Women's Health

Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is an effective way to prevent HPV infection and cancers typically caused by HPV, including cervical cancer and head and neck cancers, new research showed.

The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.

“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”

Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.

HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.

Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).

“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.

“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.

Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.

“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”

Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.

The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is an effective way to prevent HPV infection and cancers typically caused by HPV, including cervical cancer and head and neck cancers, new research showed.

The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.

“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”

Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.

HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.

Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).

“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.

“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.

Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.

“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”

Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.

The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is an effective way to prevent HPV infection and cancers typically caused by HPV, including cervical cancer and head and neck cancers, new research showed.

The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.

“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”

Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.

HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.

Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).

“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.

“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.

Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.

“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”

Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.

The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

BOSTON — Nearly one in five breast cancer survivors will gain more than 10% of their body weight in the 6 years following their diagnosis, according to new research presented at ENDO 2024, the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Younger age and lower weight at diagnosis were the strongest predictors of this excessive weight gain over time. 

“Weight gain is a common concern after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment,” said Maria Daniela Hurtado Andrade, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, who led the research. “This weight gain in breast cancer survivor increases breast cancer recurrence and mortality, increases cardiovascular disease and mortality, and also increases all-cause mortality.”

Previous studies have found an association between breast cancer survivorship and weight gain, but the reported incidences of weight gain — and the amounts gained — have been highly variable, she added.

In the study, researchers used the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Registry to identify 4575 breast cancer survivors and tracked their weight over the course of 6 years following cancer diagnosis. These patients were age-matched to women in the general population selected from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which contains the medical records of residents of 27 counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin. All controls had no history of cancer or bariatric surgery.

Nearly all patients and controls were White (97%); at breast cancer diagnosis, patients were on average 58 years of age and weighed 76 kg (165.5 lb). Controls had similar ages and baseline weights.

At 6 years following breast cancer diagnosis, average weight gain was modest: Breast cancer survivors gained 1.6% of their body weight, compared with 0.7% in controls (P = .004).

However, 18% of breast cancer survivors had gained at least 10% of their body weight over that time. By comparison, 8% of controls experienced this excessive weight gain during that same time frame (P < .0001). The same trend was observed for 15% and 20% weight gain.

After adjustment for confounding factors, younger age at breast cancer diagnosis and lower baseline weight were the strongest predictors of more than 10% weight gain. BRCA2 mutation and use of systemic chemotherapy treatment were also associated with excessive weight gain.

Several factors could be driving weight gain in these patients, said Zeynep Madak-Erdogan, PhD, at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, who was not involved with the research. Her work focuses on how diet and nutrition affect hormone action in postmenopausal women and breast cancer survivors. Certain therapies can induce temporary or permanent menopause in patients, “and this early menopause might shift balance of estrogens and cause increased weight gain,” she said. Along the same lines, endocrine therapies can also affect estrogen production. 

Stress and exhaustion from treatment — especially compounded by the two previous factors — are also likely culprits in weight gain, she continued.

“These findings highlight importance of lifestyle interventions,” added Dr. Madak-Erdogan. “In addition to changes in the diet (increased vegetable, fruit, [and] whole grain intake; reduction in saturated fats, alcohol, [and] sweetened beverage consumption), survivors should be consulted on importance of regular exercise.”

“These data clearly show we must consider weight changes in breast cancer survivors, and we must find ways of instituting strategies to mitigate these weight gains,” Dr. Hurtado Andrade said. “These women have a lot to think of when they have a breast cancer diagnosis, so we also must find ways of instituting these measures in a way that doesn’t increase the burden of their health.”

Dr. Hurtado Andrade has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health and by Phenomix Sciences. She also is a consultant for Novo Nordisk. These three organizations were not involved with this study. Dr. Madak-Erdogan had no disclosures.

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

BOSTON — Nearly one in five breast cancer survivors will gain more than 10% of their body weight in the 6 years following their diagnosis, according to new research presented at ENDO 2024, the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Younger age and lower weight at diagnosis were the strongest predictors of this excessive weight gain over time. 

“Weight gain is a common concern after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment,” said Maria Daniela Hurtado Andrade, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, who led the research. “This weight gain in breast cancer survivor increases breast cancer recurrence and mortality, increases cardiovascular disease and mortality, and also increases all-cause mortality.”

Previous studies have found an association between breast cancer survivorship and weight gain, but the reported incidences of weight gain — and the amounts gained — have been highly variable, she added.

In the study, researchers used the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Registry to identify 4575 breast cancer survivors and tracked their weight over the course of 6 years following cancer diagnosis. These patients were age-matched to women in the general population selected from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which contains the medical records of residents of 27 counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin. All controls had no history of cancer or bariatric surgery.

Nearly all patients and controls were White (97%); at breast cancer diagnosis, patients were on average 58 years of age and weighed 76 kg (165.5 lb). Controls had similar ages and baseline weights.

At 6 years following breast cancer diagnosis, average weight gain was modest: Breast cancer survivors gained 1.6% of their body weight, compared with 0.7% in controls (P = .004).

However, 18% of breast cancer survivors had gained at least 10% of their body weight over that time. By comparison, 8% of controls experienced this excessive weight gain during that same time frame (P < .0001). The same trend was observed for 15% and 20% weight gain.

After adjustment for confounding factors, younger age at breast cancer diagnosis and lower baseline weight were the strongest predictors of more than 10% weight gain. BRCA2 mutation and use of systemic chemotherapy treatment were also associated with excessive weight gain.

Several factors could be driving weight gain in these patients, said Zeynep Madak-Erdogan, PhD, at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, who was not involved with the research. Her work focuses on how diet and nutrition affect hormone action in postmenopausal women and breast cancer survivors. Certain therapies can induce temporary or permanent menopause in patients, “and this early menopause might shift balance of estrogens and cause increased weight gain,” she said. Along the same lines, endocrine therapies can also affect estrogen production. 

Stress and exhaustion from treatment — especially compounded by the two previous factors — are also likely culprits in weight gain, she continued.

“These findings highlight importance of lifestyle interventions,” added Dr. Madak-Erdogan. “In addition to changes in the diet (increased vegetable, fruit, [and] whole grain intake; reduction in saturated fats, alcohol, [and] sweetened beverage consumption), survivors should be consulted on importance of regular exercise.”

“These data clearly show we must consider weight changes in breast cancer survivors, and we must find ways of instituting strategies to mitigate these weight gains,” Dr. Hurtado Andrade said. “These women have a lot to think of when they have a breast cancer diagnosis, so we also must find ways of instituting these measures in a way that doesn’t increase the burden of their health.”

Dr. Hurtado Andrade has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health and by Phenomix Sciences. She also is a consultant for Novo Nordisk. These three organizations were not involved with this study. Dr. Madak-Erdogan had no disclosures.

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

BOSTON — Nearly one in five breast cancer survivors will gain more than 10% of their body weight in the 6 years following their diagnosis, according to new research presented at ENDO 2024, the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Younger age and lower weight at diagnosis were the strongest predictors of this excessive weight gain over time. 

“Weight gain is a common concern after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment,” said Maria Daniela Hurtado Andrade, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, who led the research. “This weight gain in breast cancer survivor increases breast cancer recurrence and mortality, increases cardiovascular disease and mortality, and also increases all-cause mortality.”

Previous studies have found an association between breast cancer survivorship and weight gain, but the reported incidences of weight gain — and the amounts gained — have been highly variable, she added.

In the study, researchers used the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Registry to identify 4575 breast cancer survivors and tracked their weight over the course of 6 years following cancer diagnosis. These patients were age-matched to women in the general population selected from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which contains the medical records of residents of 27 counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin. All controls had no history of cancer or bariatric surgery.

Nearly all patients and controls were White (97%); at breast cancer diagnosis, patients were on average 58 years of age and weighed 76 kg (165.5 lb). Controls had similar ages and baseline weights.

At 6 years following breast cancer diagnosis, average weight gain was modest: Breast cancer survivors gained 1.6% of their body weight, compared with 0.7% in controls (P = .004).

However, 18% of breast cancer survivors had gained at least 10% of their body weight over that time. By comparison, 8% of controls experienced this excessive weight gain during that same time frame (P < .0001). The same trend was observed for 15% and 20% weight gain.

After adjustment for confounding factors, younger age at breast cancer diagnosis and lower baseline weight were the strongest predictors of more than 10% weight gain. BRCA2 mutation and use of systemic chemotherapy treatment were also associated with excessive weight gain.

Several factors could be driving weight gain in these patients, said Zeynep Madak-Erdogan, PhD, at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, who was not involved with the research. Her work focuses on how diet and nutrition affect hormone action in postmenopausal women and breast cancer survivors. Certain therapies can induce temporary or permanent menopause in patients, “and this early menopause might shift balance of estrogens and cause increased weight gain,” she said. Along the same lines, endocrine therapies can also affect estrogen production. 

Stress and exhaustion from treatment — especially compounded by the two previous factors — are also likely culprits in weight gain, she continued.

“These findings highlight importance of lifestyle interventions,” added Dr. Madak-Erdogan. “In addition to changes in the diet (increased vegetable, fruit, [and] whole grain intake; reduction in saturated fats, alcohol, [and] sweetened beverage consumption), survivors should be consulted on importance of regular exercise.”

“These data clearly show we must consider weight changes in breast cancer survivors, and we must find ways of instituting strategies to mitigate these weight gains,” Dr. Hurtado Andrade said. “These women have a lot to think of when they have a breast cancer diagnosis, so we also must find ways of instituting these measures in a way that doesn’t increase the burden of their health.”

Dr. Hurtado Andrade has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health and by Phenomix Sciences. She also is a consultant for Novo Nordisk. These three organizations were not involved with this study. Dr. Madak-Erdogan had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Long-term exposure to fine particulate matter is associated with higher fasting blood glucose (FBG) levels and an increased type 2 diabetes risk, significantly contributing to the diabetes-related health burden among women of reproductive age.

