients who have used hormones for longer than 5 years, some groups recommend annual screening starting at age 40, although well-designed studies are lacking.²⁹

Continue to: We have done well, can we do better?...

Screening mammography clearly has been an important and effective tool in the effort to reduce breast cancer mortality, but there are clear limitations. These include moderate sensitivity of mammography, particularly in patients with dense breasts, and a specificity that results in either callbacks (10%), breast biopsies for benign disease (1%), or the reality of overdiagnosis, which becomes increasingly important in older patients.

With the introduction of mammography in the mid-1980s, a one-size-fits-all approach has proved challenging more recently due to an increased recognition of the harms of screening. As a result of this evolving understanding, different recommendations for average-risk screening have emerged. With the advent of breast MRI, risk-based screening is an important but underutilized tool to identify highest-risk individuals, which is associated with improved cancer detection rates, reduced node-positive disease, and fewer diagnosed interval breast cancers. Assuring that nearly all of this highest-risk group is identified through routine breast cancer risk assessment remains a challenge for clinicians.

But what SM recommendations should be offered to persons who fall into an intermediate-risk group (15%–20%), very low-risk groups (<5%), or patients with dense breasts? These are challenges that could be met through novel and individualized approaches (for example, polygenic risk scoring, further research on newer modalities of screening [TABLE 8]), improved screening algorithms for persons with dense breasts, and enhanced clinician engagement to achieve universal breast cancer and BRCA risk assessment of patients by age 25 to 30.

In 2023, best practice and consensus guidelines for intermediate- and low-risk breast cancer groups remain unclear, and one of the many ongoing challenges is to further reduce the impact of breast cancer on the lives of persons affected and the recognized harms of SM.

In the meantime, there is consensus in average-risk patients to provide counseling about SM by age 40. My approach has been to counsel all average-risk patients on the risks and benefits of mammography using the acronym TIP-V:

• Use a Tool to calculate breast cancer risk (TABLE 3). If they are at high risk, provide recommendations for high-risk management (TABLE 7).⁷
• For average-risk patients, counsel that their Incidence of developing breast cancer in the next decade is approximately 1 in 70 (TABLE 6).⁴
• Provide data and guidance on the benefits of SM for patients in their 40s (mortality improvement, decreased treatment) and the likelihood of harm from breast cancer screening (10% callback, 1% benign biopsy, and <1% likelihood of overdiagnosis [TABLE 4]).^4,14,15
• Engage the patient to better understand their relative Values of the benefits and harms and make a shared decision on screening starting at age 40, 45, or 50.

Looking forward

In summary, SM remains an important tool in the effort to decrease the risk of mortality due to breast cancer. Given the limitations of SM, however, newer tools and methods—abbreviated MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography, molecular breast imaging, customized screening intervals depending on individual risk/polygenic risk score, and customized counseling and screening based on risk factors (TABLES 2 and 7)—will play an increased role in recommendations for breast cancer screening in the future. ●

Meaningful progress has been made in reducing deaths due to breast cancer over the last half century, with a 43% decrease in mortality rate (breast cancer deaths per 100,000 population).¹ Screening mammography (SM) has contributed greatly to that success, accounting for 30% to 70% of the reduced mortality rate, with the remainder due to advancements in breast cancer treatment.² Despite these improvements, invasive breast cancer remains the highest incident cancer in the United States and in the world, is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, and results in more years of life lost than any other cancer (TABLE 1).^1,3

While the benefits and harms of SM are reasonably well understood, different guidelines groups have approached the relative value of the risks and benefits differently, which has led to challenges in implementation of shared decision making, particularly around the age to initiate routine screening.^4-6 In this article, we will focus on the data behind the controversy, current gaps in knowledge, challenges related to breast density and screening in diverse groups, and emerging technologies to address these gaps and provide a construct for appropriate counseling of the patient across the risk spectrum.

Breast cancer risk

Variables that affect risk

While female sex and older age are the 2 greatest risks for the development of breast cancer, many other factors can either increase or decrease breast cancer risk in a person’s lifetime. The importance of identifying risk factors is 3-fold:

1. to perform risk assessment to determine if individuals would benefit from average-risk versus high-risk breast cancer surveillance
2. to identify persons who might benefit from BRCA genetic counseling and screening, risk reduction medications or procedures, and
3. to allow patients to determine whether any modification in their lifestyle or reproductive choices would make sense to them to reduce their future breast cancer risk.

Most of these risk variables are largely inalterable (for example, family history of breast cancer, carriage of genetic pathogenic variants such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, age of menarche and menopause), but some are potentially modifiable, such as parity, age at first birth, lactation and duration, and dietary factors, among others. TABLE 2 lists common breast cancer risk factors.

Breast cancer risk assessment

Several validated tools have been developed to estimate a person’s breast cancer risk (TABLE 3). These tools combine known risk factors and, depending on the specific tool, can provide estimates of 5-year, 10-year, or lifetime risk of breast cancer. Patients at highest risk can benefit from earlier screening, supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or risk reduction (see the section, “High-risk screening”). Ideally, a risk assessment should be done by age 30 so that patients at high risk can be identified for earlier or more intensive screening and for possible genetic testing in those at risk for carriage of the BRCA or other breast cancer gene pathogenic variants.^5,7

Continue to: Breast cancer screening: Efficacy and harms...

Breast cancer screening: Efficacy and harms

The earliest studies of breast cancer screening with mammography were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared screened and unscreened patients aged 40 to 74. Nearly all the RCTs and numerous well-designed incidence-based and case-control studies have demonstrated that SM results in a clinically and statistically significant reduction in breast cancer mortality (TABLE 4).^4,6,8 Since the mid-1980s and continuing to the current day, SM programs are routinely recommended in the United States. In addition to the mortality benefit outlined in TABLE 4, SM also is associated with a need for less invasive treatments if breast cancer is diagnosed.^9,10

With several decades of experience, SM programs have demonstrated that multiple harms are associated with SM, including callbacks, false-positive mammograms that result in a benign biopsy, and overdiagnosis of breast cancer (TABLE 4). Overdiagnosis is a mammographic detection of a breast cancer that would not have harmed that woman in her lifetime. Overdiagnosis leads to overtreatment of breast cancers with its attendant side effects, the emotional harms of a breast cancer diagnosis, and the substantial financial cost of cancer treatment. Estimates of overdiagnosis range from 0% to 50%, with the most likely estimate of invasive breast cancer overdiagnosis from SM between 5% and 15%.^11-13 Some of these overdiagnosed cancers are due to very slow growing cancers or breast cancers that may even regress. However, the higher rates of overdiagnosis occur in older persons who are screened and in whom competing causes of mortality become more prevalent. It is estimated that overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer in patients younger than age 60 is less than 1%, but it exceeds 14% in those older than age 80 (TABLE 4).¹⁴

A structured approach is needed to counsel patients about SM so that they understand both the substantial benefit (earlier-stage diagnosis, reduced need for treatment, reduced breast cancer and all-cause mortality) and the potential harms (callback, false-positive results, and overdiagnosis). Moreover, the relative balance of the benefits and harms are influenced throughout their lifetime by both aging and changes in their personal and family medical history.

Counseling should consider factors beyond just the performance of mammography (sensitivity and specificity), such as the patient’s current health and age (competing causes of mortality), likelihood of developing breast cancer based on risk assessment (more benefit in higher-risk persons), and the individual patient’s values on the importance of the benefits and harms. The differing emphases on mammography performance and the relative value of the benefits and harms have led experts to produce disparate national guideline recommendations (TABLE 5).

Should SM start at age 40, 45, or 50 in average-risk persons?

There is not clear consensus about the age at which to begin to recommend routine SM in patients at average risk. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN),⁷ American Cancer Society (ACS),⁴ and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)⁵ recommend that those at average risk start SM at age 40, 45, and 50, respectively (TABLE 5). While the guideline groups listed in TABLE 5 agree that there is level 1 evidence that SM reduces breast cancer mortality in the general population for persons starting at age 40, because the incidence of breast cancer is lower in younger persons (TABLE 6),⁴ the net population-based screening benefit is lower in this group, and the number needed to invite to screening to save a single life due to breast cancer varies.

For patients in their 40s, it is estimated that 1,904 individuals need to be invited to SM to save 1 life, whereas for patients in their 50s, it is 1,339.¹⁵ However, for patients in their 40s, the number needed to screen to save 1 life due to breast cancer decreases from 1 in 1,904 if invited to be screened to 1 in 588 if they are actually screened.¹⁶ Furthermore, if a patient is diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40–50, the likelihood of dying is reduced at least 22% and perhaps as high as 48% if her cancer was diagnosed on SM compared with an unscreened individual with a symptomatic presentation (for example, palpable mass).^4,15,17,18 Another benefit of SM in the fifth decade of life (40s) is the decreased need for more extensive treatment, including a higher risk of need for chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 2.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–6.84); need for mastectomy (OR, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.36–8.52); and need for axillary lymph node dissection (OR, 5.76; 95% CI, 2.40–13.82) in unscreened (compared with screened) patients diagnosed with breast cancer.¹⁰

The harms associated with SM are not inconsequential and include callbacks (approximately 1 in 10), false-positive biopsy (approximately 1 in 100), and overdiagnosis (likely <1% of all breast cancers in persons younger than age 50). Because most patients in their 40s will not develop breast cancer (TABLE 6), the benefit of reduced breast cancer mortality will not be experienced by most in this decade of life, but they are still just as likely to experience a callback, false-positive biopsy, or the possibility of overdiagnosis. Interpretation of this balance on a population level is the crux of the various guideline groups’ development of differing recommendations as to when screening should start. Despite this seeming disagreement, all the guideline groups listed in TABLE 5 concur that persons at average risk for breast cancer should be offered SM if they desire starting at age 40 after a shared decision-making conversation that incorporates the patient’s view on the relative value of the benefits and risks.

