Reproductive Endocrinology

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I think we’re all aware that Alabama has put itself and the rest of the country into a moral bind when it comes to abortion and the status of human embryos. Back on February 16, 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court rendered a decision in a case called LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, in which the court said that cryopreserved embryos in frozen nitrogen were legally equivalent to children.

They basically said they’re granted the same rights, meaning you certainly can’t destroy them. You certainly could not be in a situation where somebody said, “I’m going to not use them,” because once you create them, you seem to have some duty to make sure they end up in an environment where they can become full-fledged adults.

This decision that embryos in frozen nitrogen — but literally embryos anywhere — are the equivalent of full-bore children put Alabama in a terrible situation if you were a person or a couple seeking in vitro fertilization (IVF).

IVF requires the creation of many eggs. Women have to undergo drug treatment so that they superovulate. It’s too expensive to just go one egg at a time, egg procurement costs too much, and a cycle of IVF could cost as much as $15,000. There are some people who don’t make many eggs, so you want to get as many as you can.

When you get them, you freeze them, as happened in this Alabama case. By the way, what triggered the court case was that somebody in the lab dropped the tray with embryos in it, and they were basically accused not just of a mistake but of murder.

It’s pretty serious when you see this decision and you realize that if you make a multitude of embryos and then you had a child after two tries, but you have six more, you can’t destroy them. What are you going to do with them? Will they be under the governance of the utility company? What’s going to happen?

Many women in Alabama were outraged by the court’s opinion because they want to do IVF. In fact, politically, proponents of thinking that life begins at conception — or fetal personhood as it’s called, and the view that human embryos are children from the minute of conception — were stuck. It’s hard to argue that IVF is not pro-life. It’s hard to argue that people who desperately want to have children should find it difficult to use the technique.

The state has tried to pass a law that exempts IVF clinics from liability if they’re trying to use human embryos to make babies. I do not think this will stand. The court decision is fundamentally wrong, in part because human embryos are not children. They are potential children. They are possible children, but outside of implantation in the environment of a woman’s uterus, they’ll never become anything.

In fact, the court decision is a version of what used to be called preformationism, which sees a tiny baby inside a human embryo. That’s not true. We know today that you’ve got sets of genes that need messages from the mom in order to begin the process of division and development. It isn’t just expanding a tiny, miniature baby into a full-bore baby, as the court in Alabama seems to think.

Dr. Caplan, director, division of medical ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I think we’re all aware that Alabama has put itself and the rest of the country into a moral bind when it comes to abortion and the status of human embryos. Back on February 16, 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court rendered a decision in a case called LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, in which the court said that cryopreserved embryos in frozen nitrogen were legally equivalent to children.

They basically said they’re granted the same rights, meaning you certainly can’t destroy them. You certainly could not be in a situation where somebody said, “I’m going to not use them,” because once you create them, you seem to have some duty to make sure they end up in an environment where they can become full-fledged adults.

This decision that embryos in frozen nitrogen — but literally embryos anywhere — are the equivalent of full-bore children put Alabama in a terrible situation if you were a person or a couple seeking in vitro fertilization (IVF).

IVF requires the creation of many eggs. Women have to undergo drug treatment so that they superovulate. It’s too expensive to just go one egg at a time, egg procurement costs too much, and a cycle of IVF could cost as much as $15,000. There are some people who don’t make many eggs, so you want to get as many as you can.

When you get them, you freeze them, as happened in this Alabama case. By the way, what triggered the court case was that somebody in the lab dropped the tray with embryos in it, and they were basically accused not just of a mistake but of murder.

It’s pretty serious when you see this decision and you realize that if you make a multitude of embryos and then you had a child after two tries, but you have six more, you can’t destroy them. What are you going to do with them? Will they be under the governance of the utility company? What’s going to happen?

Many women in Alabama were outraged by the court’s opinion because they want to do IVF. In fact, politically, proponents of thinking that life begins at conception — or fetal personhood as it’s called, and the view that human embryos are children from the minute of conception — were stuck. It’s hard to argue that IVF is not pro-life. It’s hard to argue that people who desperately want to have children should find it difficult to use the technique.