METHODOLOGY:

• Exposure to fine particulate matter < 2.5 µm (PM2.5) is a known risk factor for type 2 diabetes, but its effect on women of reproductive age, who undergo hormonal fluctuations during reproductive events, is not well studied.
• Researchers evaluated the association of long-term exposure to PM2.5 with FBG levels and diabetes risk in 20,076,032 eligible women of reproductive age (average age, 27.04 years) across 350 cities in China between 2010 and 2015.
• They assessed PM2.5 exposure at the participants’ residential addresses and calculated average long-term exposure at 1 (lag 1 year), 2 (lag 2 years), and 3 years (lag 3 years) before the survey date, as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO).
• The primary outcomes were FBG levels and diabetes prevalence (FBG, ≥ 7 mmol/L, classified as diabetes; FBG, 6.1-7 mmol/L, classified as prediabetes).
• The study also evaluated the diabetes burden attributed to long-term PM2.5 exposure as per the Chinese National Ambient Air Quality Standards (annual mean PM2.5 exposure limit, > 35 µg/m³) and the WHO air quality guideline (annual mean PM2.5 exposure limit, > 5 µg/m³).

TAKEAWAY:

• The median PM2.5 exposure levels over lag periods of 1, 2, and 3 years were 67, 67, and 66 µg/m³, respectively, exceeding the WHO limit by more than 13-fold.
• Each interquartile range increase in the 3-year average PM2.5 exposure by 27 μg/m³ raised FBG levels by 0.078 mmol/L (P < .05), risk for diabetes by 18% (odds ratio [OR], 1.18; 95% CI, 1.16-1.19), and risk for prediabetes by 5% (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.05).
• Long-term exposure to PM2.5 > 5 µg/m³ and 35 µg/m³ in the previous 3 years corresponded to an additional 41.7 (95% CI, 39.3-44.0) and 78.6 (95% CI, 74.5-82.6) thousand cases of diabetes nationwide, respectively.
• A higher PM2.5 exposure increased FBG levels and risk for diabetes in women with overweight or obesity vs those without and in those aged ≥ 35 years vs < 35 years (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings carry significant public health implications for formulating effective intervention strategies and environmental policies to better protect women’s health, particularly in countries with relatively high levels of air pollution and a large population with diabetes, such as China,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yang Shen, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety of the Ministry of Education and National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

An error in the measurement of particulate matter exposure may have been possible as residential address estimates were used as a proxy for actual personal exposure. Questionnaires were used to retrospectively collect information on parameters such as smoking and alcohol consumption, which may have introduced recall bias. Data on potential confounders, such as diet and physical activity, were not included. Distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes was not reported owing to data collection–related limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China, Henan Key Research and Development Program, State Key Laboratory of Resources and Environmental Information System, and Three-Year Public Health Action Plan of Shanghai. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Long-term exposure to fine particulate matter is associated with higher fasting blood glucose (FBG) levels and an increased type 2 diabetes risk, significantly contributing to the diabetes-related health burden among women of reproductive age.

METHODOLOGY:

• Exposure to fine particulate matter < 2.5 µm (PM2.5) is a known risk factor for type 2 diabetes, but its effect on women of reproductive age, who undergo hormonal fluctuations during reproductive events, is not well studied.
• Researchers evaluated the association of long-term exposure to PM2.5 with FBG levels and diabetes risk in 20,076,032 eligible women of reproductive age (average age, 27.04 years) across 350 cities in China between 2010 and 2015.
• They assessed PM2.5 exposure at the participants’ residential addresses and calculated average long-term exposure at 1 (lag 1 year), 2 (lag 2 years), and 3 years (lag 3 years) before the survey date, as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO).
• The primary outcomes were FBG levels and diabetes prevalence (FBG, ≥ 7 mmol/L, classified as diabetes; FBG, 6.1-7 mmol/L, classified as prediabetes).
• The study also evaluated the diabetes burden attributed to long-term PM2.5 exposure as per the Chinese National Ambient Air Quality Standards (annual mean PM2.5 exposure limit, > 35 µg/m³) and the WHO air quality guideline (annual mean PM2.5 exposure limit, > 5 µg/m³).

TAKEAWAY:

• The median PM2.5 exposure levels over lag periods of 1, 2, and 3 years were 67, 67, and 66 µg/m³, respectively, exceeding the WHO limit by more than 13-fold.
• Each interquartile range increase in the 3-year average PM2.5 exposure by 27 μg/m³ raised FBG levels by 0.078 mmol/L (P < .05), risk for diabetes by 18% (odds ratio [OR], 1.18; 95% CI, 1.16-1.19), and risk for prediabetes by 5% (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.05).
• Long-term exposure to PM2.5 > 5 µg/m³ and 35 µg/m³ in the previous 3 years corresponded to an additional 41.7 (95% CI, 39.3-44.0) and 78.6 (95% CI, 74.5-82.6) thousand cases of diabetes nationwide, respectively.
• A higher PM2.5 exposure increased FBG levels and risk for diabetes in women with overweight or obesity vs those without and in those aged ≥ 35 years vs < 35 years (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings carry significant public health implications for formulating effective intervention strategies and environmental policies to better protect women’s health, particularly in countries with relatively high levels of air pollution and a large population with diabetes, such as China,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yang Shen, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety of the Ministry of Education and National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

An error in the measurement of particulate matter exposure may have been possible as residential address estimates were used as a proxy for actual personal exposure. Questionnaires were used to retrospectively collect information on parameters such as smoking and alcohol consumption, which may have introduced recall bias. Data on potential confounders, such as diet and physical activity, were not included. Distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes was not reported owing to data collection–related limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China, Henan Key Research and Development Program, State Key Laboratory of Resources and Environmental Information System, and Three-Year Public Health Action Plan of Shanghai. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Long-term exposure to fine particulate matter is associated with higher fasting blood glucose (FBG) levels and an increased type 2 diabetes risk, significantly contributing to the diabetes-related health burden among women of reproductive age.

METHODOLOGY:

• Exposure to fine particulate matter < 2.5 µm (PM2.5) is a known risk factor for type 2 diabetes, but its effect on women of reproductive age, who undergo hormonal fluctuations during reproductive events, is not well studied.
• Researchers evaluated the association of long-term exposure to PM2.5 with FBG levels and diabetes risk in 20,076,032 eligible women of reproductive age (average age, 27.04 years) across 350 cities in China between 2010 and 2015.
• They assessed PM2.5 exposure at the participants’ residential addresses and calculated average long-term exposure at 1 (lag 1 year), 2 (lag 2 years), and 3 years (lag 3 years) before the survey date, as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO).
• The primary outcomes were FBG levels and diabetes prevalence (FBG, ≥ 7 mmol/L, classified as diabetes; FBG, 6.1-7 mmol/L, classified as prediabetes).
• The study also evaluated the diabetes burden attributed to long-term PM2.5 exposure as per the Chinese National Ambient Air Quality Standards (annual mean PM2.5 exposure limit, > 35 µg/m³) and the WHO air quality guideline (annual mean PM2.5 exposure limit, > 5 µg/m³).

TAKEAWAY:

• The median PM2.5 exposure levels over lag periods of 1, 2, and 3 years were 67, 67, and 66 µg/m³, respectively, exceeding the WHO limit by more than 13-fold.
• Each interquartile range increase in the 3-year average PM2.5 exposure by 27 μg/m³ raised FBG levels by 0.078 mmol/L (P < .05), risk for diabetes by 18% (odds ratio [OR], 1.18; 95% CI, 1.16-1.19), and risk for prediabetes by 5% (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.05).
• Long-term exposure to PM2.5 > 5 µg/m³ and 35 µg/m³ in the previous 3 years corresponded to an additional 41.7 (95% CI, 39.3-44.0) and 78.6 (95% CI, 74.5-82.6) thousand cases of diabetes nationwide, respectively.
• A higher PM2.5 exposure increased FBG levels and risk for diabetes in women with overweight or obesity vs those without and in those aged ≥ 35 years vs < 35 years (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings carry significant public health implications for formulating effective intervention strategies and environmental policies to better protect women’s health, particularly in countries with relatively high levels of air pollution and a large population with diabetes, such as China,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yang Shen, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety of the Ministry of Education and National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

An error in the measurement of particulate matter exposure may have been possible as residential address estimates were used as a proxy for actual personal exposure. Questionnaires were used to retrospectively collect information on parameters such as smoking and alcohol consumption, which may have introduced recall bias. Data on potential confounders, such as diet and physical activity, were not included. Distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes was not reported owing to data collection–related limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China, Henan Key Research and Development Program, State Key Laboratory of Resources and Environmental Information System, and Three-Year Public Health Action Plan of Shanghai. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

Three different definitions of nonanemic iron deficiency (ID), a common disorder causing substantial morbidity in women, were significantly associated with different population prevalence estimates, a data analysis of the cross-sectional Hemochromatosis and Iron Overload Screening Study (HEIRS) study found.

These differences held, regardless of self-reported age, pregnancy, or race and ethnicity, according to HEIRS researchers led by James C. Barton, MD, professor of hematology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“Using higher serum ferritin thresholds to define ID could lead to diagnosis and treatment of more women with ID and greater reduction of related morbidity,” the investigators wrote. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

The authors noted that ID affects about 2 billion people worldwide, mainly women and children, increasing risks of fatigue, impaired muscular performance, cold intolerance, mucosal and epithelial abnormalities, pica, disturbances of menstruation, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Manifestations of ID, including anemia, are less prevalent or less severe in adults with higher serum ferritin (SF), and the three definitions correspond, in sequence, to ID of increasing prevalence and decreasing severity, they explained.
 

The Study

HEIRS conducted multiethnic, primary care–based screening for iron disorders during 2001-2003 at four field centers in the United States and one in Canada at primary care venues.

