Reproductive Endocrinology

The federal government is stepping up actions to protect Americans from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances that continue to threaten health through pollution in the air, water, and foods, according to a statement from the White House on Oct. 18.

tupungato/Thinkstock

The comprehensive plan includes efforts to prevent per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from being released into the air, drinking and ground water, and the food supply chain, according to the statement. Other efforts will expand cleanup and remediation of the impact of PFAS already present in the environment.

PFAS are a category of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that have been used for decades in a range of consumer products including cookware, stain-resistant clothes, fast food wrappers, treatments for carpets and furniture, and firefighting foams. PFAS can be released into the air, and also into surface water, drinking water, and ground water, because of how they are disposed, according to a 2020 report from the Endocrine Society and the International Pollutants Elimination Network. The report suggested that creation of more plastic products will likely increase exposure to PFAS and other EDCs.

The Environmental Protection Agency will take the lead on the Biden administration’s PFAS reduction efforts. The agency announced a PFAS Roadmap, which outlines actions to control PFAS over the next 3 years. The Roadmap’s goals include keeping PFAS out of the environment, holding polluters accountable for their actions, investing in scientific research to learn more about the impact of PFAS on human health, and prioritizing protection for disadvantaged communities. The EPA described its approach to PFAS as three pronged (Research, Restrict, Remediate). Planned actions noted on the EPA website include publication of a national PFAS testing strategy, establishing an improved review process for new PFAS, reviewing existing PFAS, and enhancing reporting to track sources and quantities of PFAS.

White House statement noted that other agencies committed to controlling PFAS include the Department of Defense, which will conduct cleanups and assessments at DOD and National Guard locations; the Food and Drug Administration, which will to expand its food supply testing to estimate dietary exposure to PFAS; and the Department of Agriculture, which is investigating causes and impacts of PFAS in the food system, and supporting research on environmental contaminants including PFAS.

The Department of Homeland Security has conducted an inventory of PFAS use, notably the use of PFAS in firefighting foams, and established an Emerging Contaminants Working Group to remediate PFAS and other contaminants. In addition, the Department of Health & Human Services monitors the evolving science on human health and PFAS and anticipates a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the health effects of PFAS exposure, with data from eight states.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade association for American chemistry companies, issued a statement in response to the EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap in which they supported the value of science-based regulation, but emphasized that PFAS are distinct from one another, and should not be grouped together for regulation purposes.

“According to EPA, approximately 600 PFAS substances are manufactured or in use today, each with its own unique properties and uses, from cellphones to solar panels, for which alternatives are not always available,” according to the ACC statement. “EPA’s Roadmap reinforces the differences between these chemistries and that they should not all be grouped together.” The newly formed Interagency Policy Committee on PFAS will coordinate PFAS response efforts across agencies and “help develop new policy strategies to support research, remediation, and removal of PFAS in communities across the country,” according to the White House statement.

The federal government is stepping up actions to protect Americans from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances that continue to threaten health through pollution in the air, water, and foods, according to a statement from the White House on Oct. 18.

tupungato/Thinkstock

The comprehensive plan includes efforts to prevent per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from being released into the air, drinking and ground water, and the food supply chain, according to the statement. Other efforts will expand cleanup and remediation of the impact of PFAS already present in the environment.

PFAS are a category of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that have been used for decades in a range of consumer products including cookware, stain-resistant clothes, fast food wrappers, treatments for carpets and furniture, and firefighting foams. PFAS can be released into the air, and also into surface water, drinking water, and ground water, because of how they are disposed, according to a 2020 report from the Endocrine Society and the International Pollutants Elimination Network. The report suggested that creation of more plastic products will likely increase exposure to PFAS and other EDCs.

The Environmental Protection Agency will take the lead on the Biden administration’s PFAS reduction efforts. The agency announced a PFAS Roadmap, which outlines actions to control PFAS over the next 3 years. The Roadmap’s goals include keeping PFAS out of the environment, holding polluters accountable for their actions, investing in scientific research to learn more about the impact of PFAS on human health, and prioritizing protection for disadvantaged communities. The EPA described its approach to PFAS as three pronged (Research, Restrict, Remediate). Planned actions noted on the EPA website include publication of a national PFAS testing strategy, establishing an improved review process for new PFAS, reviewing existing PFAS, and enhancing reporting to track sources and quantities of PFAS.

White House statement noted that other agencies committed to controlling PFAS include the Department of Defense, which will conduct cleanups and assessments at DOD and National Guard locations; the Food and Drug Administration, which will to expand its food supply testing to estimate dietary exposure to PFAS; and the Department of Agriculture, which is investigating causes and impacts of PFAS in the food system, and supporting research on environmental contaminants including PFAS.

The Department of Homeland Security has conducted an inventory of PFAS use, notably the use of PFAS in firefighting foams, and established an Emerging Contaminants Working Group to remediate PFAS and other contaminants. In addition, the Department of Health & Human Services monitors the evolving science on human health and PFAS and anticipates a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the health effects of PFAS exposure, with data from eight states.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade association for American chemistry companies, issued a statement in response to the EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap in which they supported the value of science-based regulation, but emphasized that PFAS are distinct from one another, and should not be grouped together for regulation purposes.

“According to EPA, approximately 600 PFAS substances are manufactured or in use today, each with its own unique properties and uses, from cellphones to solar panels, for which alternatives are not always available,” according to the ACC statement. “EPA’s Roadmap reinforces the differences between these chemistries and that they should not all be grouped together.” The newly formed Interagency Policy Committee on PFAS will coordinate PFAS response efforts across agencies and “help develop new policy strategies to support research, remediation, and removal of PFAS in communities across the country,” according to the White House statement.

The federal government is stepping up actions to protect Americans from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances that continue to threaten health through pollution in the air, water, and foods, according to a statement from the White House on Oct. 18.

tupungato/Thinkstock

The comprehensive plan includes efforts to prevent per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from being released into the air, drinking and ground water, and the food supply chain, according to the statement. Other efforts will expand cleanup and remediation of the impact of PFAS already present in the environment.

PFAS are a category of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that have been used for decades in a range of consumer products including cookware, stain-resistant clothes, fast food wrappers, treatments for carpets and furniture, and firefighting foams. PFAS can be released into the air, and also into surface water, drinking water, and ground water, because of how they are disposed, according to a 2020 report from the Endocrine Society and the International Pollutants Elimination Network. The report suggested that creation of more plastic products will likely increase exposure to PFAS and other EDCs.

The Environmental Protection Agency will take the lead on the Biden administration’s PFAS reduction efforts. The agency announced a PFAS Roadmap, which outlines actions to control PFAS over the next 3 years. The Roadmap’s goals include keeping PFAS out of the environment, holding polluters accountable for their actions, investing in scientific research to learn more about the impact of PFAS on human health, and prioritizing protection for disadvantaged communities. The EPA described its approach to PFAS as three pronged (Research, Restrict, Remediate). Planned actions noted on the EPA website include publication of a national PFAS testing strategy, establishing an improved review process for new PFAS, reviewing existing PFAS, and enhancing reporting to track sources and quantities of PFAS.

White House statement noted that other agencies committed to controlling PFAS include the Department of Defense, which will conduct cleanups and assessments at DOD and National Guard locations; the Food and Drug Administration, which will to expand its food supply testing to estimate dietary exposure to PFAS; and the Department of Agriculture, which is investigating causes and impacts of PFAS in the food system, and supporting research on environmental contaminants including PFAS.

The Department of Homeland Security has conducted an inventory of PFAS use, notably the use of PFAS in firefighting foams, and established an Emerging Contaminants Working Group to remediate PFAS and other contaminants. In addition, the Department of Health & Human Services monitors the evolving science on human health and PFAS and anticipates a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the health effects of PFAS exposure, with data from eight states.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade association for American chemistry companies, issued a statement in response to the EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap in which they supported the value of science-based regulation, but emphasized that PFAS are distinct from one another, and should not be grouped together for regulation purposes.

“According to EPA, approximately 600 PFAS substances are manufactured or in use today, each with its own unique properties and uses, from cellphones to solar panels, for which alternatives are not always available,” according to the ACC statement. “EPA’s Roadmap reinforces the differences between these chemistries and that they should not all be grouped together.” The newly formed Interagency Policy Committee on PFAS will coordinate PFAS response efforts across agencies and “help develop new policy strategies to support research, remediation, and removal of PFAS in communities across the country,” according to the White House statement.

Daily exposure to phthalates, which are synthetic chemicals founds in many consumer products, may lead to hundreds of thousands of early deaths each year among older adults in the United States, according to a new study published Oct. 12, 2021, in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Pollution.

The chemicals are found in hundreds of types of products, including children’s toys, food storage containers, makeup, perfume, and shampoo. In the study, those with the highest levels of phthalates had a greater risk of death from any cause, especially heart disease.

“This study adds to the growing database on the impact of plastics on the human body and bolsters public health and business cases for reducing or eliminating the use of plastics,” Leonardo Trasande, MD, the lead author and a professor of environmental medicine and population health at New York University Langone Health, told CNN.

Dr. Trasande and colleagues measured the urine concentration of phthalates in more than 5,000 adults aged 55-64 and compared the levels with the risk of early death over an average of 10 years. The research team controlled for preexisting heart diseases, diabetes, cancer, poor eating habits, physical activity, body mass, and other known hormone disruptors such as bisphenol A, or BPA, an industrial chemical that’s been used since the 1950s to make certain plastics and resins, according to the Mayo Clinic

The research team found that phthalates could contribute to 91,000-107,000 premature deaths per year in the United States. These early deaths could cost the nation $40 billion to $47 billion each year in lost economic productivity.

Phthalates interrupt the body’s endocrine system and hormone production. Previous studies have found that the chemicals are linked with developmental, reproductive, and immune system problems, according to NYU Langone Health. They’ve also been linked with asthma, childhood obesity, heart issues, and cancer.

“These chemicals have a rap sheet,” Dr. Trasande told CNN. “And the fact of the matter is that when you look at the entire body of evidence, it provides a haunting pattern of concern.”

Phthalates are often called “everywhere chemicals” because they are so common, CNN reported. Also called “plasticizers,” they are added to products to make them more durable, including PVC plumbing, vinyl flooring, medical tubing, garden hoses, food packaging, detergents, clothing, furniture, and automotive materials.

People are often exposed when they breathe contaminated air or consume food that comes into contact with the chemical, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children may be exposed by touching plastic items and putting their hands in their mouth.

Dr. Trasande told CNN that it’s possible to lessen exposure to phthalates and other endocrine disruptors such as BPA by using unscented lotions, laundry detergents, and cleaning supplies, as well as substituting glass, stainless steel, ceramic, and wood for plastic food storage.

“First, avoid plastics as much as you can. Never put plastic containers in the microwave or dishwasher, where the heat can break down the linings so they might be absorbed more readily,” he said. “In addition, cooking at home and reducing your use of processed foods can reduce the levels of the chemical exposures you come in contact with.”

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

Daily exposure to phthalates, which are synthetic chemicals founds in many consumer products, may lead to hundreds of thousands of early deaths each year among older adults in the United States, according to a new study published Oct. 12, 2021, in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Pollution.

The chemicals are found in hundreds of types of products, including children’s toys, food storage containers, makeup, perfume, and shampoo. In the study, those with the highest levels of phthalates had a greater risk of death from any cause, especially heart disease.

“This study adds to the growing database on the impact of plastics on the human body and bolsters public health and business cases for reducing or eliminating the use of plastics,” Leonardo Trasande, MD, the lead author and a professor of environmental medicine and population health at New York University Langone Health, told CNN.

Dr. Trasande and colleagues measured the urine concentration of phthalates in more than 5,000 adults aged 55-64 and compared the levels with the risk of early death over an average of 10 years. The research team controlled for preexisting heart diseases, diabetes, cancer, poor eating habits, physical activity, body mass, and other known hormone disruptors such as bisphenol A, or BPA, an industrial chemical that’s been used since the 1950s to make certain plastics and resins, according to the Mayo Clinic

The research team found that phthalates could contribute to 91,000-107,000 premature deaths per year in the United States. These early deaths could cost the nation $40 billion to $47 billion each year in lost economic productivity.

Phthalates interrupt the body’s endocrine system and hormone production. Previous studies have found that the chemicals are linked with developmental, reproductive, and immune system problems, according to NYU Langone Health. They’ve also been linked with asthma, childhood obesity, heart issues, and cancer.

“These chemicals have a rap sheet,” Dr. Trasande told CNN. “And the fact of the matter is that when you look at the entire body of evidence, it provides a haunting pattern of concern.”

Phthalates are often called “everywhere chemicals” because they are so common, CNN reported. Also called “plasticizers,” they are added to products to make them more durable, including PVC plumbing, vinyl flooring, medical tubing, garden hoses, food packaging, detergents, clothing, furniture, and automotive materials.

People are often exposed when they breathe contaminated air or consume food that comes into contact with the chemical, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children may be exposed by touching plastic items and putting their hands in their mouth.

Dr. Trasande told CNN that it’s possible to lessen exposure to phthalates and other endocrine disruptors such as BPA by using unscented lotions, laundry detergents, and cleaning supplies, as well as substituting glass, stainless steel, ceramic, and wood for plastic food storage.

“First, avoid plastics as much as you can. Never put plastic containers in the microwave or dishwasher, where the heat can break down the linings so they might be absorbed more readily,” he said. “In addition, cooking at home and reducing your use of processed foods can reduce the levels of the chemical exposures you come in contact with.”

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

Daily exposure to phthalates, which are synthetic chemicals founds in many consumer products, may lead to hundreds of thousands of early deaths each year among older adults in the United States, according to a new study published Oct. 12, 2021, in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Pollution.

The chemicals are found in hundreds of types of products, including children’s toys, food storage containers, makeup, perfume, and shampoo. In the study, those with the highest levels of phthalates had a greater risk of death from any cause, especially heart disease.

“This study adds to the growing database on the impact of plastics on the human body and bolsters public health and business cases for reducing or eliminating the use of plastics,” Leonardo Trasande, MD, the lead author and a professor of environmental medicine and population health at New York University Langone Health, told CNN.

Dr. Trasande and colleagues measured the urine concentration of phthalates in more than 5,000 adults aged 55-64 and compared the levels with the risk of early death over an average of 10 years. The research team controlled for preexisting heart diseases, diabetes, cancer, poor eating habits, physical activity, body mass, and other known hormone disruptors such as bisphenol A, or BPA, an industrial chemical that’s been used since the 1950s to make certain plastics and resins, according to the Mayo Clinic

The research team found that phthalates could contribute to 91,000-107,000 premature deaths per year in the United States. These early deaths could cost the nation $40 billion to $47 billion each year in lost economic productivity.

Phthalates interrupt the body’s endocrine system and hormone production. Previous studies have found that the chemicals are linked with developmental, reproductive, and immune system problems, according to NYU Langone Health. They’ve also been linked with asthma, childhood obesity, heart issues, and cancer.

“These chemicals have a rap sheet,” Dr. Trasande told CNN. “And the fact of the matter is that when you look at the entire body of evidence, it provides a haunting pattern of concern.”

Phthalates are often called “everywhere chemicals” because they are so common, CNN reported. Also called “plasticizers,” they are added to products to make them more durable, including PVC plumbing, vinyl flooring, medical tubing, garden hoses, food packaging, detergents, clothing, furniture, and automotive materials.

People are often exposed when they breathe contaminated air or consume food that comes into contact with the chemical, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children may be exposed by touching plastic items and putting their hands in their mouth.

Dr. Trasande told CNN that it’s possible to lessen exposure to phthalates and other endocrine disruptors such as BPA by using unscented lotions, laundry detergents, and cleaning supplies, as well as substituting glass, stainless steel, ceramic, and wood for plastic food storage.

“First, avoid plastics as much as you can. Never put plastic containers in the microwave or dishwasher, where the heat can break down the linings so they might be absorbed more readily,” he said. “In addition, cooking at home and reducing your use of processed foods can reduce the levels of the chemical exposures you come in contact with.”

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

The attraction of reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI), personally, is the hormonal interplay of the hypothalamus and pituitary with the end organs that are intimately involved in female reproduction. While the sex hormone–producing organs, such as the ovaries and adrenal glands, are directly related to reproductive function, the thyroid gland is typically overlooked until dysfunction occurs, resulting in ovulation dysfunction and pregnancy complications, namely miscarriage and preterm labor. This month we address thyroid function, given its vital role for fertility and pregnancy health and the fetus’ reliance on maternal thyroid hormone during the first trimester to ensure normal neurologic development.

Thyroid disease is the second most common endocrine disorder affecting women of reproductive age; the first being polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Thyroid dysfunction can impair ovulation and, consequently, fertility. Hyperthyroidism is found in approximately 2.3% of women presenting with fertility problems, compared with 1.5% of women in the general population. Hypothyroidism affects 0.5% of women of reproductive age and has been shown to result in impaired reproductive outcomes, including miscarriage, along with adverse obstetric and fetal outcomes. Subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), defined as an elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) level with a normal free T4, has an incidence of 4%-8% in the reproductive-age population. While there is fair evidence SCH increases miscarriage, treatment may result in improved outcomes.

The prevalence of thyroid autoimmunity (TAI) among women of reproductive age is 8%-14% worldwide and it is increased in the infertility population. TAI, defined as the presence of thyroid peroxidase and thyroglobulin antibodies, has been shown to be associated with a reduced live birth rate, increase in preterm birth, and a two- to threefold increase in miscarriage.

The endocrinologic “pendulum” of guidance regarding the effect on and management of thyroid function regarding fertility, pregnancy, and baby has conflicting results. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization appears to alter TSH levels and levothyroxine requirements increase in the first trimester by approximately 50%. The controversy lies in which population of women should be tested for TAI, which TSH level is acceptable, and how to manage, if at all, euthyroid women with TAI or women with SCH who are trying to conceive. Ultimately, which women would benefit from levothyroxine while trying to conceive and during pregnancy?
 

