User login
Understanding clinic-reported IVF success rates
The field of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) continues to evolve from its first successful birth in 1978 in England, and then in 1981 in the United States. Over the last 6 years, the total number of cycles in the U.S. has increased by 44% to nearly 370,000.
SART membership consists of more than 350 clinics throughout the United States, representing 80% of ART clinics. Over 95% of ART cycles in 2021 in the United States were performed in SART-member clinics.
SART is an invaluable resource for both patients and physicians. Their website includes a “Predict My Success” calculator that allows patients and physicians to enter individualized data to calculate the chance of having a baby over one or more complete cycles of IVF. To help us understand the pregnancy outcome data from ART – cycles per clinic along with national results – I posed the questions below to Amy Sparks, PhD, HCLD, director of the IVF and Andrology Laboratories and the Center for Advanced Reproductive Care at University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City. Dr. Sparks is past president of SART and former chairperson of the SART Registry committee when the current Clinic Summary Report format was initially released.
Question: The Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act (FCSRCA) of 1992 mandated that all ART clinics report success rate data to the federal government, through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in a standardized manner. As ART is the only field in medicine to be required to annually report their patient outcomes, that is, all initiated cycles and live births, why do you believe this law was enacted and is limited to reproductive medicine?
Answer: The FCSRCA of 1992 was enacted in response to the lack of open and reliable pregnancy success rate information for patients seeking infertility care using assisted reproductive technologies. Success rates of 25%-50% were being advertised by independent clinics when, nationally, fewer than 15% of ART procedures led to live births. The Federal Trade Commission said such claims were deceptive and filed charges against five clinics, saying they misrepresented their success in helping women become pregnant. The government won one case by court order and the other four cases were settled out of court.
This field of medicine was in the spotlight as the majority of patients lacked insurance coverage for their ART cycles, and there was a strong desire to protect consumers paying out of pocket for relatively low success. Recognizing that the FTC’s mission is to ensure truth in advertising and not regulate medical care, Congress passed the FCSRCA, mandating that all centers providing ART services report all initiated cycles and their outcomes. The CDC was appointed as the agency responsible for collecting cycle data and reporting outcomes. Centers not reporting their cycles are listed as nonreporting centers.
This act also established standards for accreditation of embryology laboratories including personnel and traditional clinical laboratory management requirements. These standards serve as the foundation for embryology laboratory accrediting agencies.
Q: Why have live-birth rates on SART appeared to be focused on “per IVF cycle” as opposed to the CDC reporting of live births “per embryo transfer?”
A: An ART cycle “start” is defined as the initiation of ovarian stimulation with medication that may or may not include administration of exogenous gonadotropins, followed by oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer. Not every patient beginning a cycle will undergo an oocyte retrieval and not all patients who undergo oocyte retrieval have an embryo transfer. The live-birth rates (LBR) for each of these steps of progression in the ART process are available in the SART and CDC reports.
In 2016, SART recognized that practices were foregoing fresh embryo transfer after oocyte retrieval, opting to cryopreserve all embryos to either accommodate genetic testing of the embryos prior to transfer or to avoid embryo transfer to an unfavorable uterine environment. In response to changes in practice and in an effort to deemphasize live birth per transfer, thereby alleviating a potential motivator or pressure for practitioners to transfer multiple embryos, SART moved to a report that displays the cumulative live-birth rate per cycle start for oocyte retrieval. The cumulative live-birth rate per cycle start for oocyte retrieval is the chance of live birth from transfers of embryos derived from the oocyte retrieval and performed within 1 year of the oocyte retrieval.
This change in reporting further reduced the pressure to transfer multiple embryos and encouraged elective, single-embryo transfer. The outcome per transfer is no longer the report’s primary focus.
Q: The latest pregnancy outcomes statistics are from the year 2020 and are finalized by the CDC. Why does the SART website have this same year labeled “preliminary” outcomes?
A: Shortly after the 2016 SART report change, the CDC made similar changes to their report. The difference is that SART provides a “preliminary” report of outcomes within the year of the cycle start for oocyte retrieval. The cumulative outcome is not “finalized” until the following year as transfers may be performed as late as 12 months after the oocyte retrieval.
SART has opted to report both the “preliminary” or interim outcome and the “final” outcome a year later. The CDC has opted to limit their report to “final” outcomes. I’m happy to report that SART recently released the final report for 2021 cycles.
Q: Have national success rates in the United States continued to rise or have they plateaued?
A: It appears that success rates have plateaued; however, we find ourselves at another point where practice patterns and patients’ approach to using ART for family building have changed.
Recognizing the impact of maternal aging on reproductive potential, patients are opting to undergo multiple ART cycles to cryopreserve embryos for family building before they attempt to get pregnant. This family-building path reduces the value of measuring the LBR per cycle start as we may not know the outcome for many years. SART leaders are deliberating intently as to how to best represent this growing patient population in outcome reporting.
Q: Can you comment on the reduction of multiple gestations with the increasing use of single-embryo transfer?
A: The reduction in emphasis on live births per transfer, emphasis on singleton live-birth rates in both the SART and CDC reports, and American Society for Reproductive Medicine practice committee guidelines strongly supporting single embryo transfer have significantly reduced the rate of multiple gestations.
A decade ago, only a third of the transfers were single-embryo transfers and over 25% of live births resulted in a multiple birth. Today, the majority of embryo transfers are elective, single-embryo transfers, and the multiple birth rate has been reduced by nearly 80%. In 2020, 93% of live births from IVF were singletons.
Q: SART offers an online IVF calculator so both patients and physicians can plug in data for an approximate cumulative success rate for up to three IVF cycles. The calculator pools data from all U.S.-reporting IVF centers. Can you explain what an “IVF cycle” is and what patient information is required? Why do success rates increase over time?
A: Each “IVF cycle” is a cycle start for an oocyte retrieval and all transfers of embryos from that cycle within a year of the oocyte retrieval. If the first cycle and subsequent transfers do not lead to a live birth, patients still have a chance to achieve a live birth with a second or third cycle. The success rate increases over time as it reflects the chance of success for a population of patients, with some achieving a live birth after the first cycle and additional patients who achieve success following their third cycle.
Q: The SART IVF calculator can be used with no prior IVF cycles or following an unsuccessful cycle. Are there data to support an estimation of outcome following two or even more unsuccessful cycles?
A: The variables in the SART IVF calculator are based upon the cycle-specific data from patients seeking care at SART member clinics. The current predictor was built with data from cycles performed in 2015-2016. SART is adjusting the predictor and developing a calculator that will be routinely updated, accordingly.
Q: Only approximately 40% of states have some form of infertility coverage law in place; however the number of IVF cycles in the United States continues to increase on an annual basis. What do you think are the driving factors behind this?
A: Advocacy efforts to improve patients’ access to infertility care have included giving patients tools to encourage their employers to include infertility care in their health care benefits package. More recently, the “Great Resignation” has led to the “Great Recruitment” and employers are recognizing that the addition of infertility care to health care benefits is a powerful recruitment tool.
Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
The field of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) continues to evolve from its first successful birth in 1978 in England, and then in 1981 in the United States. Over the last 6 years, the total number of cycles in the U.S. has increased by 44% to nearly 370,000.
SART membership consists of more than 350 clinics throughout the United States, representing 80% of ART clinics. Over 95% of ART cycles in 2021 in the United States were performed in SART-member clinics.
SART is an invaluable resource for both patients and physicians. Their website includes a “Predict My Success” calculator that allows patients and physicians to enter individualized data to calculate the chance of having a baby over one or more complete cycles of IVF. To help us understand the pregnancy outcome data from ART – cycles per clinic along with national results – I posed the questions below to Amy Sparks, PhD, HCLD, director of the IVF and Andrology Laboratories and the Center for Advanced Reproductive Care at University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City. Dr. Sparks is past president of SART and former chairperson of the SART Registry committee when the current Clinic Summary Report format was initially released.
Question: The Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act (FCSRCA) of 1992 mandated that all ART clinics report success rate data to the federal government, through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in a standardized manner. As ART is the only field in medicine to be required to annually report their patient outcomes, that is, all initiated cycles and live births, why do you believe this law was enacted and is limited to reproductive medicine?
Answer: The FCSRCA of 1992 was enacted in response to the lack of open and reliable pregnancy success rate information for patients seeking infertility care using assisted reproductive technologies. Success rates of 25%-50% were being advertised by independent clinics when, nationally, fewer than 15% of ART procedures led to live births. The Federal Trade Commission said such claims were deceptive and filed charges against five clinics, saying they misrepresented their success in helping women become pregnant. The government won one case by court order and the other four cases were settled out of court.
This field of medicine was in the spotlight as the majority of patients lacked insurance coverage for their ART cycles, and there was a strong desire to protect consumers paying out of pocket for relatively low success. Recognizing that the FTC’s mission is to ensure truth in advertising and not regulate medical care, Congress passed the FCSRCA, mandating that all centers providing ART services report all initiated cycles and their outcomes. The CDC was appointed as the agency responsible for collecting cycle data and reporting outcomes. Centers not reporting their cycles are listed as nonreporting centers.
This act also established standards for accreditation of embryology laboratories including personnel and traditional clinical laboratory management requirements. These standards serve as the foundation for embryology laboratory accrediting agencies.
Q: Why have live-birth rates on SART appeared to be focused on “per IVF cycle” as opposed to the CDC reporting of live births “per embryo transfer?”
A: An ART cycle “start” is defined as the initiation of ovarian stimulation with medication that may or may not include administration of exogenous gonadotropins, followed by oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer. Not every patient beginning a cycle will undergo an oocyte retrieval and not all patients who undergo oocyte retrieval have an embryo transfer. The live-birth rates (LBR) for each of these steps of progression in the ART process are available in the SART and CDC reports.
In 2016, SART recognized that practices were foregoing fresh embryo transfer after oocyte retrieval, opting to cryopreserve all embryos to either accommodate genetic testing of the embryos prior to transfer or to avoid embryo transfer to an unfavorable uterine environment. In response to changes in practice and in an effort to deemphasize live birth per transfer, thereby alleviating a potential motivator or pressure for practitioners to transfer multiple embryos, SART moved to a report that displays the cumulative live-birth rate per cycle start for oocyte retrieval. The cumulative live-birth rate per cycle start for oocyte retrieval is the chance of live birth from transfers of embryos derived from the oocyte retrieval and performed within 1 year of the oocyte retrieval.
This change in reporting further reduced the pressure to transfer multiple embryos and encouraged elective, single-embryo transfer. The outcome per transfer is no longer the report’s primary focus.
Q: The latest pregnancy outcomes statistics are from the year 2020 and are finalized by the CDC. Why does the SART website have this same year labeled “preliminary” outcomes?
A: Shortly after the 2016 SART report change, the CDC made similar changes to their report. The difference is that SART provides a “preliminary” report of outcomes within the year of the cycle start for oocyte retrieval. The cumulative outcome is not “finalized” until the following year as transfers may be performed as late as 12 months after the oocyte retrieval.
SART has opted to report both the “preliminary” or interim outcome and the “final” outcome a year later. The CDC has opted to limit their report to “final” outcomes. I’m happy to report that SART recently released the final report for 2021 cycles.
Q: Have national success rates in the United States continued to rise or have they plateaued?
A: It appears that success rates have plateaued; however, we find ourselves at another point where practice patterns and patients’ approach to using ART for family building have changed.
Recognizing the impact of maternal aging on reproductive potential, patients are opting to undergo multiple ART cycles to cryopreserve embryos for family building before they attempt to get pregnant. This family-building path reduces the value of measuring the LBR per cycle start as we may not know the outcome for many years. SART leaders are deliberating intently as to how to best represent this growing patient population in outcome reporting.
Q: Can you comment on the reduction of multiple gestations with the increasing use of single-embryo transfer?
A: The reduction in emphasis on live births per transfer, emphasis on singleton live-birth rates in both the SART and CDC reports, and American Society for Reproductive Medicine practice committee guidelines strongly supporting single embryo transfer have significantly reduced the rate of multiple gestations.
A decade ago, only a third of the transfers were single-embryo transfers and over 25% of live births resulted in a multiple birth. Today, the majority of embryo transfers are elective, single-embryo transfers, and the multiple birth rate has been reduced by nearly 80%. In 2020, 93% of live births from IVF were singletons.
Q: SART offers an online IVF calculator so both patients and physicians can plug in data for an approximate cumulative success rate for up to three IVF cycles. The calculator pools data from all U.S.-reporting IVF centers. Can you explain what an “IVF cycle” is and what patient information is required? Why do success rates increase over time?
A: Each “IVF cycle” is a cycle start for an oocyte retrieval and all transfers of embryos from that cycle within a year of the oocyte retrieval. If the first cycle and subsequent transfers do not lead to a live birth, patients still have a chance to achieve a live birth with a second or third cycle. The success rate increases over time as it reflects the chance of success for a population of patients, with some achieving a live birth after the first cycle and additional patients who achieve success following their third cycle.
Q: The SART IVF calculator can be used with no prior IVF cycles or following an unsuccessful cycle. Are there data to support an estimation of outcome following two or even more unsuccessful cycles?
A: The variables in the SART IVF calculator are based upon the cycle-specific data from patients seeking care at SART member clinics. The current predictor was built with data from cycles performed in 2015-2016. SART is adjusting the predictor and developing a calculator that will be routinely updated, accordingly.
Q: Only approximately 40% of states have some form of infertility coverage law in place; however the number of IVF cycles in the United States continues to increase on an annual basis. What do you think are the driving factors behind this?
A: Advocacy efforts to improve patients’ access to infertility care have included giving patients tools to encourage their employers to include infertility care in their health care benefits package. More recently, the “Great Resignation” has led to the “Great Recruitment” and employers are recognizing that the addition of infertility care to health care benefits is a powerful recruitment tool.
Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
The field of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) continues to evolve from its first successful birth in 1978 in England, and then in 1981 in the United States. Over the last 6 years, the total number of cycles in the U.S. has increased by 44% to nearly 370,000.
SART membership consists of more than 350 clinics throughout the United States, representing 80% of ART clinics. Over 95% of ART cycles in 2021 in the United States were performed in SART-member clinics.
SART is an invaluable resource for both patients and physicians. Their website includes a “Predict My Success” calculator that allows patients and physicians to enter individualized data to calculate the chance of having a baby over one or more complete cycles of IVF. To help us understand the pregnancy outcome data from ART – cycles per clinic along with national results – I posed the questions below to Amy Sparks, PhD, HCLD, director of the IVF and Andrology Laboratories and the Center for Advanced Reproductive Care at University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City. Dr. Sparks is past president of SART and former chairperson of the SART Registry committee when the current Clinic Summary Report format was initially released.
Question: The Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act (FCSRCA) of 1992 mandated that all ART clinics report success rate data to the federal government, through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in a standardized manner. As ART is the only field in medicine to be required to annually report their patient outcomes, that is, all initiated cycles and live births, why do you believe this law was enacted and is limited to reproductive medicine?
Answer: The FCSRCA of 1992 was enacted in response to the lack of open and reliable pregnancy success rate information for patients seeking infertility care using assisted reproductive technologies. Success rates of 25%-50% were being advertised by independent clinics when, nationally, fewer than 15% of ART procedures led to live births. The Federal Trade Commission said such claims were deceptive and filed charges against five clinics, saying they misrepresented their success in helping women become pregnant. The government won one case by court order and the other four cases were settled out of court.
This field of medicine was in the spotlight as the majority of patients lacked insurance coverage for their ART cycles, and there was a strong desire to protect consumers paying out of pocket for relatively low success. Recognizing that the FTC’s mission is to ensure truth in advertising and not regulate medical care, Congress passed the FCSRCA, mandating that all centers providing ART services report all initiated cycles and their outcomes. The CDC was appointed as the agency responsible for collecting cycle data and reporting outcomes. Centers not reporting their cycles are listed as nonreporting centers.
This act also established standards for accreditation of embryology laboratories including personnel and traditional clinical laboratory management requirements. These standards serve as the foundation for embryology laboratory accrediting agencies.
Q: Why have live-birth rates on SART appeared to be focused on “per IVF cycle” as opposed to the CDC reporting of live births “per embryo transfer?”
A: An ART cycle “start” is defined as the initiation of ovarian stimulation with medication that may or may not include administration of exogenous gonadotropins, followed by oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer. Not every patient beginning a cycle will undergo an oocyte retrieval and not all patients who undergo oocyte retrieval have an embryo transfer. The live-birth rates (LBR) for each of these steps of progression in the ART process are available in the SART and CDC reports.
In 2016, SART recognized that practices were foregoing fresh embryo transfer after oocyte retrieval, opting to cryopreserve all embryos to either accommodate genetic testing of the embryos prior to transfer or to avoid embryo transfer to an unfavorable uterine environment. In response to changes in practice and in an effort to deemphasize live birth per transfer, thereby alleviating a potential motivator or pressure for practitioners to transfer multiple embryos, SART moved to a report that displays the cumulative live-birth rate per cycle start for oocyte retrieval. The cumulative live-birth rate per cycle start for oocyte retrieval is the chance of live birth from transfers of embryos derived from the oocyte retrieval and performed within 1 year of the oocyte retrieval.
This change in reporting further reduced the pressure to transfer multiple embryos and encouraged elective, single-embryo transfer. The outcome per transfer is no longer the report’s primary focus.
Q: The latest pregnancy outcomes statistics are from the year 2020 and are finalized by the CDC. Why does the SART website have this same year labeled “preliminary” outcomes?
A: Shortly after the 2016 SART report change, the CDC made similar changes to their report. The difference is that SART provides a “preliminary” report of outcomes within the year of the cycle start for oocyte retrieval. The cumulative outcome is not “finalized” until the following year as transfers may be performed as late as 12 months after the oocyte retrieval.
SART has opted to report both the “preliminary” or interim outcome and the “final” outcome a year later. The CDC has opted to limit their report to “final” outcomes. I’m happy to report that SART recently released the final report for 2021 cycles.
Q: Have national success rates in the United States continued to rise or have they plateaued?
A: It appears that success rates have plateaued; however, we find ourselves at another point where practice patterns and patients’ approach to using ART for family building have changed.