Continue to: High-risk screening...

Unlike in screening average-risk patients, there is less disagreement about screening in high-risk groups. TABLE 7 outlines the various categories and recommended strategies that qualify for screening at younger ages or more intensive screening. Adding breast MRI to SM in high-risk individuals results in both higher cancer detection rates and less interval breast cancers (cancers diagnosed between screening rounds) diagnosed compared with SM alone.^19,20 Interval breast cancer tends to be more aggressive and is used as a surrogate marker for more recognized factors, such as breast cancer mortality. In addition to less interval breast cancers, high-risk patients are more likely to be diagnosed with node-negative disease if screening breast MRI is added to SM.

Long-term mortality benefit studies using MRI have not been conducted due to the prolonged follow-up times needed. Expense, lower specificity compared with mammography (that is, more false-positive results), and need for the use of gadolinium limit more widespread use of breast MRI screening in average-risk persons.

Screening in patients with dense breasts

Half of patients undergoing SM in the United States have dense breasts (heterogeneously dense breasts, 40%; extremely dense breasts, 10%). Importantly, increasing breast density is associated with a lower cancer detection rate with SM and is an independent risk factor for developing breast cancer. While most states already require patients to be notified if they have dense breasts identified on SM, the US Food and Drug Administration will soon make breast density patient notification a national standard (see: https://delauro.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/delauro-secures-timeline-fda-rollout-breast-density-notification-rule).

Most of the risk assessment tools listed in TABLE 3 incorporate breast density into their calculation of breast cancer risk. If that calculation places a patient into one of the highest-risk groups (based on additional factors like strong family history of breast cancer, reproductive risk factors, BRCA carriage, and so on), more intensive surveillance should be recommended (TABLE 7).⁷ However, once these risk calculations are done, most persons with dense breasts will remain in an average-risk category.

Because of the frequency and risks associated with dense breasts, different and alternative strategies have been recommended for screening persons who are at average risk with dense breasts. Supplemental screening with MRI, ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced mammography, and molecular breast imaging are all being considered but have not been studied sufficiently to demonstrate mortality benefit or cost-effectiveness.

Of all the supplemental modalities used to screen patients with dense breasts, MRI has been the best studied. A large RCT in the Netherlands evaluated supplemental MRI screening in persons with extremely dense breasts after a negative mammogram.²¹ Compared with no supplemental screening, the MRI group had 17 additional cancers detected per 1,000 screened and a 50% reduction in interval breast cancers; in addition, MRI was associated with a positive predictive value of 26% for biopsies. At present, high cost and limited access to standard breast MRI has not allowed its routine use for persons with dense breasts in the United States, but this may change with more experience and more widespread introduction and experience with abbreviated (or rapid) breast MRI in the future (TABLE 8).

Equitable screening

Black persons who are diagnosed with breast cancer have a 40% higher risk of dying than White patients due to multiple factors, including systemic racial factors (implicit and unconscious bias), reduced access to care, and a lower likelihood of receiving standard of care once diagnosed.^22-24 In addition, Black patients have twice the likelihood of being diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancers, a biologically more aggressive tumor.^22-24 Among Black, Asian, and Hispanic persons diagnosed with breast cancer, one-third are diagnosed younger than age 50, which is higher than for non-Hispanic White persons. Prior to the age of 50, Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients also have a 72% more likelihood of being diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, have a 58% greater risk of advanced-stage disease, and have a 127% higher risk of dying from breast cancer compared with White patients.^25,26 Based on all of these factors, delaying SM until age 50 may adversely affect the Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations.

Persons in the LGBTQ+ community do not present for SM as frequently as the general population, often because they feel threatened or unwelcome.²⁷ Clinicians and breast imaging units should review their inclusivity policies and training to provide a welcoming and respectful environment to all persons in an effort to reduce these barriers. While data are limited and largely depend on expert opinion, current recommendations for screening in the transgender patient depend on sex assigned at birth, the type and duration of hormone use, and surgical history. In patients assigned female sex at birth, average-risk and high-risk screening recommendations are similar to those for the general population unless bilateral mastectomy has been performed.²⁸ In transfeminine patients who have used hormones for longer than 5 years, some groups recommend annual screening starting at age 40, although well-designed studies are lacking.²⁹

Continue to: We have done well, can we do better?...

Screening mammography clearly has been an important and effective tool in the effort to reduce breast cancer mortality, but there are clear limitations. These include moderate sensitivity of mammography, particularly in patients with dense breasts, and a specificity that results in either callbacks (10%), breast biopsies for benign disease (1%), or the reality of overdiagnosis, which becomes increasingly important in older patients.

With the introduction of mammography in the mid-1980s, a one-size-fits-all approach has proved challenging more recently due to an increased recognition of the harms of screening. As a result of this evolving understanding, different recommendations for average-risk screening have emerged. With the advent of breast MRI, risk-based screening is an important but underutilized tool to identify highest-risk individuals, which is associated with improved cancer detection rates, reduced node-positive disease, and fewer diagnosed interval breast cancers. Assuring that nearly all of this highest-risk group is identified through routine breast cancer risk assessment remains a challenge for clinicians.

But what SM recommendations should be offered to persons who fall into an intermediate-risk group (15%–20%), very low-risk groups (<5%), or patients with dense breasts? These are challenges that could be met through novel and individualized approaches (for example, polygenic risk scoring, further research on newer modalities of screening [TABLE 8]), improved screening algorithms for persons with dense breasts, and enhanced clinician engagement to achieve universal breast cancer and BRCA risk assessment of patients by age 25 to 30.

In 2023, best practice and consensus guidelines for intermediate- and low-risk breast cancer groups remain unclear, and one of the many ongoing challenges is to further reduce the impact of breast cancer on the lives of persons affected and the recognized harms of SM.

In the meantime, there is consensus in average-risk patients to provide counseling about SM by age 40. My approach has been to counsel all average-risk patients on the risks and benefits of mammography using the acronym TIP-V:

• Use a Tool to calculate breast cancer risk (TABLE 3). If they are at high risk, provide recommendations for high-risk management (TABLE 7).⁷
• For average-risk patients, counsel that their Incidence of developing breast cancer in the next decade is approximately 1 in 70 (TABLE 6).⁴
• Provide data and guidance on the benefits of SM for patients in their 40s (mortality improvement, decreased treatment) and the likelihood of harm from breast cancer screening (10% callback, 1% benign biopsy, and <1% likelihood of overdiagnosis [TABLE 4]).^4,14,15
• Engage the patient to better understand their relative Values of the benefits and harms and make a shared decision on screening starting at age 40, 45, or 50.

Looking forward

In summary, SM remains an important tool in the effort to decrease the risk of mortality due to breast cancer. Given the limitations of SM, however, newer tools and methods—abbreviated MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography, molecular breast imaging, customized screening intervals depending on individual risk/polygenic risk score, and customized counseling and screening based on risk factors (TABLES 2 and 7)—will play an increased role in recommendations for breast cancer screening in the future. ●

I recently heard a lecture where the speaker quoted this statistic: “A 50-year-old woman who does not currently have heart disease or cancer has a life expectancy of 91.” Hopefully, anyone reading this article already is aware of the fact that as our patients age, hip fracture results in greater morbidity and mortality than early breast cancer. It should be well known to clinicians (and, ultimately, to our patients) that localized breast cancer has a survival rate of 99%,¹ whereas hip fracture carries a 21% mortality in the first year after the event.² In addition, approximately one-third of women who fracture their hip do not have osteoporosis.³ Furthermore, the role of muscle mass, strength, and performance in bone health has become well established.⁴

With this in mind, a recent encounter with a patient in my clinical practice illustrates what I believe is an increasing problem today. The patient had been on long-term prednisone systemically for polymyalgia rheumatica. Her dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) bone mass measurements were among the worst osteoporotic numbers I have witnessed. She related to me the “argument” that occurred between her rheumatologist and endocrinologist. One wanted her to use injectable parathyroid hormone analog daily, while the other advised yearly infusion of zoledronic acid. She chose the yearly infusion. I inquired if either physician had mentioned anything to her about using nonskid rugs in the bathroom, grab bars, being careful of black ice, a calcium-rich diet, vitamin D supplementation, good eyesight, illumination so she does not miss a step, mindful walking, and maintaining optimal balance, muscle mass, strength, and performance-enhancing exercise? She replied, “No, just which drug I should take.”

Realize that the goal for our patients should be to avoid the morbidity and mortality associated especially with hip fracture. The goal is not to have a better bone mass measurement on your DXA scan as you age. This is exactly why the name of this column, years ago, was changed from “Update on osteoporosis” to “Update on bone health.” Similarly, in 2021, the NOF (National Osteoporosis Foundation) became the BHOF (Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation). Thus, our understanding and interest in bone health should and must go beyond simply bone mass measurement with DXA technology. The articles highlighted in this year’s Update reflect the importance of this concept.