In data for the current study analyzed from June to December, 2023, the three ID definitions were: combined transferrin saturation less than 10% and SF less than 15 ng/mL (HEIRS); SF less than 15 ng/mL (World Health Organization [WHO]); and SF less than 25 ng/mL, the threshold for ID-deficient erythropoiesis [IDE).

Among the cohort’s 62,685 women (mean age, 49.58 years, 27,072 White, 17,272 Black), the estimated prevalence of ID emerged as follows across the different definitions:

• 1957 (3.12%) according to HEIRS
• 4659 (7.43%) according to WHO
• 9611 (15.33%) according to IDE

Those figures translated to an increased relative ID prevalence of 2.4-fold (95% CI, 2.3-2.5; P < .001) according to the WHO standard and 4.9-fold (95% CI, 4.7-5.2; P < .001) according IDEs.

In addition, prevalence was higher in younger women, and within each racial and ethnic subgroup of participants aged 25-54 years, prevalence rose significantly from the HEIRS definition to the WHO and IDE definitions.

Notably, ID was significantly higher among Black and Hispanic participants than Asian and White participants.

An accompanying editorial pointed to gender-based health equity issues raised by the HEIRS analysis and argued that a similar passive acceptance of laboratory definitions of a debilitating but correctable condition in White males would be “frankly unimaginable.”

“Iron deficiency is the leading cause of years lived with disability among women of reproductive age,” wrote hematologist Michelle Sholzberg, MDCM, MSc, and Grace H. Tang, MSc, of St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, Canada. “It is a factor clearly associated with maternal death and morbidity (including diminished IQ), and it is correctable, and, thus, unnecessary, in high-income, middle-income, and low-income geographic settings.”

The authors listed no specific funding for this analysis of HEIRS data. Dr. Barton reported contracts from the National Institutes of Health, National Human Genome Research Institute, outside of the submitted work. A coauthor reported grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Human Genome Research Institute outside of the submitted work. Dr. Sholzberg reported unrestricted research funding to her institution from Octapharma and Pfizer and speakers’ honoraria from Takeda, Sobi, and Medison outside of the submitted work.

Three different definitions of nonanemic iron deficiency (ID), a common disorder causing substantial morbidity in women, were significantly associated with different population prevalence estimates, a data analysis of the cross-sectional Hemochromatosis and Iron Overload Screening Study (HEIRS) study found.

These differences held, regardless of self-reported age, pregnancy, or race and ethnicity, according to HEIRS researchers led by James C. Barton, MD, professor of hematology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“Using higher serum ferritin thresholds to define ID could lead to diagnosis and treatment of more women with ID and greater reduction of related morbidity,” the investigators wrote. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

The authors noted that ID affects about 2 billion people worldwide, mainly women and children, increasing risks of fatigue, impaired muscular performance, cold intolerance, mucosal and epithelial abnormalities, pica, disturbances of menstruation, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Manifestations of ID, including anemia, are less prevalent or less severe in adults with higher serum ferritin (SF), and the three definitions correspond, in sequence, to ID of increasing prevalence and decreasing severity, they explained.
 

The Study

HEIRS conducted multiethnic, primary care–based screening for iron disorders during 2001-2003 at four field centers in the United States and one in Canada at primary care venues.

In data for the current study analyzed from June to December, 2023, the three ID definitions were: combined transferrin saturation less than 10% and SF less than 15 ng/mL (HEIRS); SF less than 15 ng/mL (World Health Organization [WHO]); and SF less than 25 ng/mL, the threshold for ID-deficient erythropoiesis [IDE).

Among the cohort’s 62,685 women (mean age, 49.58 years, 27,072 White, 17,272 Black), the estimated prevalence of ID emerged as follows across the different definitions:

• 1957 (3.12%) according to HEIRS
• 4659 (7.43%) according to WHO
• 9611 (15.33%) according to IDE

Those figures translated to an increased relative ID prevalence of 2.4-fold (95% CI, 2.3-2.5; P < .001) according to the WHO standard and 4.9-fold (95% CI, 4.7-5.2; P < .001) according IDEs.

In addition, prevalence was higher in younger women, and within each racial and ethnic subgroup of participants aged 25-54 years, prevalence rose significantly from the HEIRS definition to the WHO and IDE definitions.

Notably, ID was significantly higher among Black and Hispanic participants than Asian and White participants.

An accompanying editorial pointed to gender-based health equity issues raised by the HEIRS analysis and argued that a similar passive acceptance of laboratory definitions of a debilitating but correctable condition in White males would be “frankly unimaginable.”

“Iron deficiency is the leading cause of years lived with disability among women of reproductive age,” wrote hematologist Michelle Sholzberg, MDCM, MSc, and Grace H. Tang, MSc, of St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, Canada. “It is a factor clearly associated with maternal death and morbidity (including diminished IQ), and it is correctable, and, thus, unnecessary, in high-income, middle-income, and low-income geographic settings.”

The authors listed no specific funding for this analysis of HEIRS data. Dr. Barton reported contracts from the National Institutes of Health, National Human Genome Research Institute, outside of the submitted work. A coauthor reported grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Human Genome Research Institute outside of the submitted work. Dr. Sholzberg reported unrestricted research funding to her institution from Octapharma and Pfizer and speakers’ honoraria from Takeda, Sobi, and Medison outside of the submitted work.

Three different definitions of nonanemic iron deficiency (ID), a common disorder causing substantial morbidity in women, were significantly associated with different population prevalence estimates, a data analysis of the cross-sectional Hemochromatosis and Iron Overload Screening Study (HEIRS) study found.

These differences held, regardless of self-reported age, pregnancy, or race and ethnicity, according to HEIRS researchers led by James C. Barton, MD, professor of hematology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“Using higher serum ferritin thresholds to define ID could lead to diagnosis and treatment of more women with ID and greater reduction of related morbidity,” the investigators wrote. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

The authors noted that ID affects about 2 billion people worldwide, mainly women and children, increasing risks of fatigue, impaired muscular performance, cold intolerance, mucosal and epithelial abnormalities, pica, disturbances of menstruation, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Manifestations of ID, including anemia, are less prevalent or less severe in adults with higher serum ferritin (SF), and the three definitions correspond, in sequence, to ID of increasing prevalence and decreasing severity, they explained.
 

The Study

HEIRS conducted multiethnic, primary care–based screening for iron disorders during 2001-2003 at four field centers in the United States and one in Canada at primary care venues.

In data for the current study analyzed from June to December, 2023, the three ID definitions were: combined transferrin saturation less than 10% and SF less than 15 ng/mL (HEIRS); SF less than 15 ng/mL (World Health Organization [WHO]); and SF less than 25 ng/mL, the threshold for ID-deficient erythropoiesis [IDE).

Among the cohort’s 62,685 women (mean age, 49.58 years, 27,072 White, 17,272 Black), the estimated prevalence of ID emerged as follows across the different definitions:

• 1957 (3.12%) according to HEIRS
• 4659 (7.43%) according to WHO
• 9611 (15.33%) according to IDE

Those figures translated to an increased relative ID prevalence of 2.4-fold (95% CI, 2.3-2.5; P < .001) according to the WHO standard and 4.9-fold (95% CI, 4.7-5.2; P < .001) according IDEs.

In addition, prevalence was higher in younger women, and within each racial and ethnic subgroup of participants aged 25-54 years, prevalence rose significantly from the HEIRS definition to the WHO and IDE definitions.

Notably, ID was significantly higher among Black and Hispanic participants than Asian and White participants.

An accompanying editorial pointed to gender-based health equity issues raised by the HEIRS analysis and argued that a similar passive acceptance of laboratory definitions of a debilitating but correctable condition in White males would be “frankly unimaginable.”

“Iron deficiency is the leading cause of years lived with disability among women of reproductive age,” wrote hematologist Michelle Sholzberg, MDCM, MSc, and Grace H. Tang, MSc, of St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, Canada. “It is a factor clearly associated with maternal death and morbidity (including diminished IQ), and it is correctable, and, thus, unnecessary, in high-income, middle-income, and low-income geographic settings.”

The authors listed no specific funding for this analysis of HEIRS data. Dr. Barton reported contracts from the National Institutes of Health, National Human Genome Research Institute, outside of the submitted work. A coauthor reported grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Human Genome Research Institute outside of the submitted work. Dr. Sholzberg reported unrestricted research funding to her institution from Octapharma and Pfizer and speakers’ honoraria from Takeda, Sobi, and Medison outside of the submitted work.

PARIS — Allergic comorbidities such as asthma and rhinitis are common among pregnant women. During the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology, Dario Ebode, MD, otolaryngologist and cervicofacial surgeon at Hôpital de la Conception in Marseille, France, described gestational rhinitis and detailed its management.

A Hormonal Rhinitis

The prevalence of rhinitis during pregnancy ranges from 18% to 30%, whether it is pre-existing (eg, allergic or infectious) or newly diagnosed. About half of the cases of pre-existing rhinitis worsen during pregnancy, leading to gestational rhinitis, which has a prevalence of approximately 22%.

“The latter is characterized by its onset in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, a duration of > 6 weeks, an absence of associated allergic symptoms, and complete spontaneous resolution 2-3 weeks after delivery,” said Dr. Ebode.

Uncertainties about the pathophysiology of gestational rhinitis, a “hormonal rhinitis,” remain, he added. Beta-estradiol and progesterone hormones lead to an increase in H1 histamine receptors on epithelial and endothelial cells, which promotes the migration or degranulation of eosinophils.
 

Management

While gestational rhinitis is benign, its symptoms can still be bothersome and can be relieved. In addition to dietary and hygienic (nasal irrigation with large volumes) measures and allergen avoidance, local treatments include nasal corticosteroids, possibly combined with antihistamines, and systemic antihistamines. “During pregnancy, nasal corticosteroids, oral antihistamines [excluding azelastine hydrochloride before 10 weeks], and ipratropium bromide are allowed,” said Dr. Ebode. Regarding sprays that combine corticosteroids and antihistamines, the combination of mometasone furoate and olopatadine is possible but not the combination of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate before 10 weeks.