The state has tried to pass a law that exempts IVF clinics from liability if they’re trying to use human embryos to make babies. I do not think this will stand. The court decision is fundamentally wrong, in part because human embryos are not children. They are potential children. They are possible children, but outside of implantation in the environment of a woman’s uterus, they’ll never become anything.

In fact, the court decision is a version of what used to be called preformationism, which sees a tiny baby inside a human embryo. That’s not true. We know today that you’ve got sets of genes that need messages from the mom in order to begin the process of division and development. It isn’t just expanding a tiny, miniature baby into a full-bore baby, as the court in Alabama seems to think.

Dr. Caplan, director, division of medical ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I think we’re all aware that Alabama has put itself and the rest of the country into a moral bind when it comes to abortion and the status of human embryos. Back on February 16, 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court rendered a decision in a case called LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, in which the court said that cryopreserved embryos in frozen nitrogen were legally equivalent to children.

They basically said they’re granted the same rights, meaning you certainly can’t destroy them. You certainly could not be in a situation where somebody said, “I’m going to not use them,” because once you create them, you seem to have some duty to make sure they end up in an environment where they can become full-fledged adults.

This decision that embryos in frozen nitrogen — but literally embryos anywhere — are the equivalent of full-bore children put Alabama in a terrible situation if you were a person or a couple seeking in vitro fertilization (IVF).

IVF requires the creation of many eggs. Women have to undergo drug treatment so that they superovulate. It’s too expensive to just go one egg at a time, egg procurement costs too much, and a cycle of IVF could cost as much as $15,000. There are some people who don’t make many eggs, so you want to get as many as you can.

When you get them, you freeze them, as happened in this Alabama case. By the way, what triggered the court case was that somebody in the lab dropped the tray with embryos in it, and they were basically accused not just of a mistake but of murder.

It’s pretty serious when you see this decision and you realize that if you make a multitude of embryos and then you had a child after two tries, but you have six more, you can’t destroy them. What are you going to do with them? Will they be under the governance of the utility company? What’s going to happen?

Many women in Alabama were outraged by the court’s opinion because they want to do IVF. In fact, politically, proponents of thinking that life begins at conception — or fetal personhood as it’s called, and the view that human embryos are children from the minute of conception — were stuck. It’s hard to argue that IVF is not pro-life. It’s hard to argue that people who desperately want to have children should find it difficult to use the technique.

The state has tried to pass a law that exempts IVF clinics from liability if they’re trying to use human embryos to make babies. I do not think this will stand. The court decision is fundamentally wrong, in part because human embryos are not children. They are potential children. They are possible children, but outside of implantation in the environment of a woman’s uterus, they’ll never become anything.

In fact, the court decision is a version of what used to be called preformationism, which sees a tiny baby inside a human embryo. That’s not true. We know today that you’ve got sets of genes that need messages from the mom in order to begin the process of division and development. It isn’t just expanding a tiny, miniature baby into a full-bore baby, as the court in Alabama seems to think.

Dr. Caplan, director, division of medical ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The transplantation of ovarian tissue is often performed to extend fertility among women and adolescents with cancer. But some reproductive specialists believe the procedure may have another role to play with much wider application: delaying, or even preventing, menopause in healthy women.

Kutluk Oktay, MD, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Reproduction and Fertility Preservation at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, has used ovarian tissue transplantation (OTT) in his own practice — Innovation Fertility Preservation & IVF — for several years. He said the approach can reduce health risks associated with menopause, such as the loss of bone density and cardiovascular disease.

“We have started offering [ovarian tissue transplantation] in carefully selected candidates, but the pace will accelerate now that we have a way to better inform the candidates on the potential of the procedure,” Dr. Oktay said. To date, he said he has performed the procedure on approximately 20 patients.

But Dr. Oktay’s vision of the future for OTT remains on the fringe of reproductive medicine.

“I think there are ethical considerations to take into account here,” said Stephanie Faubion, MD, Medical Director for the North American Menopause Society. “You’re taking a perfectly healthy 25- to 30-year-old woman and putting her through surgery to take out a healthy organ. Let’s just think about that.”
 