Know SERMs’ effects on bone health for appropriate prescribing

Goldstein SR. Selective estrogen receptor modulators and bone health. Climacteric. 2022;25:56-59.

Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) are synthetic molecules that bind to the estrogen receptor and can have agonistic activity in some tissues and antagonistic activity in others. In a recent article, I reviewed the known data regarding the effects of various SERMs on bone health.⁵

A rundown on 4 SERMs and their effects on bone

Tamoxifen is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer in women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors. The only prospective study of tamoxifen versus placebo in which fracture risk was studied in women at risk for but not diagnosed with breast cancer was the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) P-1 trial. In this study, more than 13,000 women were randomly assigned to treatment with tamoxifen or placebo, with a primary objective of studying the incidence of invasive breast cancer in these high-risk women. With 7 years of follow-up, women receiving tamoxifen had significantly fewer fractures of the hip, radius, and spine (80 vs 116 in the placebo group), resulting in a combined relative risk (RR) of 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–0.92).⁶

Raloxifene, another SERM, was extensively studied in the MORE (Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation) trial.⁷ This study involved more than 7,700 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, average age 67. The incidence of first vertebral fracture was decreased from 4.3% with placebo to 1.9% with raloxifene (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.29–0.71), and subsequent vertebral fractures were decreased from 20.2% with placebo to 14.1% with raloxifene (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60–0.90). In 2007, the FDA approved raloxifene for “reduction in risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis” as well as for “postmenopausal women at high risk for invasive breast cancer” based on the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) trial that involved almost 20,000 postmenopausal women deemed at high risk for breast cancer.⁸

The concept of combining an estrogen with a SERM, known as a TSEC (tissue selective estrogen complex) was studied and brought to market as conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) 0.45 mg and bazedoxifene (BZA) 20 mg. CEE and BZA individually have been shown to prevent vertebral fracture.^9,10 The combination of BZA and CEE has been shown to improve bone density compared with placebo.¹¹ There are, however, no fracture prevention data for this combination therapy. This was the basis on which the combination agent received regulatory approval for prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. This combination drug is also FDA approved for treating moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of menopause.

Ospemifene is yet another SERM that is clinically available, at an oral dose of 60 mg, and is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe dyspareunia secondary to vulvovaginal atrophy, or genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). Ospemifene effectively reduced bone loss in ovariectomized rats, with activity comparable to estradiol and raloxifene.¹² Clinical data from three phase 1 or phase 2 clinical trials revealed that ospemifene 60 mg/day had a positive effect on biochemical markers for bone turnover in healthy postmenopausal women, with significant improvements relative to placebo and effects comparable to those of raloxifene.¹³ While actual fracture or bone mineral density (BMD) data in postmenopausal women are lacking, there is a good correlation between biochemical markers for bone turnover and occurrence of fracture.¹⁴ Women who need treatment for osteoporosis should not be treated with ospemifene, but women who use ospemifene for dyspareunia can expect positive activity on bone metabolism.

Continue to: Gut microbiome constituents may influence the development of osteoporosis: A potential treatment target?...

Cronin O, Lanham-New SA, Corfe BM, et al. Role of the microbiome in regulating bone metabolism and susceptibility to osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int. 2022;110:273-284.

Yang X, Chang T, Yuan Q, et al. Changes in the composition of gut and vaginal microbiota in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Front Immunol. 2022;13:930244.

The role of the microbiome in many arenas is rapidly emerging. Apparently, its relationship in bone metabolism is still in its infancy. A review of PubMed articles showed that 1 paper was published in 2012, none until 2 more in 2015, with a total of 221 published through November 1, 2022. A recent review by Cronin and colleagues on the microbiome’s role in regulating bone metabolism came out of a workshop held by the Osteoporosis and Bone Research Academy of the Royal Osteoporosis Society in the United Kingdom.¹⁵

The gut microbiome’s relationship with bone health

The authors noted that the human microbiota functions at the interface between diet, medication use, lifestyle, host immune development, and health. Hence, it is closely aligned with many of the recognized modifiable factors that influence bone mass accrual in the young and bone maintenance and skeletal decline in older populations. Microbiome research and discovery supports a role of the human gut microbiome in the regulation of bone metabolism and the pathogenesis of osteoporosis as well as its prevention and treatment.

Numerous factors which influence the gut microbiome and the development of osteoporosis overlap. These include body mass index (BMI), vitamin D, alcohol intake, diet, corticosteroid use, physical activity, sex hormone deficiency, genetic variability, and chronic inflammatory disorders.

Cronin and colleagues reviewed a number of clinical studies and concluded that “the available evidence suggests that probiotic supplements can attenuate bone loss in postmenopausal women, although the studies investigating this have been short term and individually have had small sample sizes. Moving forward, it will be important to conduct larger scale studies to evaluate if the skeletal response differs with different types of probiotic and also to determine if the effects are sustained in the longer term.”¹⁵

Composition of the microbiota

A recent study by Yang and colleagues focused on changes in gut and vaginal microbiota composition in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. They analyzed data from 132 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (n = 34), osteopenia (n = 47), and controls (n = 51) based on their T-scores.¹⁶

Significant differences were observed in the microbial compositions of fecal samples between groups (P<.05), with some species enhanced in the control group whereas other species were higher in the osteoporosis group. Similar but less pronounced differences were seen in the vaginal microbiome but of different species.

The authors concluded that “The results show that changes in BMD in postmenopausal women are associated with the changes in gut microbiome and vaginal microbiome; however, changes in gut microbiome are more closely correlated with postmenopausal osteoporosis than vaginal microbiome.”¹⁶

Continue to: Sarcopenia, osteoporosis, and frailty: A fracture risk triple play...

Laskou F, Fuggle NR, Patel HP, et al. Associations of osteoporosis and sarcopenia with frailty and multimorbidity among participants of the Hertfordshire Cohort Study. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13:220-229.

Laskou and colleagues aimed to explore the relationship between sarcopenia, osteoporosis, and frailty in community-dwelling adults participating in a cohort study in the United Kingdom and to determine if the coexistence of osteoporosis and sarcopenia is associated with a significantly heavier health burden.¹⁷

Study details

The authors examined data from 206 women with an average age of 75.5 years. Sarcopenia was defined using the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) criteria, which includes low grip strength or slow chair rise and low muscle quantity. Osteoporosis was defined by standard measurements as a T-score of less than or equal to -2.5 standard deviations at the femoral neck or use of any osteoporosis medications. Frailty was defined using the Fried definition, which includes having 3 or more of the following 5 domains: weakness, slowness, exhaustion, low physical activity, and unintentional weight loss. Having 1 or 2 domains is “prefrailty” and no domains signifies nonfrail.

Frailty confers additional risk

The study results showed that among the 206 women, the prevalence of frailty and prefrailty was 9.2% and 60.7%, respectively. Of the 5 Fried frailty components, low walking speed and low physical activity followed by self-reported exhaustion were the most prevalent (96.6%, 87.5%, and 75.8%, respectively) among frail participants. Having sarcopenia only was strongly associated with frailty (odds ratio [OR], 8.28; 95% CI, 1.27–54.03; P=.027]). The likelihood of being frail was substantially higher with the presence of coexisting sarcopenia and osteoporosis (OR, 26.15; 95% CI, 3.31–218.76; P=.003).

Thus, both these conditions confer a high health burden for the individual as well as for health care systems. Osteosarcopenia is the term given when low bone mass and sarcopenia occur in consort. Previous data have shown that when osteoporosis or even osteopenia is combined with sarcopenia, it can result in a 3-fold increase in the risk of falls and a 4-fold increase in the risk of fracture compared with women who have osteopenia or osteoporosis alone.¹⁸

Continue to: Denosumab effective in reducing falls, strengthening muscle...

Rupp T, von Vopelius E, Strahl A, et al. Beneficial effects of denosumab on muscle performance in patients with low BMD: a retrospective, propensity score-matched study. Osteoporos Int. 2022;33:2177-2184.

Results of a previous study showed that denosumab treatment significantly decreased falls and resulted in significant improvement in all sarcopenic measures.¹⁹ Furthermore, 1 year after denosumab was discontinued, a significant worsening occurred in both falls and sarcopenic measures. In that study, the control group, treated with alendronate or zoledronate, also showed improvement on some tests of muscle performance but no improvement in the risk of falls.

Those results agreed with the outcomes of the FREEDOM (Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis) trial.²⁰ This study revealed that denosumab treatment not only reduced the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fracture over 36 months but also that the denosumab-treated group had fewer falls compared with the placebo-treated group (4.5% vs 5.7%; P = .02).

Denosumab found to increase muscle strength

More recently, Rupp and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that included women with osteoporosis or osteopenia who received vitamin D only (n = 52), alendronate 70 mg/week (n = 26), or denosumab (n = 52).²¹

After a mean follow-up period of 17.6 (SD, 9.0) months, the authors observed a significantly higher increase in grip force in both the denosumab (P<.001) and bisphosphonate groups (P = .001) compared with the vitamin D group. In addition, the denosumab group showed a significantly higher increase in chair rising test performance compared with the bisphosphonate group (denosumab vs bisphosphonate, P = 0.03). They concluded that denosumab resulted in increased muscle strength in the upper and lower limbs, indicating systemic rather than site-specific effects as compared with the bisphosphonate.