Recognizing the impact of maternal aging on reproductive potential, patients are opting to undergo multiple ART cycles to cryopreserve embryos for family building before they attempt to get pregnant. This family-building path reduces the value of measuring the LBR per cycle start as we may not know the outcome for many years. SART leaders are deliberating intently as to how to best represent this growing patient population in outcome reporting.
Q: Can you comment on the reduction of multiple gestations with the increasing use of single-embryo transfer?
A: The reduction in emphasis on live births per transfer, emphasis on singleton live-birth rates in both the SART and CDC reports, and American Society for Reproductive Medicine practice committee guidelines strongly supporting single embryo transfer have significantly reduced the rate of multiple gestations.
A decade ago, only a third of the transfers were single-embryo transfers and over 25% of live births resulted in a multiple birth. Today, the majority of embryo transfers are elective, single-embryo transfers, and the multiple birth rate has been reduced by nearly 80%. In 2020, 93% of live births from IVF were singletons.
Q: SART offers an online IVF calculator so both patients and physicians can plug in data for an approximate cumulative success rate for up to three IVF cycles. The calculator pools data from all U.S.-reporting IVF centers. Can you explain what an “IVF cycle” is and what patient information is required? Why do success rates increase over time?
A: Each “IVF cycle” is a cycle start for an oocyte retrieval and all transfers of embryos from that cycle within a year of the oocyte retrieval. If the first cycle and subsequent transfers do not lead to a live birth, patients still have a chance to achieve a live birth with a second or third cycle. The success rate increases over time as it reflects the chance of success for a population of patients, with some achieving a live birth after the first cycle and additional patients who achieve success following their third cycle.
Q: The SART IVF calculator can be used with no prior IVF cycles or following an unsuccessful cycle. Are there data to support an estimation of outcome following two or even more unsuccessful cycles?
A: The variables in the SART IVF calculator are based upon the cycle-specific data from patients seeking care at SART member clinics. The current predictor was built with data from cycles performed in 2015-2016. SART is adjusting the predictor and developing a calculator that will be routinely updated, accordingly.
Q: Only approximately 40% of states have some form of infertility coverage law in place; however the number of IVF cycles in the United States continues to increase on an annual basis. What do you think are the driving factors behind this?
A: Advocacy efforts to improve patients’ access to infertility care have included giving patients tools to encourage their employers to include infertility care in their health care benefits package. More recently, the “Great Resignation” has led to the “Great Recruitment” and employers are recognizing that the addition of infertility care to health care benefits is a powerful recruitment tool.
Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
Liver disease does not worsen IVF outcomes
Having chronic liver disease does not affect outcomes for women who undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF), new research suggests.
The study, published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, compared women with and those without chronic liver disease who had normal ovarian reserve and who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment in a high-volume fertility practice from 2002 to 2021.
“IVF treatment and pregnancy outcomes were not significantly different compared to controls,” the researchers wrote.
Women with liver disease may experience impaired fertility. For example, women with chronic liver disease, such as hepatitis C virus infection, may have premature ovarian insufficiency, while women with advanced liver disease, cirrhosis, and hepatic decompensation are known to have abnormally low gonadotropin levels.
leading to “an immediate need for the clinical assessment of reproductive potential in women with chronic liver disease,” the authors wrote.
The literature about ART treatment outcomes for women with liver disease was limited and may not reflect current therapy protocols, researchers found.
“To the best of our knowledge, this study is the largest to date to evaluate IVF efficacy in women with liver disease,” they wrote.
Similar outcomes
Researchers identified 295 women with liver disease (mean age, 37.8 ± 5.2 years) who underwent 1,033 contemporary, standard ART treatment cycles. Six patients (2%) had cirrhosis, eight (2.7%) had undergone liver transplantation, and 281 (95.3%) had chronic liver disease, of which viral hepatitis B and C infections were the most prevalent. The final study population consisted of 115 women who underwent 186 IVF cycles, as well as embryo biopsy for genetic testing.
The control group consisted of all the women at the treatment center without liver disease who received contemporary, standard ART treatment because of male factor infertility, which served as an indication that the women had normal ovarian reserve and were considered fertile. These 624 patients underwent 868 IVF cycles with embryo biopsy.
The mean age of the patients with liver disease was significantly higher than that of the control participants. Mean body mass index was also significantly higher for the patients with liver disease, and there were differences in baseline levels of selected hormones, compared with control participants. In addition, among those with liver disease, the number of oocytes retrieved was significantly lower (12.3 ± 7.6 vs. 16.5 ± 8.2; P < .05), as were the number of mature oocytes (9.1 ± 6.2 vs. 12.6 ± 6.7; P < .05), the number of fertilized embryos (7.0 ± 5.2 vs. 9.9 ± 5.9; P < .05), the number of embryos for which biopsy was performed (3.4 ± 2.2 vs. 5.1 ± 3.5; P < .05), and the number of euploid embryos (1.6 ± 1.4 vs. 2.7 ± 2.4; P < .05), compared with control participants.
Among the two groups, there were no statistically significant differences in mature oocyte rate (an indicator of response to controlled ovarian stimulation), fertilization per mature oocyte rate (an indicator of oocyte quality and ability to be fertilized), or embryo ploidy rate (an indicator of genetically normal embryos), as determined by embryo biopsy, the researchers write.
A subanalysis of women who went on to have a single thawed euploid (chromosomally normal) embryo transfer to achieve pregnancy found no statistically significant differences in rates of clinical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy loss, or live births between the liver disease group and the control group.
“Overall, women with chronic liver disease can be counseled that IVF treatment will not significantly differ in response to controlled ovarian stimulation, embryo fertilization rate, or ploidy outcome compared to women without liver disease,” the researchers wrote.
Data for patient counseling
The results could change the current common thinking among clinicians that IVF should not be conducted until liver disease is under optimal control, first author Jessica Lee, BS, a student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said.
“There was a knowledge gap for studies in the United States, and we hope this study will not only help patients with liver disease but also providers with counseling,” she said.
The findings suggest that “even if you have chronic liver disease and it’s not fully optimized, that should not interfere with pursuing IVF,” said principal investigator Tatyana Kushner, MD, an associate professor of medicine in liver diseases at the Icahn School.
Women with liver disease whose fertility is impaired should receive counseling about fertility preservation options earlier to help access fertility care, the researchers write.
The study’s findings are “encouraging,” said Monika Sarkar, MD, associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology at the University of California, San Francisco.
“With rising numbers of young adults with liver disease, it is encouraging to see dedicated studies that address a topic of importance to our patients – namely, their reproductive health,” she said. “The current study nicely expands beyond previous data to include a control population without liver disease.”
Differences in oocyte numbers
Although there were no differences in the success rate of embryo transfer, the researchers did see differences in the number of oocytes. Only 37 mature oocytes made it to transfer in the liver disease group, compared with 609 in the control group, noted Dr. Sarkar, who was not involved with the study.
“The challenge of ART is less at the level of embryo transfer, which is very successful once a euploid embryo is achieved, but rather at the earlier step of retrieval of mature oocytes,” Dr. Sarkar said. “Here, the authors found that patients with liver disease had a significantly lower number of oocytes retrieved, number of mature oocytes, and lower number of fertilized embryos.”
The data suggest that fewer eggs are retrieved per cycle from patients with liver disease, “which ultimately will lower the success per cycle,” Dr. Sarkar said.
“This suggests that referring women with chronic liver disease to ART sooner may help to optimize outcomes,” she added. “Larger data evaluating ability to achieve mature oocytes and subsequent fertilization will also be key for determining whether ART success differs by presence, severity, and type of liver disease.”
As more research on ART outcomes in women with liver disease is conducted, subspecialists in gastrointestinal and liver disease may gain confidence in counseling patients, Dr. Sarkar said.
Ms. Lee, Dr. Kushner, and Dr. Sarkar report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Having chronic liver disease does not affect outcomes for women who undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF), new research suggests.
The study, published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, compared women with and those without chronic liver disease who had normal ovarian reserve and who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment in a high-volume fertility practice from 2002 to 2021.
“IVF treatment and pregnancy outcomes were not significantly different compared to controls,” the researchers wrote.
Women with liver disease may experience impaired fertility. For example, women with chronic liver disease, such as hepatitis C virus infection, may have premature ovarian insufficiency, while women with advanced liver disease, cirrhosis, and hepatic decompensation are known to have abnormally low gonadotropin levels.
leading to “an immediate need for the clinical assessment of reproductive potential in women with chronic liver disease,” the authors wrote.
The literature about ART treatment outcomes for women with liver disease was limited and may not reflect current therapy protocols, researchers found.
“To the best of our knowledge, this study is the largest to date to evaluate IVF efficacy in women with liver disease,” they wrote.
Similar outcomes
Researchers identified 295 women with liver disease (mean age, 37.8 ± 5.2 years) who underwent 1,033 contemporary, standard ART treatment cycles. Six patients (2%) had cirrhosis, eight (2.7%) had undergone liver transplantation, and 281 (95.3%) had chronic liver disease, of which viral hepatitis B and C infections were the most prevalent. The final study population consisted of 115 women who underwent 186 IVF cycles, as well as embryo biopsy for genetic testing.
The control group consisted of all the women at the treatment center without liver disease who received contemporary, standard ART treatment because of male factor infertility, which served as an indication that the women had normal ovarian reserve and were considered fertile. These 624 patients underwent 868 IVF cycles with embryo biopsy.
The mean age of the patients with liver disease was significantly higher than that of the control participants. Mean body mass index was also significantly higher for the patients with liver disease, and there were differences in baseline levels of selected hormones, compared with control participants. In addition, among those with liver disease, the number of oocytes retrieved was significantly lower (12.3 ± 7.6 vs. 16.5 ± 8.2; P < .05), as were the number of mature oocytes (9.1 ± 6.2 vs. 12.6 ± 6.7; P < .05), the number of fertilized embryos (7.0 ± 5.2 vs. 9.9 ± 5.9; P < .05), the number of embryos for which biopsy was performed (3.4 ± 2.2 vs. 5.1 ± 3.5; P < .05), and the number of euploid embryos (1.6 ± 1.4 vs. 2.7 ± 2.4; P < .05), compared with control participants.
Among the two groups, there were no statistically significant differences in mature oocyte rate (an indicator of response to controlled ovarian stimulation), fertilization per mature oocyte rate (an indicator of oocyte quality and ability to be fertilized), or embryo ploidy rate (an indicator of genetically normal embryos), as determined by embryo biopsy, the researchers write.
A subanalysis of women who went on to have a single thawed euploid (chromosomally normal) embryo transfer to achieve pregnancy found no statistically significant differences in rates of clinical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy loss, or live births between the liver disease group and the control group.
“Overall, women with chronic liver disease can be counseled that IVF treatment will not significantly differ in response to controlled ovarian stimulation, embryo fertilization rate, or ploidy outcome compared to women without liver disease,” the researchers wrote.
Data for patient counseling
The results could change the current common thinking among clinicians that IVF should not be conducted until liver disease is under optimal control, first author Jessica Lee, BS, a student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said.
“There was a knowledge gap for studies in the United States, and we hope this study will not only help patients with liver disease but also providers with counseling,” she said.
The findings suggest that “even if you have chronic liver disease and it’s not fully optimized, that should not interfere with pursuing IVF,” said principal investigator Tatyana Kushner, MD, an associate professor of medicine in liver diseases at the Icahn School.
Women with liver disease whose fertility is impaired should receive counseling about fertility preservation options earlier to help access fertility care, the researchers write.
The study’s findings are “encouraging,” said Monika Sarkar, MD, associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology at the University of California, San Francisco.
“With rising numbers of young adults with liver disease, it is encouraging to see dedicated studies that address a topic of importance to our patients – namely, their reproductive health,” she said. “The current study nicely expands beyond previous data to include a control population without liver disease.”
Differences in oocyte numbers
Although there were no differences in the success rate of embryo transfer, the researchers did see differences in the number of oocytes. Only 37 mature oocytes made it to transfer in the liver disease group, compared with 609 in the control group, noted Dr. Sarkar, who was not involved with the study.
“The challenge of ART is less at the level of embryo transfer, which is very successful once a euploid embryo is achieved, but rather at the earlier step of retrieval of mature oocytes,” Dr. Sarkar said. “Here, the authors found that patients with liver disease had a significantly lower number of oocytes retrieved, number of mature oocytes, and lower number of fertilized embryos.”
The data suggest that fewer eggs are retrieved per cycle from patients with liver disease, “which ultimately will lower the success per cycle,” Dr. Sarkar said.
“This suggests that referring women with chronic liver disease to ART sooner may help to optimize outcomes,” she added. “Larger data evaluating ability to achieve mature oocytes and subsequent fertilization will also be key for determining whether ART success differs by presence, severity, and type of liver disease.”
As more research on ART outcomes in women with liver disease is conducted, subspecialists in gastrointestinal and liver disease may gain confidence in counseling patients, Dr. Sarkar said.
Ms. Lee, Dr. Kushner, and Dr. Sarkar report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Having chronic liver disease does not affect outcomes for women who undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF), new research suggests.
The study, published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, compared women with and those without chronic liver disease who had normal ovarian reserve and who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment in a high-volume fertility practice from 2002 to 2021.
“IVF treatment and pregnancy outcomes were not significantly different compared to controls,” the researchers wrote.
Women with liver disease may experience impaired fertility. For example, women with chronic liver disease, such as hepatitis C virus infection, may have premature ovarian insufficiency, while women with advanced liver disease, cirrhosis, and hepatic decompensation are known to have abnormally low gonadotropin levels.
leading to “an immediate need for the clinical assessment of reproductive potential in women with chronic liver disease,” the authors wrote.
The literature about ART treatment outcomes for women with liver disease was limited and may not reflect current therapy protocols, researchers found.
“To the best of our knowledge, this study is the largest to date to evaluate IVF efficacy in women with liver disease,” they wrote.
Similar outcomes
Researchers identified 295 women with liver disease (mean age, 37.8 ± 5.2 years) who underwent 1,033 contemporary, standard ART treatment cycles. Six patients (2%) had cirrhosis, eight (2.7%) had undergone liver transplantation, and 281 (95.3%) had chronic liver disease, of which viral hepatitis B and C infections were the most prevalent. The final study population consisted of 115 women who underwent 186 IVF cycles, as well as embryo biopsy for genetic testing.
The control group consisted of all the women at the treatment center without liver disease who received contemporary, standard ART treatment because of male factor infertility, which served as an indication that the women had normal ovarian reserve and were considered fertile. These 624 patients underwent 868 IVF cycles with embryo biopsy.
The mean age of the patients with liver disease was significantly higher than that of the control participants. Mean body mass index was also significantly higher for the patients with liver disease, and there were differences in baseline levels of selected hormones, compared with control participants. In addition, among those with liver disease, the number of oocytes retrieved was significantly lower (12.3 ± 7.6 vs. 16.5 ± 8.2; P < .05), as were the number of mature oocytes (9.1 ± 6.2 vs. 12.6 ± 6.7; P < .05), the number of fertilized embryos (7.0 ± 5.2 vs. 9.9 ± 5.9; P < .05), the number of embryos for which biopsy was performed (3.4 ± 2.2 vs. 5.1 ± 3.5; P < .05), and the number of euploid embryos (1.6 ± 1.4 vs. 2.7 ± 2.4; P < .05), compared with control participants.
Among the two groups, there were no statistically significant differences in mature oocyte rate (an indicator of response to controlled ovarian stimulation), fertilization per mature oocyte rate (an indicator of oocyte quality and ability to be fertilized), or embryo ploidy rate (an indicator of genetically normal embryos), as determined by embryo biopsy, the researchers write.
A subanalysis of women who went on to have a single thawed euploid (chromosomally normal) embryo transfer to achieve pregnancy found no statistically significant differences in rates of clinical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy loss, or live births between the liver disease group and the control group.
“Overall, women with chronic liver disease can be counseled that IVF treatment will not significantly differ in response to controlled ovarian stimulation, embryo fertilization rate, or ploidy outcome compared to women without liver disease,” the researchers wrote.
Data for patient counseling
The results could change the current common thinking among clinicians that IVF should not be conducted until liver disease is under optimal control, first author Jessica Lee, BS, a student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said.
“There was a knowledge gap for studies in the United States, and we hope this study will not only help patients with liver disease but also providers with counseling,” she said.
The findings suggest that “even if you have chronic liver disease and it’s not fully optimized, that should not interfere with pursuing IVF,” said principal investigator Tatyana Kushner, MD, an associate professor of medicine in liver diseases at the Icahn School.
Women with liver disease whose fertility is impaired should receive counseling about fertility preservation options earlier to help access fertility care, the researchers write.
The study’s findings are “encouraging,” said Monika Sarkar, MD, associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology at the University of California, San Francisco.
“With rising numbers of young adults with liver disease, it is encouraging to see dedicated studies that address a topic of importance to our patients – namely, their reproductive health,” she said. “The current study nicely expands beyond previous data to include a control population without liver disease.”
Differences in oocyte numbers
Although there were no differences in the success rate of embryo transfer, the researchers did see differences in the number of oocytes. Only 37 mature oocytes made it to transfer in the liver disease group, compared with 609 in the control group, noted Dr. Sarkar, who was not involved with the study.
“The challenge of ART is less at the level of embryo transfer, which is very successful once a euploid embryo is achieved, but rather at the earlier step of retrieval of mature oocytes,” Dr. Sarkar said. “Here, the authors found that patients with liver disease had a significantly lower number of oocytes retrieved, number of mature oocytes, and lower number of fertilized embryos.”
The data suggest that fewer eggs are retrieved per cycle from patients with liver disease, “which ultimately will lower the success per cycle,” Dr. Sarkar said.
“This suggests that referring women with chronic liver disease to ART sooner may help to optimize outcomes,” she added. “Larger data evaluating ability to achieve mature oocytes and subsequent fertilization will also be key for determining whether ART success differs by presence, severity, and type of liver disease.”
As more research on ART outcomes in women with liver disease is conducted, subspecialists in gastrointestinal and liver disease may gain confidence in counseling patients, Dr. Sarkar said.