Summary of salient studies

• In a meta-analysis, untreated women with SCH had a higher prevalence of miscarriage, compared with euthyroid women (RR, 1.90). Miscarriage rates were even higher in SCH with TIA, compared with women with SCH. The authors recommend “early treatments to avoid adverse pregnancy outcomes and complications.”
• A randomized controlled trial from China studied women who were euthyroid with TAI undergoing IVF. The authors demonstrated levothyroxine did not reduce miscarriage rates or increase live birth rates. To dive further into their cohort, the authors addressed whether TSH above 2.5 mIU/L or above 4 mIU/L (per the American Society for Reproductive Medicine cutoff values) impaired reproductive outcome and found no benefit of levothyroxine in any subgroup. This is consistent with other studies that showed no detrimental effect on pregnancy outcome with TSH levels above 2.5 mIU/L in the normal range and no reduction in miscarriage with the addition of levothyroxine.
• An observational cohort study of IVF patients that underwent preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy did not demonstrate an association between chromosomally normal embryos that miscarried and maternal antithyroid antibodies in recurrent miscarriage patients.
• A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial on the use of levothyroxine in euthyroid women with TAI did not result in a higher rate of live births, lower rate of pregnancy loss, or preterm birth, compared with placebo.

Consensus statements

• The American Society for Reproductive Medicine considers it reasonable to test infertile women trying to conceive and to treat SCH with levothyroxine to maintain a TSH less than 2.5 mIU/L and within the normal range. Women who have TAI and TSH greater than 2.5 mIU/L can be considered for treatment with levothyroxine.
• The Endocrine Society recommends levothyroxine in women with SCH who have TAI.
• The American Thyroid Association guideline recommends women with SCH who are undergoing IVF be treated with levothyroxine to achieve a TSH concentration less than 2.5mIU/L.
• The 2011 guidelines of the American Thyroid Association and the 2012 guidelines of the Endocrine Society recommended the specific reference ranges for TSH in the early, middle, and late stages of pregnancy as 0.1-2.5 mIU/L, 0.2-3.0 mIU/L, and 0.3-3.0 mIU/L, respectively.
• The American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists recommend avoiding universal thyroid screening in pregnancy since “identification and treatment of maternal subclinical hypothyroidism has not been shown to result in improved pregnancy outcomes and neurocognitive function in offspring.”

Conclusion

The 2019 Cochrane Database states there are no clear conclusions regarding treatment with levothyroxine in euthyroid TAI or SCH because of the low quality of evidence reported. While TAI and SCH have been associated with pregnancy complications, there is no apparent benefit of levothyroxine in women with TAI or TSH levels between 2.5 and 4 mIU/L.

So, the conundrum is which preconception women to test and how to manage nonovert thyroid disease. For now, it is reasonable to obtain a serum TSH on all women desiring fertility, to treat SCH with levothyroxine to maintain TSH less than 2.5 mIU/L in the normal range, and to adjust levothyroxine accordingly throughout pregnancy.

Dr. Trolice is director of fertility at CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. He has no disclosures. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

The attraction of reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI), personally, is the hormonal interplay of the hypothalamus and pituitary with the end organs that are intimately involved in female reproduction. While the sex hormone–producing organs, such as the ovaries and adrenal glands, are directly related to reproductive function, the thyroid gland is typically overlooked until dysfunction occurs, resulting in ovulation dysfunction and pregnancy complications, namely miscarriage and preterm labor. This month we address thyroid function, given its vital role for fertility and pregnancy health and the fetus’ reliance on maternal thyroid hormone during the first trimester to ensure normal neurologic development.

Thyroid disease is the second most common endocrine disorder affecting women of reproductive age; the first being polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Thyroid dysfunction can impair ovulation and, consequently, fertility. Hyperthyroidism is found in approximately 2.3% of women presenting with fertility problems, compared with 1.5% of women in the general population. Hypothyroidism affects 0.5% of women of reproductive age and has been shown to result in impaired reproductive outcomes, including miscarriage, along with adverse obstetric and fetal outcomes. Subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), defined as an elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) level with a normal free T4, has an incidence of 4%-8% in the reproductive-age population. While there is fair evidence SCH increases miscarriage, treatment may result in improved outcomes.

The prevalence of thyroid autoimmunity (TAI) among women of reproductive age is 8%-14% worldwide and it is increased in the infertility population. TAI, defined as the presence of thyroid peroxidase and thyroglobulin antibodies, has been shown to be associated with a reduced live birth rate, increase in preterm birth, and a two- to threefold increase in miscarriage.

The endocrinologic “pendulum” of guidance regarding the effect on and management of thyroid function regarding fertility, pregnancy, and baby has conflicting results. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization appears to alter TSH levels and levothyroxine requirements increase in the first trimester by approximately 50%. The controversy lies in which population of women should be tested for TAI, which TSH level is acceptable, and how to manage, if at all, euthyroid women with TAI or women with SCH who are trying to conceive. Ultimately, which women would benefit from levothyroxine while trying to conceive and during pregnancy?
 

Summary of salient studies

• In a meta-analysis, untreated women with SCH had a higher prevalence of miscarriage, compared with euthyroid women (RR, 1.90). Miscarriage rates were even higher in SCH with TIA, compared with women with SCH. The authors recommend “early treatments to avoid adverse pregnancy outcomes and complications.”
• A randomized controlled trial from China studied women who were euthyroid with TAI undergoing IVF. The authors demonstrated levothyroxine did not reduce miscarriage rates or increase live birth rates. To dive further into their cohort, the authors addressed whether TSH above 2.5 mIU/L or above 4 mIU/L (per the American Society for Reproductive Medicine cutoff values) impaired reproductive outcome and found no benefit of levothyroxine in any subgroup. This is consistent with other studies that showed no detrimental effect on pregnancy outcome with TSH levels above 2.5 mIU/L in the normal range and no reduction in miscarriage with the addition of levothyroxine.
• An observational cohort study of IVF patients that underwent preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy did not demonstrate an association between chromosomally normal embryos that miscarried and maternal antithyroid antibodies in recurrent miscarriage patients.
• A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial on the use of levothyroxine in euthyroid women with TAI did not result in a higher rate of live births, lower rate of pregnancy loss, or preterm birth, compared with placebo.

Consensus statements

• The American Society for Reproductive Medicine considers it reasonable to test infertile women trying to conceive and to treat SCH with levothyroxine to maintain a TSH less than 2.5 mIU/L and within the normal range. Women who have TAI and TSH greater than 2.5 mIU/L can be considered for treatment with levothyroxine.
• The Endocrine Society recommends levothyroxine in women with SCH who have TAI.
• The American Thyroid Association guideline recommends women with SCH who are undergoing IVF be treated with levothyroxine to achieve a TSH concentration less than 2.5mIU/L.
• The 2011 guidelines of the American Thyroid Association and the 2012 guidelines of the Endocrine Society recommended the specific reference ranges for TSH in the early, middle, and late stages of pregnancy as 0.1-2.5 mIU/L, 0.2-3.0 mIU/L, and 0.3-3.0 mIU/L, respectively.
• The American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists recommend avoiding universal thyroid screening in pregnancy since “identification and treatment of maternal subclinical hypothyroidism has not been shown to result in improved pregnancy outcomes and neurocognitive function in offspring.”

Conclusion

The 2019 Cochrane Database states there are no clear conclusions regarding treatment with levothyroxine in euthyroid TAI or SCH because of the low quality of evidence reported. While TAI and SCH have been associated with pregnancy complications, there is no apparent benefit of levothyroxine in women with TAI or TSH levels between 2.5 and 4 mIU/L.

So, the conundrum is which preconception women to test and how to manage nonovert thyroid disease. For now, it is reasonable to obtain a serum TSH on all women desiring fertility, to treat SCH with levothyroxine to maintain TSH less than 2.5 mIU/L in the normal range, and to adjust levothyroxine accordingly throughout pregnancy.

Dr. Trolice is director of fertility at CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. He has no disclosures. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

The attraction of reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI), personally, is the hormonal interplay of the hypothalamus and pituitary with the end organs that are intimately involved in female reproduction. While the sex hormone–producing organs, such as the ovaries and adrenal glands, are directly related to reproductive function, the thyroid gland is typically overlooked until dysfunction occurs, resulting in ovulation dysfunction and pregnancy complications, namely miscarriage and preterm labor. This month we address thyroid function, given its vital role for fertility and pregnancy health and the fetus’ reliance on maternal thyroid hormone during the first trimester to ensure normal neurologic development.

Thyroid disease is the second most common endocrine disorder affecting women of reproductive age; the first being polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Thyroid dysfunction can impair ovulation and, consequently, fertility. Hyperthyroidism is found in approximately 2.3% of women presenting with fertility problems, compared with 1.5% of women in the general population. Hypothyroidism affects 0.5% of women of reproductive age and has been shown to result in impaired reproductive outcomes, including miscarriage, along with adverse obstetric and fetal outcomes. Subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), defined as an elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) level with a normal free T4, has an incidence of 4%-8% in the reproductive-age population. While there is fair evidence SCH increases miscarriage, treatment may result in improved outcomes.

The prevalence of thyroid autoimmunity (TAI) among women of reproductive age is 8%-14% worldwide and it is increased in the infertility population. TAI, defined as the presence of thyroid peroxidase and thyroglobulin antibodies, has been shown to be associated with a reduced live birth rate, increase in preterm birth, and a two- to threefold increase in miscarriage.

The endocrinologic “pendulum” of guidance regarding the effect on and management of thyroid function regarding fertility, pregnancy, and baby has conflicting results. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization appears to alter TSH levels and levothyroxine requirements increase in the first trimester by approximately 50%. The controversy lies in which population of women should be tested for TAI, which TSH level is acceptable, and how to manage, if at all, euthyroid women with TAI or women with SCH who are trying to conceive. Ultimately, which women would benefit from levothyroxine while trying to conceive and during pregnancy?
 

Summary of salient studies

• In a meta-analysis, untreated women with SCH had a higher prevalence of miscarriage, compared with euthyroid women (RR, 1.90). Miscarriage rates were even higher in SCH with TIA, compared with women with SCH. The authors recommend “early treatments to avoid adverse pregnancy outcomes and complications.”
• A randomized controlled trial from China studied women who were euthyroid with TAI undergoing IVF. The authors demonstrated levothyroxine did not reduce miscarriage rates or increase live birth rates. To dive further into their cohort, the authors addressed whether TSH above 2.5 mIU/L or above 4 mIU/L (per the American Society for Reproductive Medicine cutoff values) impaired reproductive outcome and found no benefit of levothyroxine in any subgroup. This is consistent with other studies that showed no detrimental effect on pregnancy outcome with TSH levels above 2.5 mIU/L in the normal range and no reduction in miscarriage with the addition of levothyroxine.
• An observational cohort study of IVF patients that underwent preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy did not demonstrate an association between chromosomally normal embryos that miscarried and maternal antithyroid antibodies in recurrent miscarriage patients.
• A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial on the use of levothyroxine in euthyroid women with TAI did not result in a higher rate of live births, lower rate of pregnancy loss, or preterm birth, compared with placebo.

Consensus statements

• The American Society for Reproductive Medicine considers it reasonable to test infertile women trying to conceive and to treat SCH with levothyroxine to maintain a TSH less than 2.5 mIU/L and within the normal range. Women who have TAI and TSH greater than 2.5 mIU/L can be considered for treatment with levothyroxine.
• The Endocrine Society recommends levothyroxine in women with SCH who have TAI.
• The American Thyroid Association guideline recommends women with SCH who are undergoing IVF be treated with levothyroxine to achieve a TSH concentration less than 2.5mIU/L.
• The 2011 guidelines of the American Thyroid Association and the 2012 guidelines of the Endocrine Society recommended the specific reference ranges for TSH in the early, middle, and late stages of pregnancy as 0.1-2.5 mIU/L, 0.2-3.0 mIU/L, and 0.3-3.0 mIU/L, respectively.
• The American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists recommend avoiding universal thyroid screening in pregnancy since “identification and treatment of maternal subclinical hypothyroidism has not been shown to result in improved pregnancy outcomes and neurocognitive function in offspring.”

Conclusion

The 2019 Cochrane Database states there are no clear conclusions regarding treatment with levothyroxine in euthyroid TAI or SCH because of the low quality of evidence reported. While TAI and SCH have been associated with pregnancy complications, there is no apparent benefit of levothyroxine in women with TAI or TSH levels between 2.5 and 4 mIU/L.

So, the conundrum is which preconception women to test and how to manage nonovert thyroid disease. For now, it is reasonable to obtain a serum TSH on all women desiring fertility, to treat SCH with levothyroxine to maintain TSH less than 2.5 mIU/L in the normal range, and to adjust levothyroxine accordingly throughout pregnancy.

Dr. Trolice is director of fertility at CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. He has no disclosures. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

New evidence suggests a drug used to lower blood sugar levels may also help extend the duration of preterm pregnancies in women with preeclampsia.

The findings from a small clinical trial, published Sept. 23 in the BMJ, showed that pregnant women who received the diabetes medication metformin prolonged their pregnancy by a week compared to those who received a placebo. Although this finding was not statistically significant, researchers said they are “cautiously optimistic” about the treatment of preterm preeclampsia.

“We hope that it will encourage others to test not only metformin but also other promising therapeutic candidates to treat and prevent preeclampsia,” study author Catherine Cluver, MBChB, FCOG, PhD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, said in an interview.

Preeclampsia, a condition that occurs about 1 in 25 pregnancies in the United States, happens when a woman develops high blood pressure and protein in her urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preterm preeclampsia is a severe variant affecting 0.5% of all pregnancies, or 10% of those with preeclampsia, researchers wrote in the study. The condition is associated with more maternal and neonatal death and increases their risks of developing an illness.

Dr. Cluver said that when a mother develops preeclampsia, the lining of her blood vessels, or the endothelium, is affected and there are specific proteins in the blood that increase. Dr. Cluver’s preclinical study found that metformin improved endothelial function and decreased these biomarkers in laboratory work.

“We therefore set out to see if metformin could be used to prolong gestation in preterm preeclampsia,” she said.

For the study, Dr. Cluver and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to compare the prolongation of pregnancies among women who were at least 26 months pregnant with preterm preeclampsia. They were treated with either 3 grams of extended-release metformin (90 women), or a matching placebo (90 women).*

In the treatment group, the average time from the start of the study to delivery was 17.7 days, compared to 10.1 days in the placebo group. The median difference was 7.6 days.

The researchers also found that 40% of women in the metformin group reached 34 weeks’ gestation compared with 28% of those in the placebo group. Fewer women in the metformin group delivered because of fetal indications such as fetal distress or other issues – 33% vs. 44%. However, the researchers said those results were not statistically significant.

They said they were cautiously optimistic when they found that the median time for prolongation of pregnancy in the metformin group was 17.5 days compared with 7.9 days in the placebo group, findings that were statistically significant.

Some adverse effects participants experienced while taking metformin during their pregnancy included diarrhea and an increase in nausea.

Although the study is important in maternal-fetal medicine and is a novel approach to preterm preeclampsia, the findings weren’t strong enough, but they point to the need for further study, said Victor Klein, MD, MBA, CPHRM, a specialist in high-risk pregnancy who was not involved in the study.

“Even though they did have an improved outcome, it wasn’t strong enough. It wasn’t long enough to prove that the medicine was useful or efficacious,” said Dr. Klein, vice chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at North Shore University Hospital, New York.

Metformin is also used to treat gestational diabetes, which is an “advantage of repurposing the drug is that it is likely to be safe,” the researchers wrote. They said longer term follow-up data might be worthwhile in future trials.

None of the experts had conflicts of interest to disclose.

*This story was updated on 10/6/2021.

New evidence suggests a drug used to lower blood sugar levels may also help extend the duration of preterm pregnancies in women with preeclampsia.

The findings from a small clinical trial, published Sept. 23 in the BMJ, showed that pregnant women who received the diabetes medication metformin prolonged their pregnancy by a week compared to those who received a placebo. Although this finding was not statistically significant, researchers said they are “cautiously optimistic” about the treatment of preterm preeclampsia.

“We hope that it will encourage others to test not only metformin but also other promising therapeutic candidates to treat and prevent preeclampsia,” study author Catherine Cluver, MBChB, FCOG, PhD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, said in an interview.

Preeclampsia, a condition that occurs about 1 in 25 pregnancies in the United States, happens when a woman develops high blood pressure and protein in her urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preterm preeclampsia is a severe variant affecting 0.5% of all pregnancies, or 10% of those with preeclampsia, researchers wrote in the study. The condition is associated with more maternal and neonatal death and increases their risks of developing an illness.

Dr. Cluver said that when a mother develops preeclampsia, the lining of her blood vessels, or the endothelium, is affected and there are specific proteins in the blood that increase. Dr. Cluver’s preclinical study found that metformin improved endothelial function and decreased these biomarkers in laboratory work.

“We therefore set out to see if metformin could be used to prolong gestation in preterm preeclampsia,” she said.

For the study, Dr. Cluver and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to compare the prolongation of pregnancies among women who were at least 26 months pregnant with preterm preeclampsia. They were treated with either 3 grams of extended-release metformin (90 women), or a matching placebo (90 women).*

In the treatment group, the average time from the start of the study to delivery was 17.7 days, compared to 10.1 days in the placebo group. The median difference was 7.6 days.

The researchers also found that 40% of women in the metformin group reached 34 weeks’ gestation compared with 28% of those in the placebo group. Fewer women in the metformin group delivered because of fetal indications such as fetal distress or other issues – 33% vs. 44%. However, the researchers said those results were not statistically significant.

They said they were cautiously optimistic when they found that the median time for prolongation of pregnancy in the metformin group was 17.5 days compared with 7.9 days in the placebo group, findings that were statistically significant.

Some adverse effects participants experienced while taking metformin during their pregnancy included diarrhea and an increase in nausea.

Although the study is important in maternal-fetal medicine and is a novel approach to preterm preeclampsia, the findings weren’t strong enough, but they point to the need for further study, said Victor Klein, MD, MBA, CPHRM, a specialist in high-risk pregnancy who was not involved in the study.

“Even though they did have an improved outcome, it wasn’t strong enough. It wasn’t long enough to prove that the medicine was useful or efficacious,” said Dr. Klein, vice chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at North Shore University Hospital, New York.

Metformin is also used to treat gestational diabetes, which is an “advantage of repurposing the drug is that it is likely to be safe,” the researchers wrote. They said longer term follow-up data might be worthwhile in future trials.

None of the experts had conflicts of interest to disclose.

*This story was updated on 10/6/2021.

New evidence suggests a drug used to lower blood sugar levels may also help extend the duration of preterm pregnancies in women with preeclampsia.