The Promise and Risks of OTT

OTT involves removing part of the ovarian tissue, cryopreservation, and then transplanting it back into the body. The procedure has reversed early menopause in women who underwent cancer treatment and resulted in over 140 live births worldwide.

Dr. Oktay recently published a nonclinical study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology using a mathematical model based on decades of clinical research on cancer patients and ovarian follicle counts in cadaver to forecast how OTT can delay the onset of menopause through restored ovarian function and hormonal shifts.

The model forecasts a delay in menopause of up to 47 years, depending on factors such as the age of tissue removal, a woman’s ovarian reserve, and an estimated number of primordial follicles — where tens to hundreds of thousands of undeveloped eggs can live — that survive the process of removal, freezing, and reimplantation.

OTT is currently associated with a survival rate of 40% for follicles, Dr. Oktay said. But technological advancements, including revascularization drugs and robotic surgery, are likely to extend the survival rate to 80% by the time reimplantation occurs, potentially 15-20 years after tissue removal, he said.

Prospective patients at Dr. Oktay’s practice can use an interactive tool to receive an estimate of their potential menopausal delay. Patients receive a clinical assessment, including tests for ovarian reserve markers, to determine their potential for the procedure.

The model predicted that harvesting tissue before age 30 could delay menopause significantly. A 25-year-old woman with an average ovarian reserve who preserved a quarter of one ovary would have a delay in menopause of 11.8 years if 40% of the follicles survived. Women around age 40, and especially those with a low ovarian reserve, would need a follicle survival rate of close to 100% to result in a delay significant enough to justify the procedure.

The procedure also comes with risks. Removing ovarian tissue can bring on early menopause, Dr. Oktay said. Removing part or all of the ovarian cortex — the outer part of the ovary that contains the follicles — can start menopause about 1.5 years earlier. But as long as the tissue is transplanted, a woman would gain many more years of fertility before menopause.

While potentially promising, some obstetrics and gynecology experts question the procedure, with no proven benefits.

“While theoretically possible, my biggest question is, how is this better than egg freezing in your 20s or 30s combined with hormone replacement for the aging benefits, given the risks associated with potentially multiple surgeries?” said Paula Amato, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon.

Any risks associated with receiving hormone therapy through OTT rather than traditional hormone replacement therapy are also unknown, Dr. Amato said.

A UK clinic, ProFam, based in Birmingham, also offered the procedure but faced criticism in 2020 for being unnecessary and experimental. This news organization could not confirm if the clinic is still in operation.
 

Why Delay Menopause?

While the procedure may extend fertility, the goal of the procedure is not to enable patients to become pregnant at ages that are not safe, Dr. Oktay said. Rather, he said postponing menopause is medically beneficial.

Some research shows that women who have late menopause have a lower risk for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease but a higher risk for breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers.

Dr. Oktay said that delaying menopause could improve the quality of life for women by reducing menopausal symptoms like anxiety and depression. Clinicians could also use the procedure as preventive care for those who are at high risk for conditions associated with menopause, such as osteoporosis and dementia.

But Dr. Faubion is unconvinced that delaying menopause through OTT carries health benefits.

“Just because we can do this, should we?” she said. “And will it do the things that we think it will? Does preventing or delaying menopause delay the aging process? I think that’s what they’re trying to imply, and we don’t have evidence that that’s true.”

The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, U-Anschutz Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Research Funds, SF Faculty Early Career Development Program, and the National Institutes of Health awards. The authors reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The transplantation of ovarian tissue is often performed to extend fertility among women and adolescents with cancer. But some reproductive specialists believe the procedure may have another role to play with much wider application: delaying, or even preventing, menopause in healthy women.

Kutluk Oktay, MD, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Reproduction and Fertility Preservation at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, has used ovarian tissue transplantation (OTT) in his own practice — Innovation Fertility Preservation & IVF — for several years. He said the approach can reduce health risks associated with menopause, such as the loss of bone density and cardiovascular disease.

“We have started offering [ovarian tissue transplantation] in carefully selected candidates, but the pace will accelerate now that we have a way to better inform the candidates on the potential of the procedure,” Dr. Oktay said. To date, he said he has performed the procedure on approximately 20 patients.