Finally, oral vasoconstrictors (which are found in many over-the-counter medications) should be avoided, as should Kenacort (triamcinolone acetonide), “which also has no place in women outside of pregnancy due to an unfavorable risk-benefit balance in rhinitis,” said Dr. Ebode. Allergen immunotherapy plans should be postponed after delivery.

Dr. Ebode reported a financial relationship with Zambon.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Allergic comorbidities such as asthma and rhinitis are common among pregnant women. During the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology, Dario Ebode, MD, otolaryngologist and cervicofacial surgeon at Hôpital de la Conception in Marseille, France, described gestational rhinitis and detailed its management.

A Hormonal Rhinitis

The prevalence of rhinitis during pregnancy ranges from 18% to 30%, whether it is pre-existing (eg, allergic or infectious) or newly diagnosed. About half of the cases of pre-existing rhinitis worsen during pregnancy, leading to gestational rhinitis, which has a prevalence of approximately 22%.

“The latter is characterized by its onset in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, a duration of > 6 weeks, an absence of associated allergic symptoms, and complete spontaneous resolution 2-3 weeks after delivery,” said Dr. Ebode.

Uncertainties about the pathophysiology of gestational rhinitis, a “hormonal rhinitis,” remain, he added. Beta-estradiol and progesterone hormones lead to an increase in H1 histamine receptors on epithelial and endothelial cells, which promotes the migration or degranulation of eosinophils.
 

Management

While gestational rhinitis is benign, its symptoms can still be bothersome and can be relieved. In addition to dietary and hygienic (nasal irrigation with large volumes) measures and allergen avoidance, local treatments include nasal corticosteroids, possibly combined with antihistamines, and systemic antihistamines. “During pregnancy, nasal corticosteroids, oral antihistamines [excluding azelastine hydrochloride before 10 weeks], and ipratropium bromide are allowed,” said Dr. Ebode. Regarding sprays that combine corticosteroids and antihistamines, the combination of mometasone furoate and olopatadine is possible but not the combination of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate before 10 weeks.

Finally, oral vasoconstrictors (which are found in many over-the-counter medications) should be avoided, as should Kenacort (triamcinolone acetonide), “which also has no place in women outside of pregnancy due to an unfavorable risk-benefit balance in rhinitis,” said Dr. Ebode. Allergen immunotherapy plans should be postponed after delivery.

Dr. Ebode reported a financial relationship with Zambon.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Allergic comorbidities such as asthma and rhinitis are common among pregnant women. During the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology, Dario Ebode, MD, otolaryngologist and cervicofacial surgeon at Hôpital de la Conception in Marseille, France, described gestational rhinitis and detailed its management.

A Hormonal Rhinitis

The prevalence of rhinitis during pregnancy ranges from 18% to 30%, whether it is pre-existing (eg, allergic or infectious) or newly diagnosed. About half of the cases of pre-existing rhinitis worsen during pregnancy, leading to gestational rhinitis, which has a prevalence of approximately 22%.

“The latter is characterized by its onset in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, a duration of > 6 weeks, an absence of associated allergic symptoms, and complete spontaneous resolution 2-3 weeks after delivery,” said Dr. Ebode.

Uncertainties about the pathophysiology of gestational rhinitis, a “hormonal rhinitis,” remain, he added. Beta-estradiol and progesterone hormones lead to an increase in H1 histamine receptors on epithelial and endothelial cells, which promotes the migration or degranulation of eosinophils.
 

Management

While gestational rhinitis is benign, its symptoms can still be bothersome and can be relieved. In addition to dietary and hygienic (nasal irrigation with large volumes) measures and allergen avoidance, local treatments include nasal corticosteroids, possibly combined with antihistamines, and systemic antihistamines. “During pregnancy, nasal corticosteroids, oral antihistamines [excluding azelastine hydrochloride before 10 weeks], and ipratropium bromide are allowed,” said Dr. Ebode. Regarding sprays that combine corticosteroids and antihistamines, the combination of mometasone furoate and olopatadine is possible but not the combination of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate before 10 weeks.

Finally, oral vasoconstrictors (which are found in many over-the-counter medications) should be avoided, as should Kenacort (triamcinolone acetonide), “which also has no place in women outside of pregnancy due to an unfavorable risk-benefit balance in rhinitis,” said Dr. Ebode. Allergen immunotherapy plans should be postponed after delivery.

Dr. Ebode reported a financial relationship with Zambon.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of combined contraceptive vaginal rings was associated with an increased risk for several types of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), based on data from a pair of studies presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Previous research has shown that the use of a combined contraceptive vaginal ring (CCVR) may promote changes in immunity in the female genital tract by upregulating immune-related genes in the endocervix and immune mediators within the cervicovaginal fluid, wrote Amy Arceneaux, BS, a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, and colleagues.

The infection rates in the female genital tract can vary according to hormones in the local environment and continued safety analysis is needed as the use of CCVR continues to rise, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective chart review, the researchers assessed de-identified data from TriNetX, a patient database, including 30,796 women who received etonogestrel and ethinyl estradiol CCVRs without segesterone and an equal number who were using oral contraceptive pills (OCP) without vaginal hormones. Patients were matched for age, race, and ethnicity.

Overall use of CCVRs was significantly associated with an increased risk for Herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2; relative risk [RR], 1.790), acute vaginitis (RR, 1.722), subacute/chronic vaginitis (RR, 1.904), subacute/chronic vulvitis (RR, 1.969), acute vulvitis (RR, 1.894), candidiasis (RR, 1.464), trichomoniasis (RR, 2.162), and pelvic inflammatory disease (RR, 2.984; P < .0005 for all).

By contrast, use of CCVRs was significantly associated with a decreased risk for chlamydia (RR, 0.760; P = .047). No differences in risk appeared for gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, or anogenital warts between the CCVR and OCP groups.

Another study presented at the meeting, led by Kathleen Karam, BS, also a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, focused on outcomes on vaginal health and infection risk in women who used CCVRs compared with women who did not use hormones.

The study by Ms. Karam and colleagues included de-identified TriNetX data for two cohorts of 274,743 women.

Overall, the researchers found a significantly increased risk for gonorrhea, HSV-2, vaginitis, vulvitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, anogenital warts, and candidiasis in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception, while the risk for chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV was decreased in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the finding that the group of women using the hormonal contraception vaginal ring had decreased risk for HIV and syphilis infections,” said Kathleen L. Vincent, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, and senior author on both studies, in an interview. She hypothesized that the estrogen released from the ring might have contributed to the decreased risk for those infections.

The findings of both studies were limited primarily by the retrospective design, but the results suggest a need for further study of the effect of local hormone delivery on the vaginal mucosa, the researchers wrote.

Although the study population was large, the lack of randomization can allow for differences in the behaviors or risk-taking of the groups, Dr. Vincent said in an interview.

“The fact that there were STIs that were increased and some that were decreased with use of the vaginal ring tells us that there were women with similar behaviors in both groups, or we might have seen STIs only in one group,” she said. “Additional research could be done to look at varying time courses of outcomes after initiation of the vaginal ring or to go more in-depth with matching the groups at baseline based on a history of risky behaviors,” she noted.
 

Data Inform Multipurpose Prevention Technology

Dr. Vincent and her colleague, Richard Pyles, PhD, have a 15-year history of studying vaginal drug and hormone effects on the vaginal mucosa in women and preclinical and cell models. “Based on that work, it was plausible for estrogen to be protective for several types of infections,” she said. The availability of TriNetX allowed the researchers to explore these relationships in a large database of women in the studies presented at the meeting. “We began with a basic science observation in an animal model and grew it into this clinical study because of the available TriNetX system that supported extensive medical record review,” Dr. Pyles noted.

The take-home messages from the current research remain that vaginal rings delivering hormones are indicated only for contraception or birth control, not for protection against STIs or HIV, and women at an increased risk for these infections should protect themselves by using condoms, Dr. Vincent said.

However, “the real clinical implication is for the future for the drugs that we call MPTs or multi-purpose prevention technologies,” Dr. Vincent said.

“This could be a vaginal ring that releases medications for birth control and prevention of HIV or an STI,” she explained.

The findings from the studies presented at the meeting have great potential for an MPT on which Dr. Vincent and Dr. Pyles are working that would provide protection against both HIV and pregnancy. “For HIV prevention, the hormonal vaginal ring components have potential to work synergistically with the HIV prevention drug rather than working against each other, and this could be realized as a need for less HIV prevention drug, and subsequently fewer potential side effects from that drug,” said Dr. Vincent.

The studies received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of combined contraceptive vaginal rings was associated with an increased risk for several types of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), based on data from a pair of studies presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Previous research has shown that the use of a combined contraceptive vaginal ring (CCVR) may promote changes in immunity in the female genital tract by upregulating immune-related genes in the endocervix and immune mediators within the cervicovaginal fluid, wrote Amy Arceneaux, BS, a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, and colleagues.

The infection rates in the female genital tract can vary according to hormones in the local environment and continued safety analysis is needed as the use of CCVR continues to rise, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective chart review, the researchers assessed de-identified data from TriNetX, a patient database, including 30,796 women who received etonogestrel and ethinyl estradiol CCVRs without segesterone and an equal number who were using oral contraceptive pills (OCP) without vaginal hormones. Patients were matched for age, race, and ethnicity.

Overall use of CCVRs was significantly associated with an increased risk for Herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2; relative risk [RR], 1.790), acute vaginitis (RR, 1.722), subacute/chronic vaginitis (RR, 1.904), subacute/chronic vulvitis (RR, 1.969), acute vulvitis (RR, 1.894), candidiasis (RR, 1.464), trichomoniasis (RR, 2.162), and pelvic inflammatory disease (RR, 2.984; P < .0005 for all).