The findings from a small clinical trial, published Sept. 23 in the BMJ, showed that pregnant women who received the diabetes medication metformin prolonged their pregnancy by a week compared to those who received a placebo. Although this finding was not statistically significant, researchers said they are “cautiously optimistic” about the treatment of preterm preeclampsia.

“We hope that it will encourage others to test not only metformin but also other promising therapeutic candidates to treat and prevent preeclampsia,” study author Catherine Cluver, MBChB, FCOG, PhD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, said in an interview.

Preeclampsia, a condition that occurs about 1 in 25 pregnancies in the United States, happens when a woman develops high blood pressure and protein in her urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preterm preeclampsia is a severe variant affecting 0.5% of all pregnancies, or 10% of those with preeclampsia, researchers wrote in the study. The condition is associated with more maternal and neonatal death and increases their risks of developing an illness.

Dr. Cluver said that when a mother develops preeclampsia, the lining of her blood vessels, or the endothelium, is affected and there are specific proteins in the blood that increase. Dr. Cluver’s preclinical study found that metformin improved endothelial function and decreased these biomarkers in laboratory work.

“We therefore set out to see if metformin could be used to prolong gestation in preterm preeclampsia,” she said.

For the study, Dr. Cluver and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to compare the prolongation of pregnancies among women who were at least 26 months pregnant with preterm preeclampsia. They were treated with either 3 grams of extended-release metformin (90 women), or a matching placebo (90 women).*

In the treatment group, the average time from the start of the study to delivery was 17.7 days, compared to 10.1 days in the placebo group. The median difference was 7.6 days.

The researchers also found that 40% of women in the metformin group reached 34 weeks’ gestation compared with 28% of those in the placebo group. Fewer women in the metformin group delivered because of fetal indications such as fetal distress or other issues – 33% vs. 44%. However, the researchers said those results were not statistically significant.

They said they were cautiously optimistic when they found that the median time for prolongation of pregnancy in the metformin group was 17.5 days compared with 7.9 days in the placebo group, findings that were statistically significant.

Some adverse effects participants experienced while taking metformin during their pregnancy included diarrhea and an increase in nausea.

Although the study is important in maternal-fetal medicine and is a novel approach to preterm preeclampsia, the findings weren’t strong enough, but they point to the need for further study, said Victor Klein, MD, MBA, CPHRM, a specialist in high-risk pregnancy who was not involved in the study.

“Even though they did have an improved outcome, it wasn’t strong enough. It wasn’t long enough to prove that the medicine was useful or efficacious,” said Dr. Klein, vice chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at North Shore University Hospital, New York.

Metformin is also used to treat gestational diabetes, which is an “advantage of repurposing the drug is that it is likely to be safe,” the researchers wrote. They said longer term follow-up data might be worthwhile in future trials.

None of the experts had conflicts of interest to disclose.

*This story was updated on 10/6/2021.

Teens are identifying as transgender in record numbers. In 2017, 3-4 in 100 teens in the United States reported that they are or may be transgender. A more recent 2021 study suggests that the rate of transgender identification among America’s youth may be as high as 9 in 100. All of the major gender centers in the world have reported a several-thousand-percent increase in youth presenting with gender distress.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

How do we reconcile these numbers with 2013 data reporting the prevalence of adult gender dysphoria to be a rare 2-14 in 100,000? Reflection is warranted because many U.S. medical societies support providing youth who have transgender identification (over 1 million children and adolescents, using the latest estimates) with access to powerful endocrine interventions.

GnRH analogues (colloquially known as “puberty blockers”) are now available at Tanner stage 2 of puberty – a threshold crossed by females as young as 8-9 years old. Cross-sex hormones and surgeries follow, and mastectomies are now available to children as young as 13. Genital-altering surgeries, as well as the removal of the ovaries, uterus, and testes, can be obtained as soon as a patient turns 18.

What’s driving this massive increase in trans-identified youth? What are the risks, benefits, and uncertainties associated with hormonal and surgical interventions? Do such interventions improve the long-term psychological health of gender-dysphoric youth? How many will regret the irreversible changes made to their bodies during what may have been a temporary phase in their development?

We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we need to figure them out before offering such interventions. Frontline clinicians – especially those working with youth – will not be able to remain on the sidelines of this issue for much longer. Each clinician considering writing a prescription for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or generating a referral for surgery, will need to answer for themselves: Just because I can, does it mean I should?

What’s contributing to the rapid rise of gender-dysphoric youth?

The etiology of the rapid rise of transgender identifications in young people is vigorously debated. Proponents of hormonal and surgical interventions for youth argue that the several-thousand-percent increase in the numbers of youth seeking gender reassignment is a reflection of more social acceptance of transgender identities, allowing more young people to “come out.” But closer examination of this claim reveals several inconsistencies.

Because adolescent and young adult females now account for 6-8 in 10 of the presenting cases (previously, prepubertal males were more common), one would expect a commensurate increase in the rate of transgender identification in older females. This has not occurred. In addition, more than three-quarters of currently presenting cases have significant mental health problems or suffer from neurocognitive comorbidities such as autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – a much higher burden of mental health comorbidities than the historical cohort with gender dysphoria.

There is legitimate concern that these comorbid mental health conditions, as well as the influence of social groups and online immersion into transgender topics, may be playing a role in the rapidly growing rate of transgender identification among these particularly vulnerable youth.

The initial study positing the theory that social influence is playing a role in the increased incidence of “late” or adolescent-onset (vs. childhood-onset) transgender-identified youth was harshly attacked by proponents of medical transitioning of youth, despite the fact that the study utilized methods similar to those used in other areas of health research. The study underwent an unprecedented second peer review and emerged with largely unchanged conclusions.

Since the study’s publication, a number of mental health clinicians working directly with gender-distressed youth have corroborated a rapid onset of transgender identification among teens with previously gender-normative childhoods.

Pioneers in gender dysphoria treatment are changing course

Several European countries that were pioneers in pediatric medical transition are now reversing course toward far more caution after their own evidence evaluations failed to show that medically transitioning gender-distressed youth improves mental health outcomes. In Sweden, following Karolinska Hospital’s announcement that it will no longer transition people under 18 outside of strictly regulated clinical trials, a number of other pediatric gender clinics followed suit and made the same decision.

In the United Kingdom, Keira Bell – a young woman who was treated with “affirmative” hormonal and surgical interventions before detransitioning – brought a challenge against the national gender clinic. Her landmark case and the UK High Court’s original judgement against the clinic have highlighted the urgency to reassess treatment approaches for the increasingly varied presentations of gender dysphoria in young people. As this article went to press, the UK’s national gender clinic won its appeal against Keira Bell, meaning that doctors there will once again be able to decide whether their patients under 16 can properly consent to puberty blockers. Keira Bell said she is disappointed with this decision and will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. She said the medical service had become “politicized,” and added: “A global conversation has begun and has been shaped by this case. It has shone a light into the dark corners of a medical scandal that is harming children and harmed me. There is more to be done.”

And the UK National Health Service (NHS) has already commissioned an independent systematic review of data, which concluded that the evidence of benefit of hormonal interventions in gender dysphoric youth is of very low certainty and must be carefully weighed against the risks. An independent taskforce has also been convened to reassess the country’s approach to treating gender dysphoric youth.

Finland has arguably undertaken the biggest change of all. An early adopter of pediatric medical transition, researchers there noticed that adolescents who had mental health struggles at baseline failed to improve after transition. The Finnish national Gender Identity Development services issued new treatment guidelines in 2020 stating that psychotherapy, rather than gender reassignment, should be the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

Leaders of America’s medical societies have been slower to respond. Recently, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine applied to share information about youth gender transitions at the yearly meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The application was denied without explanation, despite the fact that 80% of rank-and-file pediatricians who voted on AAP resolutions days earlier endorsed a resolution calling for a reassessment of the evidence and more caution regarding gender transitions of minors.

The AAP leadership apparently ignored the resounding support for this resolution, but the clear message from that vote is that frontline pediatricians do not agree with the “one size fits all” approach of automatically affirming gender-distressed youth as transgender and proceeding to gender reassignment.

What we know and don’t know


There is now growing evidence that the “gender-affirming” model, based on the unproven assumption that gender reassignment is the best way to help gender-distressed youth, is not living up to its promise. This should not be surprising. Despite more than 50 years of experience with mature adult gender transitions, there is a lack of convincing evidence that transitions improve the psychological functioning of those with gender dysphoria, and studies on regret have been plagued by high dropout rates that prevent meaningful conclusions for practitioners and patients alike. Pediatric transitions are a much more recent phenomenon, with little to no quality data to guide decision-making.

We are witnessing a growing number of vocal regretters who underwent gender reassignment as teens and young adults under “gender-affirming” care protocols in recent years. A review of stories on the subreddit r/detrans, which counts over 20,000 members (not all are detransitioners, as the forum is open to those fully detransitioned, partially detransitioned, desisted [those who identified as transgender for a period of time in their youth but no longer do], and questioning their transition) is flush with first-hand accounts of regret and should be mandatory reading for any clinician who is considering becoming a prescriber of gender-affirmative care.  

Here is a brief outline of what we know – and more importantly, what we don’t know – about the practice of medically transitioning minors.

Most cases of early childhood-onset gender dysphoria self-resolve. Eleven out of 11 studies that followed the trajectory of gender-variant youth show that the most common outcome is natural resolution of gender dysphoria around or after puberty. Among those diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, 67% no longer met the diagnostic criteria as adults; among those subthreshold for diagnosis, 93% were not gender dysphoric as adults. Gender dysphoria in childhood is a far better predictor of future homosexuality than of future trans identity.

The future trajectory of people whose transgender identity emerged during or after puberty is entirely unknown. No one has studied future trajectories of patients whose transgender identity emerged for the first time after the onset of puberty – a previously rare but now increasingly common presentation. Growing numbers of young detransitioners and desisters are precisely from this demographic, suggesting that a transgender identity that emerges in adolescence may not be durable.

Social transition does not improve mental health outcomes. Recent studies show that while socially transitioned children can thrive in the short term, they do not fare any better than their non–socially transitioned dysphoric peers. It appears that peer relations, not the social transition status, predict mental health in gender-dysphoric children. We don’t yet know the long-term trajectories of socially transitioned minors, but emerging evidence suggests that they may be more likely to persist with gender-related distress rather than outgrow it, as previously observed. This in turn necessitates decades of invasive and risky medical interventions. In fact, the Dutch researchers who pioneered the protocol used to medically transition minors explicitly and strongly discouraged social transition of children and early adolescents.

Nearly 100% of children who begin puberty blockers will proceed to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. The two main studies that have evaluated the effects of puberty blockers on mental health found no improvements or improvements of marginal clinical significance. Both studies are also at critical risk of bias due to the absence of control groups.

Four additional studies looking at the mental health effects of puberty blockers were plagued by design limitations and also failed to show any convincing positive effects on psychological health. However, one effect of puberty blockers has been consistently replicated: At least four studies show that virtually all of the children who start puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones. This suggests that rather than being a pause button, puberty blockers may serve as the “gas pedal” for gender transition.

Most of the long-term health risks are largely unknown. No long-term studies exist of patients who underwent medical transition as teens or young adults. Therefore, our ability to assess risks vs. benefits is limited. Puberty blockers have been demonstrated to significantly impair bone health, and it is not clear whether this will result in future osteoporosis. Cross-sex hormones are associated with roughly 3-5 times the risk for heart attacks and strokes, though long-term studies are of insufficient quality for accurate risk assessments. Other risks associated with these endocrine interventions will come to light as the practice continues to scale and as young people spend years and decades on these interventions. The risks to fertility are largely unknown, but it is almost certain that if puberty blockers are given at the early stages of puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones, sterility will result.

The medical pathway of “affirmative care” rests on a single Dutch study that is not applicable to the current populations of gender-dysphoric youth. Most of the youth presenting for care today would have been explicitly disqualified by the original Dutch protocol, as most have significant mental health comorbidities and post-puberty onset of trans identities. This fact has been recognized by the principal investigators of the Dutch protocol itself, who have recently begun to sound the alarm about the potential misapplication of their protocol and who suggest that psychotherapy – rather than gender reassignment – is more appropriate for many of the currently presenting cases.

On suicidality

The urgency to put gender-dysphoric youth through gender reassignment despite the dearth of evidence appears to stem from the notion that if we don’t intervene medically and in short order, these youth will commit suicide. However, studies using quality data reveal a markedly different reality.

While gender-dysphoric youth do have elevated rates of suicidality, it’s not uniquely high. In fact, it’s roughly similar to the rate of suicidality found in populations of youth referred for other mental health conditions. Quality long-term studies that explored whether transition leads to reduced suicidality have not been able to demonstrate a reduction.

Medicine has a pattern of enthusiastically embracing unproven medical interventions, only to find out years or decades later that the harms from those interventions outweigh the benefits. We owe it to our patients to be transparent about the limits of our knowledge and the fact that the “affirmative care” pathway is largely irreversible.

When the benefits of an intervention have not been shown to outweigh the risks, medical ethics dictate that such interventions should not occur outside of clinical trials. We must not conflate medical care for gender-dysphoric youth with experimental and risky interventions that are based on low-quality evidence. It’s time to hit pause on gender transitions for youth.

A brief history of the Dutch protocol

Before the mid-1990s, medical transition was primarily reserved for mature adults. However, noting the “never-disappearing masculine appearance” of many adult male transitioners, a team of Dutch researchers hypothesized that it might be appropriate to provide early intervention to a carefully selected group of adolescents before the irreversible physical changes of puberty occur.

To differentiate the majority of gender-dysphoric children who would outgrow their cross-sex identification by adulthood from the few who would probably not have resolution and would wish to transition later in life, the Dutch gender clinic designed a rigorous screening protocol, with multidisciplinary teams closely following prospective candidates for several years.

To qualify for early intervention, the adolescents had to have had persistent and severe cross-sex identification from early childhood (cases of adolescent-onset trans identity were disqualified); the distress had to worsen during puberty; and the adolescents had to be free from any other significant mental health conditions. For qualifying adolescents, puberty blockers were initiated no earlier than 12 years of age, cross-sex hormones at 16, and surgeries upon turning 18. Ongoing psychotherapy was provided through the entire assessment and intervention period.

The Dutch team published the final results of their research in 2014. The authors reported that at the average age of 21 (approximately 1.5 years post surgery), the young people were free from gender dysphoria and functioning well. Despite a postsurgical death from infection, several new diagnoses of metabolic illness, and multiple dropouts, the Western world enthusiastically embraced the early-intervention model. Concerningly, the only attempt to replicate the Dutch protocol outside of the Netherlands failed to show any psychological improvements, and to date, no long-term outcome data are available for the cohort of the 55 treated Dutch adolescents.

These progressively irreversible interventions form the basis of the “Dutch Protocol.” Currently, this protocol is being scaled in ways it was never designed for. For example, it strongly discouraged childhood social transition and did not transition adolescents with postpubertal onset of transgender identity or those with significant mental health comorbidities. Yet, treating such cases with the interventions outlined in the Dutch protocol is now common, and the age of eligibility for hormonal and surgical interventions has progressively lowered, with children as young as 8 now eligible to begin puberty blockers.

William Malone, MD, is an assistant professor of endocrinology practicing in Southern Idaho and an adviser to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Teens are identifying as transgender in record numbers. In 2017, 3-4 in 100 teens in the United States reported that they are or may be transgender. A more recent 2021 study suggests that the rate of transgender identification among America’s youth may be as high as 9 in 100. All of the major gender centers in the world have reported a several-thousand-percent increase in youth presenting with gender distress.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

How do we reconcile these numbers with 2013 data reporting the prevalence of adult gender dysphoria to be a rare 2-14 in 100,000? Reflection is warranted because many U.S. medical societies support providing youth who have transgender identification (over 1 million children and adolescents, using the latest estimates) with access to powerful endocrine interventions.

GnRH analogues (colloquially known as “puberty blockers”) are now available at Tanner stage 2 of puberty – a threshold crossed by females as young as 8-9 years old. Cross-sex hormones and surgeries follow, and mastectomies are now available to children as young as 13. Genital-altering surgeries, as well as the removal of the ovaries, uterus, and testes, can be obtained as soon as a patient turns 18.

What’s driving this massive increase in trans-identified youth? What are the risks, benefits, and uncertainties associated with hormonal and surgical interventions? Do such interventions improve the long-term psychological health of gender-dysphoric youth? How many will regret the irreversible changes made to their bodies during what may have been a temporary phase in their development?

We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we need to figure them out before offering such interventions. Frontline clinicians – especially those working with youth – will not be able to remain on the sidelines of this issue for much longer. Each clinician considering writing a prescription for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or generating a referral for surgery, will need to answer for themselves: Just because I can, does it mean I should?

What’s contributing to the rapid rise of gender-dysphoric youth?

The etiology of the rapid rise of transgender identifications in young people is vigorously debated. Proponents of hormonal and surgical interventions for youth argue that the several-thousand-percent increase in the numbers of youth seeking gender reassignment is a reflection of more social acceptance of transgender identities, allowing more young people to “come out.” But closer examination of this claim reveals several inconsistencies.

Because adolescent and young adult females now account for 6-8 in 10 of the presenting cases (previously, prepubertal males were more common), one would expect a commensurate increase in the rate of transgender identification in older females. This has not occurred. In addition, more than three-quarters of currently presenting cases have significant mental health problems or suffer from neurocognitive comorbidities such as autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – a much higher burden of mental health comorbidities than the historical cohort with gender dysphoria.

There is legitimate concern that these comorbid mental health conditions, as well as the influence of social groups and online immersion into transgender topics, may be playing a role in the rapidly growing rate of transgender identification among these particularly vulnerable youth.

The initial study positing the theory that social influence is playing a role in the increased incidence of “late” or adolescent-onset (vs. childhood-onset) transgender-identified youth was harshly attacked by proponents of medical transitioning of youth, despite the fact that the study utilized methods similar to those used in other areas of health research. The study underwent an unprecedented second peer review and emerged with largely unchanged conclusions.

Since the study’s publication, a number of mental health clinicians working directly with gender-distressed youth have corroborated a rapid onset of transgender identification among teens with previously gender-normative childhoods.

Pioneers in gender dysphoria treatment are changing course

Several European countries that were pioneers in pediatric medical transition are now reversing course toward far more caution after their own evidence evaluations failed to show that medically transitioning gender-distressed youth improves mental health outcomes. In Sweden, following Karolinska Hospital’s announcement that it will no longer transition people under 18 outside of strictly regulated clinical trials, a number of other pediatric gender clinics followed suit and made the same decision.