But Dr. Oktay’s vision of the future for OTT remains on the fringe of reproductive medicine.

“I think there are ethical considerations to take into account here,” said Stephanie Faubion, MD, Medical Director for the North American Menopause Society. “You’re taking a perfectly healthy 25- to 30-year-old woman and putting her through surgery to take out a healthy organ. Let’s just think about that.”
 

The Promise and Risks of OTT

OTT involves removing part of the ovarian tissue, cryopreservation, and then transplanting it back into the body. The procedure has reversed early menopause in women who underwent cancer treatment and resulted in over 140 live births worldwide.

Dr. Oktay recently published a nonclinical study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology using a mathematical model based on decades of clinical research on cancer patients and ovarian follicle counts in cadaver to forecast how OTT can delay the onset of menopause through restored ovarian function and hormonal shifts.

The model forecasts a delay in menopause of up to 47 years, depending on factors such as the age of tissue removal, a woman’s ovarian reserve, and an estimated number of primordial follicles — where tens to hundreds of thousands of undeveloped eggs can live — that survive the process of removal, freezing, and reimplantation.

OTT is currently associated with a survival rate of 40% for follicles, Dr. Oktay said. But technological advancements, including revascularization drugs and robotic surgery, are likely to extend the survival rate to 80% by the time reimplantation occurs, potentially 15-20 years after tissue removal, he said.

Prospective patients at Dr. Oktay’s practice can use an interactive tool to receive an estimate of their potential menopausal delay. Patients receive a clinical assessment, including tests for ovarian reserve markers, to determine their potential for the procedure.

The model predicted that harvesting tissue before age 30 could delay menopause significantly. A 25-year-old woman with an average ovarian reserve who preserved a quarter of one ovary would have a delay in menopause of 11.8 years if 40% of the follicles survived. Women around age 40, and especially those with a low ovarian reserve, would need a follicle survival rate of close to 100% to result in a delay significant enough to justify the procedure.

The procedure also comes with risks. Removing ovarian tissue can bring on early menopause, Dr. Oktay said. Removing part or all of the ovarian cortex — the outer part of the ovary that contains the follicles — can start menopause about 1.5 years earlier. But as long as the tissue is transplanted, a woman would gain many more years of fertility before menopause.

While potentially promising, some obstetrics and gynecology experts question the procedure, with no proven benefits.

“While theoretically possible, my biggest question is, how is this better than egg freezing in your 20s or 30s combined with hormone replacement for the aging benefits, given the risks associated with potentially multiple surgeries?” said Paula Amato, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon.

Any risks associated with receiving hormone therapy through OTT rather than traditional hormone replacement therapy are also unknown, Dr. Amato said.

A UK clinic, ProFam, based in Birmingham, also offered the procedure but faced criticism in 2020 for being unnecessary and experimental. This news organization could not confirm if the clinic is still in operation.
 

Why Delay Menopause?

While the procedure may extend fertility, the goal of the procedure is not to enable patients to become pregnant at ages that are not safe, Dr. Oktay said. Rather, he said postponing menopause is medically beneficial.

Some research shows that women who have late menopause have a lower risk for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease but a higher risk for breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers.

Dr. Oktay said that delaying menopause could improve the quality of life for women by reducing menopausal symptoms like anxiety and depression. Clinicians could also use the procedure as preventive care for those who are at high risk for conditions associated with menopause, such as osteoporosis and dementia.

But Dr. Faubion is unconvinced that delaying menopause through OTT carries health benefits.

“Just because we can do this, should we?” she said. “And will it do the things that we think it will? Does preventing or delaying menopause delay the aging process? I think that’s what they’re trying to imply, and we don’t have evidence that that’s true.”

The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, U-Anschutz Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Research Funds, SF Faculty Early Career Development Program, and the National Institutes of Health awards. The authors reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The transplantation of ovarian tissue is often performed to extend fertility among women and adolescents with cancer. But some reproductive specialists believe the procedure may have another role to play with much wider application: delaying, or even preventing, menopause in healthy women.