Ms. Lee, Dr. Kushner, and Dr. Sarkar report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Cycle timing may reduce hormonal dosage for contraception
Progesterone and estrogen are often used for contraception by preventing ovulation, but the adverse effects associated with large doses of these hormones remain a concern, wrote Brenda Lyn A. Gavina, a PhD candidate at the University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, and colleagues.
In a study published in PLoS Computational Biology, the researchers examined how the timing of hormone administration during a cycle might impact the amount of hormones needed for contraception. Previous research shown that combining hormones can reduce the dosage needed, but the impact of timing on further dose reduction has not been well studied, they said.
The researchers applied optimal control theory in a mathematical model to show the contraceptive effect of estrogen and/or progesterone at different times in the menstrual cycle. The model was based on a normal menstrual cycle with pituitary and ovarian phases. The model assumed that synthesis of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone occurs in the pituitary, that LH and FSH are held in reserve before release into the bloodstream, and that the follicular/luteal mass goes through nine ovarian stages of development. The model also included the activity of ovarian hormones estradiol (E2), progesterone (P4), and inhibin (Inh), in a normal cycle. In the model, LH, FSH, and E2 peaked in the late follicular phase, and P4 and Inh peaked in the luteal phase.
The pituitary model predicted the synthesis, release, and clearance of LH and FSH, and the response of the pituitary to E2, P4, and Inh. The ovarian model predicted the response of E2, P4, and Inh as functions of LH and FSH.
The researchers simulated a constant dose of exogenous progesterone monotherapy and combined exogenous estrogen/progesterone. They determined that a P4 peak of 4.99 ng/mL was taken as the optimum constant dosage for progesterone monotherapy, and for combination estrogen/progesterone.
The researchers then assessed the impact of time on dosage. They found that estrogen administration starting on the first day of a normal cycle preventing FHS from reaching maximum value, and that the low level of FHS in the follicular phase and additional P4 inhibition slowed follicular growth, and use of combination estrogen/progesterone caused similar inhibition at a later follicular stage.
“The combination therapy suggests that time-varying doses of estrogen and progesterone given simultaneously from the start to the end of the 28-day period, only requires a surge in estrogen dose around the 12th day of the cycle (a delayed administration compared to the estrogen monotherapy),” they noted.
With attention to timing, the maximum progesterone levels throughout a menstrual cycle were 4.43 ng/mL, 4.66 ng/mL, and 4.31 ng/mL for estrogen monotherapy, progesterone monotherapy, and combination therapy, respectively. Total doses of the optimal exogenous hormone were 77.76 pg/mL and 48.84 ng/mL for estrogen and progesterone monotherapy, respectively, and 35.58 pg/mL and 21.67 ng/mL for estrogen and progesterone in combination.
The findings were limited by the use of a standard model that does not account for variations in cycle length, the researchers noted. However, the results reflect other studies of hormonal activity, and the model can be used in future studies of the effect of hormones on cycle length, they said.
Overall, the researchers determined that timing dosage with estrogen monotherapy based on their model could provide effective contraception with about 92% of the minimum total constant dosage, while progesterone monotherapy would be effective with approximately 43% of the total constant dose.
Although more work is needed, the current study results may guide clinicians in experimenting with the optimal treatment regimen for anovulation, the researchers said.
“The results presented here give insights on construction of timed devices that give contraception at certain parts of the menstrual cycle,” they concluded.
Model aims to improve women’s control of contraception
“Aside from wanting to contribute to controlling population growth, we aim to empower women more by giving them more control on when to conceive and start motherhood,” and be in control of contraception in a safer way, said lead author Ms. Gavina, in an interview. In addition, studies are showing the noncontraceptive benefits of suppressing ovulation for managing premenstrual syndromes such as breast tenderness and irritability, and for managing diseases such as endometriosis, she said. “Anovulation also lowers the risk of ACL injuries in female athletes,” she added.
Ms. Gavina said that she was surprised primarily by the optimal control result for estrogen monotherapy. “It was surprising that, theoretically, our mathematical model, with the simplifying assumptions, showed that as low as 10% of the total dose in constant administration could achieve contraception as long as the administration of this dosage is perfectly timed, and the timing was also shown in our optimization result,” she said.
“Our model does not capture all factors in contraception, since the reproductive function in women is a very complex multiscale dynamical system highly dependent on both endogenous and exogenous hormones,” Ms. Gavina told this news organization. However, “with the emergence of more data, it can be refined to address other contraception issues. Further, although the results of this study are not directly translatable to the clinical setting, we hope that these results may aid clinicians in identifying the minimum dose and treatment schedule for contraception,” she said.
Future research directions include examining within and between women’s variabilities and adding a pharmacokinetics model to account for the effects of specific drugs, she said. “We also hope to expand or modify the current model to investigate reproductive health concerns in women, such as [polycystic ovary syndrome] and ovarian cysts,” she added.
Ms. Gavina disclosed support from the University of the Philippines Office of International Linkages, a Continuous Operational and Outcomes-based Partnership for Excellence in Research and Academic Training Enhancement grant, and a Commission on Higher Education Faculty Development Program-II scholarship.
Progesterone and estrogen are often used for contraception by preventing ovulation, but the adverse effects associated with large doses of these hormones remain a concern, wrote Brenda Lyn A. Gavina, a PhD candidate at the University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, and colleagues.
In a study published in PLoS Computational Biology, the researchers examined how the timing of hormone administration during a cycle might impact the amount of hormones needed for contraception. Previous research shown that combining hormones can reduce the dosage needed, but the impact of timing on further dose reduction has not been well studied, they said.
The researchers applied optimal control theory in a mathematical model to show the contraceptive effect of estrogen and/or progesterone at different times in the menstrual cycle. The model was based on a normal menstrual cycle with pituitary and ovarian phases. The model assumed that synthesis of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone occurs in the pituitary, that LH and FSH are held in reserve before release into the bloodstream, and that the follicular/luteal mass goes through nine ovarian stages of development. The model also included the activity of ovarian hormones estradiol (E2), progesterone (P4), and inhibin (Inh), in a normal cycle. In the model, LH, FSH, and E2 peaked in the late follicular phase, and P4 and Inh peaked in the luteal phase.
The pituitary model predicted the synthesis, release, and clearance of LH and FSH, and the response of the pituitary to E2, P4, and Inh. The ovarian model predicted the response of E2, P4, and Inh as functions of LH and FSH.
The researchers simulated a constant dose of exogenous progesterone monotherapy and combined exogenous estrogen/progesterone. They determined that a P4 peak of 4.99 ng/mL was taken as the optimum constant dosage for progesterone monotherapy, and for combination estrogen/progesterone.
The researchers then assessed the impact of time on dosage. They found that estrogen administration starting on the first day of a normal cycle preventing FHS from reaching maximum value, and that the low level of FHS in the follicular phase and additional P4 inhibition slowed follicular growth, and use of combination estrogen/progesterone caused similar inhibition at a later follicular stage.
“The combination therapy suggests that time-varying doses of estrogen and progesterone given simultaneously from the start to the end of the 28-day period, only requires a surge in estrogen dose around the 12th day of the cycle (a delayed administration compared to the estrogen monotherapy),” they noted.
With attention to timing, the maximum progesterone levels throughout a menstrual cycle were 4.43 ng/mL, 4.66 ng/mL, and 4.31 ng/mL for estrogen monotherapy, progesterone monotherapy, and combination therapy, respectively. Total doses of the optimal exogenous hormone were 77.76 pg/mL and 48.84 ng/mL for estrogen and progesterone monotherapy, respectively, and 35.58 pg/mL and 21.67 ng/mL for estrogen and progesterone in combination.
The findings were limited by the use of a standard model that does not account for variations in cycle length, the researchers noted. However, the results reflect other studies of hormonal activity, and the model can be used in future studies of the effect of hormones on cycle length, they said.
Overall, the researchers determined that timing dosage with estrogen monotherapy based on their model could provide effective contraception with about 92% of the minimum total constant dosage, while progesterone monotherapy would be effective with approximately 43% of the total constant dose.
Although more work is needed, the current study results may guide clinicians in experimenting with the optimal treatment regimen for anovulation, the researchers said.
“The results presented here give insights on construction of timed devices that give contraception at certain parts of the menstrual cycle,” they concluded.
Model aims to improve women’s control of contraception
“Aside from wanting to contribute to controlling population growth, we aim to empower women more by giving them more control on when to conceive and start motherhood,” and be in control of contraception in a safer way, said lead author Ms. Gavina, in an interview. In addition, studies are showing the noncontraceptive benefits of suppressing ovulation for managing premenstrual syndromes such as breast tenderness and irritability, and for managing diseases such as endometriosis, she said. “Anovulation also lowers the risk of ACL injuries in female athletes,” she added.
Ms. Gavina said that she was surprised primarily by the optimal control result for estrogen monotherapy. “It was surprising that, theoretically, our mathematical model, with the simplifying assumptions, showed that as low as 10% of the total dose in constant administration could achieve contraception as long as the administration of this dosage is perfectly timed, and the timing was also shown in our optimization result,” she said.
“Our model does not capture all factors in contraception, since the reproductive function in women is a very complex multiscale dynamical system highly dependent on both endogenous and exogenous hormones,” Ms. Gavina told this news organization. However, “with the emergence of more data, it can be refined to address other contraception issues. Further, although the results of this study are not directly translatable to the clinical setting, we hope that these results may aid clinicians in identifying the minimum dose and treatment schedule for contraception,” she said.
Future research directions include examining within and between women’s variabilities and adding a pharmacokinetics model to account for the effects of specific drugs, she said. “We also hope to expand or modify the current model to investigate reproductive health concerns in women, such as [polycystic ovary syndrome] and ovarian cysts,” she added.
Ms. Gavina disclosed support from the University of the Philippines Office of International Linkages, a Continuous Operational and Outcomes-based Partnership for Excellence in Research and Academic Training Enhancement grant, and a Commission on Higher Education Faculty Development Program-II scholarship.
Progesterone and estrogen are often used for contraception by preventing ovulation, but the adverse effects associated with large doses of these hormones remain a concern, wrote Brenda Lyn A. Gavina, a PhD candidate at the University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, and colleagues.
In a study published in PLoS Computational Biology, the researchers examined how the timing of hormone administration during a cycle might impact the amount of hormones needed for contraception. Previous research shown that combining hormones can reduce the dosage needed, but the impact of timing on further dose reduction has not been well studied, they said.
The researchers applied optimal control theory in a mathematical model to show the contraceptive effect of estrogen and/or progesterone at different times in the menstrual cycle. The model was based on a normal menstrual cycle with pituitary and ovarian phases. The model assumed that synthesis of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone occurs in the pituitary, that LH and FSH are held in reserve before release into the bloodstream, and that the follicular/luteal mass goes through nine ovarian stages of development. The model also included the activity of ovarian hormones estradiol (E2), progesterone (P4), and inhibin (Inh), in a normal cycle. In the model, LH, FSH, and E2 peaked in the late follicular phase, and P4 and Inh peaked in the luteal phase.
The pituitary model predicted the synthesis, release, and clearance of LH and FSH, and the response of the pituitary to E2, P4, and Inh. The ovarian model predicted the response of E2, P4, and Inh as functions of LH and FSH.
The researchers simulated a constant dose of exogenous progesterone monotherapy and combined exogenous estrogen/progesterone. They determined that a P4 peak of 4.99 ng/mL was taken as the optimum constant dosage for progesterone monotherapy, and for combination estrogen/progesterone.
The researchers then assessed the impact of time on dosage. They found that estrogen administration starting on the first day of a normal cycle preventing FHS from reaching maximum value, and that the low level of FHS in the follicular phase and additional P4 inhibition slowed follicular growth, and use of combination estrogen/progesterone caused similar inhibition at a later follicular stage.
“The combination therapy suggests that time-varying doses of estrogen and progesterone given simultaneously from the start to the end of the 28-day period, only requires a surge in estrogen dose around the 12th day of the cycle (a delayed administration compared to the estrogen monotherapy),” they noted.
With attention to timing, the maximum progesterone levels throughout a menstrual cycle were 4.43 ng/mL, 4.66 ng/mL, and 4.31 ng/mL for estrogen monotherapy, progesterone monotherapy, and combination therapy, respectively. Total doses of the optimal exogenous hormone were 77.76 pg/mL and 48.84 ng/mL for estrogen and progesterone monotherapy, respectively, and 35.58 pg/mL and 21.67 ng/mL for estrogen and progesterone in combination.
The findings were limited by the use of a standard model that does not account for variations in cycle length, the researchers noted. However, the results reflect other studies of hormonal activity, and the model can be used in future studies of the effect of hormones on cycle length, they said.
Overall, the researchers determined that timing dosage with estrogen monotherapy based on their model could provide effective contraception with about 92% of the minimum total constant dosage, while progesterone monotherapy would be effective with approximately 43% of the total constant dose.
Although more work is needed, the current study results may guide clinicians in experimenting with the optimal treatment regimen for anovulation, the researchers said.
“The results presented here give insights on construction of timed devices that give contraception at certain parts of the menstrual cycle,” they concluded.
Model aims to improve women’s control of contraception
“Aside from wanting to contribute to controlling population growth, we aim to empower women more by giving them more control on when to conceive and start motherhood,” and be in control of contraception in a safer way, said lead author Ms. Gavina, in an interview. In addition, studies are showing the noncontraceptive benefits of suppressing ovulation for managing premenstrual syndromes such as breast tenderness and irritability, and for managing diseases such as endometriosis, she said. “Anovulation also lowers the risk of ACL injuries in female athletes,” she added.
Ms. Gavina said that she was surprised primarily by the optimal control result for estrogen monotherapy. “It was surprising that, theoretically, our mathematical model, with the simplifying assumptions, showed that as low as 10% of the total dose in constant administration could achieve contraception as long as the administration of this dosage is perfectly timed, and the timing was also shown in our optimization result,” she said.
“Our model does not capture all factors in contraception, since the reproductive function in women is a very complex multiscale dynamical system highly dependent on both endogenous and exogenous hormones,” Ms. Gavina told this news organization. However, “with the emergence of more data, it can be refined to address other contraception issues. Further, although the results of this study are not directly translatable to the clinical setting, we hope that these results may aid clinicians in identifying the minimum dose and treatment schedule for contraception,” she said.
Future research directions include examining within and between women’s variabilities and adding a pharmacokinetics model to account for the effects of specific drugs, she said. “We also hope to expand or modify the current model to investigate reproductive health concerns in women, such as [polycystic ovary syndrome] and ovarian cysts,” she added.
Ms. Gavina disclosed support from the University of the Philippines Office of International Linkages, a Continuous Operational and Outcomes-based Partnership for Excellence in Research and Academic Training Enhancement grant, and a Commission on Higher Education Faculty Development Program-II scholarship.
FROM PLOS COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Neuropsychiatric side effects of hormonal contraceptives: More common than you think!
Since its introduction in 1950, the combined oral contraceptive pill has been used by countless women as a method for birth control (Liao P. Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec; 58[12]:e757-e760).
Hormonal contraception (HC) provides women with both contraceptive and noncontraceptive benefits, most notably a method for avoiding unintended pregnancy. In addition to being an effective method of contraception, oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are well established for treating conditions such as hirsutism, pain symptoms associated with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and pelvic inflammatory disease, among others (Schindler A. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Winter;11[1]:41-7).
Combined hormonal contraceptives are also first-line treatment for women with menstrual disorders, and in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, can offer an effective long-term method to regulate their menstrual cycle, decrease androgens, clear up oily skin and acne, and reduce facial hair while also providing them with effective contraception (de Melo et al. Open Access J Contracept. 2017;8:13-23).
Associations between ‘the pill’ and mood effects remain controversial
More than 100 million women worldwide use hormonal contraceptives today, yet despite this, the data are mixed regarding the prevalence and extent of neuropsychiatric symptoms and mood changes associated with use of “the pill.” Some studies show combined oral contraceptives are associated with a decrease in general well-being, but had no effect on depression, in women compared with placebo (Zethraeus N et al. Fertil Steril. 2017 May;107[5]:1238-45).
However, a large Danish study published in JAMA Psychiatry of more than 1 million women found a significant association between use of hormonal contraception and antidepressant use or first diagnosis of depression, with adolescents having a higher rate of first depression diagnosis and antidepressant use compared with women 20–30 years old (Skovlund C et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Nov 1;73[11]:1154-62).
Studies have also shown long-term exposure to levonorgestrel is significantly associated with anxiety and sleep problems in women without a history of these issues (Slattery J et al. Drug Saf. 2018 Oct;41[10]:951-8). A recent small nationwide cohort study in France suggests this may also be true of levonorgestrel delivered by intrauterine devices (IUD) and the association may be dose-dependent (Roland N et al. JAMA. 2023;329[3]:257-9).
Of note, a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found a nearly twofold risk of suicide attempt and over threefold risk of suicide among women taking hormonal contraception compared with women who had never used hormonal contraceptives (Skovlund et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Nov 17:appiajp201717060616).
Knowledge gaps make drawing conclusions difficult
The latest information on use of antidepressant and antianxiety medications in women of reproductive age (18-44 years) is sparse and, in some cases, outdated. According to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 18.6% of adult women 18 years or older reported using antidepressant medications within the last 30 days in 2017-2018, an increase from 13.8% in 2009-2010. Among women aged 15-44 year with private employer–sponsored insurance surveyed during 2008-2013, the results showed 15.4% of women filled a prescription for an antidepressant. We must look back further to find data on antianxiety medication use among women aged 18-44 years where use of antianxiety drugs (anxiolytics, sedatives, and hypnotics) was 4.3% between 2005 and 2008.
A lack of literature in this area is likely due to significant underreporting, and an inability to select patients who are sensitive to or at risk of developing neuropsychiatric symptoms resulting from hormonal contraception use because the true pathophysiology is unknown. Existing studies tend to use varying methods to assess mood changes, and do not usually specify hormonal contraceptive use type in their analyses (Schaffir J et al. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016 Oct;21[5]:347-55).