In the United Kingdom, Keira Bell – a young woman who was treated with “affirmative” hormonal and surgical interventions before detransitioning – brought a challenge against the national gender clinic. Her landmark case and the UK High Court’s original judgement against the clinic have highlighted the urgency to reassess treatment approaches for the increasingly varied presentations of gender dysphoria in young people. As this article went to press, the UK’s national gender clinic won its appeal against Keira Bell, meaning that doctors there will once again be able to decide whether their patients under 16 can properly consent to puberty blockers. Keira Bell said she is disappointed with this decision and will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. She said the medical service had become “politicized,” and added: “A global conversation has begun and has been shaped by this case. It has shone a light into the dark corners of a medical scandal that is harming children and harmed me. There is more to be done.”

And the UK National Health Service (NHS) has already commissioned an independent systematic review of data, which concluded that the evidence of benefit of hormonal interventions in gender dysphoric youth is of very low certainty and must be carefully weighed against the risks. An independent taskforce has also been convened to reassess the country’s approach to treating gender dysphoric youth.

Finland has arguably undertaken the biggest change of all. An early adopter of pediatric medical transition, researchers there noticed that adolescents who had mental health struggles at baseline failed to improve after transition. The Finnish national Gender Identity Development services issued new treatment guidelines in 2020 stating that psychotherapy, rather than gender reassignment, should be the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

Leaders of America’s medical societies have been slower to respond. Recently, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine applied to share information about youth gender transitions at the yearly meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The application was denied without explanation, despite the fact that 80% of rank-and-file pediatricians who voted on AAP resolutions days earlier endorsed a resolution calling for a reassessment of the evidence and more caution regarding gender transitions of minors.

The AAP leadership apparently ignored the resounding support for this resolution, but the clear message from that vote is that frontline pediatricians do not agree with the “one size fits all” approach of automatically affirming gender-distressed youth as transgender and proceeding to gender reassignment.

What we know and don’t know


There is now growing evidence that the “gender-affirming” model, based on the unproven assumption that gender reassignment is the best way to help gender-distressed youth, is not living up to its promise. This should not be surprising. Despite more than 50 years of experience with mature adult gender transitions, there is a lack of convincing evidence that transitions improve the psychological functioning of those with gender dysphoria, and studies on regret have been plagued by high dropout rates that prevent meaningful conclusions for practitioners and patients alike. Pediatric transitions are a much more recent phenomenon, with little to no quality data to guide decision-making.

We are witnessing a growing number of vocal regretters who underwent gender reassignment as teens and young adults under “gender-affirming” care protocols in recent years. A review of stories on the subreddit r/detrans, which counts over 20,000 members (not all are detransitioners, as the forum is open to those fully detransitioned, partially detransitioned, desisted [those who identified as transgender for a period of time in their youth but no longer do], and questioning their transition) is flush with first-hand accounts of regret and should be mandatory reading for any clinician who is considering becoming a prescriber of gender-affirmative care.  

Here is a brief outline of what we know – and more importantly, what we don’t know – about the practice of medically transitioning minors.

Most cases of early childhood-onset gender dysphoria self-resolve. Eleven out of 11 studies that followed the trajectory of gender-variant youth show that the most common outcome is natural resolution of gender dysphoria around or after puberty. Among those diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, 67% no longer met the diagnostic criteria as adults; among those subthreshold for diagnosis, 93% were not gender dysphoric as adults. Gender dysphoria in childhood is a far better predictor of future homosexuality than of future trans identity.

The future trajectory of people whose transgender identity emerged during or after puberty is entirely unknown. No one has studied future trajectories of patients whose transgender identity emerged for the first time after the onset of puberty – a previously rare but now increasingly common presentation. Growing numbers of young detransitioners and desisters are precisely from this demographic, suggesting that a transgender identity that emerges in adolescence may not be durable.

Social transition does not improve mental health outcomes. Recent studies show that while socially transitioned children can thrive in the short term, they do not fare any better than their non–socially transitioned dysphoric peers. It appears that peer relations, not the social transition status, predict mental health in gender-dysphoric children. We don’t yet know the long-term trajectories of socially transitioned minors, but emerging evidence suggests that they may be more likely to persist with gender-related distress rather than outgrow it, as previously observed. This in turn necessitates decades of invasive and risky medical interventions. In fact, the Dutch researchers who pioneered the protocol used to medically transition minors explicitly and strongly discouraged social transition of children and early adolescents.

Nearly 100% of children who begin puberty blockers will proceed to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. The two main studies that have evaluated the effects of puberty blockers on mental health found no improvements or improvements of marginal clinical significance. Both studies are also at critical risk of bias due to the absence of control groups.

Four additional studies looking at the mental health effects of puberty blockers were plagued by design limitations and also failed to show any convincing positive effects on psychological health. However, one effect of puberty blockers has been consistently replicated: At least four studies show that virtually all of the children who start puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones. This suggests that rather than being a pause button, puberty blockers may serve as the “gas pedal” for gender transition.

Most of the long-term health risks are largely unknown. No long-term studies exist of patients who underwent medical transition as teens or young adults. Therefore, our ability to assess risks vs. benefits is limited. Puberty blockers have been demonstrated to significantly impair bone health, and it is not clear whether this will result in future osteoporosis. Cross-sex hormones are associated with roughly 3-5 times the risk for heart attacks and strokes, though long-term studies are of insufficient quality for accurate risk assessments. Other risks associated with these endocrine interventions will come to light as the practice continues to scale and as young people spend years and decades on these interventions. The risks to fertility are largely unknown, but it is almost certain that if puberty blockers are given at the early stages of puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones, sterility will result.

The medical pathway of “affirmative care” rests on a single Dutch study that is not applicable to the current populations of gender-dysphoric youth. Most of the youth presenting for care today would have been explicitly disqualified by the original Dutch protocol, as most have significant mental health comorbidities and post-puberty onset of trans identities. This fact has been recognized by the principal investigators of the Dutch protocol itself, who have recently begun to sound the alarm about the potential misapplication of their protocol and who suggest that psychotherapy – rather than gender reassignment – is more appropriate for many of the currently presenting cases.

On suicidality

The urgency to put gender-dysphoric youth through gender reassignment despite the dearth of evidence appears to stem from the notion that if we don’t intervene medically and in short order, these youth will commit suicide. However, studies using quality data reveal a markedly different reality.

While gender-dysphoric youth do have elevated rates of suicidality, it’s not uniquely high. In fact, it’s roughly similar to the rate of suicidality found in populations of youth referred for other mental health conditions. Quality long-term studies that explored whether transition leads to reduced suicidality have not been able to demonstrate a reduction.

Medicine has a pattern of enthusiastically embracing unproven medical interventions, only to find out years or decades later that the harms from those interventions outweigh the benefits. We owe it to our patients to be transparent about the limits of our knowledge and the fact that the “affirmative care” pathway is largely irreversible.

When the benefits of an intervention have not been shown to outweigh the risks, medical ethics dictate that such interventions should not occur outside of clinical trials. We must not conflate medical care for gender-dysphoric youth with experimental and risky interventions that are based on low-quality evidence. It’s time to hit pause on gender transitions for youth.

A brief history of the Dutch protocol

Before the mid-1990s, medical transition was primarily reserved for mature adults. However, noting the “never-disappearing masculine appearance” of many adult male transitioners, a team of Dutch researchers hypothesized that it might be appropriate to provide early intervention to a carefully selected group of adolescents before the irreversible physical changes of puberty occur.

To differentiate the majority of gender-dysphoric children who would outgrow their cross-sex identification by adulthood from the few who would probably not have resolution and would wish to transition later in life, the Dutch gender clinic designed a rigorous screening protocol, with multidisciplinary teams closely following prospective candidates for several years.

To qualify for early intervention, the adolescents had to have had persistent and severe cross-sex identification from early childhood (cases of adolescent-onset trans identity were disqualified); the distress had to worsen during puberty; and the adolescents had to be free from any other significant mental health conditions. For qualifying adolescents, puberty blockers were initiated no earlier than 12 years of age, cross-sex hormones at 16, and surgeries upon turning 18. Ongoing psychotherapy was provided through the entire assessment and intervention period.

The Dutch team published the final results of their research in 2014. The authors reported that at the average age of 21 (approximately 1.5 years post surgery), the young people were free from gender dysphoria and functioning well. Despite a postsurgical death from infection, several new diagnoses of metabolic illness, and multiple dropouts, the Western world enthusiastically embraced the early-intervention model. Concerningly, the only attempt to replicate the Dutch protocol outside of the Netherlands failed to show any psychological improvements, and to date, no long-term outcome data are available for the cohort of the 55 treated Dutch adolescents.

These progressively irreversible interventions form the basis of the “Dutch Protocol.” Currently, this protocol is being scaled in ways it was never designed for. For example, it strongly discouraged childhood social transition and did not transition adolescents with postpubertal onset of transgender identity or those with significant mental health comorbidities. Yet, treating such cases with the interventions outlined in the Dutch protocol is now common, and the age of eligibility for hormonal and surgical interventions has progressively lowered, with children as young as 8 now eligible to begin puberty blockers.

William Malone, MD, is an assistant professor of endocrinology practicing in Southern Idaho and an adviser to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Teens are identifying as transgender in record numbers. In 2017, 3-4 in 100 teens in the United States reported that they are or may be transgender. A more recent 2021 study suggests that the rate of transgender identification among America’s youth may be as high as 9 in 100. All of the major gender centers in the world have reported a several-thousand-percent increase in youth presenting with gender distress.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

How do we reconcile these numbers with 2013 data reporting the prevalence of adult gender dysphoria to be a rare 2-14 in 100,000? Reflection is warranted because many U.S. medical societies support providing youth who have transgender identification (over 1 million children and adolescents, using the latest estimates) with access to powerful endocrine interventions.

GnRH analogues (colloquially known as “puberty blockers”) are now available at Tanner stage 2 of puberty – a threshold crossed by females as young as 8-9 years old. Cross-sex hormones and surgeries follow, and mastectomies are now available to children as young as 13. Genital-altering surgeries, as well as the removal of the ovaries, uterus, and testes, can be obtained as soon as a patient turns 18.

What’s driving this massive increase in trans-identified youth? What are the risks, benefits, and uncertainties associated with hormonal and surgical interventions? Do such interventions improve the long-term psychological health of gender-dysphoric youth? How many will regret the irreversible changes made to their bodies during what may have been a temporary phase in their development?

We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we need to figure them out before offering such interventions. Frontline clinicians – especially those working with youth – will not be able to remain on the sidelines of this issue for much longer. Each clinician considering writing a prescription for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or generating a referral for surgery, will need to answer for themselves: Just because I can, does it mean I should?

What’s contributing to the rapid rise of gender-dysphoric youth?

The etiology of the rapid rise of transgender identifications in young people is vigorously debated. Proponents of hormonal and surgical interventions for youth argue that the several-thousand-percent increase in the numbers of youth seeking gender reassignment is a reflection of more social acceptance of transgender identities, allowing more young people to “come out.” But closer examination of this claim reveals several inconsistencies.

Because adolescent and young adult females now account for 6-8 in 10 of the presenting cases (previously, prepubertal males were more common), one would expect a commensurate increase in the rate of transgender identification in older females. This has not occurred. In addition, more than three-quarters of currently presenting cases have significant mental health problems or suffer from neurocognitive comorbidities such as autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – a much higher burden of mental health comorbidities than the historical cohort with gender dysphoria.

There is legitimate concern that these comorbid mental health conditions, as well as the influence of social groups and online immersion into transgender topics, may be playing a role in the rapidly growing rate of transgender identification among these particularly vulnerable youth.

The initial study positing the theory that social influence is playing a role in the increased incidence of “late” or adolescent-onset (vs. childhood-onset) transgender-identified youth was harshly attacked by proponents of medical transitioning of youth, despite the fact that the study utilized methods similar to those used in other areas of health research. The study underwent an unprecedented second peer review and emerged with largely unchanged conclusions.

Since the study’s publication, a number of mental health clinicians working directly with gender-distressed youth have corroborated a rapid onset of transgender identification among teens with previously gender-normative childhoods.

Pioneers in gender dysphoria treatment are changing course

Several European countries that were pioneers in pediatric medical transition are now reversing course toward far more caution after their own evidence evaluations failed to show that medically transitioning gender-distressed youth improves mental health outcomes. In Sweden, following Karolinska Hospital’s announcement that it will no longer transition people under 18 outside of strictly regulated clinical trials, a number of other pediatric gender clinics followed suit and made the same decision.

In the United Kingdom, Keira Bell – a young woman who was treated with “affirmative” hormonal and surgical interventions before detransitioning – brought a challenge against the national gender clinic. Her landmark case and the UK High Court’s original judgement against the clinic have highlighted the urgency to reassess treatment approaches for the increasingly varied presentations of gender dysphoria in young people. As this article went to press, the UK’s national gender clinic won its appeal against Keira Bell, meaning that doctors there will once again be able to decide whether their patients under 16 can properly consent to puberty blockers. Keira Bell said she is disappointed with this decision and will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. She said the medical service had become “politicized,” and added: “A global conversation has begun and has been shaped by this case. It has shone a light into the dark corners of a medical scandal that is harming children and harmed me. There is more to be done.”

And the UK National Health Service (NHS) has already commissioned an independent systematic review of data, which concluded that the evidence of benefit of hormonal interventions in gender dysphoric youth is of very low certainty and must be carefully weighed against the risks. An independent taskforce has also been convened to reassess the country’s approach to treating gender dysphoric youth.

Finland has arguably undertaken the biggest change of all. An early adopter of pediatric medical transition, researchers there noticed that adolescents who had mental health struggles at baseline failed to improve after transition. The Finnish national Gender Identity Development services issued new treatment guidelines in 2020 stating that psychotherapy, rather than gender reassignment, should be the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

Leaders of America’s medical societies have been slower to respond. Recently, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine applied to share information about youth gender transitions at the yearly meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The application was denied without explanation, despite the fact that 80% of rank-and-file pediatricians who voted on AAP resolutions days earlier endorsed a resolution calling for a reassessment of the evidence and more caution regarding gender transitions of minors.

The AAP leadership apparently ignored the resounding support for this resolution, but the clear message from that vote is that frontline pediatricians do not agree with the “one size fits all” approach of automatically affirming gender-distressed youth as transgender and proceeding to gender reassignment.

What we know and don’t know


There is now growing evidence that the “gender-affirming” model, based on the unproven assumption that gender reassignment is the best way to help gender-distressed youth, is not living up to its promise. This should not be surprising. Despite more than 50 years of experience with mature adult gender transitions, there is a lack of convincing evidence that transitions improve the psychological functioning of those with gender dysphoria, and studies on regret have been plagued by high dropout rates that prevent meaningful conclusions for practitioners and patients alike. Pediatric transitions are a much more recent phenomenon, with little to no quality data to guide decision-making.

We are witnessing a growing number of vocal regretters who underwent gender reassignment as teens and young adults under “gender-affirming” care protocols in recent years. A review of stories on the subreddit r/detrans, which counts over 20,000 members (not all are detransitioners, as the forum is open to those fully detransitioned, partially detransitioned, desisted [those who identified as transgender for a period of time in their youth but no longer do], and questioning their transition) is flush with first-hand accounts of regret and should be mandatory reading for any clinician who is considering becoming a prescriber of gender-affirmative care.  

Here is a brief outline of what we know – and more importantly, what we don’t know – about the practice of medically transitioning minors.

Most cases of early childhood-onset gender dysphoria self-resolve. Eleven out of 11 studies that followed the trajectory of gender-variant youth show that the most common outcome is natural resolution of gender dysphoria around or after puberty. Among those diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, 67% no longer met the diagnostic criteria as adults; among those subthreshold for diagnosis, 93% were not gender dysphoric as adults. Gender dysphoria in childhood is a far better predictor of future homosexuality than of future trans identity.

The future trajectory of people whose transgender identity emerged during or after puberty is entirely unknown. No one has studied future trajectories of patients whose transgender identity emerged for the first time after the onset of puberty – a previously rare but now increasingly common presentation. Growing numbers of young detransitioners and desisters are precisely from this demographic, suggesting that a transgender identity that emerges in adolescence may not be durable.

Social transition does not improve mental health outcomes. Recent studies show that while socially transitioned children can thrive in the short term, they do not fare any better than their non–socially transitioned dysphoric peers. It appears that peer relations, not the social transition status, predict mental health in gender-dysphoric children. We don’t yet know the long-term trajectories of socially transitioned minors, but emerging evidence suggests that they may be more likely to persist with gender-related distress rather than outgrow it, as previously observed. This in turn necessitates decades of invasive and risky medical interventions. In fact, the Dutch researchers who pioneered the protocol used to medically transition minors explicitly and strongly discouraged social transition of children and early adolescents.

Nearly 100% of children who begin puberty blockers will proceed to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. The two main studies that have evaluated the effects of puberty blockers on mental health found no improvements or improvements of marginal clinical significance. Both studies are also at critical risk of bias due to the absence of control groups.

Four additional studies looking at the mental health effects of puberty blockers were plagued by design limitations and also failed to show any convincing positive effects on psychological health. However, one effect of puberty blockers has been consistently replicated: At least four studies show that virtually all of the children who start puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones. This suggests that rather than being a pause button, puberty blockers may serve as the “gas pedal” for gender transition.

Most of the long-term health risks are largely unknown. No long-term studies exist of patients who underwent medical transition as teens or young adults. Therefore, our ability to assess risks vs. benefits is limited. Puberty blockers have been demonstrated to significantly impair bone health, and it is not clear whether this will result in future osteoporosis. Cross-sex hormones are associated with roughly 3-5 times the risk for heart attacks and strokes, though long-term studies are of insufficient quality for accurate risk assessments. Other risks associated with these endocrine interventions will come to light as the practice continues to scale and as young people spend years and decades on these interventions. The risks to fertility are largely unknown, but it is almost certain that if puberty blockers are given at the early stages of puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones, sterility will result.