The authors concluded that based on these findings, denosumab might be favored over other osteoporosis treatments in patients with low BMD coexisting with poor muscle strength. ●

I recently heard a lecture where the speaker quoted this statistic: “A 50-year-old woman who does not currently have heart disease or cancer has a life expectancy of 91.” Hopefully, anyone reading this article already is aware of the fact that as our patients age, hip fracture results in greater morbidity and mortality than early breast cancer. It should be well known to clinicians (and, ultimately, to our patients) that localized breast cancer has a survival rate of 99%,¹ whereas hip fracture carries a 21% mortality in the first year after the event.² In addition, approximately one-third of women who fracture their hip do not have osteoporosis.³ Furthermore, the role of muscle mass, strength, and performance in bone health has become well established.⁴

With this in mind, a recent encounter with a patient in my clinical practice illustrates what I believe is an increasing problem today. The patient had been on long-term prednisone systemically for polymyalgia rheumatica. Her dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) bone mass measurements were among the worst osteoporotic numbers I have witnessed. She related to me the “argument” that occurred between her rheumatologist and endocrinologist. One wanted her to use injectable parathyroid hormone analog daily, while the other advised yearly infusion of zoledronic acid. She chose the yearly infusion. I inquired if either physician had mentioned anything to her about using nonskid rugs in the bathroom, grab bars, being careful of black ice, a calcium-rich diet, vitamin D supplementation, good eyesight, illumination so she does not miss a step, mindful walking, and maintaining optimal balance, muscle mass, strength, and performance-enhancing exercise? She replied, “No, just which drug I should take.”

Realize that the goal for our patients should be to avoid the morbidity and mortality associated especially with hip fracture. The goal is not to have a better bone mass measurement on your DXA scan as you age. This is exactly why the name of this column, years ago, was changed from “Update on osteoporosis” to “Update on bone health.” Similarly, in 2021, the NOF (National Osteoporosis Foundation) became the BHOF (Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation). Thus, our understanding and interest in bone health should and must go beyond simply bone mass measurement with DXA technology. The articles highlighted in this year’s Update reflect the importance of this concept.

Know SERMs’ effects on bone health for appropriate prescribing

Goldstein SR. Selective estrogen receptor modulators and bone health. Climacteric. 2022;25:56-59.

Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) are synthetic molecules that bind to the estrogen receptor and can have agonistic activity in some tissues and antagonistic activity in others. In a recent article, I reviewed the known data regarding the effects of various SERMs on bone health.⁵

A rundown on 4 SERMs and their effects on bone

Tamoxifen is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer in women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors. The only prospective study of tamoxifen versus placebo in which fracture risk was studied in women at risk for but not diagnosed with breast cancer was the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) P-1 trial. In this study, more than 13,000 women were randomly assigned to treatment with tamoxifen or placebo, with a primary objective of studying the incidence of invasive breast cancer in these high-risk women. With 7 years of follow-up, women receiving tamoxifen had significantly fewer fractures of the hip, radius, and spine (80 vs 116 in the placebo group), resulting in a combined relative risk (RR) of 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–0.92).⁶

Raloxifene, another SERM, was extensively studied in the MORE (Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation) trial.⁷ This study involved more than 7,700 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, average age 67. The incidence of first vertebral fracture was decreased from 4.3% with placebo to 1.9% with raloxifene (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.29–0.71), and subsequent vertebral fractures were decreased from 20.2% with placebo to 14.1% with raloxifene (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60–0.90). In 2007, the FDA approved raloxifene for “reduction in risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis” as well as for “postmenopausal women at high risk for invasive breast cancer” based on the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) trial that involved almost 20,000 postmenopausal women deemed at high risk for breast cancer.⁸

The concept of combining an estrogen with a SERM, known as a TSEC (tissue selective estrogen complex) was studied and brought to market as conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) 0.45 mg and bazedoxifene (BZA) 20 mg. CEE and BZA individually have been shown to prevent vertebral fracture.^9,10 The combination of BZA and CEE has been shown to improve bone density compared with placebo.¹¹ There are, however, no fracture prevention data for this combination therapy. This was the basis on which the combination agent received regulatory approval for prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. This combination drug is also FDA approved for treating moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of menopause.

Ospemifene is yet another SERM that is clinically available, at an oral dose of 60 mg, and is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe dyspareunia secondary to vulvovaginal atrophy, or genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). Ospemifene effectively reduced bone loss in ovariectomized rats, with activity comparable to estradiol and raloxifene.¹² Clinical data from three phase 1 or phase 2 clinical trials revealed that ospemifene 60 mg/day had a positive effect on biochemical markers for bone turnover in healthy postmenopausal women, with significant improvements relative to placebo and effects comparable to those of raloxifene.¹³ While actual fracture or bone mineral density (BMD) data in postmenopausal women are lacking, there is a good correlation between biochemical markers for bone turnover and occurrence of fracture.¹⁴ Women who need treatment for osteoporosis should not be treated with ospemifene, but women who use ospemifene for dyspareunia can expect positive activity on bone metabolism.

Continue to: Gut microbiome constituents may influence the development of osteoporosis: A potential treatment target?...

Cronin O, Lanham-New SA, Corfe BM, et al. Role of the microbiome in regulating bone metabolism and susceptibility to osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int. 2022;110:273-284.

Yang X, Chang T, Yuan Q, et al. Changes in the composition of gut and vaginal microbiota in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Front Immunol. 2022;13:930244.

The role of the microbiome in many arenas is rapidly emerging. Apparently, its relationship in bone metabolism is still in its infancy. A review of PubMed articles showed that 1 paper was published in 2012, none until 2 more in 2015, with a total of 221 published through November 1, 2022. A recent review by Cronin and colleagues on the microbiome’s role in regulating bone metabolism came out of a workshop held by the Osteoporosis and Bone Research Academy of the Royal Osteoporosis Society in the United Kingdom.¹⁵

The gut microbiome’s relationship with bone health

The authors noted that the human microbiota functions at the interface between diet, medication use, lifestyle, host immune development, and health. Hence, it is closely aligned with many of the recognized modifiable factors that influence bone mass accrual in the young and bone maintenance and skeletal decline in older populations. Microbiome research and discovery supports a role of the human gut microbiome in the regulation of bone metabolism and the pathogenesis of osteoporosis as well as its prevention and treatment.

Numerous factors which influence the gut microbiome and the development of osteoporosis overlap. These include body mass index (BMI), vitamin D, alcohol intake, diet, corticosteroid use, physical activity, sex hormone deficiency, genetic variability, and chronic inflammatory disorders.

Cronin and colleagues reviewed a number of clinical studies and concluded that “the available evidence suggests that probiotic supplements can attenuate bone loss in postmenopausal women, although the studies investigating this have been short term and individually have had small sample sizes. Moving forward, it will be important to conduct larger scale studies to evaluate if the skeletal response differs with different types of probiotic and also to determine if the effects are sustained in the longer term.”¹⁵

Composition of the microbiota

A recent study by Yang and colleagues focused on changes in gut and vaginal microbiota composition in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. They analyzed data from 132 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (n = 34), osteopenia (n = 47), and controls (n = 51) based on their T-scores.¹⁶

Significant differences were observed in the microbial compositions of fecal samples between groups (P<.05), with some species enhanced in the control group whereas other species were higher in the osteoporosis group. Similar but less pronounced differences were seen in the vaginal microbiome but of different species.

The authors concluded that “The results show that changes in BMD in postmenopausal women are associated with the changes in gut microbiome and vaginal microbiome; however, changes in gut microbiome are more closely correlated with postmenopausal osteoporosis than vaginal microbiome.”¹⁶

Continue to: Sarcopenia, osteoporosis, and frailty: A fracture risk triple play...

Laskou F, Fuggle NR, Patel HP, et al. Associations of osteoporosis and sarcopenia with frailty and multimorbidity among participants of the Hertfordshire Cohort Study. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13:220-229.

Laskou and colleagues aimed to explore the relationship between sarcopenia, osteoporosis, and frailty in community-dwelling adults participating in a cohort study in the United Kingdom and to determine if the coexistence of osteoporosis and sarcopenia is associated with a significantly heavier health burden.¹⁷

Study details

The authors examined data from 206 women with an average age of 75.5 years. Sarcopenia was defined using the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) criteria, which includes low grip strength or slow chair rise and low muscle quantity. Osteoporosis was defined by standard measurements as a T-score of less than or equal to -2.5 standard deviations at the femoral neck or use of any osteoporosis medications. Frailty was defined using the Fried definition, which includes having 3 or more of the following 5 domains: weakness, slowness, exhaustion, low physical activity, and unintentional weight loss. Having 1 or 2 domains is “prefrailty” and no domains signifies nonfrail.

Frailty confers additional risk

The study results showed that among the 206 women, the prevalence of frailty and prefrailty was 9.2% and 60.7%, respectively. Of the 5 Fried frailty components, low walking speed and low physical activity followed by self-reported exhaustion were the most prevalent (96.6%, 87.5%, and 75.8%, respectively) among frail participants. Having sarcopenia only was strongly associated with frailty (odds ratio [OR], 8.28; 95% CI, 1.27–54.03; P=.027]). The likelihood of being frail was substantially higher with the presence of coexisting sarcopenia and osteoporosis (OR, 26.15; 95% CI, 3.31–218.76; P=.003).