Studies of this nature also require large sample sizes, but the percentage of women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use has historically been relatively small. In the late 1990s, Rosenberg and colleagues found 46% of 1,657 women discontinued oral contraceptives due to side effects within 6 months of starting a new prescription; of these women, 5% reported mood changes as their reason for discontinuing oral contraceptives (Rosenberg M et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Sep;179[3 Pt 1]:577-82).
One might expect that, as lower dosage combined hormonal contraceptives were developed in the 1980s, that the rate of reporting psychological side effects would continue to decrease as well. Yet greater awareness of the potential for mood changes while on “the pill” as outlined by the lay press and social media may be leading to increased reporting of neuropsychiatric effects in women. In a recent cross-sectional survey of 188 women in New York, 43.6% said they experienced mood changes while on hormonal contraceptives, and 61.2% of women with histories of psychiatric illness reported mood changes they attributed to hormonal contraceptives (Martell S et al. Contracept Reprod Med. 2023;8:9).
Martell and colleagues found 48.3% of women cited side effects as a reason for discontinuing hormonal contraception, and 43 participants mentioned psychological side effects unprompted, including 2 patients with suicidal thoughts. The authors said this suggests “psychological side effects, at least in part, may have impacted” HC users’ decisions to switch from OCPs to an alternative method of contraception.
It is also not clear what risk factors exist for women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use. First, it is important to note that both progestin-only contraceptives and combined hormonal contraceptives are classified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016 as having no restrictions for use, including among patients with depression. While women in a smaller subgroup have significant neuropsychiatric symptoms related to their hormonal contraceptives, the underlying mechanism is unknown, and is thought to be largely related to the progestogen component of combined hormonal contraceptives or progestogen-only contraceptives (Mu E. Aust Prescr. 2022 Jun; 45[3]:75-9). We know that some women are hormone sensitive, while others are less so, and some not at all. Progestogens could affect mood as a direct action of the progestogen, because progestogens can be neurosteroids, or the progestogen effect could be mediated secondarily through a change in that woman’s own production of or bioavailability of androgens or naturally occurring estrogens (Giatti S. J Mol Endocrinol. 2016 Aug;57[2]:R109-26).
Here, we also find that currently available evidence limits our ability to draw firm conclusions. A study by Berry-Bibee and colleagues found a “low concern for clinically significant interactions” between hormonal contraception and psychotropic drugs, but was limited by quality/quantity of evidence (Berry-Bibee E et al. Contraception. 2016 Dec;94[6]:650-67). Interestingly, a study by Robinson and colleagues from the mid-2000s posited based on low evidence that “psychological response to the practice of contraception” was a potential explanation for the side effect profile of hormonal contraception (Robinson S et al. Med Hypotheses. 2004;63[2]:268-73).
Further, it may be that women with premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) might be selected for oral contraceptives, and they are predisposed to other neuropsychiatric problems. Estimates have placed the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, major depression, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder as high as 70% for women with PMDD (Sepede G et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020;16:415-26). This phenomenon is not new, having been characterized in the lay literature nearly 20 years ago, by endocrinologist Geoffrey P. Redmond, MD (Redmond GP. The Hormonally Vulnerable Woman. New York: HarperCollins; 2005).
While the cause is not exactly idiosyncratic, They tend to have an entire spectrum of responses to the progestogens in combined or progestin-only contraceptives, ranging from just a flattened affect – which could easily be explained by their flattened level of endogenous hormones – to frank depression. Their frank depression, in turn, can be demonstrated to include suicidal ideation and actual suicide.
Compounding this issue is a woman’s perception of her sexuality. Some women with low sexual desire or sexual problems who are younger may have more distress about their problems compared with women of older reproductive age. While the reason for that is not clear, it may be that in the sexual arena, it is more important for some younger women to be a sexual person than in perimenopausal women, or that women who are younger are more likely to be partnered than women of older reproductive age. While the European Society of Sexual Medicine concluded in a 2019 position statement that there is inconclusive evidence whether hormonal contraception may be contributing to changes in sexual desire and sexual dysfunction, it appears that “a minority of women” experience “better or worse sexual functioning” from taking combined oral contraceptives (Both S et al. J Sex Med. 2019 Nov;16[11]:1681-95), suggesting that the majority of women report no significant changes.
Practitioners should discuss mood effects during consultation
An ob.gyn., primary care physicians, or others with prescriptive authority (i.e. nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in clinical practice may encounter a patient who seems to have mood side effects owing to progestogen-containing contraceptives that they prescribe. However, many ob.gyns. are likely unaware of the prevalence, or that some of those same patients can have such significant mood effects that they would become or are suicidal.
I believe questioning patients about mood effects during consultation and particularly during follow-up following the initiation of any hormonal contraceptive is worth a passing comment for every patient, which should include mood effects in broader discussion for anyone currently using an antidepressant, patients with a history of antidepressant use, and patients who have considered suicide. As we do with other drugs, these questions can be posed in the form of a questionnaire followed up by the practitioner in counseling.
Practitioners who encounter a patient with mood changes as a result of hormonal contraceptive use can consider changing to a nonhormonal method of birth control, or recommending the patient use a barrier method during sexual activity, as none of these options have neuropsychiatric side effects.
Ultimately, practitioners of all types need to engage in shared decision-making to identify the key benefits and risks of hormonal contraceptive use for each patient, which may involve trial and error to determine the ideal treatment. It is critical that practitioners of all types strike a balance between alleviating patient concerns about potential mood changes, monitoring patients with an appreciable risk of mood changes, and continuing patients on hormonal contraception for whom the benefits outweigh the risks.
Dr. Simon is a clinical professor at George Washington University and the medical director and founder of IntimMedicine Specialists in Washington, which provides patient-focused care for women across the reproductive life cycle. He is a past president of the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society. Dr. Simon has been a consultant to, received grant and research support from, and served on the speakers bureau for various pharmaceutical companies that develop combination hormonal contraceptives. Email Dr. Simon at obnews@mdedge.com.
Since its introduction in 1950, the combined oral contraceptive pill has been used by countless women as a method for birth control (Liao P. Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec; 58[12]:e757-e760).
Hormonal contraception (HC) provides women with both contraceptive and noncontraceptive benefits, most notably a method for avoiding unintended pregnancy. In addition to being an effective method of contraception, oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are well established for treating conditions such as hirsutism, pain symptoms associated with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and pelvic inflammatory disease, among others (Schindler A. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Winter;11[1]:41-7).
Combined hormonal contraceptives are also first-line treatment for women with menstrual disorders, and in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, can offer an effective long-term method to regulate their menstrual cycle, decrease androgens, clear up oily skin and acne, and reduce facial hair while also providing them with effective contraception (de Melo et al. Open Access J Contracept. 2017;8:13-23).
Associations between ‘the pill’ and mood effects remain controversial
More than 100 million women worldwide use hormonal contraceptives today, yet despite this, the data are mixed regarding the prevalence and extent of neuropsychiatric symptoms and mood changes associated with use of “the pill.” Some studies show combined oral contraceptives are associated with a decrease in general well-being, but had no effect on depression, in women compared with placebo (Zethraeus N et al. Fertil Steril. 2017 May;107[5]:1238-45).
However, a large Danish study published in JAMA Psychiatry of more than 1 million women found a significant association between use of hormonal contraception and antidepressant use or first diagnosis of depression, with adolescents having a higher rate of first depression diagnosis and antidepressant use compared with women 20–30 years old (Skovlund C et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Nov 1;73[11]:1154-62).
Studies have also shown long-term exposure to levonorgestrel is significantly associated with anxiety and sleep problems in women without a history of these issues (Slattery J et al. Drug Saf. 2018 Oct;41[10]:951-8). A recent small nationwide cohort study in France suggests this may also be true of levonorgestrel delivered by intrauterine devices (IUD) and the association may be dose-dependent (Roland N et al. JAMA. 2023;329[3]:257-9).
Of note, a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found a nearly twofold risk of suicide attempt and over threefold risk of suicide among women taking hormonal contraception compared with women who had never used hormonal contraceptives (Skovlund et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Nov 17:appiajp201717060616).
Knowledge gaps make drawing conclusions difficult
The latest information on use of antidepressant and antianxiety medications in women of reproductive age (18-44 years) is sparse and, in some cases, outdated. According to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 18.6% of adult women 18 years or older reported using antidepressant medications within the last 30 days in 2017-2018, an increase from 13.8% in 2009-2010. Among women aged 15-44 year with private employer–sponsored insurance surveyed during 2008-2013, the results showed 15.4% of women filled a prescription for an antidepressant. We must look back further to find data on antianxiety medication use among women aged 18-44 years where use of antianxiety drugs (anxiolytics, sedatives, and hypnotics) was 4.3% between 2005 and 2008.
A lack of literature in this area is likely due to significant underreporting, and an inability to select patients who are sensitive to or at risk of developing neuropsychiatric symptoms resulting from hormonal contraception use because the true pathophysiology is unknown. Existing studies tend to use varying methods to assess mood changes, and do not usually specify hormonal contraceptive use type in their analyses (Schaffir J et al. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016 Oct;21[5]:347-55).
Studies of this nature also require large sample sizes, but the percentage of women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use has historically been relatively small. In the late 1990s, Rosenberg and colleagues found 46% of 1,657 women discontinued oral contraceptives due to side effects within 6 months of starting a new prescription; of these women, 5% reported mood changes as their reason for discontinuing oral contraceptives (Rosenberg M et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Sep;179[3 Pt 1]:577-82).
One might expect that, as lower dosage combined hormonal contraceptives were developed in the 1980s, that the rate of reporting psychological side effects would continue to decrease as well. Yet greater awareness of the potential for mood changes while on “the pill” as outlined by the lay press and social media may be leading to increased reporting of neuropsychiatric effects in women. In a recent cross-sectional survey of 188 women in New York, 43.6% said they experienced mood changes while on hormonal contraceptives, and 61.2% of women with histories of psychiatric illness reported mood changes they attributed to hormonal contraceptives (Martell S et al. Contracept Reprod Med. 2023;8:9).
Martell and colleagues found 48.3% of women cited side effects as a reason for discontinuing hormonal contraception, and 43 participants mentioned psychological side effects unprompted, including 2 patients with suicidal thoughts. The authors said this suggests “psychological side effects, at least in part, may have impacted” HC users’ decisions to switch from OCPs to an alternative method of contraception.
It is also not clear what risk factors exist for women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use. First, it is important to note that both progestin-only contraceptives and combined hormonal contraceptives are classified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016 as having no restrictions for use, including among patients with depression. While women in a smaller subgroup have significant neuropsychiatric symptoms related to their hormonal contraceptives, the underlying mechanism is unknown, and is thought to be largely related to the progestogen component of combined hormonal contraceptives or progestogen-only contraceptives (Mu E. Aust Prescr. 2022 Jun; 45[3]:75-9). We know that some women are hormone sensitive, while others are less so, and some not at all. Progestogens could affect mood as a direct action of the progestogen, because progestogens can be neurosteroids, or the progestogen effect could be mediated secondarily through a change in that woman’s own production of or bioavailability of androgens or naturally occurring estrogens (Giatti S. J Mol Endocrinol. 2016 Aug;57[2]:R109-26).
Here, we also find that currently available evidence limits our ability to draw firm conclusions. A study by Berry-Bibee and colleagues found a “low concern for clinically significant interactions” between hormonal contraception and psychotropic drugs, but was limited by quality/quantity of evidence (Berry-Bibee E et al. Contraception. 2016 Dec;94[6]:650-67). Interestingly, a study by Robinson and colleagues from the mid-2000s posited based on low evidence that “psychological response to the practice of contraception” was a potential explanation for the side effect profile of hormonal contraception (Robinson S et al. Med Hypotheses. 2004;63[2]:268-73).
Further, it may be that women with premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) might be selected for oral contraceptives, and they are predisposed to other neuropsychiatric problems. Estimates have placed the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, major depression, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder as high as 70% for women with PMDD (Sepede G et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020;16:415-26). This phenomenon is not new, having been characterized in the lay literature nearly 20 years ago, by endocrinologist Geoffrey P. Redmond, MD (Redmond GP. The Hormonally Vulnerable Woman. New York: HarperCollins; 2005).
While the cause is not exactly idiosyncratic, They tend to have an entire spectrum of responses to the progestogens in combined or progestin-only contraceptives, ranging from just a flattened affect – which could easily be explained by their flattened level of endogenous hormones – to frank depression. Their frank depression, in turn, can be demonstrated to include suicidal ideation and actual suicide.
Compounding this issue is a woman’s perception of her sexuality. Some women with low sexual desire or sexual problems who are younger may have more distress about their problems compared with women of older reproductive age. While the reason for that is not clear, it may be that in the sexual arena, it is more important for some younger women to be a sexual person than in perimenopausal women, or that women who are younger are more likely to be partnered than women of older reproductive age. While the European Society of Sexual Medicine concluded in a 2019 position statement that there is inconclusive evidence whether hormonal contraception may be contributing to changes in sexual desire and sexual dysfunction, it appears that “a minority of women” experience “better or worse sexual functioning” from taking combined oral contraceptives (Both S et al. J Sex Med. 2019 Nov;16[11]:1681-95), suggesting that the majority of women report no significant changes.
Practitioners should discuss mood effects during consultation
An ob.gyn., primary care physicians, or others with prescriptive authority (i.e. nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in clinical practice may encounter a patient who seems to have mood side effects owing to progestogen-containing contraceptives that they prescribe. However, many ob.gyns. are likely unaware of the prevalence, or that some of those same patients can have such significant mood effects that they would become or are suicidal.
I believe questioning patients about mood effects during consultation and particularly during follow-up following the initiation of any hormonal contraceptive is worth a passing comment for every patient, which should include mood effects in broader discussion for anyone currently using an antidepressant, patients with a history of antidepressant use, and patients who have considered suicide. As we do with other drugs, these questions can be posed in the form of a questionnaire followed up by the practitioner in counseling.
Practitioners who encounter a patient with mood changes as a result of hormonal contraceptive use can consider changing to a nonhormonal method of birth control, or recommending the patient use a barrier method during sexual activity, as none of these options have neuropsychiatric side effects.
Ultimately, practitioners of all types need to engage in shared decision-making to identify the key benefits and risks of hormonal contraceptive use for each patient, which may involve trial and error to determine the ideal treatment. It is critical that practitioners of all types strike a balance between alleviating patient concerns about potential mood changes, monitoring patients with an appreciable risk of mood changes, and continuing patients on hormonal contraception for whom the benefits outweigh the risks.
Dr. Simon is a clinical professor at George Washington University and the medical director and founder of IntimMedicine Specialists in Washington, which provides patient-focused care for women across the reproductive life cycle. He is a past president of the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society. Dr. Simon has been a consultant to, received grant and research support from, and served on the speakers bureau for various pharmaceutical companies that develop combination hormonal contraceptives. Email Dr. Simon at obnews@mdedge.com.
Since its introduction in 1950, the combined oral contraceptive pill has been used by countless women as a method for birth control (Liao P. Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec; 58[12]:e757-e760).
Hormonal contraception (HC) provides women with both contraceptive and noncontraceptive benefits, most notably a method for avoiding unintended pregnancy. In addition to being an effective method of contraception, oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are well established for treating conditions such as hirsutism, pain symptoms associated with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and pelvic inflammatory disease, among others (Schindler A. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Winter;11[1]:41-7).
Combined hormonal contraceptives are also first-line treatment for women with menstrual disorders, and in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, can offer an effective long-term method to regulate their menstrual cycle, decrease androgens, clear up oily skin and acne, and reduce facial hair while also providing them with effective contraception (de Melo et al. Open Access J Contracept. 2017;8:13-23).
Associations between ‘the pill’ and mood effects remain controversial
More than 100 million women worldwide use hormonal contraceptives today, yet despite this, the data are mixed regarding the prevalence and extent of neuropsychiatric symptoms and mood changes associated with use of “the pill.” Some studies show combined oral contraceptives are associated with a decrease in general well-being, but had no effect on depression, in women compared with placebo (Zethraeus N et al. Fertil Steril. 2017 May;107[5]:1238-45).
However, a large Danish study published in JAMA Psychiatry of more than 1 million women found a significant association between use of hormonal contraception and antidepressant use or first diagnosis of depression, with adolescents having a higher rate of first depression diagnosis and antidepressant use compared with women 20–30 years old (Skovlund C et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Nov 1;73[11]:1154-62).
Studies have also shown long-term exposure to levonorgestrel is significantly associated with anxiety and sleep problems in women without a history of these issues (Slattery J et al. Drug Saf. 2018 Oct;41[10]:951-8). A recent small nationwide cohort study in France suggests this may also be true of levonorgestrel delivered by intrauterine devices (IUD) and the association may be dose-dependent (Roland N et al. JAMA. 2023;329[3]:257-9).
Of note, a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found a nearly twofold risk of suicide attempt and over threefold risk of suicide among women taking hormonal contraception compared with women who had never used hormonal contraceptives (Skovlund et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Nov 17:appiajp201717060616).
Knowledge gaps make drawing conclusions difficult
The latest information on use of antidepressant and antianxiety medications in women of reproductive age (18-44 years) is sparse and, in some cases, outdated. According to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 18.6% of adult women 18 years or older reported using antidepressant medications within the last 30 days in 2017-2018, an increase from 13.8% in 2009-2010. Among women aged 15-44 year with private employer–sponsored insurance surveyed during 2008-2013, the results showed 15.4% of women filled a prescription for an antidepressant. We must look back further to find data on antianxiety medication use among women aged 18-44 years where use of antianxiety drugs (anxiolytics, sedatives, and hypnotics) was 4.3% between 2005 and 2008.
A lack of literature in this area is likely due to significant underreporting, and an inability to select patients who are sensitive to or at risk of developing neuropsychiatric symptoms resulting from hormonal contraception use because the true pathophysiology is unknown. Existing studies tend to use varying methods to assess mood changes, and do not usually specify hormonal contraceptive use type in their analyses (Schaffir J et al. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016 Oct;21[5]:347-55).