The medical pathway of “affirmative care” rests on a single Dutch study that is not applicable to the current populations of gender-dysphoric youth. Most of the youth presenting for care today would have been explicitly disqualified by the original Dutch protocol, as most have significant mental health comorbidities and post-puberty onset of trans identities. This fact has been recognized by the principal investigators of the Dutch protocol itself, who have recently begun to sound the alarm about the potential misapplication of their protocol and who suggest that psychotherapy – rather than gender reassignment – is more appropriate for many of the currently presenting cases.

On suicidality

The urgency to put gender-dysphoric youth through gender reassignment despite the dearth of evidence appears to stem from the notion that if we don’t intervene medically and in short order, these youth will commit suicide. However, studies using quality data reveal a markedly different reality.

While gender-dysphoric youth do have elevated rates of suicidality, it’s not uniquely high. In fact, it’s roughly similar to the rate of suicidality found in populations of youth referred for other mental health conditions. Quality long-term studies that explored whether transition leads to reduced suicidality have not been able to demonstrate a reduction.

Medicine has a pattern of enthusiastically embracing unproven medical interventions, only to find out years or decades later that the harms from those interventions outweigh the benefits. We owe it to our patients to be transparent about the limits of our knowledge and the fact that the “affirmative care” pathway is largely irreversible.

When the benefits of an intervention have not been shown to outweigh the risks, medical ethics dictate that such interventions should not occur outside of clinical trials. We must not conflate medical care for gender-dysphoric youth with experimental and risky interventions that are based on low-quality evidence. It’s time to hit pause on gender transitions for youth.

A brief history of the Dutch protocol

Before the mid-1990s, medical transition was primarily reserved for mature adults. However, noting the “never-disappearing masculine appearance” of many adult male transitioners, a team of Dutch researchers hypothesized that it might be appropriate to provide early intervention to a carefully selected group of adolescents before the irreversible physical changes of puberty occur.

To differentiate the majority of gender-dysphoric children who would outgrow their cross-sex identification by adulthood from the few who would probably not have resolution and would wish to transition later in life, the Dutch gender clinic designed a rigorous screening protocol, with multidisciplinary teams closely following prospective candidates for several years.

To qualify for early intervention, the adolescents had to have had persistent and severe cross-sex identification from early childhood (cases of adolescent-onset trans identity were disqualified); the distress had to worsen during puberty; and the adolescents had to be free from any other significant mental health conditions. For qualifying adolescents, puberty blockers were initiated no earlier than 12 years of age, cross-sex hormones at 16, and surgeries upon turning 18. Ongoing psychotherapy was provided through the entire assessment and intervention period.

The Dutch team published the final results of their research in 2014. The authors reported that at the average age of 21 (approximately 1.5 years post surgery), the young people were free from gender dysphoria and functioning well. Despite a postsurgical death from infection, several new diagnoses of metabolic illness, and multiple dropouts, the Western world enthusiastically embraced the early-intervention model. Concerningly, the only attempt to replicate the Dutch protocol outside of the Netherlands failed to show any psychological improvements, and to date, no long-term outcome data are available for the cohort of the 55 treated Dutch adolescents.

These progressively irreversible interventions form the basis of the “Dutch Protocol.” Currently, this protocol is being scaled in ways it was never designed for. For example, it strongly discouraged childhood social transition and did not transition adolescents with postpubertal onset of transgender identity or those with significant mental health comorbidities. Yet, treating such cases with the interventions outlined in the Dutch protocol is now common, and the age of eligibility for hormonal and surgical interventions has progressively lowered, with children as young as 8 now eligible to begin puberty blockers.

William Malone, MD, is an assistant professor of endocrinology practicing in Southern Idaho and an adviser to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant women should use paracetamol/acetaminophen only with a medical indication and at the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time, according to an international consensus statement published online Sept. 23 in Nature Reviews Endocrinology.

With global rates of use high and risks considered negligible, the expert panel of 13 U.S. and European authors call for focused research into how this analgesic and febrifuge may impair fetal development and lead to adverse outcomes in children. They outline several precautionary measures to be taken in the meantime.

According to first author and epidemiologist Ann Z. Bauer, ScD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Massachusetts in Lowell, and colleagues, this drug is used by an estimated 65% of pregnant women in the United States, and more than 50% worldwide. It is currently the active ingredient in more than 600 prescription and nonprescription medications, including Tylenol, which historically has been deemed safe in all trimesters of pregnancy.

But a growing body of experimental and epidemiological evidence suggests prenatal exposure to paracetamol (N-acetyl-p-aminophenol, or APAP) might alter fetal development and elevate the risks of neurodevelopmental, reproductive and urogenital disorders in both sexes. Exposure in utero has been linked, for example, to potential behavioral problems in children.

The new recommendations are based on a review of experimental animal and cell-based research as well as human epidemiological data published from January 1995 to October 2020. The authors include clinicians, epidemiologists, and scientists specializing in toxicology, endocrinology, reproductive medicine and neurodevelopment.
 

Recommendations

Although the new guidance does not differ markedly from current advice, the authors believe stronger communication and greater awareness of risks are needed. In addition to restricting use of this medication to low doses for short periods when medically necessary, expectant mothers should receive counseling before conception or early in pregnancy. If uncertain about its use, they should consult their physicians or pharmacists.

In other recommendations, the panel said:

• The 2015 FDA Drug Safety Communication recommendations should be updated based on evaluation of all available scientific evidence.
• The European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee should review the most recent epidemiologic and experimental research and issue an updated Drug Safety Communication.
• Obstetric and gynecological associations should update their guidance after reviewing all available research.
• The Acetaminophen Awareness Coalition (“Know Your Dose” Campaign) should add standardized warnings and specifically advise pregnant women to forgo APAP unless it’s medically indicated.
• All sales of APAP-containing medications should be accompanied by recommendations specifically for use in pregnancy. This information should include warning labels on packaging, and if possible, APAP should be sold only in pharmacies (as in France).

Mechanism of action

APAP is an endocrine disruptor (Neuroscientist. 2020 Sep 11. doi: 10.1177/1073858420952046). “Chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system are concerning because they can interfere with the activity of endogenous hormones that are essential for healthy neurological, urogenital, and reproductive development,” researchers wrote.

“The precise mechanism is not clear but its toxicity is thought to be due mainly to hormone disruption,” Dr. Bauer said in an interview.

Moreover, APAP readily crosses the placenta and blood–brain barrier, and changes in APAP metabolism during pregnancy might make women and their fetuses more vulnerable to its toxic effects. For instance, the molar dose fraction of APAP converted to the oxidative metabolite N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine increases during pregnancy. In addition to its hepatotoxicity, this poisonous byproduct is thought to be a genotoxin that increases DNA cleavage by acting on the enzyme topoisomerase II.

Asked for her perspective on the statement, Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, called the expert panel’s statement thoughtful and comprehensive, but she urged caution in interpreting the role of acetaminophen.

The challenge in linking any commonly used medication to adverse effects and congenital defects, she said, is “teasing out an association from causation. Given the commonality of the use of acetaminophen with the relative rarity of the outcomes, it is clear that not all cases of exposure result in adverse outcomes.”

As for judicious use, she said, one would be to reduce a high fever, which can cause miscarriage, neural tube defects, and potential heart disease in adulthood. Acetaminophen is the drug of choice in this case since nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen are not recommended owing to their known risks to the fetal heart.

Dr. Aagaard emphasized that while acetaminophen use is temporally associated with learning and behavioral problems, and urogenital disorders at birth in male infants such as like hypospadias, so is exposure to multiple environmental chemicals and pollutants, as well as climate change. “It would be a real mistake with real life implications if we associated any congenital disease or disorder with a commonly used medication with known benefits if the true causal link lies elsewhere.”

She said the precautionary statements fall into the time-honored therapeutic principle of first do no harm. “However, the call for research action must be undertaken earnestly and sincerely.”

According to Dr. Bauer, the statement’s essential take-home message is that “physicians should educate themselves and educate women about what we’re learning about the risks of acetaminophen in pregnancy.” Risk can be minimized by using the lowest effective dose for the shortest time and only when medically indicated. “Pregnant women should speak to their physicians about acetaminophen. It’s about empowerment and making smart decisions,” she said.

This study received no specific funding. Coauthor Dr. R.T. Mitchell is supported by a UK Research Institute fellowship.

Pregnant women should use paracetamol/acetaminophen only with a medical indication and at the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time, according to an international consensus statement published online Sept. 23 in Nature Reviews Endocrinology.

With global rates of use high and risks considered negligible, the expert panel of 13 U.S. and European authors call for focused research into how this analgesic and febrifuge may impair fetal development and lead to adverse outcomes in children. They outline several precautionary measures to be taken in the meantime.

According to first author and epidemiologist Ann Z. Bauer, ScD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Massachusetts in Lowell, and colleagues, this drug is used by an estimated 65% of pregnant women in the United States, and more than 50% worldwide. It is currently the active ingredient in more than 600 prescription and nonprescription medications, including Tylenol, which historically has been deemed safe in all trimesters of pregnancy.

But a growing body of experimental and epidemiological evidence suggests prenatal exposure to paracetamol (N-acetyl-p-aminophenol, or APAP) might alter fetal development and elevate the risks of neurodevelopmental, reproductive and urogenital disorders in both sexes. Exposure in utero has been linked, for example, to potential behavioral problems in children.

The new recommendations are based on a review of experimental animal and cell-based research as well as human epidemiological data published from January 1995 to October 2020. The authors include clinicians, epidemiologists, and scientists specializing in toxicology, endocrinology, reproductive medicine and neurodevelopment.
 

Recommendations

Although the new guidance does not differ markedly from current advice, the authors believe stronger communication and greater awareness of risks are needed. In addition to restricting use of this medication to low doses for short periods when medically necessary, expectant mothers should receive counseling before conception or early in pregnancy. If uncertain about its use, they should consult their physicians or pharmacists.

In other recommendations, the panel said:

• The 2015 FDA Drug Safety Communication recommendations should be updated based on evaluation of all available scientific evidence.
• The European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee should review the most recent epidemiologic and experimental research and issue an updated Drug Safety Communication.
• Obstetric and gynecological associations should update their guidance after reviewing all available research.
• The Acetaminophen Awareness Coalition (“Know Your Dose” Campaign) should add standardized warnings and specifically advise pregnant women to forgo APAP unless it’s medically indicated.
• All sales of APAP-containing medications should be accompanied by recommendations specifically for use in pregnancy. This information should include warning labels on packaging, and if possible, APAP should be sold only in pharmacies (as in France).

Mechanism of action

APAP is an endocrine disruptor (Neuroscientist. 2020 Sep 11. doi: 10.1177/1073858420952046). “Chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system are concerning because they can interfere with the activity of endogenous hormones that are essential for healthy neurological, urogenital, and reproductive development,” researchers wrote.

“The precise mechanism is not clear but its toxicity is thought to be due mainly to hormone disruption,” Dr. Bauer said in an interview.

Moreover, APAP readily crosses the placenta and blood–brain barrier, and changes in APAP metabolism during pregnancy might make women and their fetuses more vulnerable to its toxic effects. For instance, the molar dose fraction of APAP converted to the oxidative metabolite N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine increases during pregnancy. In addition to its hepatotoxicity, this poisonous byproduct is thought to be a genotoxin that increases DNA cleavage by acting on the enzyme topoisomerase II.

Asked for her perspective on the statement, Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, called the expert panel’s statement thoughtful and comprehensive, but she urged caution in interpreting the role of acetaminophen.

The challenge in linking any commonly used medication to adverse effects and congenital defects, she said, is “teasing out an association from causation. Given the commonality of the use of acetaminophen with the relative rarity of the outcomes, it is clear that not all cases of exposure result in adverse outcomes.”

As for judicious use, she said, one would be to reduce a high fever, which can cause miscarriage, neural tube defects, and potential heart disease in adulthood. Acetaminophen is the drug of choice in this case since nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen are not recommended owing to their known risks to the fetal heart.

Dr. Aagaard emphasized that while acetaminophen use is temporally associated with learning and behavioral problems, and urogenital disorders at birth in male infants such as like hypospadias, so is exposure to multiple environmental chemicals and pollutants, as well as climate change. “It would be a real mistake with real life implications if we associated any congenital disease or disorder with a commonly used medication with known benefits if the true causal link lies elsewhere.”

She said the precautionary statements fall into the time-honored therapeutic principle of first do no harm. “However, the call for research action must be undertaken earnestly and sincerely.”

According to Dr. Bauer, the statement’s essential take-home message is that “physicians should educate themselves and educate women about what we’re learning about the risks of acetaminophen in pregnancy.” Risk can be minimized by using the lowest effective dose for the shortest time and only when medically indicated. “Pregnant women should speak to their physicians about acetaminophen. It’s about empowerment and making smart decisions,” she said.

This study received no specific funding. Coauthor Dr. R.T. Mitchell is supported by a UK Research Institute fellowship.

Pregnant women should use paracetamol/acetaminophen only with a medical indication and at the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time, according to an international consensus statement published online Sept. 23 in Nature Reviews Endocrinology.

With global rates of use high and risks considered negligible, the expert panel of 13 U.S. and European authors call for focused research into how this analgesic and febrifuge may impair fetal development and lead to adverse outcomes in children. They outline several precautionary measures to be taken in the meantime.

According to first author and epidemiologist Ann Z. Bauer, ScD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Massachusetts in Lowell, and colleagues, this drug is used by an estimated 65% of pregnant women in the United States, and more than 50% worldwide. It is currently the active ingredient in more than 600 prescription and nonprescription medications, including Tylenol, which historically has been deemed safe in all trimesters of pregnancy.

But a growing body of experimental and epidemiological evidence suggests prenatal exposure to paracetamol (N-acetyl-p-aminophenol, or APAP) might alter fetal development and elevate the risks of neurodevelopmental, reproductive and urogenital disorders in both sexes. Exposure in utero has been linked, for example, to potential behavioral problems in children.

The new recommendations are based on a review of experimental animal and cell-based research as well as human epidemiological data published from January 1995 to October 2020. The authors include clinicians, epidemiologists, and scientists specializing in toxicology, endocrinology, reproductive medicine and neurodevelopment.
 

Recommendations

Although the new guidance does not differ markedly from current advice, the authors believe stronger communication and greater awareness of risks are needed. In addition to restricting use of this medication to low doses for short periods when medically necessary, expectant mothers should receive counseling before conception or early in pregnancy. If uncertain about its use, they should consult their physicians or pharmacists.

In other recommendations, the panel said:

• The 2015 FDA Drug Safety Communication recommendations should be updated based on evaluation of all available scientific evidence.
• The European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee should review the most recent epidemiologic and experimental research and issue an updated Drug Safety Communication.
• Obstetric and gynecological associations should update their guidance after reviewing all available research.
• The Acetaminophen Awareness Coalition (“Know Your Dose” Campaign) should add standardized warnings and specifically advise pregnant women to forgo APAP unless it’s medically indicated.
• All sales of APAP-containing medications should be accompanied by recommendations specifically for use in pregnancy. This information should include warning labels on packaging, and if possible, APAP should be sold only in pharmacies (as in France).

Mechanism of action

APAP is an endocrine disruptor (Neuroscientist. 2020 Sep 11. doi: 10.1177/1073858420952046). “Chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system are concerning because they can interfere with the activity of endogenous hormones that are essential for healthy neurological, urogenital, and reproductive development,” researchers wrote.

“The precise mechanism is not clear but its toxicity is thought to be due mainly to hormone disruption,” Dr. Bauer said in an interview.

Moreover, APAP readily crosses the placenta and blood–brain barrier, and changes in APAP metabolism during pregnancy might make women and their fetuses more vulnerable to its toxic effects. For instance, the molar dose fraction of APAP converted to the oxidative metabolite N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine increases during pregnancy. In addition to its hepatotoxicity, this poisonous byproduct is thought to be a genotoxin that increases DNA cleavage by acting on the enzyme topoisomerase II.

Asked for her perspective on the statement, Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, called the expert panel’s statement thoughtful and comprehensive, but she urged caution in interpreting the role of acetaminophen.

The challenge in linking any commonly used medication to adverse effects and congenital defects, she said, is “teasing out an association from causation. Given the commonality of the use of acetaminophen with the relative rarity of the outcomes, it is clear that not all cases of exposure result in adverse outcomes.”

As for judicious use, she said, one would be to reduce a high fever, which can cause miscarriage, neural tube defects, and potential heart disease in adulthood. Acetaminophen is the drug of choice in this case since nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen are not recommended owing to their known risks to the fetal heart.

Dr. Aagaard emphasized that while acetaminophen use is temporally associated with learning and behavioral problems, and urogenital disorders at birth in male infants such as like hypospadias, so is exposure to multiple environmental chemicals and pollutants, as well as climate change. “It would be a real mistake with real life implications if we associated any congenital disease or disorder with a commonly used medication with known benefits if the true causal link lies elsewhere.”

She said the precautionary statements fall into the time-honored therapeutic principle of first do no harm. “However, the call for research action must be undertaken earnestly and sincerely.”

According to Dr. Bauer, the statement’s essential take-home message is that “physicians should educate themselves and educate women about what we’re learning about the risks of acetaminophen in pregnancy.” Risk can be minimized by using the lowest effective dose for the shortest time and only when medically indicated. “Pregnant women should speak to their physicians about acetaminophen. It’s about empowerment and making smart decisions,” she said.

This study received no specific funding. Coauthor Dr. R.T. Mitchell is supported by a UK Research Institute fellowship.

The first global trial to compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of two therapies for prostate cancer proved inconclusive because of inadequate enrollment and events, but the study is a harbinger of growth in the emerging specialty of cardio-oncology, according to experts.

European Society of Cardiology

“Many new cancer agents have extended patient survival, yet some of these agents have significant potential cardiovascular toxicity,” said Renato D. Lopes, MD, in presenting a study at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the context of improving survival in patients with or at risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease, he suggested that the prostate cancer study he led could be “a model for interdisciplinary collaboration” needed to address the relative and sometimes competing risks of these disease states.

This point was seconded by several pioneers in cardio-oncology who participated in the discussion of the results of the trial, called PRONOUNCE.

“We know many drugs in oncology increase cardiovascular risk, so these are the types of trials we need,” according Thomas M. Suter, MD, who leads the cardio-oncology service at the University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland. He was the ESC-invited discussant for PRONOUNCE.
 

More than 100 centers in 12 countries involved

In PRONOUNCE, 545 patients with prostate cancer and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to degarelix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, or leuprolide, a GnRH agonist. The patients were enrolled at 113 participating centers in 12 countries. All of the patients had an indication for an androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).