Thus, both these conditions confer a high health burden for the individual as well as for health care systems. Osteosarcopenia is the term given when low bone mass and sarcopenia occur in consort. Previous data have shown that when osteoporosis or even osteopenia is combined with sarcopenia, it can result in a 3-fold increase in the risk of falls and a 4-fold increase in the risk of fracture compared with women who have osteopenia or osteoporosis alone.¹⁸

Continue to: Denosumab effective in reducing falls, strengthening muscle...

Rupp T, von Vopelius E, Strahl A, et al. Beneficial effects of denosumab on muscle performance in patients with low BMD: a retrospective, propensity score-matched study. Osteoporos Int. 2022;33:2177-2184.

Results of a previous study showed that denosumab treatment significantly decreased falls and resulted in significant improvement in all sarcopenic measures.¹⁹ Furthermore, 1 year after denosumab was discontinued, a significant worsening occurred in both falls and sarcopenic measures. In that study, the control group, treated with alendronate or zoledronate, also showed improvement on some tests of muscle performance but no improvement in the risk of falls.

Those results agreed with the outcomes of the FREEDOM (Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis) trial.²⁰ This study revealed that denosumab treatment not only reduced the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fracture over 36 months but also that the denosumab-treated group had fewer falls compared with the placebo-treated group (4.5% vs 5.7%; P = .02).

Denosumab found to increase muscle strength

More recently, Rupp and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that included women with osteoporosis or osteopenia who received vitamin D only (n = 52), alendronate 70 mg/week (n = 26), or denosumab (n = 52).²¹

After a mean follow-up period of 17.6 (SD, 9.0) months, the authors observed a significantly higher increase in grip force in both the denosumab (P<.001) and bisphosphonate groups (P = .001) compared with the vitamin D group. In addition, the denosumab group showed a significantly higher increase in chair rising test performance compared with the bisphosphonate group (denosumab vs bisphosphonate, P = 0.03). They concluded that denosumab resulted in increased muscle strength in the upper and lower limbs, indicating systemic rather than site-specific effects as compared with the bisphosphonate.

The authors concluded that based on these findings, denosumab might be favored over other osteoporosis treatments in patients with low BMD coexisting with poor muscle strength. ●

I recently heard a lecture where the speaker quoted this statistic: “A 50-year-old woman who does not currently have heart disease or cancer has a life expectancy of 91.” Hopefully, anyone reading this article already is aware of the fact that as our patients age, hip fracture results in greater morbidity and mortality than early breast cancer. It should be well known to clinicians (and, ultimately, to our patients) that localized breast cancer has a survival rate of 99%,¹ whereas hip fracture carries a 21% mortality in the first year after the event.² In addition, approximately one-third of women who fracture their hip do not have osteoporosis.³ Furthermore, the role of muscle mass, strength, and performance in bone health has become well established.⁴

With this in mind, a recent encounter with a patient in my clinical practice illustrates what I believe is an increasing problem today. The patient had been on long-term prednisone systemically for polymyalgia rheumatica. Her dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) bone mass measurements were among the worst osteoporotic numbers I have witnessed. She related to me the “argument” that occurred between her rheumatologist and endocrinologist. One wanted her to use injectable parathyroid hormone analog daily, while the other advised yearly infusion of zoledronic acid. She chose the yearly infusion. I inquired if either physician had mentioned anything to her about using nonskid rugs in the bathroom, grab bars, being careful of black ice, a calcium-rich diet, vitamin D supplementation, good eyesight, illumination so she does not miss a step, mindful walking, and maintaining optimal balance, muscle mass, strength, and performance-enhancing exercise? She replied, “No, just which drug I should take.”

Realize that the goal for our patients should be to avoid the morbidity and mortality associated especially with hip fracture. The goal is not to have a better bone mass measurement on your DXA scan as you age. This is exactly why the name of this column, years ago, was changed from “Update on osteoporosis” to “Update on bone health.” Similarly, in 2021, the NOF (National Osteoporosis Foundation) became the BHOF (Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation). Thus, our understanding and interest in bone health should and must go beyond simply bone mass measurement with DXA technology. The articles highlighted in this year’s Update reflect the importance of this concept.

Know SERMs’ effects on bone health for appropriate prescribing

Goldstein SR. Selective estrogen receptor modulators and bone health. Climacteric. 2022;25:56-59.

Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) are synthetic molecules that bind to the estrogen receptor and can have agonistic activity in some tissues and antagonistic activity in others. In a recent article, I reviewed the known data regarding the effects of various SERMs on bone health.⁵

A rundown on 4 SERMs and their effects on bone

Tamoxifen is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer in women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors. The only prospective study of tamoxifen versus placebo in which fracture risk was studied in women at risk for but not diagnosed with breast cancer was the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) P-1 trial. In this study, more than 13,000 women were randomly assigned to treatment with tamoxifen or placebo, with a primary objective of studying the incidence of invasive breast cancer in these high-risk women. With 7 years of follow-up, women receiving tamoxifen had significantly fewer fractures of the hip, radius, and spine (80 vs 116 in the placebo group), resulting in a combined relative risk (RR) of 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–0.92).⁶

Raloxifene, another SERM, was extensively studied in the MORE (Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation) trial.⁷ This study involved more than 7,700 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, average age 67. The incidence of first vertebral fracture was decreased from 4.3% with placebo to 1.9% with raloxifene (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.29–0.71), and subsequent vertebral fractures were decreased from 20.2% with placebo to 14.1% with raloxifene (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60–0.90). In 2007, the FDA approved raloxifene for “reduction in risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis” as well as for “postmenopausal women at high risk for invasive breast cancer” based on the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) trial that involved almost 20,000 postmenopausal women deemed at high risk for breast cancer.⁸

The concept of combining an estrogen with a SERM, known as a TSEC (tissue selective estrogen complex) was studied and brought to market as conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) 0.45 mg and bazedoxifene (BZA) 20 mg. CEE and BZA individually have been shown to prevent vertebral fracture.^9,10 The combination of BZA and CEE has been shown to improve bone density compared with placebo.¹¹ There are, however, no fracture prevention data for this combination therapy. This was the basis on which the combination agent received regulatory approval for prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. This combination drug is also FDA approved for treating moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of menopause.

Ospemifene is yet another SERM that is clinically available, at an oral dose of 60 mg, and is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe dyspareunia secondary to vulvovaginal atrophy, or genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). Ospemifene effectively reduced bone loss in ovariectomized rats, with activity comparable to estradiol and raloxifene.¹² Clinical data from three phase 1 or phase 2 clinical trials revealed that ospemifene 60 mg/day had a positive effect on biochemical markers for bone turnover in healthy postmenopausal women, with significant improvements relative to placebo and effects comparable to those of raloxifene.¹³ While actual fracture or bone mineral density (BMD) data in postmenopausal women are lacking, there is a good correlation between biochemical markers for bone turnover and occurrence of fracture.¹⁴ Women who need treatment for osteoporosis should not be treated with ospemifene, but women who use ospemifene for dyspareunia can expect positive activity on bone metabolism.

Continue to: Gut microbiome constituents may influence the development of osteoporosis: A potential treatment target?...

Cronin O, Lanham-New SA, Corfe BM, et al. Role of the microbiome in regulating bone metabolism and susceptibility to osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int. 2022;110:273-284.

Yang X, Chang T, Yuan Q, et al. Changes in the composition of gut and vaginal microbiota in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Front Immunol. 2022;13:930244.

The role of the microbiome in many arenas is rapidly emerging. Apparently, its relationship in bone metabolism is still in its infancy. A review of PubMed articles showed that 1 paper was published in 2012, none until 2 more in 2015, with a total of 221 published through November 1, 2022. A recent review by Cronin and colleagues on the microbiome’s role in regulating bone metabolism came out of a workshop held by the Osteoporosis and Bone Research Academy of the Royal Osteoporosis Society in the United Kingdom.¹⁵

The gut microbiome’s relationship with bone health

The authors noted that the human microbiota functions at the interface between diet, medication use, lifestyle, host immune development, and health. Hence, it is closely aligned with many of the recognized modifiable factors that influence bone mass accrual in the young and bone maintenance and skeletal decline in older populations. Microbiome research and discovery supports a role of the human gut microbiome in the regulation of bone metabolism and the pathogenesis of osteoporosis as well as its prevention and treatment.

Numerous factors which influence the gut microbiome and the development of osteoporosis overlap. These include body mass index (BMI), vitamin D, alcohol intake, diet, corticosteroid use, physical activity, sex hormone deficiency, genetic variability, and chronic inflammatory disorders.

Cronin and colleagues reviewed a number of clinical studies and concluded that “the available evidence suggests that probiotic supplements can attenuate bone loss in postmenopausal women, although the studies investigating this have been short term and individually have had small sample sizes. Moving forward, it will be important to conduct larger scale studies to evaluate if the skeletal response differs with different types of probiotic and also to determine if the effects are sustained in the longer term.”¹⁵

Composition of the microbiota

A recent study by Yang and colleagues focused on changes in gut and vaginal microbiota composition in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. They analyzed data from 132 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (n = 34), osteopenia (n = 47), and controls (n = 51) based on their T-scores.¹⁶

Significant differences were observed in the microbial compositions of fecal samples between groups (P<.05), with some species enhanced in the control group whereas other species were higher in the osteoporosis group. Similar but less pronounced differences were seen in the vaginal microbiome but of different species.