Kutluk Oktay, MD, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Reproduction and Fertility Preservation at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, has used ovarian tissue transplantation (OTT) in his own practice — Innovation Fertility Preservation & IVF — for several years. He said the approach can reduce health risks associated with menopause, such as the loss of bone density and cardiovascular disease.

“We have started offering [ovarian tissue transplantation] in carefully selected candidates, but the pace will accelerate now that we have a way to better inform the candidates on the potential of the procedure,” Dr. Oktay said. To date, he said he has performed the procedure on approximately 20 patients.

But Dr. Oktay’s vision of the future for OTT remains on the fringe of reproductive medicine.

“I think there are ethical considerations to take into account here,” said Stephanie Faubion, MD, Medical Director for the North American Menopause Society. “You’re taking a perfectly healthy 25- to 30-year-old woman and putting her through surgery to take out a healthy organ. Let’s just think about that.”
 

The Promise and Risks of OTT

OTT involves removing part of the ovarian tissue, cryopreservation, and then transplanting it back into the body. The procedure has reversed early menopause in women who underwent cancer treatment and resulted in over 140 live births worldwide.

Dr. Oktay recently published a nonclinical study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology using a mathematical model based on decades of clinical research on cancer patients and ovarian follicle counts in cadaver to forecast how OTT can delay the onset of menopause through restored ovarian function and hormonal shifts.

The model forecasts a delay in menopause of up to 47 years, depending on factors such as the age of tissue removal, a woman’s ovarian reserve, and an estimated number of primordial follicles — where tens to hundreds of thousands of undeveloped eggs can live — that survive the process of removal, freezing, and reimplantation.

OTT is currently associated with a survival rate of 40% for follicles, Dr. Oktay said. But technological advancements, including revascularization drugs and robotic surgery, are likely to extend the survival rate to 80% by the time reimplantation occurs, potentially 15-20 years after tissue removal, he said.

Prospective patients at Dr. Oktay’s practice can use an interactive tool to receive an estimate of their potential menopausal delay. Patients receive a clinical assessment, including tests for ovarian reserve markers, to determine their potential for the procedure.

The model predicted that harvesting tissue before age 30 could delay menopause significantly. A 25-year-old woman with an average ovarian reserve who preserved a quarter of one ovary would have a delay in menopause of 11.8 years if 40% of the follicles survived. Women around age 40, and especially those with a low ovarian reserve, would need a follicle survival rate of close to 100% to result in a delay significant enough to justify the procedure.

The procedure also comes with risks. Removing ovarian tissue can bring on early menopause, Dr. Oktay said. Removing part or all of the ovarian cortex — the outer part of the ovary that contains the follicles — can start menopause about 1.5 years earlier. But as long as the tissue is transplanted, a woman would gain many more years of fertility before menopause.

While potentially promising, some obstetrics and gynecology experts question the procedure, with no proven benefits.

“While theoretically possible, my biggest question is, how is this better than egg freezing in your 20s or 30s combined with hormone replacement for the aging benefits, given the risks associated with potentially multiple surgeries?” said Paula Amato, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon.

Any risks associated with receiving hormone therapy through OTT rather than traditional hormone replacement therapy are also unknown, Dr. Amato said.

A UK clinic, ProFam, based in Birmingham, also offered the procedure but faced criticism in 2020 for being unnecessary and experimental. This news organization could not confirm if the clinic is still in operation.
 

Why Delay Menopause?

While the procedure may extend fertility, the goal of the procedure is not to enable patients to become pregnant at ages that are not safe, Dr. Oktay said. Rather, he said postponing menopause is medically beneficial.

Some research shows that women who have late menopause have a lower risk for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease but a higher risk for breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers.

Dr. Oktay said that delaying menopause could improve the quality of life for women by reducing menopausal symptoms like anxiety and depression. Clinicians could also use the procedure as preventive care for those who are at high risk for conditions associated with menopause, such as osteoporosis and dementia.

But Dr. Faubion is unconvinced that delaying menopause through OTT carries health benefits.