In numerous previous studies, “ADT has been associated with higher CV morbidity and mortality, particularly in men with preexisting CV disease,” explained Dr. Lopes, but the relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH agonists relative to GnRH antagonists has been “controversial.”

The PRONOUNCE study was designed to resolve this issue, but the study was terminated early because of slow enrollment (not related to the COVID-19 pandemic). The planned enrollment was 900 patients.

In addition, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death, was lower over the course of follow-up than anticipated in the study design.
 

No significant difference on primary endpoint

At the end of 12 months, MACE occurred in 11 (4.1%) of patients randomized to leuprolide and 15 (5.5%) of those randomized to degarelix. The greater hazard ratio for MACE in the degarelix group did not approach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.28; P = .53).

As a result, the question of the relative CV safety of these drugs “remains unresolved,” according to Dr. Lopes, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

This does not diminish the need to answer this question. In the addition to the fact that cancer is a malignancy primarily of advancing age when CV disease is prevalent – the mean age in this study was 73 years and 44% were over age 75 – it is often an indolent disease with long periods of survival, according to Dr. Lopes. About half of prostate cancer patients have concomitant CV disease, and about half will receive ADT at some point in their treatment.

In patients receiving ADT, leuprolide is far more commonly used than GnRH antagonists, which are offered in only about 4% of patients, according to data cited by Dr. Lopes. The underlying hypothesis of this study was that leuprolide is associated with greater CV risk, which might have been relevant to a risk-benefit calculation, if the hypothesis had been confirmed.
 

Cancer drugs can increase CV risk

Based on experimental data, “there is concern the leuprolide is involved in plaque destabilization,” said Dr. Lopes, but he noted that ADTs in general are associated with adverse metabolic changes, including increases in LDL cholesterol, insulin resistance, and body fat, all of which could be relevant to CV risk.

It is the improving rates of survival for prostate cancer as well for other types of cancer that have increased attention to the potential for cancer drugs to increase CV risk, another major cause of early mortality. For these competing risks, objective data are needed to evaluate a relative risk-to-benefit ratio for treatment choices.

This dilemma led the ESC to recently establish its Council on Cardio-Oncology, and many centers around the world are also creating interdisciplinary groups to guide treatment choices for patients with both diseases.

“You will certainly get a lot of referrals,” said Rudolf de Boer, MD, professor of translational cardiology, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands. Basing his remark on his own experience starting a cardio-oncology clinic at his institution, he called this work challenging and agreed that the need for objective data is urgent.

“We need data to provide common ground on which to judge relative risks,” Dr. de Boer said. He also praised the PRONOUNCE investigators for their efforts even if the data failed to answer the question posed.

The PRONOUNCE results were published online in Circulation at the time of Dr. Lopes’s presentation.

The study received funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lopes reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Suter reports financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. de Boer reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche.

The first global trial to compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of two therapies for prostate cancer proved inconclusive because of inadequate enrollment and events, but the study is a harbinger of growth in the emerging specialty of cardio-oncology, according to experts.

European Society of Cardiology

“Many new cancer agents have extended patient survival, yet some of these agents have significant potential cardiovascular toxicity,” said Renato D. Lopes, MD, in presenting a study at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the context of improving survival in patients with or at risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease, he suggested that the prostate cancer study he led could be “a model for interdisciplinary collaboration” needed to address the relative and sometimes competing risks of these disease states.

This point was seconded by several pioneers in cardio-oncology who participated in the discussion of the results of the trial, called PRONOUNCE.

“We know many drugs in oncology increase cardiovascular risk, so these are the types of trials we need,” according Thomas M. Suter, MD, who leads the cardio-oncology service at the University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland. He was the ESC-invited discussant for PRONOUNCE.
 

More than 100 centers in 12 countries involved

In PRONOUNCE, 545 patients with prostate cancer and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to degarelix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, or leuprolide, a GnRH agonist. The patients were enrolled at 113 participating centers in 12 countries. All of the patients had an indication for an androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).

In numerous previous studies, “ADT has been associated with higher CV morbidity and mortality, particularly in men with preexisting CV disease,” explained Dr. Lopes, but the relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH agonists relative to GnRH antagonists has been “controversial.”

The PRONOUNCE study was designed to resolve this issue, but the study was terminated early because of slow enrollment (not related to the COVID-19 pandemic). The planned enrollment was 900 patients.

In addition, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death, was lower over the course of follow-up than anticipated in the study design.
 

No significant difference on primary endpoint

At the end of 12 months, MACE occurred in 11 (4.1%) of patients randomized to leuprolide and 15 (5.5%) of those randomized to degarelix. The greater hazard ratio for MACE in the degarelix group did not approach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.28; P = .53).

As a result, the question of the relative CV safety of these drugs “remains unresolved,” according to Dr. Lopes, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

This does not diminish the need to answer this question. In the addition to the fact that cancer is a malignancy primarily of advancing age when CV disease is prevalent – the mean age in this study was 73 years and 44% were over age 75 – it is often an indolent disease with long periods of survival, according to Dr. Lopes. About half of prostate cancer patients have concomitant CV disease, and about half will receive ADT at some point in their treatment.

In patients receiving ADT, leuprolide is far more commonly used than GnRH antagonists, which are offered in only about 4% of patients, according to data cited by Dr. Lopes. The underlying hypothesis of this study was that leuprolide is associated with greater CV risk, which might have been relevant to a risk-benefit calculation, if the hypothesis had been confirmed.
 

Cancer drugs can increase CV risk

Based on experimental data, “there is concern the leuprolide is involved in plaque destabilization,” said Dr. Lopes, but he noted that ADTs in general are associated with adverse metabolic changes, including increases in LDL cholesterol, insulin resistance, and body fat, all of which could be relevant to CV risk.

It is the improving rates of survival for prostate cancer as well for other types of cancer that have increased attention to the potential for cancer drugs to increase CV risk, another major cause of early mortality. For these competing risks, objective data are needed to evaluate a relative risk-to-benefit ratio for treatment choices.

This dilemma led the ESC to recently establish its Council on Cardio-Oncology, and many centers around the world are also creating interdisciplinary groups to guide treatment choices for patients with both diseases.

“You will certainly get a lot of referrals,” said Rudolf de Boer, MD, professor of translational cardiology, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands. Basing his remark on his own experience starting a cardio-oncology clinic at his institution, he called this work challenging and agreed that the need for objective data is urgent.

“We need data to provide common ground on which to judge relative risks,” Dr. de Boer said. He also praised the PRONOUNCE investigators for their efforts even if the data failed to answer the question posed.

The PRONOUNCE results were published online in Circulation at the time of Dr. Lopes’s presentation.

The study received funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lopes reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Suter reports financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. de Boer reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche.

The first global trial to compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of two therapies for prostate cancer proved inconclusive because of inadequate enrollment and events, but the study is a harbinger of growth in the emerging specialty of cardio-oncology, according to experts.

European Society of Cardiology

“Many new cancer agents have extended patient survival, yet some of these agents have significant potential cardiovascular toxicity,” said Renato D. Lopes, MD, in presenting a study at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the context of improving survival in patients with or at risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease, he suggested that the prostate cancer study he led could be “a model for interdisciplinary collaboration” needed to address the relative and sometimes competing risks of these disease states.

This point was seconded by several pioneers in cardio-oncology who participated in the discussion of the results of the trial, called PRONOUNCE.

“We know many drugs in oncology increase cardiovascular risk, so these are the types of trials we need,” according Thomas M. Suter, MD, who leads the cardio-oncology service at the University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland. He was the ESC-invited discussant for PRONOUNCE.
 

More than 100 centers in 12 countries involved

In PRONOUNCE, 545 patients with prostate cancer and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to degarelix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, or leuprolide, a GnRH agonist. The patients were enrolled at 113 participating centers in 12 countries. All of the patients had an indication for an androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).

In numerous previous studies, “ADT has been associated with higher CV morbidity and mortality, particularly in men with preexisting CV disease,” explained Dr. Lopes, but the relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH agonists relative to GnRH antagonists has been “controversial.”

The PRONOUNCE study was designed to resolve this issue, but the study was terminated early because of slow enrollment (not related to the COVID-19 pandemic). The planned enrollment was 900 patients.

In addition, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death, was lower over the course of follow-up than anticipated in the study design.
 

No significant difference on primary endpoint

At the end of 12 months, MACE occurred in 11 (4.1%) of patients randomized to leuprolide and 15 (5.5%) of those randomized to degarelix. The greater hazard ratio for MACE in the degarelix group did not approach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.28; P = .53).

As a result, the question of the relative CV safety of these drugs “remains unresolved,” according to Dr. Lopes, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

This does not diminish the need to answer this question. In the addition to the fact that cancer is a malignancy primarily of advancing age when CV disease is prevalent – the mean age in this study was 73 years and 44% were over age 75 – it is often an indolent disease with long periods of survival, according to Dr. Lopes. About half of prostate cancer patients have concomitant CV disease, and about half will receive ADT at some point in their treatment.

In patients receiving ADT, leuprolide is far more commonly used than GnRH antagonists, which are offered in only about 4% of patients, according to data cited by Dr. Lopes. The underlying hypothesis of this study was that leuprolide is associated with greater CV risk, which might have been relevant to a risk-benefit calculation, if the hypothesis had been confirmed.
 

Cancer drugs can increase CV risk

Based on experimental data, “there is concern the leuprolide is involved in plaque destabilization,” said Dr. Lopes, but he noted that ADTs in general are associated with adverse metabolic changes, including increases in LDL cholesterol, insulin resistance, and body fat, all of which could be relevant to CV risk.

It is the improving rates of survival for prostate cancer as well for other types of cancer that have increased attention to the potential for cancer drugs to increase CV risk, another major cause of early mortality. For these competing risks, objective data are needed to evaluate a relative risk-to-benefit ratio for treatment choices.

This dilemma led the ESC to recently establish its Council on Cardio-Oncology, and many centers around the world are also creating interdisciplinary groups to guide treatment choices for patients with both diseases.

“You will certainly get a lot of referrals,” said Rudolf de Boer, MD, professor of translational cardiology, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands. Basing his remark on his own experience starting a cardio-oncology clinic at his institution, he called this work challenging and agreed that the need for objective data is urgent.

“We need data to provide common ground on which to judge relative risks,” Dr. de Boer said. He also praised the PRONOUNCE investigators for their efforts even if the data failed to answer the question posed.

The PRONOUNCE results were published online in Circulation at the time of Dr. Lopes’s presentation.

The study received funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lopes reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Suter reports financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. de Boer reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Postpartum depression, in many respects, has become a household term. Over the last decade, there has been increasing awareness of the importance of screening for postpartum depression, with increased systematic screening across clinical settings where care is delivered to women during pregnancy and the postpartum period. There have also been greater efforts to identify women who are suffering postpartum depression and to support them with appropriate clinical interventions, whether through psychotherapy and/or pharmacologic therapy. Clinical interventions are supplemented by the increasing awareness of the value of community-based support groups for women who are suffering from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders.

Despite the growing, appropriate focus on recognition and acute treatment of postpartum depression as well as assessing clinical outcomes for those who suffer from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders, less attention has been given to postpartum psychosis, the most severe form of postpartum depression. It is indeed, the least common postpartum psychiatric syndrome (1 in 1,000 births) and comes to public attention when there has been a tragedy during the acute postpartum period such as maternal suicide or infanticide. In this sense, postpartum psychosis is ironically an underappreciated clinical entity across America given its severity, the effect it has on longer-term psychiatric morbidity, and its effect on children and families.

Our group at the Center for Women’s Mental Health has been interested in postpartum psychosis for years and started the Postpartum Psychosis Project in an effort to better understand the phenomenology, course, treatment, outcome, and genomic underpinnings of postpartum psychosis. Risk factors that are well established for postpartum psychosis have been described and overwhelmingly include patients with bipolar disorder. The risk for recurrent postpartum psychosis in women who have had a previous episode is as great as 75%-90% in the absence of prophylactic intervention. With that said, we are extremely interested in understanding the etiology of postpartum psychosis. Various studies over the last 5 years have looked at a whole host of psychosocial as well as neurobiologic variables that may contribute to risk for postpartum psychosis, including dysregulation of the stress axis, heightened inflammation as well as a history of child adversity and heightened experience of stress during the perinatal period.

There have also been anecdotal reports during Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health of higher recent rates of postpartum psychosis manifesting during the postpartum period. This is a clinical observation and has not been systematically studied. However, one can wonder whether the experience of the pandemic has constituted a stressor for at-risk women, tipping the scales toward women becoming ill, or whether clinicians are seeing this finding more because of our ability to observe it more within the context of the pandemic.

Precise quantification of risk for postpartum psychosis is complicated; as noted, women with bipolar disorder have a predictably high risk for getting ill during the postpartum period and many go on to have clinical courses consistent with recurrent bipolar disorder. However, there are other women who have circumscribed episodes of psychotic illness in the postpartum period who recover and are totally well without any evidence of psychiatric disorder until they have another child, at which time the risk for recurrence of postpartum psychosis is very high. Interest in developing a model of risk that could reliably predict an illness as serious as postpartum psychosis is on the minds of researchers around the world.

One recent study that highlights the multiple factors involved in risk of postpartum psychosis involved a prospective longitudinal study of a group of women who were followed across the peripartum period from the third trimester until 4 weeks postpartum. In this group, 51 women were at increased risk for postpartum psychosis based on their diagnosis of bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, or a previous episode of postpartum psychosis. These women were matched with a control group with no past or current diagnosis of psychiatric disorder or family history of postpartum psychosis. The findings suggested that women at risk for postpartum psychosis who experienced a psychiatric relapse during the first 4 weeks postpartum relative to women at risk who remained well had histories of severe childhood adversity as well as biomarkers consistent with a dysregulated stress axis (a statistically higher daily cortisol level). This is consistent with other data that have implicated the complex role between psychosocial variables as well as neurobiologic variables, such as a dysregulation in the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis and other studies that suggest that dysregulated inflammatory status may also drive risk for postpartum psychosis (Hazelgrove K et al. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2021 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2021.105218).

At the end of the day, postpartum psychosis is a psychiatric and obstetrical emergency. In our center, it is rare for women not to be hospitalized with this condition to ensure the safety of the mother as well as her newborn, and to also get her recompensated and functioning as quickly and as significantly as possible. However, an interesting extrapolation of the findings noted by Hazelgrove and colleagues is that it raises the question of what effective treatments might be used to mitigate risk for those at greatest risk for postpartum psychosis. For example, are there other treatments over and above the few effective ones that have been studied as prophylactic pharmacologic interventions that might mitigate risk for recurrence of an illness as serious as postpartum psychosis?

The data suggesting dysregulation of the stress axis as a predictor variable for risk in women vulnerable to postpartum psychosis opens an array of opportunities that are nonpharmacologic, such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy or other interventions that help to modulate the stress axis. This is a terrific opportunity to have pharmacologic intervention meet nonpharmacologic intervention to potentially mitigate risk for postpartum psychosis with its attendant serious sequelae.

In our own work, where we are evaluating genomic data in an extremely well-characterized group of women with known histories of postpartum psychosis, we are interested to see if we can enhance understanding of the model of risk for postpartum psychosis by factoring in genomic underpinning, history of diagnosis, and psychosocial variables to optimally craft interventions for this population of at-risk women. This brings us one step closer to the future in women’s mental health, to the practice of “precision reproductive psychiatry,” matching interventions to specific presentations across perinatal populations.
 

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

Postpartum depression, in many respects, has become a household term. Over the last decade, there has been increasing awareness of the importance of screening for postpartum depression, with increased systematic screening across clinical settings where care is delivered to women during pregnancy and the postpartum period. There have also been greater efforts to identify women who are suffering postpartum depression and to support them with appropriate clinical interventions, whether through psychotherapy and/or pharmacologic therapy. Clinical interventions are supplemented by the increasing awareness of the value of community-based support groups for women who are suffering from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders.

Despite the growing, appropriate focus on recognition and acute treatment of postpartum depression as well as assessing clinical outcomes for those who suffer from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders, less attention has been given to postpartum psychosis, the most severe form of postpartum depression. It is indeed, the least common postpartum psychiatric syndrome (1 in 1,000 births) and comes to public attention when there has been a tragedy during the acute postpartum period such as maternal suicide or infanticide. In this sense, postpartum psychosis is ironically an underappreciated clinical entity across America given its severity, the effect it has on longer-term psychiatric morbidity, and its effect on children and families.

Our group at the Center for Women’s Mental Health has been interested in postpartum psychosis for years and started the Postpartum Psychosis Project in an effort to better understand the phenomenology, course, treatment, outcome, and genomic underpinnings of postpartum psychosis. Risk factors that are well established for postpartum psychosis have been described and overwhelmingly include patients with bipolar disorder. The risk for recurrent postpartum psychosis in women who have had a previous episode is as great as 75%-90% in the absence of prophylactic intervention. With that said, we are extremely interested in understanding the etiology of postpartum psychosis. Various studies over the last 5 years have looked at a whole host of psychosocial as well as neurobiologic variables that may contribute to risk for postpartum psychosis, including dysregulation of the stress axis, heightened inflammation as well as a history of child adversity and heightened experience of stress during the perinatal period.

There have also been anecdotal reports during Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health of higher recent rates of postpartum psychosis manifesting during the postpartum period. This is a clinical observation and has not been systematically studied. However, one can wonder whether the experience of the pandemic has constituted a stressor for at-risk women, tipping the scales toward women becoming ill, or whether clinicians are seeing this finding more because of our ability to observe it more within the context of the pandemic.

Precise quantification of risk for postpartum psychosis is complicated; as noted, women with bipolar disorder have a predictably high risk for getting ill during the postpartum period and many go on to have clinical courses consistent with recurrent bipolar disorder. However, there are other women who have circumscribed episodes of psychotic illness in the postpartum period who recover and are totally well without any evidence of psychiatric disorder until they have another child, at which time the risk for recurrence of postpartum psychosis is very high. Interest in developing a model of risk that could reliably predict an illness as serious as postpartum psychosis is on the minds of researchers around the world.