Studies of this nature also require large sample sizes, but the percentage of women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use has historically been relatively small. In the late 1990s, Rosenberg and colleagues found 46% of 1,657 women discontinued oral contraceptives due to side effects within 6 months of starting a new prescription; of these women, 5% reported mood changes as their reason for discontinuing oral contraceptives (Rosenberg M et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Sep;179[3 Pt 1]:577-82).
One might expect that, as lower dosage combined hormonal contraceptives were developed in the 1980s, that the rate of reporting psychological side effects would continue to decrease as well. Yet greater awareness of the potential for mood changes while on “the pill” as outlined by the lay press and social media may be leading to increased reporting of neuropsychiatric effects in women. In a recent cross-sectional survey of 188 women in New York, 43.6% said they experienced mood changes while on hormonal contraceptives, and 61.2% of women with histories of psychiatric illness reported mood changes they attributed to hormonal contraceptives (Martell S et al. Contracept Reprod Med. 2023;8:9).
Martell and colleagues found 48.3% of women cited side effects as a reason for discontinuing hormonal contraception, and 43 participants mentioned psychological side effects unprompted, including 2 patients with suicidal thoughts. The authors said this suggests “psychological side effects, at least in part, may have impacted” HC users’ decisions to switch from OCPs to an alternative method of contraception.
It is also not clear what risk factors exist for women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use. First, it is important to note that both progestin-only contraceptives and combined hormonal contraceptives are classified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016 as having no restrictions for use, including among patients with depression. While women in a smaller subgroup have significant neuropsychiatric symptoms related to their hormonal contraceptives, the underlying mechanism is unknown, and is thought to be largely related to the progestogen component of combined hormonal contraceptives or progestogen-only contraceptives (Mu E. Aust Prescr. 2022 Jun; 45[3]:75-9). We know that some women are hormone sensitive, while others are less so, and some not at all. Progestogens could affect mood as a direct action of the progestogen, because progestogens can be neurosteroids, or the progestogen effect could be mediated secondarily through a change in that woman’s own production of or bioavailability of androgens or naturally occurring estrogens (Giatti S. J Mol Endocrinol. 2016 Aug;57[2]:R109-26).
Here, we also find that currently available evidence limits our ability to draw firm conclusions. A study by Berry-Bibee and colleagues found a “low concern for clinically significant interactions” between hormonal contraception and psychotropic drugs, but was limited by quality/quantity of evidence (Berry-Bibee E et al. Contraception. 2016 Dec;94[6]:650-67). Interestingly, a study by Robinson and colleagues from the mid-2000s posited based on low evidence that “psychological response to the practice of contraception” was a potential explanation for the side effect profile of hormonal contraception (Robinson S et al. Med Hypotheses. 2004;63[2]:268-73).
Further, it may be that women with premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) might be selected for oral contraceptives, and they are predisposed to other neuropsychiatric problems. Estimates have placed the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, major depression, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder as high as 70% for women with PMDD (Sepede G et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020;16:415-26). This phenomenon is not new, having been characterized in the lay literature nearly 20 years ago, by endocrinologist Geoffrey P. Redmond, MD (Redmond GP. The Hormonally Vulnerable Woman. New York: HarperCollins; 2005).
While the cause is not exactly idiosyncratic, They tend to have an entire spectrum of responses to the progestogens in combined or progestin-only contraceptives, ranging from just a flattened affect – which could easily be explained by their flattened level of endogenous hormones – to frank depression. Their frank depression, in turn, can be demonstrated to include suicidal ideation and actual suicide.
Compounding this issue is a woman’s perception of her sexuality. Some women with low sexual desire or sexual problems who are younger may have more distress about their problems compared with women of older reproductive age. While the reason for that is not clear, it may be that in the sexual arena, it is more important for some younger women to be a sexual person than in perimenopausal women, or that women who are younger are more likely to be partnered than women of older reproductive age. While the European Society of Sexual Medicine concluded in a 2019 position statement that there is inconclusive evidence whether hormonal contraception may be contributing to changes in sexual desire and sexual dysfunction, it appears that “a minority of women” experience “better or worse sexual functioning” from taking combined oral contraceptives (Both S et al. J Sex Med. 2019 Nov;16[11]:1681-95), suggesting that the majority of women report no significant changes.
Practitioners should discuss mood effects during consultation
An ob.gyn., primary care physicians, or others with prescriptive authority (i.e. nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in clinical practice may encounter a patient who seems to have mood side effects owing to progestogen-containing contraceptives that they prescribe. However, many ob.gyns. are likely unaware of the prevalence, or that some of those same patients can have such significant mood effects that they would become or are suicidal.
I believe questioning patients about mood effects during consultation and particularly during follow-up following the initiation of any hormonal contraceptive is worth a passing comment for every patient, which should include mood effects in broader discussion for anyone currently using an antidepressant, patients with a history of antidepressant use, and patients who have considered suicide. As we do with other drugs, these questions can be posed in the form of a questionnaire followed up by the practitioner in counseling.
Practitioners who encounter a patient with mood changes as a result of hormonal contraceptive use can consider changing to a nonhormonal method of birth control, or recommending the patient use a barrier method during sexual activity, as none of these options have neuropsychiatric side effects.
Ultimately, practitioners of all types need to engage in shared decision-making to identify the key benefits and risks of hormonal contraceptive use for each patient, which may involve trial and error to determine the ideal treatment. It is critical that practitioners of all types strike a balance between alleviating patient concerns about potential mood changes, monitoring patients with an appreciable risk of mood changes, and continuing patients on hormonal contraception for whom the benefits outweigh the risks.
Dr. Simon is a clinical professor at George Washington University and the medical director and founder of IntimMedicine Specialists in Washington, which provides patient-focused care for women across the reproductive life cycle. He is a past president of the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society. Dr. Simon has been a consultant to, received grant and research support from, and served on the speakers bureau for various pharmaceutical companies that develop combination hormonal contraceptives. Email Dr. Simon at obnews@mdedge.com.
Prostate cancer drug shortage leaves some with uncertainty
according to the Food and Drug Administration.
The therapy lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto), approved in March 2022, will remain in limited supply until the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis, can ramp up production of the drug over the next 12 months.
In a letter in February, Novartis said it is giving priority to patients who have already started the regimen so they can “appropriately complete their course of therapy.” The manufacturer will not be taking any orders for new patients over the next 4-6 months, as they work to increase supply.
“We are operating our production site at full capacity to treat as many patients as possible, as quickly as possible,” Novartis said. “However, with a nuclear medicine like Pluvicto, there is no backup supply that we can draw from when we experience a delay.”
Pluvicto is currently made in small batches in the company’s manufacturing facility in Italy. The drug only has a 5-day window to reach its intended patient, after which time it cannot be used. Any disruption in the production or shipping process can create a delay.
Novartis said the facility in Italy is currently operating at full capacity and the company is “working to increase production capacity and supply” of the drug over the next 12 months at two new manufacturing sites in the United States.
The company also encountered supply problems with Pluvicto in 2022 after quality issues were discovered in the manufacturing process.
Currently, patients who are waiting for their first dose of Pluvicto will need to be rescheduled. The manufacturer will be reaching out to health care professionals with options for rescheduling.
Jonathan McConathy, MD, PhD, told The Wall Street Journal that “people will die from this shortage, for sure.”
Dr. McConathy, a radiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham who has consulted for Novartis, explained that some patients who would have benefited from the drug likely won’t receive it in time.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the Food and Drug Administration.
The therapy lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto), approved in March 2022, will remain in limited supply until the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis, can ramp up production of the drug over the next 12 months.
In a letter in February, Novartis said it is giving priority to patients who have already started the regimen so they can “appropriately complete their course of therapy.” The manufacturer will not be taking any orders for new patients over the next 4-6 months, as they work to increase supply.
“We are operating our production site at full capacity to treat as many patients as possible, as quickly as possible,” Novartis said. “However, with a nuclear medicine like Pluvicto, there is no backup supply that we can draw from when we experience a delay.”
Pluvicto is currently made in small batches in the company’s manufacturing facility in Italy. The drug only has a 5-day window to reach its intended patient, after which time it cannot be used. Any disruption in the production or shipping process can create a delay.
Novartis said the facility in Italy is currently operating at full capacity and the company is “working to increase production capacity and supply” of the drug over the next 12 months at two new manufacturing sites in the United States.
The company also encountered supply problems with Pluvicto in 2022 after quality issues were discovered in the manufacturing process.
Currently, patients who are waiting for their first dose of Pluvicto will need to be rescheduled. The manufacturer will be reaching out to health care professionals with options for rescheduling.
Jonathan McConathy, MD, PhD, told The Wall Street Journal that “people will die from this shortage, for sure.”
Dr. McConathy, a radiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham who has consulted for Novartis, explained that some patients who would have benefited from the drug likely won’t receive it in time.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the Food and Drug Administration.
The therapy lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto), approved in March 2022, will remain in limited supply until the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis, can ramp up production of the drug over the next 12 months.
In a letter in February, Novartis said it is giving priority to patients who have already started the regimen so they can “appropriately complete their course of therapy.” The manufacturer will not be taking any orders for new patients over the next 4-6 months, as they work to increase supply.
“We are operating our production site at full capacity to treat as many patients as possible, as quickly as possible,” Novartis said. “However, with a nuclear medicine like Pluvicto, there is no backup supply that we can draw from when we experience a delay.”
Pluvicto is currently made in small batches in the company’s manufacturing facility in Italy. The drug only has a 5-day window to reach its intended patient, after which time it cannot be used. Any disruption in the production or shipping process can create a delay.
Novartis said the facility in Italy is currently operating at full capacity and the company is “working to increase production capacity and supply” of the drug over the next 12 months at two new manufacturing sites in the United States.
The company also encountered supply problems with Pluvicto in 2022 after quality issues were discovered in the manufacturing process.
Currently, patients who are waiting for their first dose of Pluvicto will need to be rescheduled. The manufacturer will be reaching out to health care professionals with options for rescheduling.
Jonathan McConathy, MD, PhD, told The Wall Street Journal that “people will die from this shortage, for sure.”
Dr. McConathy, a radiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham who has consulted for Novartis, explained that some patients who would have benefited from the drug likely won’t receive it in time.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
EPA seeks to limit ‘forever’ chemicals in U.S. drinking water
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule that would greatly limit the concentration of endocrine-disrupting “forever” chemicals in drinking water.
The EPA on Tuesday announced the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly known as PFAS, which are human-made chemicals used as oil and water repellents and coatings for common products including cookware, carpets, and textiles. Such substances are also widely used in cosmetics and food packaging.
The Endocrine Society, which represents more than 18,000 doctors who treat hormone disorders, says it fully supports the new EPA proposal. It explains that these substances, also known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, “do not break down when they are released into the environment, and they continue to accumulate over time. They pose health dangers at incredibly low levels and have been linked to endocrine disorders such as cancer, thyroid disruption, and reproductive difficulties.”
“This is the first time the government has regulated a new chemical in drinking water in more than 30 years,” the society notes, adding, this “will require major water treatment upgrades at utilities across the country.”
Robert F. Powelson, president and CEO of the National Association of Water Companies, says addressing the PFAS in the nation’s water supply will cost “billions of dollars.”
“It’s a burden that under the current structure will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers in small communities and low-income families,” Mr. Powelson says in a statement. He says the onus should instead fall on “the polluters” – those who manufacture and use PFAS chemicals, who “should be held directly responsible for the clean-up costs.”
Although the EPA is proposing a health-based maximum contaminant level goal of zero for these chemicals in drinking water, it acknowledges that this is unenforceable and so has set what it considers an enforceable level, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), of 4 parts per trillion for two of the PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS).
A different standard has been proposed for the remaining four chemicals: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) – known together as GenX chemicals – perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).
Officials from the EPA told The Washington Post that these proposed limits would be as strong or stronger than limits from about a dozen states that have set their own drinking water standards in recent years.
“The experts here felt this was the level of stringency required to protect public health, and that the law would allow for us,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told the newspaper. “This is a transformative action that we’re taking.”
The EPA is requesting public comment on the proposed regulation and will hold a public hearing on May 4, which members of the public can register to attend and comment on the rule proposal. The last day to register is April 28.
The EPA wants to finalize regulation by the end of 2023, although delays are common on new rules.
If it is fully implemented, “the rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses,” the EPA statement says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule that would greatly limit the concentration of endocrine-disrupting “forever” chemicals in drinking water.
The EPA on Tuesday announced the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly known as PFAS, which are human-made chemicals used as oil and water repellents and coatings for common products including cookware, carpets, and textiles. Such substances are also widely used in cosmetics and food packaging.
The Endocrine Society, which represents more than 18,000 doctors who treat hormone disorders, says it fully supports the new EPA proposal. It explains that these substances, also known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, “do not break down when they are released into the environment, and they continue to accumulate over time. They pose health dangers at incredibly low levels and have been linked to endocrine disorders such as cancer, thyroid disruption, and reproductive difficulties.”
“This is the first time the government has regulated a new chemical in drinking water in more than 30 years,” the society notes, adding, this “will require major water treatment upgrades at utilities across the country.”
Robert F. Powelson, president and CEO of the National Association of Water Companies, says addressing the PFAS in the nation’s water supply will cost “billions of dollars.”
“It’s a burden that under the current structure will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers in small communities and low-income families,” Mr. Powelson says in a statement. He says the onus should instead fall on “the polluters” – those who manufacture and use PFAS chemicals, who “should be held directly responsible for the clean-up costs.”
Although the EPA is proposing a health-based maximum contaminant level goal of zero for these chemicals in drinking water, it acknowledges that this is unenforceable and so has set what it considers an enforceable level, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), of 4 parts per trillion for two of the PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS).
A different standard has been proposed for the remaining four chemicals: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) – known together as GenX chemicals – perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).
Officials from the EPA told The Washington Post that these proposed limits would be as strong or stronger than limits from about a dozen states that have set their own drinking water standards in recent years.
“The experts here felt this was the level of stringency required to protect public health, and that the law would allow for us,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told the newspaper. “This is a transformative action that we’re taking.”
The EPA is requesting public comment on the proposed regulation and will hold a public hearing on May 4, which members of the public can register to attend and comment on the rule proposal. The last day to register is April 28.
The EPA wants to finalize regulation by the end of 2023, although delays are common on new rules.
If it is fully implemented, “the rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses,” the EPA statement says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule that would greatly limit the concentration of endocrine-disrupting “forever” chemicals in drinking water.
The EPA on Tuesday announced the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly known as PFAS, which are human-made chemicals used as oil and water repellents and coatings for common products including cookware, carpets, and textiles. Such substances are also widely used in cosmetics and food packaging.
The Endocrine Society, which represents more than 18,000 doctors who treat hormone disorders, says it fully supports the new EPA proposal. It explains that these substances, also known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, “do not break down when they are released into the environment, and they continue to accumulate over time. They pose health dangers at incredibly low levels and have been linked to endocrine disorders such as cancer, thyroid disruption, and reproductive difficulties.”
“This is the first time the government has regulated a new chemical in drinking water in more than 30 years,” the society notes, adding, this “will require major water treatment upgrades at utilities across the country.”
Robert F. Powelson, president and CEO of the National Association of Water Companies, says addressing the PFAS in the nation’s water supply will cost “billions of dollars.”
“It’s a burden that under the current structure will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers in small communities and low-income families,” Mr. Powelson says in a statement. He says the onus should instead fall on “the polluters” – those who manufacture and use PFAS chemicals, who “should be held directly responsible for the clean-up costs.”
Although the EPA is proposing a health-based maximum contaminant level goal of zero for these chemicals in drinking water, it acknowledges that this is unenforceable and so has set what it considers an enforceable level, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), of 4 parts per trillion for two of the PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS).
A different standard has been proposed for the remaining four chemicals: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) – known together as GenX chemicals – perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).
Officials from the EPA told The Washington Post that these proposed limits would be as strong or stronger than limits from about a dozen states that have set their own drinking water standards in recent years.
“The experts here felt this was the level of stringency required to protect public health, and that the law would allow for us,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told the newspaper. “This is a transformative action that we’re taking.”
The EPA is requesting public comment on the proposed regulation and will hold a public hearing on May 4, which members of the public can register to attend and comment on the rule proposal. The last day to register is April 28.
The EPA wants to finalize regulation by the end of 2023, although delays are common on new rules.
If it is fully implemented, “the rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses,” the EPA statement says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Toxic chemicals we consume without knowing it
Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.
Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.
Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
Microplastics
“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.
Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.
Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.
According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.
Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.
Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
Phthalates
Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.
Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.
To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.
The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.
Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
Bisphenol A (BPA)
BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.
Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.
As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.
Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.
Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.
Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.
The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
Pesticides
The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.
Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.
A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.
Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”
PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.
The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.
Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.
To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”
In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”
Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.
Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.
Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
Microplastics
“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.
Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.
Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.
According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.
Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.
Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
Phthalates
Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.
Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.
To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.
The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.
Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
Bisphenol A (BPA)
BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.
Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.
As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.
Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.
Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.
Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.
The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
Pesticides
The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.
Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.
A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.
Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”
PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.
The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.
Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.
To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”
In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”
Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.
Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.
Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
Microplastics
“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.
Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.
Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.
According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.
Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.
Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
Phthalates
Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.
Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.
To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.
The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.
Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
Bisphenol A (BPA)
BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.
Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.
As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.
Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.
Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.
Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.
The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
Pesticides
The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.
Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.
A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.
Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”
PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.
The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.
Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.
To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”
In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”
Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctors are disappearing from emergency departments as hospitals look to cut costs
She didn’t know much about miscarriage, but this seemed like one.
In the emergency department, she was examined then sent home, she said. She went back when her cramping became excruciating. Then home again. It ultimately took three trips to the ED on 3 consecutive days, generating three separate bills, before she saw a doctor who looked at her blood work and confirmed her fears.
“At the time I wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, I need to see a doctor,’ ” Ms. Valle recalled. “But when you think about it, it’s like, ‘Well, dang – why didn’t I see a doctor?’ ” It’s unclear whether the repeat visits were due to delays in seeing a physician, but the experience worried her. And she’s still paying the bills.
The hospital declined to discuss Ms. Valle’s care, citing patient privacy. But 17 months before her 3-day ordeal, Tennova had outsourced its emergency departments to American Physician Partners, a medical staffing company owned by private equity investors. APP employs fewer doctors in its EDs as one of its cost-saving initiatives to increase earnings, according to a confidential company document obtained by KHN and NPR.