By contrast, use of CCVRs was significantly associated with a decreased risk for chlamydia (RR, 0.760; P = .047). No differences in risk appeared for gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, or anogenital warts between the CCVR and OCP groups.

Another study presented at the meeting, led by Kathleen Karam, BS, also a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, focused on outcomes on vaginal health and infection risk in women who used CCVRs compared with women who did not use hormones.

The study by Ms. Karam and colleagues included de-identified TriNetX data for two cohorts of 274,743 women.

Overall, the researchers found a significantly increased risk for gonorrhea, HSV-2, vaginitis, vulvitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, anogenital warts, and candidiasis in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception, while the risk for chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV was decreased in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the finding that the group of women using the hormonal contraception vaginal ring had decreased risk for HIV and syphilis infections,” said Kathleen L. Vincent, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, and senior author on both studies, in an interview. She hypothesized that the estrogen released from the ring might have contributed to the decreased risk for those infections.

The findings of both studies were limited primarily by the retrospective design, but the results suggest a need for further study of the effect of local hormone delivery on the vaginal mucosa, the researchers wrote.

Although the study population was large, the lack of randomization can allow for differences in the behaviors or risk-taking of the groups, Dr. Vincent said in an interview.

“The fact that there were STIs that were increased and some that were decreased with use of the vaginal ring tells us that there were women with similar behaviors in both groups, or we might have seen STIs only in one group,” she said. “Additional research could be done to look at varying time courses of outcomes after initiation of the vaginal ring or to go more in-depth with matching the groups at baseline based on a history of risky behaviors,” she noted.
 

Data Inform Multipurpose Prevention Technology

Dr. Vincent and her colleague, Richard Pyles, PhD, have a 15-year history of studying vaginal drug and hormone effects on the vaginal mucosa in women and preclinical and cell models. “Based on that work, it was plausible for estrogen to be protective for several types of infections,” she said. The availability of TriNetX allowed the researchers to explore these relationships in a large database of women in the studies presented at the meeting. “We began with a basic science observation in an animal model and grew it into this clinical study because of the available TriNetX system that supported extensive medical record review,” Dr. Pyles noted.

The take-home messages from the current research remain that vaginal rings delivering hormones are indicated only for contraception or birth control, not for protection against STIs or HIV, and women at an increased risk for these infections should protect themselves by using condoms, Dr. Vincent said.

However, “the real clinical implication is for the future for the drugs that we call MPTs or multi-purpose prevention technologies,” Dr. Vincent said.

“This could be a vaginal ring that releases medications for birth control and prevention of HIV or an STI,” she explained.

The findings from the studies presented at the meeting have great potential for an MPT on which Dr. Vincent and Dr. Pyles are working that would provide protection against both HIV and pregnancy. “For HIV prevention, the hormonal vaginal ring components have potential to work synergistically with the HIV prevention drug rather than working against each other, and this could be realized as a need for less HIV prevention drug, and subsequently fewer potential side effects from that drug,” said Dr. Vincent.

The studies received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of combined contraceptive vaginal rings was associated with an increased risk for several types of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), based on data from a pair of studies presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Previous research has shown that the use of a combined contraceptive vaginal ring (CCVR) may promote changes in immunity in the female genital tract by upregulating immune-related genes in the endocervix and immune mediators within the cervicovaginal fluid, wrote Amy Arceneaux, BS, a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, and colleagues.

The infection rates in the female genital tract can vary according to hormones in the local environment and continued safety analysis is needed as the use of CCVR continues to rise, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective chart review, the researchers assessed de-identified data from TriNetX, a patient database, including 30,796 women who received etonogestrel and ethinyl estradiol CCVRs without segesterone and an equal number who were using oral contraceptive pills (OCP) without vaginal hormones. Patients were matched for age, race, and ethnicity.

Overall use of CCVRs was significantly associated with an increased risk for Herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2; relative risk [RR], 1.790), acute vaginitis (RR, 1.722), subacute/chronic vaginitis (RR, 1.904), subacute/chronic vulvitis (RR, 1.969), acute vulvitis (RR, 1.894), candidiasis (RR, 1.464), trichomoniasis (RR, 2.162), and pelvic inflammatory disease (RR, 2.984; P < .0005 for all).

By contrast, use of CCVRs was significantly associated with a decreased risk for chlamydia (RR, 0.760; P = .047). No differences in risk appeared for gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, or anogenital warts between the CCVR and OCP groups.

Another study presented at the meeting, led by Kathleen Karam, BS, also a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, focused on outcomes on vaginal health and infection risk in women who used CCVRs compared with women who did not use hormones.

The study by Ms. Karam and colleagues included de-identified TriNetX data for two cohorts of 274,743 women.

Overall, the researchers found a significantly increased risk for gonorrhea, HSV-2, vaginitis, vulvitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, anogenital warts, and candidiasis in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception, while the risk for chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV was decreased in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the finding that the group of women using the hormonal contraception vaginal ring had decreased risk for HIV and syphilis infections,” said Kathleen L. Vincent, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, and senior author on both studies, in an interview. She hypothesized that the estrogen released from the ring might have contributed to the decreased risk for those infections.

The findings of both studies were limited primarily by the retrospective design, but the results suggest a need for further study of the effect of local hormone delivery on the vaginal mucosa, the researchers wrote.

Although the study population was large, the lack of randomization can allow for differences in the behaviors or risk-taking of the groups, Dr. Vincent said in an interview.

“The fact that there were STIs that were increased and some that were decreased with use of the vaginal ring tells us that there were women with similar behaviors in both groups, or we might have seen STIs only in one group,” she said. “Additional research could be done to look at varying time courses of outcomes after initiation of the vaginal ring or to go more in-depth with matching the groups at baseline based on a history of risky behaviors,” she noted.
 

Data Inform Multipurpose Prevention Technology

Dr. Vincent and her colleague, Richard Pyles, PhD, have a 15-year history of studying vaginal drug and hormone effects on the vaginal mucosa in women and preclinical and cell models. “Based on that work, it was plausible for estrogen to be protective for several types of infections,” she said. The availability of TriNetX allowed the researchers to explore these relationships in a large database of women in the studies presented at the meeting. “We began with a basic science observation in an animal model and grew it into this clinical study because of the available TriNetX system that supported extensive medical record review,” Dr. Pyles noted.

The take-home messages from the current research remain that vaginal rings delivering hormones are indicated only for contraception or birth control, not for protection against STIs or HIV, and women at an increased risk for these infections should protect themselves by using condoms, Dr. Vincent said.

However, “the real clinical implication is for the future for the drugs that we call MPTs or multi-purpose prevention technologies,” Dr. Vincent said.

“This could be a vaginal ring that releases medications for birth control and prevention of HIV or an STI,” she explained.

The findings from the studies presented at the meeting have great potential for an MPT on which Dr. Vincent and Dr. Pyles are working that would provide protection against both HIV and pregnancy. “For HIV prevention, the hormonal vaginal ring components have potential to work synergistically with the HIV prevention drug rather than working against each other, and this could be realized as a need for less HIV prevention drug, and subsequently fewer potential side effects from that drug,” said Dr. Vincent.

The studies received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

TOPLINE:

Women with low bone density are more likely to report their first fragility hip fracture in their 60s rather than at older ages.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used hip fracture data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 2009-2010, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018.
• They included women older than 60 years with a bone mineral density T score ≤ −1 at the femur neck, measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.
• Fragility fractures are defined as a self-reported hip fracture resulting from a fall from standing height or less.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of women in their 60s who reported their first hip fracture grew by 50% from 2009 to 2018.
• The opposite was true for women in their 70s and 80s who reported fewer first hip fractures over the study period.
• Reported fragility hip fractures in women overall decreased by half from 2009 to 2018.
• The prevalence of women with osteoporosis (T score ≤ −2.5) grew from 18.1% to 21.3% over 10 years.

IN PRACTICE:

The decrease in fractures overall and in women older than 70 years “may be due to increasing awareness and utilization of measures to decrease falls such as exercise, nutrition, health education, and environmental modifications targeted toward the elderly population,” the authors wrote. The findings also underscore the importance of earlier bone health awareness in primary care to curb the rising trend in younger women, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Avica Atri, MD, of Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. She presented the findings at ENDO 2024: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature and included self-reported health data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with low bone density are more likely to report their first fragility hip fracture in their 60s rather than at older ages.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used hip fracture data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 2009-2010, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018.
• They included women older than 60 years with a bone mineral density T score ≤ −1 at the femur neck, measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.
• Fragility fractures are defined as a self-reported hip fracture resulting from a fall from standing height or less.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of women in their 60s who reported their first hip fracture grew by 50% from 2009 to 2018.
• The opposite was true for women in their 70s and 80s who reported fewer first hip fractures over the study period.
• Reported fragility hip fractures in women overall decreased by half from 2009 to 2018.
• The prevalence of women with osteoporosis (T score ≤ −2.5) grew from 18.1% to 21.3% over 10 years.

IN PRACTICE:

The decrease in fractures overall and in women older than 70 years “may be due to increasing awareness and utilization of measures to decrease falls such as exercise, nutrition, health education, and environmental modifications targeted toward the elderly population,” the authors wrote. The findings also underscore the importance of earlier bone health awareness in primary care to curb the rising trend in younger women, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Avica Atri, MD, of Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. She presented the findings at ENDO 2024: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature and included self-reported health data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with low bone density are more likely to report their first fragility hip fracture in their 60s rather than at older ages.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used hip fracture data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 2009-2010, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018.
• They included women older than 60 years with a bone mineral density T score ≤ −1 at the femur neck, measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.
• Fragility fractures are defined as a self-reported hip fracture resulting from a fall from standing height or less.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of women in their 60s who reported their first hip fracture grew by 50% from 2009 to 2018.
• The opposite was true for women in their 70s and 80s who reported fewer first hip fractures over the study period.
• Reported fragility hip fractures in women overall decreased by half from 2009 to 2018.
• The prevalence of women with osteoporosis (T score ≤ −2.5) grew from 18.1% to 21.3% over 10 years.