The authors concluded that “The results show that changes in BMD in postmenopausal women are associated with the changes in gut microbiome and vaginal microbiome; however, changes in gut microbiome are more closely correlated with postmenopausal osteoporosis than vaginal microbiome.”¹⁶

Continue to: Sarcopenia, osteoporosis, and frailty: A fracture risk triple play...

Laskou F, Fuggle NR, Patel HP, et al. Associations of osteoporosis and sarcopenia with frailty and multimorbidity among participants of the Hertfordshire Cohort Study. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13:220-229.

Laskou and colleagues aimed to explore the relationship between sarcopenia, osteoporosis, and frailty in community-dwelling adults participating in a cohort study in the United Kingdom and to determine if the coexistence of osteoporosis and sarcopenia is associated with a significantly heavier health burden.¹⁷

Study details

The authors examined data from 206 women with an average age of 75.5 years. Sarcopenia was defined using the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) criteria, which includes low grip strength or slow chair rise and low muscle quantity. Osteoporosis was defined by standard measurements as a T-score of less than or equal to -2.5 standard deviations at the femoral neck or use of any osteoporosis medications. Frailty was defined using the Fried definition, which includes having 3 or more of the following 5 domains: weakness, slowness, exhaustion, low physical activity, and unintentional weight loss. Having 1 or 2 domains is “prefrailty” and no domains signifies nonfrail.

Frailty confers additional risk

The study results showed that among the 206 women, the prevalence of frailty and prefrailty was 9.2% and 60.7%, respectively. Of the 5 Fried frailty components, low walking speed and low physical activity followed by self-reported exhaustion were the most prevalent (96.6%, 87.5%, and 75.8%, respectively) among frail participants. Having sarcopenia only was strongly associated with frailty (odds ratio [OR], 8.28; 95% CI, 1.27–54.03; P=.027]). The likelihood of being frail was substantially higher with the presence of coexisting sarcopenia and osteoporosis (OR, 26.15; 95% CI, 3.31–218.76; P=.003).

Thus, both these conditions confer a high health burden for the individual as well as for health care systems. Osteosarcopenia is the term given when low bone mass and sarcopenia occur in consort. Previous data have shown that when osteoporosis or even osteopenia is combined with sarcopenia, it can result in a 3-fold increase in the risk of falls and a 4-fold increase in the risk of fracture compared with women who have osteopenia or osteoporosis alone.¹⁸

Continue to: Denosumab effective in reducing falls, strengthening muscle...

Rupp T, von Vopelius E, Strahl A, et al. Beneficial effects of denosumab on muscle performance in patients with low BMD: a retrospective, propensity score-matched study. Osteoporos Int. 2022;33:2177-2184.

Results of a previous study showed that denosumab treatment significantly decreased falls and resulted in significant improvement in all sarcopenic measures.¹⁹ Furthermore, 1 year after denosumab was discontinued, a significant worsening occurred in both falls and sarcopenic measures. In that study, the control group, treated with alendronate or zoledronate, also showed improvement on some tests of muscle performance but no improvement in the risk of falls.

Those results agreed with the outcomes of the FREEDOM (Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis) trial.²⁰ This study revealed that denosumab treatment not only reduced the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fracture over 36 months but also that the denosumab-treated group had fewer falls compared with the placebo-treated group (4.5% vs 5.7%; P = .02).

Denosumab found to increase muscle strength

More recently, Rupp and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that included women with osteoporosis or osteopenia who received vitamin D only (n = 52), alendronate 70 mg/week (n = 26), or denosumab (n = 52).²¹

After a mean follow-up period of 17.6 (SD, 9.0) months, the authors observed a significantly higher increase in grip force in both the denosumab (P<.001) and bisphosphonate groups (P = .001) compared with the vitamin D group. In addition, the denosumab group showed a significantly higher increase in chair rising test performance compared with the bisphosphonate group (denosumab vs bisphosphonate, P = 0.03). They concluded that denosumab resulted in increased muscle strength in the upper and lower limbs, indicating systemic rather than site-specific effects as compared with the bisphosphonate.

The authors concluded that based on these findings, denosumab might be favored over other osteoporosis treatments in patients with low BMD coexisting with poor muscle strength. ●

In the article, “Nonsurgical treatments for patients with urinary incontinence” (OBG Manag. September 2022;34:36- 42.), the authors, Ashley J. Murillo, MD, and Halina M. Zyczynski, MD, discuss the successful nonsurgical management of urge urinary incontinence, stress urinary incontinence, and mixed urinary incontinence, presenting the case of a 39-year-old woman with urine leakage during exercise. As a follow-up for readers, OBG Management posted a quiz question asking, “Which of the following is a nonsurgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence?”

In the article, “Nonsurgical treatments for patients with urinary incontinence” (OBG Manag. September 2022;34:36- 42.), the authors, Ashley J. Murillo, MD, and Halina M. Zyczynski, MD, discuss the successful nonsurgical management of urge urinary incontinence, stress urinary incontinence, and mixed urinary incontinence, presenting the case of a 39-year-old woman with urine leakage during exercise. As a follow-up for readers, OBG Management posted a quiz question asking, “Which of the following is a nonsurgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence?”

In the article, “Nonsurgical treatments for patients with urinary incontinence” (OBG Manag. September 2022;34:36- 42.), the authors, Ashley J. Murillo, MD, and Halina M. Zyczynski, MD, discuss the successful nonsurgical management of urge urinary incontinence, stress urinary incontinence, and mixed urinary incontinence, presenting the case of a 39-year-old woman with urine leakage during exercise. As a follow-up for readers, OBG Management posted a quiz question asking, “Which of the following is a nonsurgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence?”

HEGENBERGER RETRACTOR:  IS IT HELPFUL FOR PERINEAL REPAIR? 

The Hegenberger Retractor, manufactured by Hegenberger Medical (Abingdon, United Kingdom) is available for purchase in the United States through Rocket Medical. A video that I find particularly useful for explaining its use is available here: https://www.youtube.com /watch?v=p-jilXgXZLY

Background. About 85% of women having a vaginal birth experience some form of perineal trauma, and 60% to 70% receive stitches for those spontaneous tears or intentional incisions. As such, repairing perineal lacerations is a requisite skill for all obstetricians and midwives, and every provider has developed exposure techniques to perform their suturing with the goals of good tissue re-approximation, efficiency, minimized patient discomfort, reduced blood loss, and safety from needle sticks. For several millennia, the most commonly used tissue retractor for these repairs has been one’s own fingers, or those of a colleague. While cost-effective and readily available, fingers do have drawbacks as a vaginal retractor. First, their use as a retractor precludes their use for other tasks. Second, their frequent need to be inserted and replaced (see drawback #1) can be uncomfortable for patients. Third, their limited surface area is often insufficient to appropriately provide adequate tissue retraction for optimal surgical site visualization. Finally, they get tired and typically do not appreciate being stuck with needles. Given all this, it is surprising that so many centuries have passed with so little innovation for this ubiquitous procedure. Fortunately, Danish midwife Malene Hegenberger thought now was a good time to change the status quo.

Design/Functionality. The Hegenberger Retractor is brilliant in its simplicity. Its unique molded plastic design is smooth, ergonomic, nonconductive, and packaged as a single-use sterile device. Amazingly, it has a near-perfect pliability balance, making it simultaneously easy to compress for insertion while providing enough retraction tension for good visualization once it has been reexpanded. The subtle ridges on the compression points are just enough to allow for a good grip, and the notches on the sides are a convenient addition for holding extra suture if needed. The device has been cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a Class 1 device and is approved for sale in the United States. In my experience with its use, I thought it was easy to place and provided excellent exposure for the repairs I was doing. In fact, I thought it provided as good if not better exposure than what I would expect from a Gelpi retractor without any of the trauma the Gelpi adds with its pointed ends. Smile emoji!

Innovation. In the early 1800s, French midwifery pioneer Marie Boivin introduced a novel pelvimeter and a revolutionary 2-part speculum to the technology of the day. Why it took more than 200 years for the ideas of another cutting-edge midwife to breach the walls of the obstetric technological establishment remains a mystery, but fortunately it has been done. While seemingly obvious, the Hegenberger Retractor is the culmination of years of work and 88 prototypes. It looks simple, but the secret to its functionality is the precision with which each dimension and every curve was designed. The device has been cleared by the FDA as a Class 1 device and is approved for sale in the United States. 

Summary. There are a lot of reasons to like the Hegenberger Retractor. I like it for its simplicity; I like it for its functionality; I like it for its ability to fill a real need. On the downside, I do not like that it is a single-use plastic device, and I am not happy about adding cost to obstetric care. Most of all, I hate that I did not invent it. 

Is the Hegenberger Retractor going to be needed to repair every obstetric laceration? No. Will it provide perfect exposure to repair every obstetric laceration? Of course not. But it is an incredibly clever device that will be very helpful in many situations, and I suspect it will soon become a mainstay on most maternity units as it gains recognition.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.rocketmedical.com

HEGENBERGER RETRACTOR:  IS IT HELPFUL FOR PERINEAL REPAIR? 