“Just because we can do this, should we?” she said. “And will it do the things that we think it will? Does preventing or delaying menopause delay the aging process? I think that’s what they’re trying to imply, and we don’t have evidence that that’s true.”

The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, U-Anschutz Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Research Funds, SF Faculty Early Career Development Program, and the National Institutes of Health awards. The authors reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Testosterone replacement therapy in the treatment of hypogonadism showed no benefit in slowing the progression of prediabetes or diabetes, contrary to previous evidence that suggested potential improvements in insulin sensitivity and metabolism.

“The findings of this study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy alone should not be used as a therapeutic intervention to prevent or treat diabetes in men with hypogonadism,” reported the authors of research published this month in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The suggestion that testosterone replacement could prevent or slow diabetes stems from numerous studies linking testosterone deficiency to a host of adverse effects that include increases in insulin resistance and an increased risk for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.

Furthermore, one recent uncontrolled study showed a lower rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes in testosterone-treated vs untreated men with hypogonadism.

But with no known randomized clinical trials evaluating the effects of testosterone on diabetes in the absence of a concurrent lifestyle intervention, Shalender Bhasin, MB, of the Research Program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues conducted a substudy of the randomized TRAVERSE trial, which was conducted at 316 sites in the United States.

“We hypothesized that testosterone replacement therapy for men with hypogonadism and prediabetes would be associated with a significantly lower rate of progression to diabetes,” they wrote.

In the study, named the TRAVERSE Diabetes Study, 5204 participants aged between 40 and 85 years with hypogonadism as well as prediabetes (n = 1175) or diabetes (n = 3880) were randomized 1:1 to receive treatment either with 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The participants had a mean age of 63.2 years, and the mean A1c among those with prediabetes was 5.8%.

For the primary outcome, the risk for progression to diabetes did not differ significantly between the testosterone-treated and placebo groups at 6 months (0.7% vs 1.4%), 12 months (7.8% vs 10.7%), 24 months (10.1% vs 14.6%), 36 months (12.8% vs 15.8%), or 48 months (13.4% vs 15.7%; omnibus test P = .49).

There were also no significant differences in terms of glycemic remission and the changes in glucose and A1c levels between the testosterone- and placebo-treated men with prediabetes or diabetes, consistent with findings from previous smaller trials.

The authors pointed out that the participants in the TRAVERSE trial had mild to moderate testosterone deficiency, and “it is possible that greater improvements in insulin sensitivity may be observed in men with severe testosterone deficiency.”

However, they noted that most men with hypogonadism who are treated with testosterone replacement therapy have only mild testosterone deficiency.

The parent TRAVERSE study did show testosterone replacement therapy to be associated with higher incidences of venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, and acute kidney injury; however, no additional between-group differences were observed based on diabetes or prediabetes status.

“The findings of this study do not support the use of testosterone replacement therapy alone to prevent or to treat diabetes in men with hypogonadism,” the authors concluded.
 

Study ‘Overcomes Limitations of Prior Studies’

In an editorial published concurrently with the study, Lona Mody, MD, of the Division of Geriatric and Palliative Care Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, in Ann Arbor, and colleagues underscored that “the results of this study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy will not benefit glycemic control in men without hypogonadism despite the inappropriately high rates of use in this group.”

Further commenting, Dr. Mody elaborated on the high rates of use, noting that data have shown androgen use among men over 40 years increased more than threefold from 0.81% in 2001 to 2.91% in 2011.

“Based on sales data, testosterone prescribing has increased 100-fold from $18 million in the late 1980s to $1.8 billion over three decades,” Dr. Mody said.

She noted that while some previous research has shown a similar lack of benefits, “the current study overcomes some limitations of prior studies.”

Ultimately, the evidence indicated that “the only major indication for testosterone replacement therapy remains to treat bothersome symptoms of hypogonadism,” Dr. Mody said. “It does not appear to have metabolic benefits.”

This trial was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support provided by Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, LLC.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Testosterone replacement therapy in the treatment of hypogonadism showed no benefit in slowing the progression of prediabetes or diabetes, contrary to previous evidence that suggested potential improvements in insulin sensitivity and metabolism.