This staffing strategy has permeated hospitals, and particularly emergency departments, that seek to reduce their top expense: physician labor. While diagnosing and treating patients was once their domain, doctors are increasingly being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as “midlevel practitioners,” who can perform many of the same duties and generate much of the same revenue for less than half of the pay.
“APP has numerous cost saving initiatives underway as part of the Company’s continual focus on cost optimization,” the document says, including a “shift of staffing” between doctors and midlevel practitioners.
In a statement to KHN, American Physician Partners said this strategy is a way to ensure all EDs remain fully staffed, calling it a “blended model” that allows doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants “to provide care to their fullest potential.”
Critics of this strategy say the quest to save money results in treatment meted out by someone with far less training than a physician, leaving patients vulnerable to misdiagnoses, higher medical bills, and inadequate care. And these fears are bolstered by evidence that suggests dropping doctors from EDs may not be good for patients.
A working paper, published in October by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed roughly 1.1 million visits to 44 EDs throughout the Veterans Health Administration, where nurse practitioners can treat patients without oversight from doctors.
Researchers found that treatment by a nurse practitioner resulted on average in a 7% increase in cost of care and an 11% increase in length of stay, extending patients’ time in the ED by minutes for minor visits and hours for longer ones. These gaps widened among patients with more severe diagnoses, the study said, but could be somewhat mitigated by nurse practitioners with more experience.
The study also found that ED patients treated by a nurse practitioner were 20% more likely to be readmitted to the hospital for a preventable reason within 30 days, although the overall risk of readmission remained very small.
Yiqun Chen, PhD, who is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago and coauthored the study, said these findings are not an indictment of nurse practitioners in the ED. Instead, she said, she hopes the study will guide how to best deploy nurse practitioners: in treatment of simpler patients or circumstances when no doctor is available.
“It’s not just a simple question of if we can substitute physicians with nurse practitioners or not,” Dr. Chen said. “It depends on how we use them. If we just use them as independent providers, especially ... for relatively complicated patients, it doesn’t seem to be a very good use.”
Dr. Chen’s research echoes smaller studies, like one from The Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute that found nonphysician practitioners in EDs were associated with a 5.3% increase in imaging, which could unnecessarily increase bills for patients. Separately, a study at the Hattiesburg Clinic in Mississippi found that midlevel practitioners in primary care – not in the emergency department – increased the out-of-pocket costs to patients while also leading to worse performance on 9 of 10 quality-of-care metrics, including cancer screenings and vaccination rates.
But definitive evidence remains elusive that replacing ER doctors with nonphysicians has a negative impact on patients, said Cameron Gettel, MD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Private equity investment and the use of midlevel practitioners rose in lockstep in the ED, Dr. Gettel said, and in the absence of game-changing research, the pattern will likely continue.
“Worse patient outcomes haven’t really been shown across the board,” he said. “And I think until that is shown, then they will continue to play an increasing role.”
For private equity, dropping ED docs is a “simple equation”
Private equity companies pool money from wealthy investors to buy their way into various industries, often slashing spending and seeking to flip businesses in 3 to 7 years. While this business model is a proven moneymaker on Wall Street, it raises concerns in health care, where critics worry the pressure to turn big profits will influence life-or-death decisions that were once left solely to medical professionals.
Nearly $1 trillion in private equity funds have gone into almost 8,000 health care transactions over the past decade, according to industry tracker PitchBook, including buying into medical staffing companies that many hospitals hire to manage their emergency departments.
Two firms dominate the ED staffing industry: TeamHealth, bought by private equity firm Blackstone in 2016, and Envision Healthcare, bought by KKR in 2018. Trying to undercut these staffing giants is American Physician Partners, a rapidly expanding company that runs EDs in at least 17 states and is 50% owned by private equity firm BBH Capital Partners.
These staffing companies have been among the most aggressive in replacing doctors to cut costs, said Robert McNamara, MD, a founder of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.
“It’s a relatively simple equation,” Dr. McNamara said. “Their No. 1 expense is the board-certified emergency physician. So they are going to want to keep that expense as low as possible.”
Not everyone sees the trend of private equity in ED staffing in a negative light. Jennifer Orozco, president of the American Academy of Physician Associates, which represents physician assistants, said even if the change – to use more nonphysician providers – is driven by the staffing firms’ desire to make more money, patients are still well served by a team approach that includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
“Though I see that shift, it’s not about profits at the end of the day,” Ms. Orozco said. “It’s about the patient.”
The “shift” is nearly invisible to patients because hospitals rarely promote branding from their ED staffing firms and there is little public documentation of private equity investments.
Arthur Smolensky, MD, a Tennessee emergency medicine specialist attempting to measure private equity’s intrusion into EDs, said his review of hospital job postings and employment contracts in 14 major metropolitan areas found that 43% of ED patients were seen in EDs staffed by companies with nonphysician owners, nearly all of whom are private equity investors.
Dr. Smolensky hopes to publish his full study, expanding to 55 metro areas, later this year. But this research will merely quantify what many doctors already know: The ED has changed. Demoralized by an increased focus on profit, and wary of a looming surplus of emergency medicine residents because there are fewer jobs to fill, many experienced doctors are leaving the ED on their own, he said.
“Most of us didn’t go into medicine to supervise an army of people that are not as well trained as we are,” Dr. Smolensky said. “We want to take care of patients.”
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER”
Joshua Allen, a nurse practitioner at a small Kentucky hospital, snaked a rubber hose through a rack of pork ribs to practice inserting a chest tube to fix a collapsed lung.
It was 2020, and American Physician Partners was restructuring the ED where Mr. Allen worked, reducing shifts from two doctors to one. Once Mr. Allen had placed 10 tubes under a doctor’s supervision, he would be allowed to do it on his own.
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER,” he said. “If we do have a major trauma and multiple victims come in, there’s only one doctor there. ... We need to be prepared.”
Mr. Allen is one of many midlevel practitioners finding work in emergency departments. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are among the fastest-growing occupations in the nation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Generally, they have master’s degrees and receive several years of specialized schooling but have significantly less training than doctors. Many are permitted to diagnose patients and prescribe medication with little or no supervision from a doctor, although limitations vary by state.
The Neiman Institute found that the share of ED visits in which a midlevel practitioner was the main clinician increased by more than 172% between 2005 and 2020. Another study, in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, reported that if trends continue there may be equal numbers of midlevel practitioners and doctors in EDs by 2030.
There is little mystery as to why. Federal data shows emergency medicine doctors are paid about $310,000 a year on average, while nurse practitioners and physician assistants earn less than $120,000. Generally, hospitals can bill for care by a midlevel practitioner at 85% the rate of a doctor while paying them less than half as much.
Private equity can make millions in the gap.
For example, Envision once encouraged EDs to employ “the least expensive resource” and treat up to 35% of patients with midlevel practitioners, according to a 2017 PowerPoint presentation. The presentation drew scorn on social media and disappeared from Envision’s website.
Envision declined a request for a phone interview. In a written statement to KHN, spokesperson Aliese Polk said the company does not direct its physician leaders on how to care for patients and called the presentation a “concept guide” that does not represent current views.
American Physician Partners touted roughly the same staffing strategy in 2021 in response to the No Surprises Act, which threatened the company’s profits by outlawing surprise medical bills. In its confidential pitch to lenders, the company estimated it could cut almost $6 million by shifting more staffing from physicians to midlevel practitioners.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
She didn’t know much about miscarriage, but this seemed like one.
In the emergency department, she was examined then sent home, she said. She went back when her cramping became excruciating. Then home again. It ultimately took three trips to the ED on 3 consecutive days, generating three separate bills, before she saw a doctor who looked at her blood work and confirmed her fears.
“At the time I wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, I need to see a doctor,’ ” Ms. Valle recalled. “But when you think about it, it’s like, ‘Well, dang – why didn’t I see a doctor?’ ” It’s unclear whether the repeat visits were due to delays in seeing a physician, but the experience worried her. And she’s still paying the bills.
The hospital declined to discuss Ms. Valle’s care, citing patient privacy. But 17 months before her 3-day ordeal, Tennova had outsourced its emergency departments to American Physician Partners, a medical staffing company owned by private equity investors. APP employs fewer doctors in its EDs as one of its cost-saving initiatives to increase earnings, according to a confidential company document obtained by KHN and NPR.
This staffing strategy has permeated hospitals, and particularly emergency departments, that seek to reduce their top expense: physician labor. While diagnosing and treating patients was once their domain, doctors are increasingly being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as “midlevel practitioners,” who can perform many of the same duties and generate much of the same revenue for less than half of the pay.
“APP has numerous cost saving initiatives underway as part of the Company’s continual focus on cost optimization,” the document says, including a “shift of staffing” between doctors and midlevel practitioners.
In a statement to KHN, American Physician Partners said this strategy is a way to ensure all EDs remain fully staffed, calling it a “blended model” that allows doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants “to provide care to their fullest potential.”
Critics of this strategy say the quest to save money results in treatment meted out by someone with far less training than a physician, leaving patients vulnerable to misdiagnoses, higher medical bills, and inadequate care. And these fears are bolstered by evidence that suggests dropping doctors from EDs may not be good for patients.
A working paper, published in October by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed roughly 1.1 million visits to 44 EDs throughout the Veterans Health Administration, where nurse practitioners can treat patients without oversight from doctors.
Researchers found that treatment by a nurse practitioner resulted on average in a 7% increase in cost of care and an 11% increase in length of stay, extending patients’ time in the ED by minutes for minor visits and hours for longer ones. These gaps widened among patients with more severe diagnoses, the study said, but could be somewhat mitigated by nurse practitioners with more experience.
The study also found that ED patients treated by a nurse practitioner were 20% more likely to be readmitted to the hospital for a preventable reason within 30 days, although the overall risk of readmission remained very small.
Yiqun Chen, PhD, who is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago and coauthored the study, said these findings are not an indictment of nurse practitioners in the ED. Instead, she said, she hopes the study will guide how to best deploy nurse practitioners: in treatment of simpler patients or circumstances when no doctor is available.
“It’s not just a simple question of if we can substitute physicians with nurse practitioners or not,” Dr. Chen said. “It depends on how we use them. If we just use them as independent providers, especially ... for relatively complicated patients, it doesn’t seem to be a very good use.”
Dr. Chen’s research echoes smaller studies, like one from The Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute that found nonphysician practitioners in EDs were associated with a 5.3% increase in imaging, which could unnecessarily increase bills for patients. Separately, a study at the Hattiesburg Clinic in Mississippi found that midlevel practitioners in primary care – not in the emergency department – increased the out-of-pocket costs to patients while also leading to worse performance on 9 of 10 quality-of-care metrics, including cancer screenings and vaccination rates.
But definitive evidence remains elusive that replacing ER doctors with nonphysicians has a negative impact on patients, said Cameron Gettel, MD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Private equity investment and the use of midlevel practitioners rose in lockstep in the ED, Dr. Gettel said, and in the absence of game-changing research, the pattern will likely continue.
“Worse patient outcomes haven’t really been shown across the board,” he said. “And I think until that is shown, then they will continue to play an increasing role.”
For private equity, dropping ED docs is a “simple equation”
Private equity companies pool money from wealthy investors to buy their way into various industries, often slashing spending and seeking to flip businesses in 3 to 7 years. While this business model is a proven moneymaker on Wall Street, it raises concerns in health care, where critics worry the pressure to turn big profits will influence life-or-death decisions that were once left solely to medical professionals.
Nearly $1 trillion in private equity funds have gone into almost 8,000 health care transactions over the past decade, according to industry tracker PitchBook, including buying into medical staffing companies that many hospitals hire to manage their emergency departments.
Two firms dominate the ED staffing industry: TeamHealth, bought by private equity firm Blackstone in 2016, and Envision Healthcare, bought by KKR in 2018. Trying to undercut these staffing giants is American Physician Partners, a rapidly expanding company that runs EDs in at least 17 states and is 50% owned by private equity firm BBH Capital Partners.
These staffing companies have been among the most aggressive in replacing doctors to cut costs, said Robert McNamara, MD, a founder of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.
“It’s a relatively simple equation,” Dr. McNamara said. “Their No. 1 expense is the board-certified emergency physician. So they are going to want to keep that expense as low as possible.”
Not everyone sees the trend of private equity in ED staffing in a negative light. Jennifer Orozco, president of the American Academy of Physician Associates, which represents physician assistants, said even if the change – to use more nonphysician providers – is driven by the staffing firms’ desire to make more money, patients are still well served by a team approach that includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
“Though I see that shift, it’s not about profits at the end of the day,” Ms. Orozco said. “It’s about the patient.”
The “shift” is nearly invisible to patients because hospitals rarely promote branding from their ED staffing firms and there is little public documentation of private equity investments.
Arthur Smolensky, MD, a Tennessee emergency medicine specialist attempting to measure private equity’s intrusion into EDs, said his review of hospital job postings and employment contracts in 14 major metropolitan areas found that 43% of ED patients were seen in EDs staffed by companies with nonphysician owners, nearly all of whom are private equity investors.
Dr. Smolensky hopes to publish his full study, expanding to 55 metro areas, later this year. But this research will merely quantify what many doctors already know: The ED has changed. Demoralized by an increased focus on profit, and wary of a looming surplus of emergency medicine residents because there are fewer jobs to fill, many experienced doctors are leaving the ED on their own, he said.
“Most of us didn’t go into medicine to supervise an army of people that are not as well trained as we are,” Dr. Smolensky said. “We want to take care of patients.”
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER”
Joshua Allen, a nurse practitioner at a small Kentucky hospital, snaked a rubber hose through a rack of pork ribs to practice inserting a chest tube to fix a collapsed lung.
It was 2020, and American Physician Partners was restructuring the ED where Mr. Allen worked, reducing shifts from two doctors to one. Once Mr. Allen had placed 10 tubes under a doctor’s supervision, he would be allowed to do it on his own.
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER,” he said. “If we do have a major trauma and multiple victims come in, there’s only one doctor there. ... We need to be prepared.”
Mr. Allen is one of many midlevel practitioners finding work in emergency departments. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are among the fastest-growing occupations in the nation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Generally, they have master’s degrees and receive several years of specialized schooling but have significantly less training than doctors. Many are permitted to diagnose patients and prescribe medication with little or no supervision from a doctor, although limitations vary by state.
The Neiman Institute found that the share of ED visits in which a midlevel practitioner was the main clinician increased by more than 172% between 2005 and 2020. Another study, in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, reported that if trends continue there may be equal numbers of midlevel practitioners and doctors in EDs by 2030.
There is little mystery as to why. Federal data shows emergency medicine doctors are paid about $310,000 a year on average, while nurse practitioners and physician assistants earn less than $120,000. Generally, hospitals can bill for care by a midlevel practitioner at 85% the rate of a doctor while paying them less than half as much.
Private equity can make millions in the gap.
For example, Envision once encouraged EDs to employ “the least expensive resource” and treat up to 35% of patients with midlevel practitioners, according to a 2017 PowerPoint presentation. The presentation drew scorn on social media and disappeared from Envision’s website.
Envision declined a request for a phone interview. In a written statement to KHN, spokesperson Aliese Polk said the company does not direct its physician leaders on how to care for patients and called the presentation a “concept guide” that does not represent current views.
American Physician Partners touted roughly the same staffing strategy in 2021 in response to the No Surprises Act, which threatened the company’s profits by outlawing surprise medical bills. In its confidential pitch to lenders, the company estimated it could cut almost $6 million by shifting more staffing from physicians to midlevel practitioners.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
She didn’t know much about miscarriage, but this seemed like one.
In the emergency department, she was examined then sent home, she said. She went back when her cramping became excruciating. Then home again. It ultimately took three trips to the ED on 3 consecutive days, generating three separate bills, before she saw a doctor who looked at her blood work and confirmed her fears.
“At the time I wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, I need to see a doctor,’ ” Ms. Valle recalled. “But when you think about it, it’s like, ‘Well, dang – why didn’t I see a doctor?’ ” It’s unclear whether the repeat visits were due to delays in seeing a physician, but the experience worried her. And she’s still paying the bills.
The hospital declined to discuss Ms. Valle’s care, citing patient privacy. But 17 months before her 3-day ordeal, Tennova had outsourced its emergency departments to American Physician Partners, a medical staffing company owned by private equity investors. APP employs fewer doctors in its EDs as one of its cost-saving initiatives to increase earnings, according to a confidential company document obtained by KHN and NPR.
This staffing strategy has permeated hospitals, and particularly emergency departments, that seek to reduce their top expense: physician labor. While diagnosing and treating patients was once their domain, doctors are increasingly being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as “midlevel practitioners,” who can perform many of the same duties and generate much of the same revenue for less than half of the pay.
“APP has numerous cost saving initiatives underway as part of the Company’s continual focus on cost optimization,” the document says, including a “shift of staffing” between doctors and midlevel practitioners.
In a statement to KHN, American Physician Partners said this strategy is a way to ensure all EDs remain fully staffed, calling it a “blended model” that allows doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants “to provide care to their fullest potential.”
Critics of this strategy say the quest to save money results in treatment meted out by someone with far less training than a physician, leaving patients vulnerable to misdiagnoses, higher medical bills, and inadequate care. And these fears are bolstered by evidence that suggests dropping doctors from EDs may not be good for patients.
A working paper, published in October by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed roughly 1.1 million visits to 44 EDs throughout the Veterans Health Administration, where nurse practitioners can treat patients without oversight from doctors.
Researchers found that treatment by a nurse practitioner resulted on average in a 7% increase in cost of care and an 11% increase in length of stay, extending patients’ time in the ED by minutes for minor visits and hours for longer ones. These gaps widened among patients with more severe diagnoses, the study said, but could be somewhat mitigated by nurse practitioners with more experience.
The study also found that ED patients treated by a nurse practitioner were 20% more likely to be readmitted to the hospital for a preventable reason within 30 days, although the overall risk of readmission remained very small.