The Hegenberger Retractor, manufactured by Hegenberger Medical (Abingdon, United Kingdom) is available for purchase in the United States through Rocket Medical. A video that I find particularly useful for explaining its use is available here: https://www.youtube.com /watch?v=p-jilXgXZLY

Background. About 85% of women having a vaginal birth experience some form of perineal trauma, and 60% to 70% receive stitches for those spontaneous tears or intentional incisions. As such, repairing perineal lacerations is a requisite skill for all obstetricians and midwives, and every provider has developed exposure techniques to perform their suturing with the goals of good tissue re-approximation, efficiency, minimized patient discomfort, reduced blood loss, and safety from needle sticks. For several millennia, the most commonly used tissue retractor for these repairs has been one’s own fingers, or those of a colleague. While cost-effective and readily available, fingers do have drawbacks as a vaginal retractor. First, their use as a retractor precludes their use for other tasks. Second, their frequent need to be inserted and replaced (see drawback #1) can be uncomfortable for patients. Third, their limited surface area is often insufficient to appropriately provide adequate tissue retraction for optimal surgical site visualization. Finally, they get tired and typically do not appreciate being stuck with needles. Given all this, it is surprising that so many centuries have passed with so little innovation for this ubiquitous procedure. Fortunately, Danish midwife Malene Hegenberger thought now was a good time to change the status quo.

Design/Functionality. The Hegenberger Retractor is brilliant in its simplicity. Its unique molded plastic design is smooth, ergonomic, nonconductive, and packaged as a single-use sterile device. Amazingly, it has a near-perfect pliability balance, making it simultaneously easy to compress for insertion while providing enough retraction tension for good visualization once it has been reexpanded. The subtle ridges on the compression points are just enough to allow for a good grip, and the notches on the sides are a convenient addition for holding extra suture if needed. The device has been cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a Class 1 device and is approved for sale in the United States. In my experience with its use, I thought it was easy to place and provided excellent exposure for the repairs I was doing. In fact, I thought it provided as good if not better exposure than what I would expect from a Gelpi retractor without any of the trauma the Gelpi adds with its pointed ends. Smile emoji!

Innovation. In the early 1800s, French midwifery pioneer Marie Boivin introduced a novel pelvimeter and a revolutionary 2-part speculum to the technology of the day. Why it took more than 200 years for the ideas of another cutting-edge midwife to breach the walls of the obstetric technological establishment remains a mystery, but fortunately it has been done. While seemingly obvious, the Hegenberger Retractor is the culmination of years of work and 88 prototypes. It looks simple, but the secret to its functionality is the precision with which each dimension and every curve was designed. The device has been cleared by the FDA as a Class 1 device and is approved for sale in the United States. 

Summary. There are a lot of reasons to like the Hegenberger Retractor. I like it for its simplicity; I like it for its functionality; I like it for its ability to fill a real need. On the downside, I do not like that it is a single-use plastic device, and I am not happy about adding cost to obstetric care. Most of all, I hate that I did not invent it. 

Is the Hegenberger Retractor going to be needed to repair every obstetric laceration? No. Will it provide perfect exposure to repair every obstetric laceration? Of course not. But it is an incredibly clever device that will be very helpful in many situations, and I suspect it will soon become a mainstay on most maternity units as it gains recognition.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.rocketmedical.com

HEGENBERGER RETRACTOR:  IS IT HELPFUL FOR PERINEAL REPAIR? 

The Hegenberger Retractor, manufactured by Hegenberger Medical (Abingdon, United Kingdom) is available for purchase in the United States through Rocket Medical. A video that I find particularly useful for explaining its use is available here: https://www.youtube.com /watch?v=p-jilXgXZLY

Background. About 85% of women having a vaginal birth experience some form of perineal trauma, and 60% to 70% receive stitches for those spontaneous tears or intentional incisions. As such, repairing perineal lacerations is a requisite skill for all obstetricians and midwives, and every provider has developed exposure techniques to perform their suturing with the goals of good tissue re-approximation, efficiency, minimized patient discomfort, reduced blood loss, and safety from needle sticks. For several millennia, the most commonly used tissue retractor for these repairs has been one’s own fingers, or those of a colleague. While cost-effective and readily available, fingers do have drawbacks as a vaginal retractor. First, their use as a retractor precludes their use for other tasks. Second, their frequent need to be inserted and replaced (see drawback #1) can be uncomfortable for patients. Third, their limited surface area is often insufficient to appropriately provide adequate tissue retraction for optimal surgical site visualization. Finally, they get tired and typically do not appreciate being stuck with needles. Given all this, it is surprising that so many centuries have passed with so little innovation for this ubiquitous procedure. Fortunately, Danish midwife Malene Hegenberger thought now was a good time to change the status quo.

Design/Functionality. The Hegenberger Retractor is brilliant in its simplicity. Its unique molded plastic design is smooth, ergonomic, nonconductive, and packaged as a single-use sterile device. Amazingly, it has a near-perfect pliability balance, making it simultaneously easy to compress for insertion while providing enough retraction tension for good visualization once it has been reexpanded. The subtle ridges on the compression points are just enough to allow for a good grip, and the notches on the sides are a convenient addition for holding extra suture if needed. The device has been cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a Class 1 device and is approved for sale in the United States. In my experience with its use, I thought it was easy to place and provided excellent exposure for the repairs I was doing. In fact, I thought it provided as good if not better exposure than what I would expect from a Gelpi retractor without any of the trauma the Gelpi adds with its pointed ends. Smile emoji!

Innovation. In the early 1800s, French midwifery pioneer Marie Boivin introduced a novel pelvimeter and a revolutionary 2-part speculum to the technology of the day. Why it took more than 200 years for the ideas of another cutting-edge midwife to breach the walls of the obstetric technological establishment remains a mystery, but fortunately it has been done. While seemingly obvious, the Hegenberger Retractor is the culmination of years of work and 88 prototypes. It looks simple, but the secret to its functionality is the precision with which each dimension and every curve was designed. The device has been cleared by the FDA as a Class 1 device and is approved for sale in the United States. 

Summary. There are a lot of reasons to like the Hegenberger Retractor. I like it for its simplicity; I like it for its functionality; I like it for its ability to fill a real need. On the downside, I do not like that it is a single-use plastic device, and I am not happy about adding cost to obstetric care. Most of all, I hate that I did not invent it. 

Is the Hegenberger Retractor going to be needed to repair every obstetric laceration? No. Will it provide perfect exposure to repair every obstetric laceration? Of course not. But it is an incredibly clever device that will be very helpful in many situations, and I suspect it will soon become a mainstay on most maternity units as it gains recognition.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.rocketmedical.com

Should treatment be initiated for mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy to improve outcomes?

JAIMEY M. PAULI, MD (JUNE 2022)

Consider this, when it comes to treating chronic hypertension

I welcome the article by Dr. Jaimey Pauli, which focuses on initiating treatment for mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy to reach a goal blood pressure (BP) of <140/90 mm Hg to prevent adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.¹ I would like to offer 3 additional thoughts for your consideration. First, it is known that there is a physiological decrease in BP during the second trimester, which results in a normotensive presentation. Thus, it would be beneficial to see if pregnant women with high-normal BP levels before the third trimester be administered a lower dose of antihypertensives. However, there is also a concern that decreased maternal BP may compromise uteroplacental perfusion and fetal circulation, which also could be evaluated.²

Second, I would like to see how comorbidities affect the initiation of antihypertensives for mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy. Research incorporating pregnant women with borderline hypertension and comorbidities such as obesity, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM) is likely to yield informative results. This is especially beneficial since, for example, chronic hypertension and DM are independent risk factors for adverse maternal and fetal outcomes; therefore, a mother with both these conditions may have additive effects on obstetric outcomes.³

Lastly, I would suggest you include a brief conversation about prepregnancy ways to manage women with chronic hypertension. Because many women who enter pregnancy with chronic hypertension have hypertension of unknown origin, it would be beneficial to optimize antihypertensive regimens before conception.⁴ Also, it should be further evaluated whether initiation of lifestyle modifications, such as weight reduction and the DASH diet before pregnancy, for women with chronic hypertension improves pregnancy outcomes.

Cassandra Maafoh, MD

Macon, Georgia

References

1. Pauli JM. Should treatment be initiated for mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy to improve outcomes? OBG Manag. 2022;34:14-15.
2. Brown CM, Garovic VD. Drug treatment of hypertension in pregnancy. Drugs. 2014;74:283-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-014-0187-7.
3. Yanit KE, Snowden JM, Cheng YW, et al. The impact of chronic hypertension and pregestational diabetes on pregnancy outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.06.066.
4. Seely EW, Ecker J. Chronic hypertension in pregnancy. Circulation. 2014;129:1254-1261. https:// doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.113.003904. 

2022 UPDATE ON FEMALE SEXUAL HEALTH

BARBARA LEVY, MD (AUGUST 2022)

Are these new and rare syndromes’ pathophysiological mechanisms related?