IN PRACTICE:

The decrease in fractures overall and in women older than 70 years “may be due to increasing awareness and utilization of measures to decrease falls such as exercise, nutrition, health education, and environmental modifications targeted toward the elderly population,” the authors wrote. The findings also underscore the importance of earlier bone health awareness in primary care to curb the rising trend in younger women, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Avica Atri, MD, of Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. She presented the findings at ENDO 2024: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature and included self-reported health data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Investigators found that the use of oral contraceptives (OCs) may be associated with an increased risk for frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) in women with a common variant in the CYP1B1 gene.

METHODOLOGY:

• OC use has been considered a possible factor behind the increased incidence of FFA because it was first documented in 1994, and a recent genome-wide association study of FFA identified a signal for an association with a variant in CYP1B1.
• The same researchers conducted a gene-environment interaction study with a case-control design involving 489 White female patients (mean age, 65.8 years) with FFA and 34,254 controls, matched for age and genetic ancestry.
• Data were collected from July 2015 to September 2017 and analyzed from October 2022 to December 2023.
• The study aimed to investigate the modulatory effect of OC use on the CYP1B1 variant’s impact on FFA risk, using logistic regression models for analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of OCs was associated with a 1.9 times greater risk for FFA in individuals with the specific CYP1B1 genetic variant, but there was no association among those with no history of OC use.
• The study suggests a significant gene-environment interaction, indicating that OC use may influence FFA risk in genetically predisposed individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“This gene-environment interaction analysis suggests that the protective effect of the CYPIB1 missense variant on FFA risk might be mediated by exposure” to OCs, the authors wrote. The study, they added, “underscores the importance of considering genetic predispositions and environmental factors, such as oral contraceptive use, in understanding and managing frontal fibrosing alopecia.”

[embed:render:related:node:268676]

SOURCE:

Tuntas Rayinda, MD, MSc, PhD, of St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College London, led the study, which was published online May 29, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on self-reported OC use may have introduced recall and differences in ascertainment of OC use between patient and control groups and could have affected the study’s findings. The study also did not collect information on the type of OC used, which could have influenced the observed interaction.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the British Skin Foundation Young Investigator Award. One investigator reported being a subinvestigator on an alopecia areata study funded by Pfizer. No other disclosures were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Investigators found that the use of oral contraceptives (OCs) may be associated with an increased risk for frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) in women with a common variant in the CYP1B1 gene.

METHODOLOGY:

• OC use has been considered a possible factor behind the increased incidence of FFA because it was first documented in 1994, and a recent genome-wide association study of FFA identified a signal for an association with a variant in CYP1B1.
• The same researchers conducted a gene-environment interaction study with a case-control design involving 489 White female patients (mean age, 65.8 years) with FFA and 34,254 controls, matched for age and genetic ancestry.
• Data were collected from July 2015 to September 2017 and analyzed from October 2022 to December 2023.
• The study aimed to investigate the modulatory effect of OC use on the CYP1B1 variant’s impact on FFA risk, using logistic regression models for analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of OCs was associated with a 1.9 times greater risk for FFA in individuals with the specific CYP1B1 genetic variant, but there was no association among those with no history of OC use.
• The study suggests a significant gene-environment interaction, indicating that OC use may influence FFA risk in genetically predisposed individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“This gene-environment interaction analysis suggests that the protective effect of the CYPIB1 missense variant on FFA risk might be mediated by exposure” to OCs, the authors wrote. The study, they added, “underscores the importance of considering genetic predispositions and environmental factors, such as oral contraceptive use, in understanding and managing frontal fibrosing alopecia.”

[embed:render:related:node:268676]

SOURCE:

Tuntas Rayinda, MD, MSc, PhD, of St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College London, led the study, which was published online May 29, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on self-reported OC use may have introduced recall and differences in ascertainment of OC use between patient and control groups and could have affected the study’s findings. The study also did not collect information on the type of OC used, which could have influenced the observed interaction.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the British Skin Foundation Young Investigator Award. One investigator reported being a subinvestigator on an alopecia areata study funded by Pfizer. No other disclosures were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Investigators found that the use of oral contraceptives (OCs) may be associated with an increased risk for frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) in women with a common variant in the CYP1B1 gene.

METHODOLOGY:

• OC use has been considered a possible factor behind the increased incidence of FFA because it was first documented in 1994, and a recent genome-wide association study of FFA identified a signal for an association with a variant in CYP1B1.
• The same researchers conducted a gene-environment interaction study with a case-control design involving 489 White female patients (mean age, 65.8 years) with FFA and 34,254 controls, matched for age and genetic ancestry.
• Data were collected from July 2015 to September 2017 and analyzed from October 2022 to December 2023.
• The study aimed to investigate the modulatory effect of OC use on the CYP1B1 variant’s impact on FFA risk, using logistic regression models for analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of OCs was associated with a 1.9 times greater risk for FFA in individuals with the specific CYP1B1 genetic variant, but there was no association among those with no history of OC use.
• The study suggests a significant gene-environment interaction, indicating that OC use may influence FFA risk in genetically predisposed individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“This gene-environment interaction analysis suggests that the protective effect of the CYPIB1 missense variant on FFA risk might be mediated by exposure” to OCs, the authors wrote. The study, they added, “underscores the importance of considering genetic predispositions and environmental factors, such as oral contraceptive use, in understanding and managing frontal fibrosing alopecia.”

[embed:render:related:node:268676]

SOURCE:

Tuntas Rayinda, MD, MSc, PhD, of St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College London, led the study, which was published online May 29, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on self-reported OC use may have introduced recall and differences in ascertainment of OC use between patient and control groups and could have affected the study’s findings. The study also did not collect information on the type of OC used, which could have influenced the observed interaction.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the British Skin Foundation Young Investigator Award. One investigator reported being a subinvestigator on an alopecia areata study funded by Pfizer. No other disclosures were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Bariatric surgery may lower the risk for breast cancer in women with obesity, particularly in premenopausal women and in women with high insulin levels at baseline.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with a lower risk for cancer in people with obesity, as well as female-specific cancers in women with obesity, especially those with higher baseline insulin levels. But there is a need for large prospective studies with more detailed patient information.
• The current secondary analysis included 2867 matched women (mean age, 48 years) from a prospective nonrandomized Swedish trial, which recruited men and women who had obesity between 1987 and 2001.
• Overall, 1420 women underwent bariatric surgery, and 1447 received usual care.
• Median baseline insulin levels were 15.8 μIU/L. In the surgery group, 68.3% of patients had vertical banded gastroplasty, 18.3% underwent gastric banding, and 13.4% underwent gastric bypass.
• The main outcome was breast cancer incidence, as identified from Swedish National Cancer Registry.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 23.9 years, 66 breast cancer events occurred in the surgery group and 88 in the usual care group (P = .02).
• Bariatric surgery was associated with a 33% lower risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.67), after excluding cases that occurred within the first 3 years (to account for any undiagnosed breast cancer at baseline) and adjusting for age, body mass index, alcohol, and smoking status.
• Looking at the menopausal status at baseline, bariatric surgery was associated with a reduced risk for breast cancer in premenopausal women (aHR, 0.64) but not postmenopausal women (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .54).
• Bariatric surgery was also associated with a lower risk for breast cancer in women with baseline insulin levels above the median (aHR, 0.55) than in those with baseline insulin levels below the median (aHR, 1.01).

IN PRACTICE:

“The surgical treatment benefit was predominantly seen in women with hyperinsulinemia, suggesting insulin may be used as a predictor of treatment effect,” the authors wrote. Authors of an accompanying editorial, however, cautioned that “it is not known if insulin levels or insulin resistance are true biomarkers of breast cancer risk in patients with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery” and urged further research into underlying biological mechanisms.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Felipe M. Kristensson, MD, from Institute of Medicine, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, the Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Surgery. The accompanying editorial was led by Swati A. Kulkarni, MD, of the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was not randomized. Breast cancer was not a predefined outcome of the main trial. Most patients underwent vertical banded gastroplasty, which is rarely used and could limit applicability of the results; however, vertical banded gastroplasty results in weight loss similar to that observed after sleeve gastrectomy. Follow-up values for insulin and insulin resistance were not available. The researchers noted significant differences in 12 out of 17 baseline characteristics between the two groups, including a larger proportion of postmenopausal women in the usual care group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish state, Swedish Research Council, the Health & Medical Care Committee of the Region Västra Götaland, and the Adlerbert Research Foundation. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Bariatric surgery may lower the risk for breast cancer in women with obesity, particularly in premenopausal women and in women with high insulin levels at baseline.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with a lower risk for cancer in people with obesity, as well as female-specific cancers in women with obesity, especially those with higher baseline insulin levels. But there is a need for large prospective studies with more detailed patient information.
• The current secondary analysis included 2867 matched women (mean age, 48 years) from a prospective nonrandomized Swedish trial, which recruited men and women who had obesity between 1987 and 2001.
• Overall, 1420 women underwent bariatric surgery, and 1447 received usual care.
• Median baseline insulin levels were 15.8 μIU/L. In the surgery group, 68.3% of patients had vertical banded gastroplasty, 18.3% underwent gastric banding, and 13.4% underwent gastric bypass.
• The main outcome was breast cancer incidence, as identified from Swedish National Cancer Registry.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 23.9 years, 66 breast cancer events occurred in the surgery group and 88 in the usual care group (P = .02).
• Bariatric surgery was associated with a 33% lower risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.67), after excluding cases that occurred within the first 3 years (to account for any undiagnosed breast cancer at baseline) and adjusting for age, body mass index, alcohol, and smoking status.
• Looking at the menopausal status at baseline, bariatric surgery was associated with a reduced risk for breast cancer in premenopausal women (aHR, 0.64) but not postmenopausal women (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .54).
• Bariatric surgery was also associated with a lower risk for breast cancer in women with baseline insulin levels above the median (aHR, 0.55) than in those with baseline insulin levels below the median (aHR, 1.01).