“The findings of this study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy alone should not be used as a therapeutic intervention to prevent or treat diabetes in men with hypogonadism,” reported the authors of research published this month in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The suggestion that testosterone replacement could prevent or slow diabetes stems from numerous studies linking testosterone deficiency to a host of adverse effects that include increases in insulin resistance and an increased risk for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.

Furthermore, one recent uncontrolled study showed a lower rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes in testosterone-treated vs untreated men with hypogonadism.

But with no known randomized clinical trials evaluating the effects of testosterone on diabetes in the absence of a concurrent lifestyle intervention, Shalender Bhasin, MB, of the Research Program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues conducted a substudy of the randomized TRAVERSE trial, which was conducted at 316 sites in the United States.

“We hypothesized that testosterone replacement therapy for men with hypogonadism and prediabetes would be associated with a significantly lower rate of progression to diabetes,” they wrote.

In the study, named the TRAVERSE Diabetes Study, 5204 participants aged between 40 and 85 years with hypogonadism as well as prediabetes (n = 1175) or diabetes (n = 3880) were randomized 1:1 to receive treatment either with 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The participants had a mean age of 63.2 years, and the mean A1c among those with prediabetes was 5.8%.

For the primary outcome, the risk for progression to diabetes did not differ significantly between the testosterone-treated and placebo groups at 6 months (0.7% vs 1.4%), 12 months (7.8% vs 10.7%), 24 months (10.1% vs 14.6%), 36 months (12.8% vs 15.8%), or 48 months (13.4% vs 15.7%; omnibus test P = .49).

There were also no significant differences in terms of glycemic remission and the changes in glucose and A1c levels between the testosterone- and placebo-treated men with prediabetes or diabetes, consistent with findings from previous smaller trials.

The authors pointed out that the participants in the TRAVERSE trial had mild to moderate testosterone deficiency, and “it is possible that greater improvements in insulin sensitivity may be observed in men with severe testosterone deficiency.”

However, they noted that most men with hypogonadism who are treated with testosterone replacement therapy have only mild testosterone deficiency.

The parent TRAVERSE study did show testosterone replacement therapy to be associated with higher incidences of venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, and acute kidney injury; however, no additional between-group differences were observed based on diabetes or prediabetes status.

“The findings of this study do not support the use of testosterone replacement therapy alone to prevent or to treat diabetes in men with hypogonadism,” the authors concluded.
 

Study ‘Overcomes Limitations of Prior Studies’

In an editorial published concurrently with the study, Lona Mody, MD, of the Division of Geriatric and Palliative Care Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, in Ann Arbor, and colleagues underscored that “the results of this study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy will not benefit glycemic control in men without hypogonadism despite the inappropriately high rates of use in this group.”

Further commenting, Dr. Mody elaborated on the high rates of use, noting that data have shown androgen use among men over 40 years increased more than threefold from 0.81% in 2001 to 2.91% in 2011.

“Based on sales data, testosterone prescribing has increased 100-fold from $18 million in the late 1980s to $1.8 billion over three decades,” Dr. Mody said.

She noted that while some previous research has shown a similar lack of benefits, “the current study overcomes some limitations of prior studies.”

Ultimately, the evidence indicated that “the only major indication for testosterone replacement therapy remains to treat bothersome symptoms of hypogonadism,” Dr. Mody said. “It does not appear to have metabolic benefits.”

This trial was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support provided by Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, LLC.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Testosterone replacement therapy in the treatment of hypogonadism showed no benefit in slowing the progression of prediabetes or diabetes, contrary to previous evidence that suggested potential improvements in insulin sensitivity and metabolism.

“The findings of this study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy alone should not be used as a therapeutic intervention to prevent or treat diabetes in men with hypogonadism,” reported the authors of research published this month in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The suggestion that testosterone replacement could prevent or slow diabetes stems from numerous studies linking testosterone deficiency to a host of adverse effects that include increases in insulin resistance and an increased risk for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.

Furthermore, one recent uncontrolled study showed a lower rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes in testosterone-treated vs untreated men with hypogonadism.