Yiqun Chen, PhD, who is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago and coauthored the study, said these findings are not an indictment of nurse practitioners in the ED. Instead, she said, she hopes the study will guide how to best deploy nurse practitioners: in treatment of simpler patients or circumstances when no doctor is available.
“It’s not just a simple question of if we can substitute physicians with nurse practitioners or not,” Dr. Chen said. “It depends on how we use them. If we just use them as independent providers, especially ... for relatively complicated patients, it doesn’t seem to be a very good use.”
Dr. Chen’s research echoes smaller studies, like one from The Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute that found nonphysician practitioners in EDs were associated with a 5.3% increase in imaging, which could unnecessarily increase bills for patients. Separately, a study at the Hattiesburg Clinic in Mississippi found that midlevel practitioners in primary care – not in the emergency department – increased the out-of-pocket costs to patients while also leading to worse performance on 9 of 10 quality-of-care metrics, including cancer screenings and vaccination rates.
But definitive evidence remains elusive that replacing ER doctors with nonphysicians has a negative impact on patients, said Cameron Gettel, MD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Private equity investment and the use of midlevel practitioners rose in lockstep in the ED, Dr. Gettel said, and in the absence of game-changing research, the pattern will likely continue.
“Worse patient outcomes haven’t really been shown across the board,” he said. “And I think until that is shown, then they will continue to play an increasing role.”
For private equity, dropping ED docs is a “simple equation”
Private equity companies pool money from wealthy investors to buy their way into various industries, often slashing spending and seeking to flip businesses in 3 to 7 years. While this business model is a proven moneymaker on Wall Street, it raises concerns in health care, where critics worry the pressure to turn big profits will influence life-or-death decisions that were once left solely to medical professionals.
Nearly $1 trillion in private equity funds have gone into almost 8,000 health care transactions over the past decade, according to industry tracker PitchBook, including buying into medical staffing companies that many hospitals hire to manage their emergency departments.
Two firms dominate the ED staffing industry: TeamHealth, bought by private equity firm Blackstone in 2016, and Envision Healthcare, bought by KKR in 2018. Trying to undercut these staffing giants is American Physician Partners, a rapidly expanding company that runs EDs in at least 17 states and is 50% owned by private equity firm BBH Capital Partners.
These staffing companies have been among the most aggressive in replacing doctors to cut costs, said Robert McNamara, MD, a founder of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.
“It’s a relatively simple equation,” Dr. McNamara said. “Their No. 1 expense is the board-certified emergency physician. So they are going to want to keep that expense as low as possible.”
Not everyone sees the trend of private equity in ED staffing in a negative light. Jennifer Orozco, president of the American Academy of Physician Associates, which represents physician assistants, said even if the change – to use more nonphysician providers – is driven by the staffing firms’ desire to make more money, patients are still well served by a team approach that includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
“Though I see that shift, it’s not about profits at the end of the day,” Ms. Orozco said. “It’s about the patient.”
The “shift” is nearly invisible to patients because hospitals rarely promote branding from their ED staffing firms and there is little public documentation of private equity investments.
Arthur Smolensky, MD, a Tennessee emergency medicine specialist attempting to measure private equity’s intrusion into EDs, said his review of hospital job postings and employment contracts in 14 major metropolitan areas found that 43% of ED patients were seen in EDs staffed by companies with nonphysician owners, nearly all of whom are private equity investors.
Dr. Smolensky hopes to publish his full study, expanding to 55 metro areas, later this year. But this research will merely quantify what many doctors already know: The ED has changed. Demoralized by an increased focus on profit, and wary of a looming surplus of emergency medicine residents because there are fewer jobs to fill, many experienced doctors are leaving the ED on their own, he said.
“Most of us didn’t go into medicine to supervise an army of people that are not as well trained as we are,” Dr. Smolensky said. “We want to take care of patients.”
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER”
Joshua Allen, a nurse practitioner at a small Kentucky hospital, snaked a rubber hose through a rack of pork ribs to practice inserting a chest tube to fix a collapsed lung.
It was 2020, and American Physician Partners was restructuring the ED where Mr. Allen worked, reducing shifts from two doctors to one. Once Mr. Allen had placed 10 tubes under a doctor’s supervision, he would be allowed to do it on his own.
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER,” he said. “If we do have a major trauma and multiple victims come in, there’s only one doctor there. ... We need to be prepared.”
Mr. Allen is one of many midlevel practitioners finding work in emergency departments. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are among the fastest-growing occupations in the nation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Generally, they have master’s degrees and receive several years of specialized schooling but have significantly less training than doctors. Many are permitted to diagnose patients and prescribe medication with little or no supervision from a doctor, although limitations vary by state.
The Neiman Institute found that the share of ED visits in which a midlevel practitioner was the main clinician increased by more than 172% between 2005 and 2020. Another study, in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, reported that if trends continue there may be equal numbers of midlevel practitioners and doctors in EDs by 2030.
There is little mystery as to why. Federal data shows emergency medicine doctors are paid about $310,000 a year on average, while nurse practitioners and physician assistants earn less than $120,000. Generally, hospitals can bill for care by a midlevel practitioner at 85% the rate of a doctor while paying them less than half as much.
Private equity can make millions in the gap.
For example, Envision once encouraged EDs to employ “the least expensive resource” and treat up to 35% of patients with midlevel practitioners, according to a 2017 PowerPoint presentation. The presentation drew scorn on social media and disappeared from Envision’s website.
Envision declined a request for a phone interview. In a written statement to KHN, spokesperson Aliese Polk said the company does not direct its physician leaders on how to care for patients and called the presentation a “concept guide” that does not represent current views.
American Physician Partners touted roughly the same staffing strategy in 2021 in response to the No Surprises Act, which threatened the company’s profits by outlawing surprise medical bills. In its confidential pitch to lenders, the company estimated it could cut almost $6 million by shifting more staffing from physicians to midlevel practitioners.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Scientists create ‘vagina on a chip’: What to know
For years, women’s health advocates have argued that far more research is needed on women’s bodies and health. The world’s first-ever “vagina on a chip,” recently developed at Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering in Boston, could go a long way to making that happen.
“Women’s health has not received the attention it deserves,” says Don Ingber, MD, PhD, who led the team that created the vagina chip. The advance quickly drew media attention after it was reported in the journal Microbiome. But researchers hope for more than headlines. They see the chip as a way to facilitate vaginal health research and open the door to vital new treatments.
By now, you may have heard of “organs on chips”: tiny devices about the size of a flash drive that are designed to mimic the biological activity of human organs. These glass chips contain living human cells within grooves that allow the passage of fluid, to either maintain or disrupt the cells’ function. So far, Dr. Ingber and his team at the Wyss Institute have developed more than 15 organ chip models, including chips that mimic the lung, intestine, kidney, and bone marrow.
The idea to develop a vagina chip grew out of research, funded by the Gates Foundation, on a childhood disease called environmental enteric dysfunction, an intestinal disease most commonly found in low-resource nations that is the second leading cause of death in children under 5. That’s when Dr. Ingber discovered just how much the child’s microbiome influences this disease.
Stemming from that work, the Gates Foundation turned its attention to newborn health – in particular, the impact of bacterial vaginosis, an imbalance in the vagina’s bacterial makeup. Bacterial vaginosis occurs in one out of four women worldwide and has been linked to premature birth as well as HIV, HPV persistence, and cervical cancer.
The goal was to test “live biotherapeutic products,” or living microbes like probiotics, that might restore the vagina’s microbiome to health.
No other preclinical model exists to perform tests like that, says Dr. Ingber.
“The vagina chip is a way to help make some advances,” he says.
The Gates Foundation recognized that women’s reproductive health is a major issue, not only in low-income nations, but everywhere around the world. As the project evolved, Dr. Ingber began to hear from female colleagues about how neglected women’s reproductive health is in medical science.
“It is something I became sensitive to and realized this is just the starting point,” Dr. Ingber says.
Take bacterial vaginosis, for example. Since 1982, treatment has revolved around the same two antibiotics. That’s partly because there is no animal model to study. No other species has the same vaginal bacterial community as humans do.
That makes developing any new therapy “incredibly challenging,” explains Caroline Mitchell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a member of the consortium.
It turns out, replicating the vagina in a lab dish is, to use the technical term, very hard.
“That’s where a vagina chip offers an opportunity,” Dr. Mitchell says. “It’s not super-high throughput, but it’s way more high throughput than a [human] clinical trial.”
As such, the vagina chip could help scientists find new treatments much faster.
Like Dr. Ingber, Dr. Mitchell also sees the chip as a way to bring more attention to the largely unmet needs in female reproductive medicine.
“Women’s reproductive health has been under-resourced, under-prioritized, and largely disregarded for decades,” she says. And the time may be ripe for change: Dr. Mitchell says she was encouraged by the National Institutes of Health’s Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference, held in 2021 in response to a congressional request to address women’s health research efforts.
Beyond bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Mitchell imagines the chip could help scientists find new treatments for vaginal yeast infection (candidiasis), chlamydia, and endometriosis. As with bacterial vaginosis, medicines for vaginal yeast infections have not advanced in decades, Dr. Mitchell says. Efforts to develop a vaccine for chlamydia – which can cause permanent damage to a woman’s reproductive system – have dragged on for many years. And endometriosis, an often painful condition in which the tissue that makes up the uterine lining grows outside the uterus, remains under-researched despite affecting 10% of childbearing-age women.
While some mouse models are used in chlamydia research, it’s hard to say if they’ll translate to humans, given the vaginal and cervical bacterial differences.
“Our understanding of the basic physiology of the environment of the vagina and cervix is another area where we’re woefully ignorant,” Dr. Mitchell says.
To that end, Dr. Ingber’s team is developing more complex chips mimicking the vagina and the cervix. One of his team members wants to use the chips to study infertility. The researchers have already used the chips to see how bacterial vaginosis and mucous changes impact the way sperm migrates up the reproductive tract.
The lab is now linking vagina and cervix chips together to study viral infections of the cervix, like HPV, and all types of bacterial diseases of the vaginal tract. By applying cervical mucus to the vagina chip, they hope to learn more about how female reproductive tissues respond to infection and inflammation.
“I always say that organ chips are like synthetic biology at the cell tissue and organ level,” says Dr. Ingber. “You start simple and see if you [can] mimic a clinical situation.”
As they make the chips more complex – perhaps by adding blood vessel cells and female hormones – Dr. Ingber foresees being able to study the response to hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle.
“We can begin to explore the effects of cycling over time as well as other types of hormonal effects,” he says.
Dr. Ingber also envisions linking the vagina chip to other organ chips – he’s already succeeded in linking eight different organ types together. But for now, the team hopes the vagina chip will enhance our understanding of basic female reproductive biology and speed up the process of developing new treatments for women’s health.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
For years, women’s health advocates have argued that far more research is needed on women’s bodies and health. The world’s first-ever “vagina on a chip,” recently developed at Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering in Boston, could go a long way to making that happen.
“Women’s health has not received the attention it deserves,” says Don Ingber, MD, PhD, who led the team that created the vagina chip. The advance quickly drew media attention after it was reported in the journal Microbiome. But researchers hope for more than headlines. They see the chip as a way to facilitate vaginal health research and open the door to vital new treatments.
By now, you may have heard of “organs on chips”: tiny devices about the size of a flash drive that are designed to mimic the biological activity of human organs. These glass chips contain living human cells within grooves that allow the passage of fluid, to either maintain or disrupt the cells’ function. So far, Dr. Ingber and his team at the Wyss Institute have developed more than 15 organ chip models, including chips that mimic the lung, intestine, kidney, and bone marrow.
The idea to develop a vagina chip grew out of research, funded by the Gates Foundation, on a childhood disease called environmental enteric dysfunction, an intestinal disease most commonly found in low-resource nations that is the second leading cause of death in children under 5. That’s when Dr. Ingber discovered just how much the child’s microbiome influences this disease.
Stemming from that work, the Gates Foundation turned its attention to newborn health – in particular, the impact of bacterial vaginosis, an imbalance in the vagina’s bacterial makeup. Bacterial vaginosis occurs in one out of four women worldwide and has been linked to premature birth as well as HIV, HPV persistence, and cervical cancer.
The goal was to test “live biotherapeutic products,” or living microbes like probiotics, that might restore the vagina’s microbiome to health.
No other preclinical model exists to perform tests like that, says Dr. Ingber.
“The vagina chip is a way to help make some advances,” he says.
The Gates Foundation recognized that women’s reproductive health is a major issue, not only in low-income nations, but everywhere around the world. As the project evolved, Dr. Ingber began to hear from female colleagues about how neglected women’s reproductive health is in medical science.
“It is something I became sensitive to and realized this is just the starting point,” Dr. Ingber says.
Take bacterial vaginosis, for example. Since 1982, treatment has revolved around the same two antibiotics. That’s partly because there is no animal model to study. No other species has the same vaginal bacterial community as humans do.
That makes developing any new therapy “incredibly challenging,” explains Caroline Mitchell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a member of the consortium.
It turns out, replicating the vagina in a lab dish is, to use the technical term, very hard.
“That’s where a vagina chip offers an opportunity,” Dr. Mitchell says. “It’s not super-high throughput, but it’s way more high throughput than a [human] clinical trial.”
As such, the vagina chip could help scientists find new treatments much faster.
Like Dr. Ingber, Dr. Mitchell also sees the chip as a way to bring more attention to the largely unmet needs in female reproductive medicine.
“Women’s reproductive health has been under-resourced, under-prioritized, and largely disregarded for decades,” she says. And the time may be ripe for change: Dr. Mitchell says she was encouraged by the National Institutes of Health’s Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference, held in 2021 in response to a congressional request to address women’s health research efforts.
Beyond bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Mitchell imagines the chip could help scientists find new treatments for vaginal yeast infection (candidiasis), chlamydia, and endometriosis. As with bacterial vaginosis, medicines for vaginal yeast infections have not advanced in decades, Dr. Mitchell says. Efforts to develop a vaccine for chlamydia – which can cause permanent damage to a woman’s reproductive system – have dragged on for many years. And endometriosis, an often painful condition in which the tissue that makes up the uterine lining grows outside the uterus, remains under-researched despite affecting 10% of childbearing-age women.
While some mouse models are used in chlamydia research, it’s hard to say if they’ll translate to humans, given the vaginal and cervical bacterial differences.
“Our understanding of the basic physiology of the environment of the vagina and cervix is another area where we’re woefully ignorant,” Dr. Mitchell says.
To that end, Dr. Ingber’s team is developing more complex chips mimicking the vagina and the cervix. One of his team members wants to use the chips to study infertility. The researchers have already used the chips to see how bacterial vaginosis and mucous changes impact the way sperm migrates up the reproductive tract.
The lab is now linking vagina and cervix chips together to study viral infections of the cervix, like HPV, and all types of bacterial diseases of the vaginal tract. By applying cervical mucus to the vagina chip, they hope to learn more about how female reproductive tissues respond to infection and inflammation.
“I always say that organ chips are like synthetic biology at the cell tissue and organ level,” says Dr. Ingber. “You start simple and see if you [can] mimic a clinical situation.”
As they make the chips more complex – perhaps by adding blood vessel cells and female hormones – Dr. Ingber foresees being able to study the response to hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle.
“We can begin to explore the effects of cycling over time as well as other types of hormonal effects,” he says.
Dr. Ingber also envisions linking the vagina chip to other organ chips – he’s already succeeded in linking eight different organ types together. But for now, the team hopes the vagina chip will enhance our understanding of basic female reproductive biology and speed up the process of developing new treatments for women’s health.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
For years, women’s health advocates have argued that far more research is needed on women’s bodies and health. The world’s first-ever “vagina on a chip,” recently developed at Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering in Boston, could go a long way to making that happen.
“Women’s health has not received the attention it deserves,” says Don Ingber, MD, PhD, who led the team that created the vagina chip. The advance quickly drew media attention after it was reported in the journal Microbiome. But researchers hope for more than headlines. They see the chip as a way to facilitate vaginal health research and open the door to vital new treatments.
By now, you may have heard of “organs on chips”: tiny devices about the size of a flash drive that are designed to mimic the biological activity of human organs. These glass chips contain living human cells within grooves that allow the passage of fluid, to either maintain or disrupt the cells’ function. So far, Dr. Ingber and his team at the Wyss Institute have developed more than 15 organ chip models, including chips that mimic the lung, intestine, kidney, and bone marrow.
The idea to develop a vagina chip grew out of research, funded by the Gates Foundation, on a childhood disease called environmental enteric dysfunction, an intestinal disease most commonly found in low-resource nations that is the second leading cause of death in children under 5. That’s when Dr. Ingber discovered just how much the child’s microbiome influences this disease.
Stemming from that work, the Gates Foundation turned its attention to newborn health – in particular, the impact of bacterial vaginosis, an imbalance in the vagina’s bacterial makeup. Bacterial vaginosis occurs in one out of four women worldwide and has been linked to premature birth as well as HIV, HPV persistence, and cervical cancer.
The goal was to test “live biotherapeutic products,” or living microbes like probiotics, that might restore the vagina’s microbiome to health.
No other preclinical model exists to perform tests like that, says Dr. Ingber.
“The vagina chip is a way to help make some advances,” he says.
The Gates Foundation recognized that women’s reproductive health is a major issue, not only in low-income nations, but everywhere around the world. As the project evolved, Dr. Ingber began to hear from female colleagues about how neglected women’s reproductive health is in medical science.
“It is something I became sensitive to and realized this is just the starting point,” Dr. Ingber says.
Take bacterial vaginosis, for example. Since 1982, treatment has revolved around the same two antibiotics. That’s partly because there is no animal model to study. No other species has the same vaginal bacterial community as humans do.
That makes developing any new therapy “incredibly challenging,” explains Caroline Mitchell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a member of the consortium.
It turns out, replicating the vagina in a lab dish is, to use the technical term, very hard.
“That’s where a vagina chip offers an opportunity,” Dr. Mitchell says. “It’s not super-high throughput, but it’s way more high throughput than a [human] clinical trial.”
As such, the vagina chip could help scientists find new treatments much faster.