IN PRACTICE:

“The surgical treatment benefit was predominantly seen in women with hyperinsulinemia, suggesting insulin may be used as a predictor of treatment effect,” the authors wrote. Authors of an accompanying editorial, however, cautioned that “it is not known if insulin levels or insulin resistance are true biomarkers of breast cancer risk in patients with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery” and urged further research into underlying biological mechanisms.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Felipe M. Kristensson, MD, from Institute of Medicine, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, the Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Surgery. The accompanying editorial was led by Swati A. Kulkarni, MD, of the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was not randomized. Breast cancer was not a predefined outcome of the main trial. Most patients underwent vertical banded gastroplasty, which is rarely used and could limit applicability of the results; however, vertical banded gastroplasty results in weight loss similar to that observed after sleeve gastrectomy. Follow-up values for insulin and insulin resistance were not available. The researchers noted significant differences in 12 out of 17 baseline characteristics between the two groups, including a larger proportion of postmenopausal women in the usual care group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish state, Swedish Research Council, the Health & Medical Care Committee of the Region Västra Götaland, and the Adlerbert Research Foundation. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Bariatric surgery may lower the risk for breast cancer in women with obesity, particularly in premenopausal women and in women with high insulin levels at baseline.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with a lower risk for cancer in people with obesity, as well as female-specific cancers in women with obesity, especially those with higher baseline insulin levels. But there is a need for large prospective studies with more detailed patient information.
• The current secondary analysis included 2867 matched women (mean age, 48 years) from a prospective nonrandomized Swedish trial, which recruited men and women who had obesity between 1987 and 2001.
• Overall, 1420 women underwent bariatric surgery, and 1447 received usual care.
• Median baseline insulin levels were 15.8 μIU/L. In the surgery group, 68.3% of patients had vertical banded gastroplasty, 18.3% underwent gastric banding, and 13.4% underwent gastric bypass.
• The main outcome was breast cancer incidence, as identified from Swedish National Cancer Registry.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 23.9 years, 66 breast cancer events occurred in the surgery group and 88 in the usual care group (P = .02).
• Bariatric surgery was associated with a 33% lower risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.67), after excluding cases that occurred within the first 3 years (to account for any undiagnosed breast cancer at baseline) and adjusting for age, body mass index, alcohol, and smoking status.
• Looking at the menopausal status at baseline, bariatric surgery was associated with a reduced risk for breast cancer in premenopausal women (aHR, 0.64) but not postmenopausal women (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .54).
• Bariatric surgery was also associated with a lower risk for breast cancer in women with baseline insulin levels above the median (aHR, 0.55) than in those with baseline insulin levels below the median (aHR, 1.01).

IN PRACTICE:

“The surgical treatment benefit was predominantly seen in women with hyperinsulinemia, suggesting insulin may be used as a predictor of treatment effect,” the authors wrote. Authors of an accompanying editorial, however, cautioned that “it is not known if insulin levels or insulin resistance are true biomarkers of breast cancer risk in patients with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery” and urged further research into underlying biological mechanisms.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Felipe M. Kristensson, MD, from Institute of Medicine, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, the Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Surgery. The accompanying editorial was led by Swati A. Kulkarni, MD, of the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was not randomized. Breast cancer was not a predefined outcome of the main trial. Most patients underwent vertical banded gastroplasty, which is rarely used and could limit applicability of the results; however, vertical banded gastroplasty results in weight loss similar to that observed after sleeve gastrectomy. Follow-up values for insulin and insulin resistance were not available. The researchers noted significant differences in 12 out of 17 baseline characteristics between the two groups, including a larger proportion of postmenopausal women in the usual care group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish state, Swedish Research Council, the Health & Medical Care Committee of the Region Västra Götaland, and the Adlerbert Research Foundation. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Florida has become the first state to allow doctors to perform cesarean sections outside of hospitals, siding with a private equity-owned physicians group that says the change will lower costs and give pregnant women the homier birthing atmosphere that many desire.

But the hospital industry and the nation’s leading obstetricians’ association say that even though some Florida hospitals have closed their maternity wards in recent years, performing C-sections in doctor-run clinics will increase the risks for women and babies when complications arise.

“A pregnant patient that is considered low-risk in one moment can suddenly need lifesaving care in the next,” Cole Greves, an Orlando perinatologist who chairs the Florida chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an email to KFF Health News. The new birth clinics, “even with increased regulation, cannot guarantee the level of safety patients would receive within a hospital.”

This spring, a law was enacted allowing “advanced birth centers,” where physicians can deliver babies vaginally or by C-section to women deemed at low risk of complications. Women would be able to stay overnight at the clinics.

Women’s Care Enterprises, a private equity-owned physicians group with locations mostly in Florida along with California and Kentucky, lobbied the state legislature to make the change. BC Partners, a London-based investment firm, bought Women’s Care in 2020.

“We have patients who don’t want to deliver in a hospital, and that breaks our heart,” said Stephen Snow, who recently retired as an ob.gyn. with Women’s Care and testified before the Florida Legislature advocating for the change in 2018.

Brittany Miller, vice president of strategic initiatives with Women’s Care, said the group would not comment on the issue.

Health experts are leery.

“What this looks like is a poor substitute for quality obstetrical care effectively being billed as something that gives people more choices,” said Alice Abernathy, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. “This feels like a bad band-aid on a chronic issue that will make outcomes worse rather than better,” Abernathy said.

Nearly one-third of U.S. births occur via C-section, the surgical delivery of a baby through an incision in the mother’s abdomen and uterus. Generally, doctors use the procedure when they believe it is safer than vaginal delivery for the parent, the baby, or both. Such medical decisions can take place months before birth, or in an emergency.

Florida state Sen. Gayle Harrell, the Republican who sponsored the birth center bill, said having a C-section outside of a hospital may seem like a radical change, but so was the opening of outpatient surgery centers in the late 1980s.

Harrell, who managed her husband’s ob.gyn. practice, said birth centers will have to meet the same high standards for staffing, infection control, and other aspects as those at outpatient surgery centers.

“Given where we are with the need, and maternity deserts across the state, this is something that will help us and help moms get the best care,” she said.

Seventeen hospitals in the state have closed their maternity units since 2019, with many citing low insurance reimbursement and high malpractice costs, according to the Florida Hospital Association.

Mary Mayhew, CEO of the Florida Hospital Association, said it is wrong to compare birth centers to ambulatory surgery centers because of the many risks associated with C-sections, such as hemorrhaging.

The Florida law requires advanced birth centers to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, but it does not dictate where the facilities can open nor their proximity to a hospital.

“We have serious concerns about the impact this model has on our collective efforts to improve maternal and infant health,” Mayhew said. “Our hospitals do not see this in the best interest of providing quality and safety in labor and delivery.”

Despite its opposition to the new birth centers, the Florida Hospital Association did not fight passage of the overall bill because it also included a major increase in the amount Medicaid pays hospitals for maternity care.

Mayhew said it is unlikely that the birth centers would help address care shortages. Hospitals are already struggling with a shortage of ob.gyns., she said, and it is unrealistic to expect advanced birth centers to open in rural areas with a large proportion of people on Medicaid, which pays the lowest reimbursement for labor and delivery care.

It is unclear whether insurers will cover the advanced birth centers, though most insurers and Medicaid cover care at midwife-run birth centers. The advanced birth centers will not accept emergency walk-ins and will treat only patients whose insurance contracts with the facilities, making them in-network.

Snow, the retired ob.gyn. with Women’s Care, said the group plans to open an advanced birth center in the Tampa or Orlando area.

The advanced birth center concept is an improvement on midwife care that enables deliveries outside of hospitals, he said, as the centers allow women to stay overnight and, if necessary, offer anesthesia and C-sections.

Snow acknowledged that, with a private equity firm invested in Women’s Care, the birth center idea is also about making money. But he said hospitals have the same profit incentive and, like midwives, likely oppose the idea of centers that can provide C-sections because they could cut into hospital revenue.

“We are trying to reduce the cost of medicine, and this would be more cost-effective and more pleasant for patients,” he said.

Kate Bauer, executive director of the American Association of Birth Centers, said patients could confuse advanced birth centers with the existing, free-standing birth centers for low-risk births that have been run by midwives for decades. There are currently 31 licensed birth centers in Florida and 411 free-standing birth centers in the United States, she said.

“This is a radical departure from the standard of care,” Bauer said. “It’s a bad idea,” she said, because it could increase risks to mom and baby.

No other state allows C-sections outside of hospitals. The only facility that offers similar care is a birth clinic in Wichita, Kansas, which is connected by a short walkway to a hospital, Wesley Medical Center.

The clinic provides “hotel-like” maternity suites where staffers deliver about 100 babies a month, compared with 500 per month in the hospital itself.

Morgan Tracy, a maternity nurse navigator at the center, said the concept works largely because the hospital and birthing suites can share staff and pharmacy access, plus patients can be quickly transferred to the main hospital if complications arise.

“The beauty is there are team members on both sides of the street,” Tracy said.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Florida has become the first state to allow doctors to perform cesarean sections outside of hospitals, siding with a private equity-owned physicians group that says the change will lower costs and give pregnant women the homier birthing atmosphere that many desire.

But the hospital industry and the nation’s leading obstetricians’ association say that even though some Florida hospitals have closed their maternity wards in recent years, performing C-sections in doctor-run clinics will increase the risks for women and babies when complications arise.

“A pregnant patient that is considered low-risk in one moment can suddenly need lifesaving care in the next,” Cole Greves, an Orlando perinatologist who chairs the Florida chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an email to KFF Health News. The new birth clinics, “even with increased regulation, cannot guarantee the level of safety patients would receive within a hospital.”