One recent study that highlights the multiple factors involved in risk of postpartum psychosis involved a prospective longitudinal study of a group of women who were followed across the peripartum period from the third trimester until 4 weeks postpartum. In this group, 51 women were at increased risk for postpartum psychosis based on their diagnosis of bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, or a previous episode of postpartum psychosis. These women were matched with a control group with no past or current diagnosis of psychiatric disorder or family history of postpartum psychosis. The findings suggested that women at risk for postpartum psychosis who experienced a psychiatric relapse during the first 4 weeks postpartum relative to women at risk who remained well had histories of severe childhood adversity as well as biomarkers consistent with a dysregulated stress axis (a statistically higher daily cortisol level). This is consistent with other data that have implicated the complex role between psychosocial variables as well as neurobiologic variables, such as a dysregulation in the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis and other studies that suggest that dysregulated inflammatory status may also drive risk for postpartum psychosis (Hazelgrove K et al. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2021 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2021.105218).

At the end of the day, postpartum psychosis is a psychiatric and obstetrical emergency. In our center, it is rare for women not to be hospitalized with this condition to ensure the safety of the mother as well as her newborn, and to also get her recompensated and functioning as quickly and as significantly as possible. However, an interesting extrapolation of the findings noted by Hazelgrove and colleagues is that it raises the question of what effective treatments might be used to mitigate risk for those at greatest risk for postpartum psychosis. For example, are there other treatments over and above the few effective ones that have been studied as prophylactic pharmacologic interventions that might mitigate risk for recurrence of an illness as serious as postpartum psychosis?

The data suggesting dysregulation of the stress axis as a predictor variable for risk in women vulnerable to postpartum psychosis opens an array of opportunities that are nonpharmacologic, such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy or other interventions that help to modulate the stress axis. This is a terrific opportunity to have pharmacologic intervention meet nonpharmacologic intervention to potentially mitigate risk for postpartum psychosis with its attendant serious sequelae.

In our own work, where we are evaluating genomic data in an extremely well-characterized group of women with known histories of postpartum psychosis, we are interested to see if we can enhance understanding of the model of risk for postpartum psychosis by factoring in genomic underpinning, history of diagnosis, and psychosocial variables to optimally craft interventions for this population of at-risk women. This brings us one step closer to the future in women’s mental health, to the practice of “precision reproductive psychiatry,” matching interventions to specific presentations across perinatal populations.
 

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

Postpartum depression, in many respects, has become a household term. Over the last decade, there has been increasing awareness of the importance of screening for postpartum depression, with increased systematic screening across clinical settings where care is delivered to women during pregnancy and the postpartum period. There have also been greater efforts to identify women who are suffering postpartum depression and to support them with appropriate clinical interventions, whether through psychotherapy and/or pharmacologic therapy. Clinical interventions are supplemented by the increasing awareness of the value of community-based support groups for women who are suffering from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders.

Despite the growing, appropriate focus on recognition and acute treatment of postpartum depression as well as assessing clinical outcomes for those who suffer from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders, less attention has been given to postpartum psychosis, the most severe form of postpartum depression. It is indeed, the least common postpartum psychiatric syndrome (1 in 1,000 births) and comes to public attention when there has been a tragedy during the acute postpartum period such as maternal suicide or infanticide. In this sense, postpartum psychosis is ironically an underappreciated clinical entity across America given its severity, the effect it has on longer-term psychiatric morbidity, and its effect on children and families.

Our group at the Center for Women’s Mental Health has been interested in postpartum psychosis for years and started the Postpartum Psychosis Project in an effort to better understand the phenomenology, course, treatment, outcome, and genomic underpinnings of postpartum psychosis. Risk factors that are well established for postpartum psychosis have been described and overwhelmingly include patients with bipolar disorder. The risk for recurrent postpartum psychosis in women who have had a previous episode is as great as 75%-90% in the absence of prophylactic intervention. With that said, we are extremely interested in understanding the etiology of postpartum psychosis. Various studies over the last 5 years have looked at a whole host of psychosocial as well as neurobiologic variables that may contribute to risk for postpartum psychosis, including dysregulation of the stress axis, heightened inflammation as well as a history of child adversity and heightened experience of stress during the perinatal period.

There have also been anecdotal reports during Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health of higher recent rates of postpartum psychosis manifesting during the postpartum period. This is a clinical observation and has not been systematically studied. However, one can wonder whether the experience of the pandemic has constituted a stressor for at-risk women, tipping the scales toward women becoming ill, or whether clinicians are seeing this finding more because of our ability to observe it more within the context of the pandemic.

Precise quantification of risk for postpartum psychosis is complicated; as noted, women with bipolar disorder have a predictably high risk for getting ill during the postpartum period and many go on to have clinical courses consistent with recurrent bipolar disorder. However, there are other women who have circumscribed episodes of psychotic illness in the postpartum period who recover and are totally well without any evidence of psychiatric disorder until they have another child, at which time the risk for recurrence of postpartum psychosis is very high. Interest in developing a model of risk that could reliably predict an illness as serious as postpartum psychosis is on the minds of researchers around the world.

One recent study that highlights the multiple factors involved in risk of postpartum psychosis involved a prospective longitudinal study of a group of women who were followed across the peripartum period from the third trimester until 4 weeks postpartum. In this group, 51 women were at increased risk for postpartum psychosis based on their diagnosis of bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, or a previous episode of postpartum psychosis. These women were matched with a control group with no past or current diagnosis of psychiatric disorder or family history of postpartum psychosis. The findings suggested that women at risk for postpartum psychosis who experienced a psychiatric relapse during the first 4 weeks postpartum relative to women at risk who remained well had histories of severe childhood adversity as well as biomarkers consistent with a dysregulated stress axis (a statistically higher daily cortisol level). This is consistent with other data that have implicated the complex role between psychosocial variables as well as neurobiologic variables, such as a dysregulation in the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis and other studies that suggest that dysregulated inflammatory status may also drive risk for postpartum psychosis (Hazelgrove K et al. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2021 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2021.105218).

At the end of the day, postpartum psychosis is a psychiatric and obstetrical emergency. In our center, it is rare for women not to be hospitalized with this condition to ensure the safety of the mother as well as her newborn, and to also get her recompensated and functioning as quickly and as significantly as possible. However, an interesting extrapolation of the findings noted by Hazelgrove and colleagues is that it raises the question of what effective treatments might be used to mitigate risk for those at greatest risk for postpartum psychosis. For example, are there other treatments over and above the few effective ones that have been studied as prophylactic pharmacologic interventions that might mitigate risk for recurrence of an illness as serious as postpartum psychosis?

The data suggesting dysregulation of the stress axis as a predictor variable for risk in women vulnerable to postpartum psychosis opens an array of opportunities that are nonpharmacologic, such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy or other interventions that help to modulate the stress axis. This is a terrific opportunity to have pharmacologic intervention meet nonpharmacologic intervention to potentially mitigate risk for postpartum psychosis with its attendant serious sequelae.

In our own work, where we are evaluating genomic data in an extremely well-characterized group of women with known histories of postpartum psychosis, we are interested to see if we can enhance understanding of the model of risk for postpartum psychosis by factoring in genomic underpinning, history of diagnosis, and psychosocial variables to optimally craft interventions for this population of at-risk women. This brings us one step closer to the future in women’s mental health, to the practice of “precision reproductive psychiatry,” matching interventions to specific presentations across perinatal populations.
 

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

Martin D. Greenberg, MD, was sued in May for secretly using his own sperm to inseminate one of his infertility patients 38 years earlier. The patient’s daughter found out last year when she used a DNA test from 23andme to learn about her family history. The 77-year-old New York gynecologist is retired in Florida.

Dr. Greenberg is one of more than 30 U.S. physicians who have so far been identified as having used their own sperm without telling their patients, and more cases are likely. All but one of the cases took place before 1990. Most of them came to light in the past few years, when biological offspring found out from home DNA tests.

“It is a gross betrayal of the trust that a patient puts in her doctor. It is an absolute perversion of the practice of medicine,” said Dev Sethi, a plaintiff attorney who sued a Tucson, Ariz., physician who inseminated at least 10 patients with his own sperm. “The hubris of a doctor to impregnate his own patient, in some effort to either save money or populate the world with his offspring, is striking.”

Why would these physicians use their own sperm and then keep it secret? Why were there so many of them? When their offspring now try to communicate with them, do they want to have a relationship? And how do they react when they’re found out?

The doctors’ behavior mystifies Sigal Klipstein, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist in Hoffman Estates, Ill., who is chair of the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

“These doctors lived with secrets for many years. How do you live with that as a doctor?” said Dr. Klipstein, who was still in high school when most of these cases occurred. “It surprises me that anybody would do this.”
 

Lack of training and lots of secrecy

Were these physicians particularly selfish or egotistical? Or was expedience the prime motivation?

At the time, there was little training in the techniques and ethics of infertility care, said Jody Madeira, JD, PhD, a law professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, who has closely studied the doctors.

“Many of them were ob.gyns., but they did not take CME courses for this work,” she said. The subspecialty of reproductive endocrinology and infertility was just beginning in the early 1970s, according an ASRM spokesman.

Treatment of infertility was a rather hush-hush topic at that time, which made it easier to be deceptive. In 1955, an Illinois court held that artificial insemination constituted adultery. “The social stigma resulting from the practice forces the parents to keep secret the infant’s origin,” a law review article from 1955 stated.

“In the 1950s and 1960s and even into the 1970s and 1980s, infertility treatments were considered shameful, and patients were often advised to keep their treatment to themselves,” Dr. Madeira said. “With everything so secret, it was easy to be deceptive.”

The field has become more sophisticated since then, Dr. Klipstein said. “For known donors, there is a legal contract between the recipient and donor. And it is no longer possible to be an anonymous donor. People can find you through DNA tests.”

Owing to changes in the field as well as the growing likelihood of being caught through DNA tests, most experts believe that rampant infertility fraud ended long ago.
 

How they were found out

When the doctors were active, there was little risk of being exposed. In those times, paternity tests were based on broad factors such as blood type and were unreliable. More accurate DNA tests were underway, but the doctors’ offspring did not think of using them because they suspected nothing.

Most of the doctors’ deeds only came to light with the rise of a new industry – home DNA testing for people who are curious about their family background. First came 23andme in 2007, then Ancestry.com in 2015. The number of people being tested reached almost 2 million in 2016, 7 million in 2017, and 30 million in 2020.

As more people entered company databases, it became easier to pinpoint biological fathers through other relatives. This explains how doctors who had not taken a home DNA test were identified.

The home tests have been shown to be highly accurate. None of the results for doctors accused of using their own sperm have proven to be false, and courts recognize similar DNA tests as proof of paternity.

But when found out, many of the physicians disputed the results and acted as if they could still keep their secret. “I don’t deny it; I don’t admit it,” Paul Brennan Jones, MD, a Colorado doctor, said when he was accused of siring eight children through his infertility patients decades before. Asked whether he would provide a DNA sample, the 80-year-old doctor responded: “No ... because I don’t want to have any incriminating evidence against me.”
 

How often did it happen?

Donor Deceived, a website that monitors these cases, reports 32 cases of physicians surreptitiously providing sperm to their patients. Eleven of the doctors are linked to 1 known offspring, two are linked to more than 75 offspring, one to 15, one to 10, three to 9, three to 7, and two to 5.

“It’s unlikely that any of the doctors did it just once,” said Adam B. Wolf, a San Francisco attorney who is representing the plaintiff in the Greenberg case. “It’s happened before. When doctors get the idea to do something crazy, they do it multiple times.”

Mr. Wolf believes that, because most people haven’t taken a DNA test, there are many more biological children of infertility doctors who have yet to come forward.

Many of the doctors who were found out have negotiated settlements with patients, under which they pay undisclosed sums of money in exchange for the patient’s keeping silent. Mr. Wolf said that, of the two dozen victims of sperm-donor doctors his law firm has represented, all but three have settled.

“We give an opportunity to the doctor to resolve the claims without having to publicly out this person for using his own sperm in his patients,” Mr. Wolf said. “Most doctors jump at the opportunity to not be known as the kind of person who would do that.”

Cases about to go to trial have been withdrawn because of being settled. In May, a case against Gerald E. Mortimer, MD, in Idaho, was dismissed after 3 years of litigation. The judge had made some key decisions that made it less likely that Dr. Mortimer would win. Dr. Mortimer’s biological daughter filed the initial case. She alleged medical negligence, failure to obtain informed consent, fraud, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and several other causes of action.

Dr. Madeira objects to the use of confidential settlements, because other offspring cannot be alerted. But she also believes that, as more people find out about their parentage through DNA tests, it will be harder for accused doctors to make confidential settlements with all of them, and the doctors will eventually be identified.

In settlements, offspring ask for the medical histories of these doctors. So far, offspring have linked the development of Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, and ovarian cancer with these doctors.
 

Denial: Physicians’ most frequent reaction

Once identified, most of the doctors denied the charge. When Gary Phillip Wood, MD, of Arkansas, was tracked down by his biological son, Dr. Wood insisted he had had a vasectomy years before the man was born but still would not agree to a DNA test. He died in April 2021.

None of the identified sperm doctors were interested in having a relationship with their newly identified offspring. When Gary Vandenberg, MD, of California, was contacted by his biological daughter, he abruptly ended the conversation, wishing her “good luck in life,” she recalled. “When I first found out, I was very suicidal. I did not want this existence. I still have those days. My husband had to take off work and stay home quite a bit to make sure I didn’t do anything to myself.”

When Gary Don Davis, MD, of Idaho, was asked about his paternity, he replied: “Let me check on that. Goodbye.” He could not be reached after that, and he died a few months later.

The accused doctors often have no medical records of their work. Dr. Wood said that all his records had been destroyed, and Dr. Greenberg said he did not have any records on his accuser and doubted that he had ever treated her. A 1977 survey found that more than half of infertility doctors did not keep any medical records so as to preserve the donor’s anonymity.

Many of the accused doctors said they used their own sperm because they were deeply committed to helping their patients. At one physician’s trial, his defense attorney said: “If Cecil made any mistakes, it was in losing his objectivity and trying so hard to get patients pregnant.”
 

Was it really ethically wrong?

Many of the doctors don’t accept that they did any harm, says Julie D. Cantor, MD, JD, a former adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “These doctors seemed to be thinking: ‘The patient wanted to get pregnant and have a baby, and that’s what happened, so no harm done.’ But the entire interaction is based on a lie.”

The doctors also had the problem of having to use fresh sperm rather than frozen sperm, as is used today. Sperm had to be used within hours of being produced. If the donor did not show up at the time of the appointment, the doctor might decide to keep the appointment with the patient anyway and provide his own sperm.

However, “these doctors didn’t have to use their own sperm,” Mr. Wolf said. “They could have rescheduled the appointment until a new donor could be found.”

Some say that the doctors seemed to have had a very high opinion of themselves and their own sperm. “Some of them had savior complexes,” Dr. Madeira said. “They seemed to be thinking: ‘I’m giving the gift of life, and I’m the only one who can really do it, because I have great genes.’ ”

When Kim McMorries, MD, of Texas, was confronted with the fact that he had donated sperm 33 years before, he insisted that it was ethical at the time. “When this occurred, it was not considered wrong,” he wrote in an email to his biological daughter.

Today, doctors are bound by the doctrine of informed consent, which holds that patients should be informed about all steps taken in their care. The term was coined by a judge in 1960, and it took some time for some in the medical world to fully accept informed consent. Still, Dr. Madeira asserts it was always unethical to secretly fertilize patients.

“Even in the more paternalistic era of the 1970s and 1980s, it was not right to lie to your patients about such an important part of their lives,” she said.

Some sperm doctors insisted that they had received informed consent when the patient agreed to use an anonymous donor. “Dr. Kiken did that which he was asked to do,” wrote the attorneys for Michael S. Kiken, MD, of Virginia. “Anonymous donor meant that the patient would not know the donor’s identity, he would be anonymous to her.”

Dr. Madeira does not accept this argument either. “The doctor may have thought it was understood that he could be the anonymous person, but the patients did not see it that way,” she said. “They were not expecting the anonymous donor would be their own doctor.”

“I think what happened is a crime,” said Dr. Klipstein. “It’s an ethical violation, a fracture in the trust between doctor and patient.”

Existing laws, however, don’t make it easy to prosecute the doctors. When lawsuits are filed against these doctors, “you have to shoehorn existing statutes to fit the facts, and that may not be a terrific fit,” Dr. Cantor said.

The doctors have been charged with battery, fraud, negligence, breach of duty, unjust enrichment, and rape. But none of them have been found guilty specifically of secretly using their own sperm. Two of the doctors were convicted, but for other offenses, such as perjury for denying their involvement.

Since 2019, five states – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and Texas – have passed statutes specifically outlawing infertility fraud. In addition, a 1995 California law requires identifying the sperm donor.

It may be difficult, however, to apply these new laws to offenses by aging sperm doctors that happened decades ago. “Some states have inflexible limits on the amount of time in which you can sue, even if you didn’t know about the problem until recently,” Dr. Madeira said. “Texas, for example, allows civil lawsuits only up to 10 years after commission.”

Before the fertility fraud physicians can be brought to justice, many of them might just fade away.

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

Martin D. Greenberg, MD, was sued in May for secretly using his own sperm to inseminate one of his infertility patients 38 years earlier. The patient’s daughter found out last year when she used a DNA test from 23andme to learn about her family history. The 77-year-old New York gynecologist is retired in Florida.

Dr. Greenberg is one of more than 30 U.S. physicians who have so far been identified as having used their own sperm without telling their patients, and more cases are likely. All but one of the cases took place before 1990. Most of them came to light in the past few years, when biological offspring found out from home DNA tests.

“It is a gross betrayal of the trust that a patient puts in her doctor. It is an absolute perversion of the practice of medicine,” said Dev Sethi, a plaintiff attorney who sued a Tucson, Ariz., physician who inseminated at least 10 patients with his own sperm. “The hubris of a doctor to impregnate his own patient, in some effort to either save money or populate the world with his offspring, is striking.”

Why would these physicians use their own sperm and then keep it secret? Why were there so many of them? When their offspring now try to communicate with them, do they want to have a relationship? And how do they react when they’re found out?

The doctors’ behavior mystifies Sigal Klipstein, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist in Hoffman Estates, Ill., who is chair of the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

“These doctors lived with secrets for many years. How do you live with that as a doctor?” said Dr. Klipstein, who was still in high school when most of these cases occurred. “It surprises me that anybody would do this.”
 

Lack of training and lots of secrecy

Were these physicians particularly selfish or egotistical? Or was expedience the prime motivation?