Like Dr. Ingber, Dr. Mitchell also sees the chip as a way to bring more attention to the largely unmet needs in female reproductive medicine.
“Women’s reproductive health has been under-resourced, under-prioritized, and largely disregarded for decades,” she says. And the time may be ripe for change: Dr. Mitchell says she was encouraged by the National Institutes of Health’s Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference, held in 2021 in response to a congressional request to address women’s health research efforts.
Beyond bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Mitchell imagines the chip could help scientists find new treatments for vaginal yeast infection (candidiasis), chlamydia, and endometriosis. As with bacterial vaginosis, medicines for vaginal yeast infections have not advanced in decades, Dr. Mitchell says. Efforts to develop a vaccine for chlamydia – which can cause permanent damage to a woman’s reproductive system – have dragged on for many years. And endometriosis, an often painful condition in which the tissue that makes up the uterine lining grows outside the uterus, remains under-researched despite affecting 10% of childbearing-age women.
While some mouse models are used in chlamydia research, it’s hard to say if they’ll translate to humans, given the vaginal and cervical bacterial differences.
“Our understanding of the basic physiology of the environment of the vagina and cervix is another area where we’re woefully ignorant,” Dr. Mitchell says.
To that end, Dr. Ingber’s team is developing more complex chips mimicking the vagina and the cervix. One of his team members wants to use the chips to study infertility. The researchers have already used the chips to see how bacterial vaginosis and mucous changes impact the way sperm migrates up the reproductive tract.
The lab is now linking vagina and cervix chips together to study viral infections of the cervix, like HPV, and all types of bacterial diseases of the vaginal tract. By applying cervical mucus to the vagina chip, they hope to learn more about how female reproductive tissues respond to infection and inflammation.
“I always say that organ chips are like synthetic biology at the cell tissue and organ level,” says Dr. Ingber. “You start simple and see if you [can] mimic a clinical situation.”
As they make the chips more complex – perhaps by adding blood vessel cells and female hormones – Dr. Ingber foresees being able to study the response to hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle.
“We can begin to explore the effects of cycling over time as well as other types of hormonal effects,” he says.
Dr. Ingber also envisions linking the vagina chip to other organ chips – he’s already succeeded in linking eight different organ types together. But for now, the team hopes the vagina chip will enhance our understanding of basic female reproductive biology and speed up the process of developing new treatments for women’s health.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM MICROBIOME
Three wild technologies about to change health care
When I was a child, I watched syndicated episodes of the original “Star Trek.” I was dazzled by the space travel, sure, but also the medical technology.
A handheld “tricorder” detected diseases, while an intramuscular injector (“hypospray”) could treat them. Sickbay “biobeds” came with real-time health monitors that looked futuristic at the time but seem primitive today.
Such visions inspired a lot of us kids to pursue science. Little did we know the real-life advances many of us would see in our lifetimes.
Artificial intelligence helping to spot disease, robots performing surgery, even video calls between doctor and patient – all these once sounded fantastical but now happen in clinical care.
Now, in the 23rd year of the 21st century, you might not believe wht we’ll be capable of next. Three especially wild examples are moving closer to clinical reality.
Human hibernation
Captain America, Han Solo, and “Star Trek” villain Khan – all were preserved at low temperatures and then revived, waking up alive and well months, decades, or centuries later. These are fictional examples, to be sure, but the science they’re rooted in is real.
(In one extreme case, a climber survived after almost 9 hours of efforts to revive him.)
Useful for a space traveler? Maybe not. But it’s potentially huge for someone with life-threatening injuries from a car accident or a gunshot wound.
That’s the thinking behind a breakthrough procedure that came after decades of research on pigs and dogs, now in a clinical trial. The idea: A person with massive blood loss whose heart has stopped is injected with an ice-cold fluid, cooling them from the inside, down to about 50° F.
Doctors already induce more modest hypothermia to protect the brain and other organs after cardiac arrest and during surgery on the aortic arch (the main artery carrying blood from the heart).
But this experimental procedure – called emergency preservation and resuscitation (EPR) – goes far beyond that, dramatically “decreasing the body’s need for oxygen and blood flow,” says Samuel Tisherman, MD, a trauma surgeon at the University of Maryland Medical Center and the trial’s lead researcher. This puts the patient in a state of suspended animation that “could buy time for surgeons to stop the bleeding and save more of these patients.”
The technique has been done on at least six patients, though none were reported to survive. The trial is expected to include 20 people by the time it wraps up in December, according to the listing on the U.S. clinical trials database. Though given the strict requirements for candidates (emergency trauma victims who are not likely to survive), one can’t exactly rely on a set schedule.
Still, the technology is promising. Someday we may even use it to keep patients in suspended animation for months or years, experts predict, helping astronauts through decades-long spaceflights, or stalling death in sick patients awaiting a cure.
Artificial womb
Another sci-fi classic: growing human babies outside the womb. Think the fetus fields from “The Matrix,” or the frozen embryos in “Alien: Covenant.”
In 1923, British biologist J.B.S. Haldane coined a term for that – ectogenesis. He predicted that 70% of pregnancies would take place, from fertilization to birth, in artificial wombs by 2074. That many seems unlikely, but the timeline is on track.
Developing an embryo outside the womb is already routine in in vitro fertilization. And technology enables preterm babies to survive through much of the second half of gestation. Normal human pregnancy is 40 weeks, and the youngest preterm baby ever to survive was 21 weeks and 1 day old, just a few days younger than a smattering of others who lived.
The biggest obstacle for babies younger than that is lung viability. Mechanical ventilation can damage the lungs and lead to a chronic (sometimes fatal) lung disease known as bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Avoiding this would mean figuring out a way to maintain fetal circulation – the intricate system that delivers oxygenated blood from the placenta to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Researchers at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia have done this using a fetal lamb.
The key to their invention is a substitute placenta: an oxygenator connected to the lamb’s umbilical cord. Tubes inserted through the umbilical vein and arteries carry oxygenated blood from the “placenta” to the fetus, and deoxygenated blood back out. The lamb resides in an artificial, fluid-filled amniotic sac until its lungs and other organs are developed.
Fertility treatment could benefit, too. “An artificial womb may substitute in situations in which a gestational carrier – surrogate – is indicated,” says Paula Amato, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. (Dr. Amato is not involved in the CHOP research.) For example: when the mother is missing a uterus or can’t carry a pregnancy safely.
No date is set for clinical trials yet. But according to the research, the main difference between human and lamb may come down to size. A lamb’s umbilical vessels are larger, so feeding in a tube is easier. With today’s advances in miniaturizing surgical methods, that seems like a challenge scientists can overcome.
Messenger RNA therapeutics
Back to “Star Trek.” The hypospray injector’s contents could cure just about any disease, even one newly discovered on a strange planet. That’s not unlike messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, a breakthrough that enabled scientists to quickly develop some of the first COVID-19 vaccines.
But vaccines are just the beginning of what this technology can do.
A whole field of immunotherapy is emerging that uses mRNA to deliver instructions to produce chimeric antigen receptor–modified immune cells (CAR-modified immune cells). These cells are engineered to target diseased cells and tissues, like cancer cells and harmful fibroblasts (scar tissue) that promote fibrosis in, for example, the heart and lungs.
The field is bursting with rodent research, and clinical trials have started for treating some advanced-stage malignancies.
Actual clinical use may be years away, but if all goes well, these medicines could help treat or even cure the core medical problems facing humanity. We’re talking cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative disease – transforming one therapy into another by simply changing the mRNA’s “nucleotide sequence,” the blueprint containing instructions telling it what to do, and what disease to attack.
As this technology matures, we may start to feel as if we’re really on “Star Trek,” where Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy pulls out the same device to treat just about every disease or injury.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
When I was a child, I watched syndicated episodes of the original “Star Trek.” I was dazzled by the space travel, sure, but also the medical technology.
A handheld “tricorder” detected diseases, while an intramuscular injector (“hypospray”) could treat them. Sickbay “biobeds” came with real-time health monitors that looked futuristic at the time but seem primitive today.
Such visions inspired a lot of us kids to pursue science. Little did we know the real-life advances many of us would see in our lifetimes.
Artificial intelligence helping to spot disease, robots performing surgery, even video calls between doctor and patient – all these once sounded fantastical but now happen in clinical care.
Now, in the 23rd year of the 21st century, you might not believe wht we’ll be capable of next. Three especially wild examples are moving closer to clinical reality.
Human hibernation
Captain America, Han Solo, and “Star Trek” villain Khan – all were preserved at low temperatures and then revived, waking up alive and well months, decades, or centuries later. These are fictional examples, to be sure, but the science they’re rooted in is real.
(In one extreme case, a climber survived after almost 9 hours of efforts to revive him.)
Useful for a space traveler? Maybe not. But it’s potentially huge for someone with life-threatening injuries from a car accident or a gunshot wound.
That’s the thinking behind a breakthrough procedure that came after decades of research on pigs and dogs, now in a clinical trial. The idea: A person with massive blood loss whose heart has stopped is injected with an ice-cold fluid, cooling them from the inside, down to about 50° F.
Doctors already induce more modest hypothermia to protect the brain and other organs after cardiac arrest and during surgery on the aortic arch (the main artery carrying blood from the heart).
But this experimental procedure – called emergency preservation and resuscitation (EPR) – goes far beyond that, dramatically “decreasing the body’s need for oxygen and blood flow,” says Samuel Tisherman, MD, a trauma surgeon at the University of Maryland Medical Center and the trial’s lead researcher. This puts the patient in a state of suspended animation that “could buy time for surgeons to stop the bleeding and save more of these patients.”
The technique has been done on at least six patients, though none were reported to survive. The trial is expected to include 20 people by the time it wraps up in December, according to the listing on the U.S. clinical trials database. Though given the strict requirements for candidates (emergency trauma victims who are not likely to survive), one can’t exactly rely on a set schedule.
Still, the technology is promising. Someday we may even use it to keep patients in suspended animation for months or years, experts predict, helping astronauts through decades-long spaceflights, or stalling death in sick patients awaiting a cure.
Artificial womb
Another sci-fi classic: growing human babies outside the womb. Think the fetus fields from “The Matrix,” or the frozen embryos in “Alien: Covenant.”
In 1923, British biologist J.B.S. Haldane coined a term for that – ectogenesis. He predicted that 70% of pregnancies would take place, from fertilization to birth, in artificial wombs by 2074. That many seems unlikely, but the timeline is on track.
Developing an embryo outside the womb is already routine in in vitro fertilization. And technology enables preterm babies to survive through much of the second half of gestation. Normal human pregnancy is 40 weeks, and the youngest preterm baby ever to survive was 21 weeks and 1 day old, just a few days younger than a smattering of others who lived.
The biggest obstacle for babies younger than that is lung viability. Mechanical ventilation can damage the lungs and lead to a chronic (sometimes fatal) lung disease known as bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Avoiding this would mean figuring out a way to maintain fetal circulation – the intricate system that delivers oxygenated blood from the placenta to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Researchers at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia have done this using a fetal lamb.
The key to their invention is a substitute placenta: an oxygenator connected to the lamb’s umbilical cord. Tubes inserted through the umbilical vein and arteries carry oxygenated blood from the “placenta” to the fetus, and deoxygenated blood back out. The lamb resides in an artificial, fluid-filled amniotic sac until its lungs and other organs are developed.
Fertility treatment could benefit, too. “An artificial womb may substitute in situations in which a gestational carrier – surrogate – is indicated,” says Paula Amato, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. (Dr. Amato is not involved in the CHOP research.) For example: when the mother is missing a uterus or can’t carry a pregnancy safely.
No date is set for clinical trials yet. But according to the research, the main difference between human and lamb may come down to size. A lamb’s umbilical vessels are larger, so feeding in a tube is easier. With today’s advances in miniaturizing surgical methods, that seems like a challenge scientists can overcome.
Messenger RNA therapeutics
Back to “Star Trek.” The hypospray injector’s contents could cure just about any disease, even one newly discovered on a strange planet. That’s not unlike messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, a breakthrough that enabled scientists to quickly develop some of the first COVID-19 vaccines.
But vaccines are just the beginning of what this technology can do.
A whole field of immunotherapy is emerging that uses mRNA to deliver instructions to produce chimeric antigen receptor–modified immune cells (CAR-modified immune cells). These cells are engineered to target diseased cells and tissues, like cancer cells and harmful fibroblasts (scar tissue) that promote fibrosis in, for example, the heart and lungs.
The field is bursting with rodent research, and clinical trials have started for treating some advanced-stage malignancies.
Actual clinical use may be years away, but if all goes well, these medicines could help treat or even cure the core medical problems facing humanity. We’re talking cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative disease – transforming one therapy into another by simply changing the mRNA’s “nucleotide sequence,” the blueprint containing instructions telling it what to do, and what disease to attack.
As this technology matures, we may start to feel as if we’re really on “Star Trek,” where Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy pulls out the same device to treat just about every disease or injury.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
When I was a child, I watched syndicated episodes of the original “Star Trek.” I was dazzled by the space travel, sure, but also the medical technology.
A handheld “tricorder” detected diseases, while an intramuscular injector (“hypospray”) could treat them. Sickbay “biobeds” came with real-time health monitors that looked futuristic at the time but seem primitive today.
Such visions inspired a lot of us kids to pursue science. Little did we know the real-life advances many of us would see in our lifetimes.
Artificial intelligence helping to spot disease, robots performing surgery, even video calls between doctor and patient – all these once sounded fantastical but now happen in clinical care.
Now, in the 23rd year of the 21st century, you might not believe wht we’ll be capable of next. Three especially wild examples are moving closer to clinical reality.
Human hibernation
Captain America, Han Solo, and “Star Trek” villain Khan – all were preserved at low temperatures and then revived, waking up alive and well months, decades, or centuries later. These are fictional examples, to be sure, but the science they’re rooted in is real.
(In one extreme case, a climber survived after almost 9 hours of efforts to revive him.)
Useful for a space traveler? Maybe not. But it’s potentially huge for someone with life-threatening injuries from a car accident or a gunshot wound.
That’s the thinking behind a breakthrough procedure that came after decades of research on pigs and dogs, now in a clinical trial. The idea: A person with massive blood loss whose heart has stopped is injected with an ice-cold fluid, cooling them from the inside, down to about 50° F.
Doctors already induce more modest hypothermia to protect the brain and other organs after cardiac arrest and during surgery on the aortic arch (the main artery carrying blood from the heart).
But this experimental procedure – called emergency preservation and resuscitation (EPR) – goes far beyond that, dramatically “decreasing the body’s need for oxygen and blood flow,” says Samuel Tisherman, MD, a trauma surgeon at the University of Maryland Medical Center and the trial’s lead researcher. This puts the patient in a state of suspended animation that “could buy time for surgeons to stop the bleeding and save more of these patients.”
The technique has been done on at least six patients, though none were reported to survive. The trial is expected to include 20 people by the time it wraps up in December, according to the listing on the U.S. clinical trials database. Though given the strict requirements for candidates (emergency trauma victims who are not likely to survive), one can’t exactly rely on a set schedule.
Still, the technology is promising. Someday we may even use it to keep patients in suspended animation for months or years, experts predict, helping astronauts through decades-long spaceflights, or stalling death in sick patients awaiting a cure.
Artificial womb
Another sci-fi classic: growing human babies outside the womb. Think the fetus fields from “The Matrix,” or the frozen embryos in “Alien: Covenant.”
In 1923, British biologist J.B.S. Haldane coined a term for that – ectogenesis. He predicted that 70% of pregnancies would take place, from fertilization to birth, in artificial wombs by 2074. That many seems unlikely, but the timeline is on track.
Developing an embryo outside the womb is already routine in in vitro fertilization. And technology enables preterm babies to survive through much of the second half of gestation. Normal human pregnancy is 40 weeks, and the youngest preterm baby ever to survive was 21 weeks and 1 day old, just a few days younger than a smattering of others who lived.
The biggest obstacle for babies younger than that is lung viability. Mechanical ventilation can damage the lungs and lead to a chronic (sometimes fatal) lung disease known as bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Avoiding this would mean figuring out a way to maintain fetal circulation – the intricate system that delivers oxygenated blood from the placenta to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Researchers at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia have done this using a fetal lamb.
The key to their invention is a substitute placenta: an oxygenator connected to the lamb’s umbilical cord. Tubes inserted through the umbilical vein and arteries carry oxygenated blood from the “placenta” to the fetus, and deoxygenated blood back out. The lamb resides in an artificial, fluid-filled amniotic sac until its lungs and other organs are developed.
Fertility treatment could benefit, too. “An artificial womb may substitute in situations in which a gestational carrier – surrogate – is indicated,” says Paula Amato, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. (Dr. Amato is not involved in the CHOP research.) For example: when the mother is missing a uterus or can’t carry a pregnancy safely.
No date is set for clinical trials yet. But according to the research, the main difference between human and lamb may come down to size. A lamb’s umbilical vessels are larger, so feeding in a tube is easier. With today’s advances in miniaturizing surgical methods, that seems like a challenge scientists can overcome.
Messenger RNA therapeutics
Back to “Star Trek.” The hypospray injector’s contents could cure just about any disease, even one newly discovered on a strange planet. That’s not unlike messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, a breakthrough that enabled scientists to quickly develop some of the first COVID-19 vaccines.
But vaccines are just the beginning of what this technology can do.
A whole field of immunotherapy is emerging that uses mRNA to deliver instructions to produce chimeric antigen receptor–modified immune cells (CAR-modified immune cells). These cells are engineered to target diseased cells and tissues, like cancer cells and harmful fibroblasts (scar tissue) that promote fibrosis in, for example, the heart and lungs.
The field is bursting with rodent research, and clinical trials have started for treating some advanced-stage malignancies.
Actual clinical use may be years away, but if all goes well, these medicines could help treat or even cure the core medical problems facing humanity. We’re talking cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative disease – transforming one therapy into another by simply changing the mRNA’s “nucleotide sequence,” the blueprint containing instructions telling it what to do, and what disease to attack.
As this technology matures, we may start to feel as if we’re really on “Star Trek,” where Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy pulls out the same device to treat just about every disease or injury.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.