I read with great interest Dr. Barbara Levy’s UPDATE in the August 2022 issue on testosterone therapy for women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), as well as her comments on persistent genital arousal disorder/genito-pelvic dysesthesia (PGAD/GPD) that was recently so coined by the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health (ISSWSH) as a 2-component syndrome.¹ The new syndrome, explains Dr. Levy, presents with “the perception of genital arousal that is involuntary, unrelated to sexual desire, without any identified cause, not relieved with orgasm, and distressing to the patient (the PGAD component),” combined with “itching, burning, tingling, or pain” (the GPD component).

Although agreeing with ISSWSH that diagnosis and management require a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial approach, in her practical advice, Dr. Levy mentioned: “neuropathic signaling” with “aberrant sensory processing” as the syndrome’s possible main pathophysiology. Interestingly, there are 2 other rare, chronic, and “poorly recognized source(s) of major distress to a small but significant group of patients.” Persistent idiopathic oro-facial pain (PIFP) disorder² after dental interventions and burning mouth syndrome (BMS),³ defined by the absence of any local or systemic contributing etiology, also present with continuous local burning and pain (as in GPD). Consequently, PGAD/GPD may indeed have the same pathophysiological explanation—as Dr. Levy suggested—of being a (genital) peripheral chronic neuropathic pain condition.

A potentially promising new therapeutic approach for PGAD/GPD would then be to use the same, or similar, antineuropathic medications (Clonazepam, Nortriptyline, Pregabalin, etc.) in the form of topical vaginal swishing solutions similar to the presently recommended antiepileptic and/or antidepressant oral swishing treatment for PIFP and BMS. As the topical approach works well for oral neuropathic pain, vaginal swishing could potentially be the answer for PGAD/GPD peripheral neuropathic pain. Moreover, such a novel topical approach would significantly increase patient motivation for treatment by avoiding the adverse effects of ingested antiepileptic or antidepressant drugs.

This is the first time that anticonvulsant and/or antidepressant vaginal swishing is proposed as topical therapy for GPD peripheral neuropathic pain, still pending scientific/clinical validation. ●

Zwi Hoch, MD

Newton, Massachusetts

1. Goldstein I, Komisaruk BR, Pukall CF, et al. International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health (ISSWSH) Review of Epidemiology and Pathophysiology, and a Consensus Nomenclature and Process of Care for the Management of Persistent Genital Arousal Disorder/Genito-Pelvic Dysesthesia (PGAD/GPD). J Sex Med. 2021;18:665-697.
2. Baad-Hansen L, Benoliel R. Neuropathic orofacial pain: facts and fiction. Cephalgia. 2017;37:670-679.
3. Kuten-Shorer M, Treister NS, Stock S, et al. Safety and tolerability of topical clonazepam solution for management of oral dysesthesia. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2017;124: 146-151. 

Should treatment be initiated for mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy to improve outcomes?

JAIMEY M. PAULI, MD (JUNE 2022)

Consider this, when it comes to treating chronic hypertension

I welcome the article by Dr. Jaimey Pauli, which focuses on initiating treatment for mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy to reach a goal blood pressure (BP) of <140/90 mm Hg to prevent adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.¹ I would like to offer 3 additional thoughts for your consideration. First, it is known that there is a physiological decrease in BP during the second trimester, which results in a normotensive presentation. Thus, it would be beneficial to see if pregnant women with high-normal BP levels before the third trimester be administered a lower dose of antihypertensives. However, there is also a concern that decreased maternal BP may compromise uteroplacental perfusion and fetal circulation, which also could be evaluated.²

Second, I would like to see how comorbidities affect the initiation of antihypertensives for mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy. Research incorporating pregnant women with borderline hypertension and comorbidities such as obesity, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM) is likely to yield informative results. This is especially beneficial since, for example, chronic hypertension and DM are independent risk factors for adverse maternal and fetal outcomes; therefore, a mother with both these conditions may have additive effects on obstetric outcomes.³

Lastly, I would suggest you include a brief conversation about prepregnancy ways to manage women with chronic hypertension. Because many women who enter pregnancy with chronic hypertension have hypertension of unknown origin, it would be beneficial to optimize antihypertensive regimens before conception.⁴ Also, it should be further evaluated whether initiation of lifestyle modifications, such as weight reduction and the DASH diet before pregnancy, for women with chronic hypertension improves pregnancy outcomes.

Cassandra Maafoh, MD

Macon, Georgia

References

1. Pauli JM. Should treatment be initiated for mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy to improve outcomes? OBG Manag. 2022;34:14-15.
2. Brown CM, Garovic VD. Drug treatment of hypertension in pregnancy. Drugs. 2014;74:283-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-014-0187-7.
3. Yanit KE, Snowden JM, Cheng YW, et al. The impact of chronic hypertension and pregestational diabetes on pregnancy outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.06.066.
4. Seely EW, Ecker J. Chronic hypertension in pregnancy. Circulation. 2014;129:1254-1261. https:// doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.113.003904. 

2022 UPDATE ON FEMALE SEXUAL HEALTH

BARBARA LEVY, MD (AUGUST 2022)

Are these new and rare syndromes’ pathophysiological mechanisms related?

I read with great interest Dr. Barbara Levy’s UPDATE in the August 2022 issue on testosterone therapy for women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), as well as her comments on persistent genital arousal disorder/genito-pelvic dysesthesia (PGAD/GPD) that was recently so coined by the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health (ISSWSH) as a 2-component syndrome.¹ The new syndrome, explains Dr. Levy, presents with “the perception of genital arousal that is involuntary, unrelated to sexual desire, without any identified cause, not relieved with orgasm, and distressing to the patient (the PGAD component),” combined with “itching, burning, tingling, or pain” (the GPD component).

Although agreeing with ISSWSH that diagnosis and management require a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial approach, in her practical advice, Dr. Levy mentioned: “neuropathic signaling” with “aberrant sensory processing” as the syndrome’s possible main pathophysiology. Interestingly, there are 2 other rare, chronic, and “poorly recognized source(s) of major distress to a small but significant group of patients.” Persistent idiopathic oro-facial pain (PIFP) disorder² after dental interventions and burning mouth syndrome (BMS),³ defined by the absence of any local or systemic contributing etiology, also present with continuous local burning and pain (as in GPD). Consequently, PGAD/GPD may indeed have the same pathophysiological explanation—as Dr. Levy suggested—of being a (genital) peripheral chronic neuropathic pain condition.

A potentially promising new therapeutic approach for PGAD/GPD would then be to use the same, or similar, antineuropathic medications (Clonazepam, Nortriptyline, Pregabalin, etc.) in the form of topical vaginal swishing solutions similar to the presently recommended antiepileptic and/or antidepressant oral swishing treatment for PIFP and BMS. As the topical approach works well for oral neuropathic pain, vaginal swishing could potentially be the answer for PGAD/GPD peripheral neuropathic pain. Moreover, such a novel topical approach would significantly increase patient motivation for treatment by avoiding the adverse effects of ingested antiepileptic or antidepressant drugs.

This is the first time that anticonvulsant and/or antidepressant vaginal swishing is proposed as topical therapy for GPD peripheral neuropathic pain, still pending scientific/clinical validation. ●

Zwi Hoch, MD

Newton, Massachusetts

1. Goldstein I, Komisaruk BR, Pukall CF, et al. International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health (ISSWSH) Review of Epidemiology and Pathophysiology, and a Consensus Nomenclature and Process of Care for the Management of Persistent Genital Arousal Disorder/Genito-Pelvic Dysesthesia (PGAD/GPD). J Sex Med. 2021;18:665-697.
2. Baad-Hansen L, Benoliel R. Neuropathic orofacial pain: facts and fiction. Cephalgia. 2017;37:670-679.
3. Kuten-Shorer M, Treister NS, Stock S, et al. Safety and tolerability of topical clonazepam solution for management of oral dysesthesia. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2017;124: 146-151. 

Should treatment be initiated for mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy to improve outcomes?

JAIMEY M. PAULI, MD (JUNE 2022)

Consider this, when it comes to treating chronic hypertension

I welcome the article by Dr. Jaimey Pauli, which focuses on initiating treatment for mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy to reach a goal blood pressure (BP) of <140/90 mm Hg to prevent adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.¹ I would like to offer 3 additional thoughts for your consideration. First, it is known that there is a physiological decrease in BP during the second trimester, which results in a normotensive presentation. Thus, it would be beneficial to see if pregnant women with high-normal BP levels before the third trimester be administered a lower dose of antihypertensives. However, there is also a concern that decreased maternal BP may compromise uteroplacental perfusion and fetal circulation, which also could be evaluated.²

Second, I would like to see how comorbidities affect the initiation of antihypertensives for mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy. Research incorporating pregnant women with borderline hypertension and comorbidities such as obesity, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM) is likely to yield informative results. This is especially beneficial since, for example, chronic hypertension and DM are independent risk factors for adverse maternal and fetal outcomes; therefore, a mother with both these conditions may have additive effects on obstetric outcomes.³

Lastly, I would suggest you include a brief conversation about prepregnancy ways to manage women with chronic hypertension. Because many women who enter pregnancy with chronic hypertension have hypertension of unknown origin, it would be beneficial to optimize antihypertensive regimens before conception.⁴ Also, it should be further evaluated whether initiation of lifestyle modifications, such as weight reduction and the DASH diet before pregnancy, for women with chronic hypertension improves pregnancy outcomes.