At the time, there was little training in the techniques and ethics of infertility care, said Jody Madeira, JD, PhD, a law professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, who has closely studied the doctors.

“Many of them were ob.gyns., but they did not take CME courses for this work,” she said. The subspecialty of reproductive endocrinology and infertility was just beginning in the early 1970s, according an ASRM spokesman.

Treatment of infertility was a rather hush-hush topic at that time, which made it easier to be deceptive. In 1955, an Illinois court held that artificial insemination constituted adultery. “The social stigma resulting from the practice forces the parents to keep secret the infant’s origin,” a law review article from 1955 stated.

“In the 1950s and 1960s and even into the 1970s and 1980s, infertility treatments were considered shameful, and patients were often advised to keep their treatment to themselves,” Dr. Madeira said. “With everything so secret, it was easy to be deceptive.”

The field has become more sophisticated since then, Dr. Klipstein said. “For known donors, there is a legal contract between the recipient and donor. And it is no longer possible to be an anonymous donor. People can find you through DNA tests.”

Owing to changes in the field as well as the growing likelihood of being caught through DNA tests, most experts believe that rampant infertility fraud ended long ago.
 

How they were found out

When the doctors were active, there was little risk of being exposed. In those times, paternity tests were based on broad factors such as blood type and were unreliable. More accurate DNA tests were underway, but the doctors’ offspring did not think of using them because they suspected nothing.

Most of the doctors’ deeds only came to light with the rise of a new industry – home DNA testing for people who are curious about their family background. First came 23andme in 2007, then Ancestry.com in 2015. The number of people being tested reached almost 2 million in 2016, 7 million in 2017, and 30 million in 2020.

As more people entered company databases, it became easier to pinpoint biological fathers through other relatives. This explains how doctors who had not taken a home DNA test were identified.

The home tests have been shown to be highly accurate. None of the results for doctors accused of using their own sperm have proven to be false, and courts recognize similar DNA tests as proof of paternity.

But when found out, many of the physicians disputed the results and acted as if they could still keep their secret. “I don’t deny it; I don’t admit it,” Paul Brennan Jones, MD, a Colorado doctor, said when he was accused of siring eight children through his infertility patients decades before. Asked whether he would provide a DNA sample, the 80-year-old doctor responded: “No ... because I don’t want to have any incriminating evidence against me.”
 

How often did it happen?

Donor Deceived, a website that monitors these cases, reports 32 cases of physicians surreptitiously providing sperm to their patients. Eleven of the doctors are linked to 1 known offspring, two are linked to more than 75 offspring, one to 15, one to 10, three to 9, three to 7, and two to 5.

“It’s unlikely that any of the doctors did it just once,” said Adam B. Wolf, a San Francisco attorney who is representing the plaintiff in the Greenberg case. “It’s happened before. When doctors get the idea to do something crazy, they do it multiple times.”

Mr. Wolf believes that, because most people haven’t taken a DNA test, there are many more biological children of infertility doctors who have yet to come forward.

Many of the doctors who were found out have negotiated settlements with patients, under which they pay undisclosed sums of money in exchange for the patient’s keeping silent. Mr. Wolf said that, of the two dozen victims of sperm-donor doctors his law firm has represented, all but three have settled.

“We give an opportunity to the doctor to resolve the claims without having to publicly out this person for using his own sperm in his patients,” Mr. Wolf said. “Most doctors jump at the opportunity to not be known as the kind of person who would do that.”

Cases about to go to trial have been withdrawn because of being settled. In May, a case against Gerald E. Mortimer, MD, in Idaho, was dismissed after 3 years of litigation. The judge had made some key decisions that made it less likely that Dr. Mortimer would win. Dr. Mortimer’s biological daughter filed the initial case. She alleged medical negligence, failure to obtain informed consent, fraud, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and several other causes of action.

Dr. Madeira objects to the use of confidential settlements, because other offspring cannot be alerted. But she also believes that, as more people find out about their parentage through DNA tests, it will be harder for accused doctors to make confidential settlements with all of them, and the doctors will eventually be identified.

In settlements, offspring ask for the medical histories of these doctors. So far, offspring have linked the development of Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, and ovarian cancer with these doctors.
 

Denial: Physicians’ most frequent reaction

Once identified, most of the doctors denied the charge. When Gary Phillip Wood, MD, of Arkansas, was tracked down by his biological son, Dr. Wood insisted he had had a vasectomy years before the man was born but still would not agree to a DNA test. He died in April 2021.

None of the identified sperm doctors were interested in having a relationship with their newly identified offspring. When Gary Vandenberg, MD, of California, was contacted by his biological daughter, he abruptly ended the conversation, wishing her “good luck in life,” she recalled. “When I first found out, I was very suicidal. I did not want this existence. I still have those days. My husband had to take off work and stay home quite a bit to make sure I didn’t do anything to myself.”

When Gary Don Davis, MD, of Idaho, was asked about his paternity, he replied: “Let me check on that. Goodbye.” He could not be reached after that, and he died a few months later.

The accused doctors often have no medical records of their work. Dr. Wood said that all his records had been destroyed, and Dr. Greenberg said he did not have any records on his accuser and doubted that he had ever treated her. A 1977 survey found that more than half of infertility doctors did not keep any medical records so as to preserve the donor’s anonymity.

Many of the accused doctors said they used their own sperm because they were deeply committed to helping their patients. At one physician’s trial, his defense attorney said: “If Cecil made any mistakes, it was in losing his objectivity and trying so hard to get patients pregnant.”
 

Was it really ethically wrong?

Many of the doctors don’t accept that they did any harm, says Julie D. Cantor, MD, JD, a former adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “These doctors seemed to be thinking: ‘The patient wanted to get pregnant and have a baby, and that’s what happened, so no harm done.’ But the entire interaction is based on a lie.”

The doctors also had the problem of having to use fresh sperm rather than frozen sperm, as is used today. Sperm had to be used within hours of being produced. If the donor did not show up at the time of the appointment, the doctor might decide to keep the appointment with the patient anyway and provide his own sperm.

However, “these doctors didn’t have to use their own sperm,” Mr. Wolf said. “They could have rescheduled the appointment until a new donor could be found.”

Some say that the doctors seemed to have had a very high opinion of themselves and their own sperm. “Some of them had savior complexes,” Dr. Madeira said. “They seemed to be thinking: ‘I’m giving the gift of life, and I’m the only one who can really do it, because I have great genes.’ ”

When Kim McMorries, MD, of Texas, was confronted with the fact that he had donated sperm 33 years before, he insisted that it was ethical at the time. “When this occurred, it was not considered wrong,” he wrote in an email to his biological daughter.

Today, doctors are bound by the doctrine of informed consent, which holds that patients should be informed about all steps taken in their care. The term was coined by a judge in 1960, and it took some time for some in the medical world to fully accept informed consent. Still, Dr. Madeira asserts it was always unethical to secretly fertilize patients.

“Even in the more paternalistic era of the 1970s and 1980s, it was not right to lie to your patients about such an important part of their lives,” she said.

Some sperm doctors insisted that they had received informed consent when the patient agreed to use an anonymous donor. “Dr. Kiken did that which he was asked to do,” wrote the attorneys for Michael S. Kiken, MD, of Virginia. “Anonymous donor meant that the patient would not know the donor’s identity, he would be anonymous to her.”

Dr. Madeira does not accept this argument either. “The doctor may have thought it was understood that he could be the anonymous person, but the patients did not see it that way,” she said. “They were not expecting the anonymous donor would be their own doctor.”

“I think what happened is a crime,” said Dr. Klipstein. “It’s an ethical violation, a fracture in the trust between doctor and patient.”

Existing laws, however, don’t make it easy to prosecute the doctors. When lawsuits are filed against these doctors, “you have to shoehorn existing statutes to fit the facts, and that may not be a terrific fit,” Dr. Cantor said.

The doctors have been charged with battery, fraud, negligence, breach of duty, unjust enrichment, and rape. But none of them have been found guilty specifically of secretly using their own sperm. Two of the doctors were convicted, but for other offenses, such as perjury for denying their involvement.

Since 2019, five states – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and Texas – have passed statutes specifically outlawing infertility fraud. In addition, a 1995 California law requires identifying the sperm donor.

It may be difficult, however, to apply these new laws to offenses by aging sperm doctors that happened decades ago. “Some states have inflexible limits on the amount of time in which you can sue, even if you didn’t know about the problem until recently,” Dr. Madeira said. “Texas, for example, allows civil lawsuits only up to 10 years after commission.”

Before the fertility fraud physicians can be brought to justice, many of them might just fade away.

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

Martin D. Greenberg, MD, was sued in May for secretly using his own sperm to inseminate one of his infertility patients 38 years earlier. The patient’s daughter found out last year when she used a DNA test from 23andme to learn about her family history. The 77-year-old New York gynecologist is retired in Florida.

Dr. Greenberg is one of more than 30 U.S. physicians who have so far been identified as having used their own sperm without telling their patients, and more cases are likely. All but one of the cases took place before 1990. Most of them came to light in the past few years, when biological offspring found out from home DNA tests.

“It is a gross betrayal of the trust that a patient puts in her doctor. It is an absolute perversion of the practice of medicine,” said Dev Sethi, a plaintiff attorney who sued a Tucson, Ariz., physician who inseminated at least 10 patients with his own sperm. “The hubris of a doctor to impregnate his own patient, in some effort to either save money or populate the world with his offspring, is striking.”

Why would these physicians use their own sperm and then keep it secret? Why were there so many of them? When their offspring now try to communicate with them, do they want to have a relationship? And how do they react when they’re found out?

The doctors’ behavior mystifies Sigal Klipstein, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist in Hoffman Estates, Ill., who is chair of the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

“These doctors lived with secrets for many years. How do you live with that as a doctor?” said Dr. Klipstein, who was still in high school when most of these cases occurred. “It surprises me that anybody would do this.”
 

Lack of training and lots of secrecy

Were these physicians particularly selfish or egotistical? Or was expedience the prime motivation?

At the time, there was little training in the techniques and ethics of infertility care, said Jody Madeira, JD, PhD, a law professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, who has closely studied the doctors.

“Many of them were ob.gyns., but they did not take CME courses for this work,” she said. The subspecialty of reproductive endocrinology and infertility was just beginning in the early 1970s, according an ASRM spokesman.

Treatment of infertility was a rather hush-hush topic at that time, which made it easier to be deceptive. In 1955, an Illinois court held that artificial insemination constituted adultery. “The social stigma resulting from the practice forces the parents to keep secret the infant’s origin,” a law review article from 1955 stated.

“In the 1950s and 1960s and even into the 1970s and 1980s, infertility treatments were considered shameful, and patients were often advised to keep their treatment to themselves,” Dr. Madeira said. “With everything so secret, it was easy to be deceptive.”

The field has become more sophisticated since then, Dr. Klipstein said. “For known donors, there is a legal contract between the recipient and donor. And it is no longer possible to be an anonymous donor. People can find you through DNA tests.”

Owing to changes in the field as well as the growing likelihood of being caught through DNA tests, most experts believe that rampant infertility fraud ended long ago.
 

How they were found out

When the doctors were active, there was little risk of being exposed. In those times, paternity tests were based on broad factors such as blood type and were unreliable. More accurate DNA tests were underway, but the doctors’ offspring did not think of using them because they suspected nothing.

Most of the doctors’ deeds only came to light with the rise of a new industry – home DNA testing for people who are curious about their family background. First came 23andme in 2007, then Ancestry.com in 2015. The number of people being tested reached almost 2 million in 2016, 7 million in 2017, and 30 million in 2020.

As more people entered company databases, it became easier to pinpoint biological fathers through other relatives. This explains how doctors who had not taken a home DNA test were identified.

The home tests have been shown to be highly accurate. None of the results for doctors accused of using their own sperm have proven to be false, and courts recognize similar DNA tests as proof of paternity.

But when found out, many of the physicians disputed the results and acted as if they could still keep their secret. “I don’t deny it; I don’t admit it,” Paul Brennan Jones, MD, a Colorado doctor, said when he was accused of siring eight children through his infertility patients decades before. Asked whether he would provide a DNA sample, the 80-year-old doctor responded: “No ... because I don’t want to have any incriminating evidence against me.”
 

How often did it happen?

Donor Deceived, a website that monitors these cases, reports 32 cases of physicians surreptitiously providing sperm to their patients. Eleven of the doctors are linked to 1 known offspring, two are linked to more than 75 offspring, one to 15, one to 10, three to 9, three to 7, and two to 5.

“It’s unlikely that any of the doctors did it just once,” said Adam B. Wolf, a San Francisco attorney who is representing the plaintiff in the Greenberg case. “It’s happened before. When doctors get the idea to do something crazy, they do it multiple times.”

Mr. Wolf believes that, because most people haven’t taken a DNA test, there are many more biological children of infertility doctors who have yet to come forward.

Many of the doctors who were found out have negotiated settlements with patients, under which they pay undisclosed sums of money in exchange for the patient’s keeping silent. Mr. Wolf said that, of the two dozen victims of sperm-donor doctors his law firm has represented, all but three have settled.

“We give an opportunity to the doctor to resolve the claims without having to publicly out this person for using his own sperm in his patients,” Mr. Wolf said. “Most doctors jump at the opportunity to not be known as the kind of person who would do that.”

Cases about to go to trial have been withdrawn because of being settled. In May, a case against Gerald E. Mortimer, MD, in Idaho, was dismissed after 3 years of litigation. The judge had made some key decisions that made it less likely that Dr. Mortimer would win. Dr. Mortimer’s biological daughter filed the initial case. She alleged medical negligence, failure to obtain informed consent, fraud, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and several other causes of action.

Dr. Madeira objects to the use of confidential settlements, because other offspring cannot be alerted. But she also believes that, as more people find out about their parentage through DNA tests, it will be harder for accused doctors to make confidential settlements with all of them, and the doctors will eventually be identified.

In settlements, offspring ask for the medical histories of these doctors. So far, offspring have linked the development of Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, and ovarian cancer with these doctors.
 

Denial: Physicians’ most frequent reaction

Once identified, most of the doctors denied the charge. When Gary Phillip Wood, MD, of Arkansas, was tracked down by his biological son, Dr. Wood insisted he had had a vasectomy years before the man was born but still would not agree to a DNA test. He died in April 2021.

None of the identified sperm doctors were interested in having a relationship with their newly identified offspring. When Gary Vandenberg, MD, of California, was contacted by his biological daughter, he abruptly ended the conversation, wishing her “good luck in life,” she recalled. “When I first found out, I was very suicidal. I did not want this existence. I still have those days. My husband had to take off work and stay home quite a bit to make sure I didn’t do anything to myself.”

When Gary Don Davis, MD, of Idaho, was asked about his paternity, he replied: “Let me check on that. Goodbye.” He could not be reached after that, and he died a few months later.

The accused doctors often have no medical records of their work. Dr. Wood said that all his records had been destroyed, and Dr. Greenberg said he did not have any records on his accuser and doubted that he had ever treated her. A 1977 survey found that more than half of infertility doctors did not keep any medical records so as to preserve the donor’s anonymity.

Many of the accused doctors said they used their own sperm because they were deeply committed to helping their patients. At one physician’s trial, his defense attorney said: “If Cecil made any mistakes, it was in losing his objectivity and trying so hard to get patients pregnant.”
 

Was it really ethically wrong?

Many of the doctors don’t accept that they did any harm, says Julie D. Cantor, MD, JD, a former adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “These doctors seemed to be thinking: ‘The patient wanted to get pregnant and have a baby, and that’s what happened, so no harm done.’ But the entire interaction is based on a lie.”

The doctors also had the problem of having to use fresh sperm rather than frozen sperm, as is used today. Sperm had to be used within hours of being produced. If the donor did not show up at the time of the appointment, the doctor might decide to keep the appointment with the patient anyway and provide his own sperm.

However, “these doctors didn’t have to use their own sperm,” Mr. Wolf said. “They could have rescheduled the appointment until a new donor could be found.”

Some say that the doctors seemed to have had a very high opinion of themselves and their own sperm. “Some of them had savior complexes,” Dr. Madeira said. “They seemed to be thinking: ‘I’m giving the gift of life, and I’m the only one who can really do it, because I have great genes.’ ”

When Kim McMorries, MD, of Texas, was confronted with the fact that he had donated sperm 33 years before, he insisted that it was ethical at the time. “When this occurred, it was not considered wrong,” he wrote in an email to his biological daughter.

Today, doctors are bound by the doctrine of informed consent, which holds that patients should be informed about all steps taken in their care. The term was coined by a judge in 1960, and it took some time for some in the medical world to fully accept informed consent. Still, Dr. Madeira asserts it was always unethical to secretly fertilize patients.

“Even in the more paternalistic era of the 1970s and 1980s, it was not right to lie to your patients about such an important part of their lives,” she said.

Some sperm doctors insisted that they had received informed consent when the patient agreed to use an anonymous donor. “Dr. Kiken did that which he was asked to do,” wrote the attorneys for Michael S. Kiken, MD, of Virginia. “Anonymous donor meant that the patient would not know the donor’s identity, he would be anonymous to her.”

Dr. Madeira does not accept this argument either. “The doctor may have thought it was understood that he could be the anonymous person, but the patients did not see it that way,” she said. “They were not expecting the anonymous donor would be their own doctor.”

“I think what happened is a crime,” said Dr. Klipstein. “It’s an ethical violation, a fracture in the trust between doctor and patient.”

Existing laws, however, don’t make it easy to prosecute the doctors. When lawsuits are filed against these doctors, “you have to shoehorn existing statutes to fit the facts, and that may not be a terrific fit,” Dr. Cantor said.

The doctors have been charged with battery, fraud, negligence, breach of duty, unjust enrichment, and rape. But none of them have been found guilty specifically of secretly using their own sperm. Two of the doctors were convicted, but for other offenses, such as perjury for denying their involvement.

Since 2019, five states – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and Texas – have passed statutes specifically outlawing infertility fraud. In addition, a 1995 California law requires identifying the sperm donor.

It may be difficult, however, to apply these new laws to offenses by aging sperm doctors that happened decades ago. “Some states have inflexible limits on the amount of time in which you can sue, even if you didn’t know about the problem until recently,” Dr. Madeira said. “Texas, for example, allows civil lawsuits only up to 10 years after commission.”

Before the fertility fraud physicians can be brought to justice, many of them might just fade away.

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