This spring, a law was enacted allowing “advanced birth centers,” where physicians can deliver babies vaginally or by C-section to women deemed at low risk of complications. Women would be able to stay overnight at the clinics.

Women’s Care Enterprises, a private equity-owned physicians group with locations mostly in Florida along with California and Kentucky, lobbied the state legislature to make the change. BC Partners, a London-based investment firm, bought Women’s Care in 2020.

“We have patients who don’t want to deliver in a hospital, and that breaks our heart,” said Stephen Snow, who recently retired as an ob.gyn. with Women’s Care and testified before the Florida Legislature advocating for the change in 2018.

Brittany Miller, vice president of strategic initiatives with Women’s Care, said the group would not comment on the issue.

Health experts are leery.

“What this looks like is a poor substitute for quality obstetrical care effectively being billed as something that gives people more choices,” said Alice Abernathy, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. “This feels like a bad band-aid on a chronic issue that will make outcomes worse rather than better,” Abernathy said.

Nearly one-third of U.S. births occur via C-section, the surgical delivery of a baby through an incision in the mother’s abdomen and uterus. Generally, doctors use the procedure when they believe it is safer than vaginal delivery for the parent, the baby, or both. Such medical decisions can take place months before birth, or in an emergency.

Florida state Sen. Gayle Harrell, the Republican who sponsored the birth center bill, said having a C-section outside of a hospital may seem like a radical change, but so was the opening of outpatient surgery centers in the late 1980s.

Harrell, who managed her husband’s ob.gyn. practice, said birth centers will have to meet the same high standards for staffing, infection control, and other aspects as those at outpatient surgery centers.

“Given where we are with the need, and maternity deserts across the state, this is something that will help us and help moms get the best care,” she said.

Seventeen hospitals in the state have closed their maternity units since 2019, with many citing low insurance reimbursement and high malpractice costs, according to the Florida Hospital Association.

Mary Mayhew, CEO of the Florida Hospital Association, said it is wrong to compare birth centers to ambulatory surgery centers because of the many risks associated with C-sections, such as hemorrhaging.

The Florida law requires advanced birth centers to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, but it does not dictate where the facilities can open nor their proximity to a hospital.

“We have serious concerns about the impact this model has on our collective efforts to improve maternal and infant health,” Mayhew said. “Our hospitals do not see this in the best interest of providing quality and safety in labor and delivery.”

Despite its opposition to the new birth centers, the Florida Hospital Association did not fight passage of the overall bill because it also included a major increase in the amount Medicaid pays hospitals for maternity care.

Mayhew said it is unlikely that the birth centers would help address care shortages. Hospitals are already struggling with a shortage of ob.gyns., she said, and it is unrealistic to expect advanced birth centers to open in rural areas with a large proportion of people on Medicaid, which pays the lowest reimbursement for labor and delivery care.

It is unclear whether insurers will cover the advanced birth centers, though most insurers and Medicaid cover care at midwife-run birth centers. The advanced birth centers will not accept emergency walk-ins and will treat only patients whose insurance contracts with the facilities, making them in-network.

Snow, the retired ob.gyn. with Women’s Care, said the group plans to open an advanced birth center in the Tampa or Orlando area.

The advanced birth center concept is an improvement on midwife care that enables deliveries outside of hospitals, he said, as the centers allow women to stay overnight and, if necessary, offer anesthesia and C-sections.

Snow acknowledged that, with a private equity firm invested in Women’s Care, the birth center idea is also about making money. But he said hospitals have the same profit incentive and, like midwives, likely oppose the idea of centers that can provide C-sections because they could cut into hospital revenue.

“We are trying to reduce the cost of medicine, and this would be more cost-effective and more pleasant for patients,” he said.

Kate Bauer, executive director of the American Association of Birth Centers, said patients could confuse advanced birth centers with the existing, free-standing birth centers for low-risk births that have been run by midwives for decades. There are currently 31 licensed birth centers in Florida and 411 free-standing birth centers in the United States, she said.

“This is a radical departure from the standard of care,” Bauer said. “It’s a bad idea,” she said, because it could increase risks to mom and baby.

No other state allows C-sections outside of hospitals. The only facility that offers similar care is a birth clinic in Wichita, Kansas, which is connected by a short walkway to a hospital, Wesley Medical Center.

The clinic provides “hotel-like” maternity suites where staffers deliver about 100 babies a month, compared with 500 per month in the hospital itself.

Morgan Tracy, a maternity nurse navigator at the center, said the concept works largely because the hospital and birthing suites can share staff and pharmacy access, plus patients can be quickly transferred to the main hospital if complications arise.

“The beauty is there are team members on both sides of the street,” Tracy said.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Florida has become the first state to allow doctors to perform cesarean sections outside of hospitals, siding with a private equity-owned physicians group that says the change will lower costs and give pregnant women the homier birthing atmosphere that many desire.

But the hospital industry and the nation’s leading obstetricians’ association say that even though some Florida hospitals have closed their maternity wards in recent years, performing C-sections in doctor-run clinics will increase the risks for women and babies when complications arise.

“A pregnant patient that is considered low-risk in one moment can suddenly need lifesaving care in the next,” Cole Greves, an Orlando perinatologist who chairs the Florida chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an email to KFF Health News. The new birth clinics, “even with increased regulation, cannot guarantee the level of safety patients would receive within a hospital.”

This spring, a law was enacted allowing “advanced birth centers,” where physicians can deliver babies vaginally or by C-section to women deemed at low risk of complications. Women would be able to stay overnight at the clinics.

Women’s Care Enterprises, a private equity-owned physicians group with locations mostly in Florida along with California and Kentucky, lobbied the state legislature to make the change. BC Partners, a London-based investment firm, bought Women’s Care in 2020.

“We have patients who don’t want to deliver in a hospital, and that breaks our heart,” said Stephen Snow, who recently retired as an ob.gyn. with Women’s Care and testified before the Florida Legislature advocating for the change in 2018.

Brittany Miller, vice president of strategic initiatives with Women’s Care, said the group would not comment on the issue.

Health experts are leery.

“What this looks like is a poor substitute for quality obstetrical care effectively being billed as something that gives people more choices,” said Alice Abernathy, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. “This feels like a bad band-aid on a chronic issue that will make outcomes worse rather than better,” Abernathy said.

Nearly one-third of U.S. births occur via C-section, the surgical delivery of a baby through an incision in the mother’s abdomen and uterus. Generally, doctors use the procedure when they believe it is safer than vaginal delivery for the parent, the baby, or both. Such medical decisions can take place months before birth, or in an emergency.

Florida state Sen. Gayle Harrell, the Republican who sponsored the birth center bill, said having a C-section outside of a hospital may seem like a radical change, but so was the opening of outpatient surgery centers in the late 1980s.

Harrell, who managed her husband’s ob.gyn. practice, said birth centers will have to meet the same high standards for staffing, infection control, and other aspects as those at outpatient surgery centers.

“Given where we are with the need, and maternity deserts across the state, this is something that will help us and help moms get the best care,” she said.

Seventeen hospitals in the state have closed their maternity units since 2019, with many citing low insurance reimbursement and high malpractice costs, according to the Florida Hospital Association.

Mary Mayhew, CEO of the Florida Hospital Association, said it is wrong to compare birth centers to ambulatory surgery centers because of the many risks associated with C-sections, such as hemorrhaging.

The Florida law requires advanced birth centers to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, but it does not dictate where the facilities can open nor their proximity to a hospital.

“We have serious concerns about the impact this model has on our collective efforts to improve maternal and infant health,” Mayhew said. “Our hospitals do not see this in the best interest of providing quality and safety in labor and delivery.”

Despite its opposition to the new birth centers, the Florida Hospital Association did not fight passage of the overall bill because it also included a major increase in the amount Medicaid pays hospitals for maternity care.

Mayhew said it is unlikely that the birth centers would help address care shortages. Hospitals are already struggling with a shortage of ob.gyns., she said, and it is unrealistic to expect advanced birth centers to open in rural areas with a large proportion of people on Medicaid, which pays the lowest reimbursement for labor and delivery care.

It is unclear whether insurers will cover the advanced birth centers, though most insurers and Medicaid cover care at midwife-run birth centers. The advanced birth centers will not accept emergency walk-ins and will treat only patients whose insurance contracts with the facilities, making them in-network.

Snow, the retired ob.gyn. with Women’s Care, said the group plans to open an advanced birth center in the Tampa or Orlando area.

The advanced birth center concept is an improvement on midwife care that enables deliveries outside of hospitals, he said, as the centers allow women to stay overnight and, if necessary, offer anesthesia and C-sections.

Snow acknowledged that, with a private equity firm invested in Women’s Care, the birth center idea is also about making money. But he said hospitals have the same profit incentive and, like midwives, likely oppose the idea of centers that can provide C-sections because they could cut into hospital revenue.

“We are trying to reduce the cost of medicine, and this would be more cost-effective and more pleasant for patients,” he said.

Kate Bauer, executive director of the American Association of Birth Centers, said patients could confuse advanced birth centers with the existing, free-standing birth centers for low-risk births that have been run by midwives for decades. There are currently 31 licensed birth centers in Florida and 411 free-standing birth centers in the United States, she said.

“This is a radical departure from the standard of care,” Bauer said. “It’s a bad idea,” she said, because it could increase risks to mom and baby.

No other state allows C-sections outside of hospitals. The only facility that offers similar care is a birth clinic in Wichita, Kansas, which is connected by a short walkway to a hospital, Wesley Medical Center.

The clinic provides “hotel-like” maternity suites where staffers deliver about 100 babies a month, compared with 500 per month in the hospital itself.

Morgan Tracy, a maternity nurse navigator at the center, said the concept works largely because the hospital and birthing suites can share staff and pharmacy access, plus patients can be quickly transferred to the main hospital if complications arise.

“The beauty is there are team members on both sides of the street,” Tracy said.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.