But with no known randomized clinical trials evaluating the effects of testosterone on diabetes in the absence of a concurrent lifestyle intervention, Shalender Bhasin, MB, of the Research Program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues conducted a substudy of the randomized TRAVERSE trial, which was conducted at 316 sites in the United States.

“We hypothesized that testosterone replacement therapy for men with hypogonadism and prediabetes would be associated with a significantly lower rate of progression to diabetes,” they wrote.

In the study, named the TRAVERSE Diabetes Study, 5204 participants aged between 40 and 85 years with hypogonadism as well as prediabetes (n = 1175) or diabetes (n = 3880) were randomized 1:1 to receive treatment either with 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The participants had a mean age of 63.2 years, and the mean A1c among those with prediabetes was 5.8%.

For the primary outcome, the risk for progression to diabetes did not differ significantly between the testosterone-treated and placebo groups at 6 months (0.7% vs 1.4%), 12 months (7.8% vs 10.7%), 24 months (10.1% vs 14.6%), 36 months (12.8% vs 15.8%), or 48 months (13.4% vs 15.7%; omnibus test P = .49).

There were also no significant differences in terms of glycemic remission and the changes in glucose and A1c levels between the testosterone- and placebo-treated men with prediabetes or diabetes, consistent with findings from previous smaller trials.

The authors pointed out that the participants in the TRAVERSE trial had mild to moderate testosterone deficiency, and “it is possible that greater improvements in insulin sensitivity may be observed in men with severe testosterone deficiency.”

However, they noted that most men with hypogonadism who are treated with testosterone replacement therapy have only mild testosterone deficiency.

The parent TRAVERSE study did show testosterone replacement therapy to be associated with higher incidences of venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, and acute kidney injury; however, no additional between-group differences were observed based on diabetes or prediabetes status.

“The findings of this study do not support the use of testosterone replacement therapy alone to prevent or to treat diabetes in men with hypogonadism,” the authors concluded.
 

Study ‘Overcomes Limitations of Prior Studies’

In an editorial published concurrently with the study, Lona Mody, MD, of the Division of Geriatric and Palliative Care Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, in Ann Arbor, and colleagues underscored that “the results of this study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy will not benefit glycemic control in men without hypogonadism despite the inappropriately high rates of use in this group.”

Further commenting, Dr. Mody elaborated on the high rates of use, noting that data have shown androgen use among men over 40 years increased more than threefold from 0.81% in 2001 to 2.91% in 2011.

“Based on sales data, testosterone prescribing has increased 100-fold from $18 million in the late 1980s to $1.8 billion over three decades,” Dr. Mody said.

She noted that while some previous research has shown a similar lack of benefits, “the current study overcomes some limitations of prior studies.”

Ultimately, the evidence indicated that “the only major indication for testosterone replacement therapy remains to treat bothersome symptoms of hypogonadism,” Dr. Mody said. “It does not appear to have metabolic benefits.”

This trial was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support provided by Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, LLC.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Santé Publique France (SPF), the French national public health agency, has released the findings of the PEPS’PE study, which was launched in 2021. The study aims to prioritize, following extensive consultation, the health effects to be monitored for their potential link to endocrine disruptors (EDs). Out of 59 health effects suspected to be associated with exposure to EDs, 21 have been considered a priority for surveillance. Based on these results and others, SPF will expand the scope of the Agency’s surveillance by incorporating new pathologies.

As part of its environmental health program and the National Strategy on EDs, SPF has been conducting surveillance related to EDs targeting reproductive health since 2015. To incorporate new scientific knowledge, the PEPS’PE project aims to prioritize health effects related to EDs and identify health events to integrate into the agency’s current surveillance. The 59 health effects suspected to be associated with exposure to EDs were to be evaluated based on two criteria: The weight of evidence and the epidemiological and societal impact of the health effect. A diverse panel of international experts and French stakeholders in the field of EDs classified 21 health effects as a priority for surveillance.

Among these effects, six reproductive health effects are already monitored in the surveillance program: Cryptorchidism, hypospadias, early puberty, testicular cancer, alteration of sperm quality, and endometriosis. In addition, infertility and decreased fertility (which are not currently monitored for their link to EDs) have been included.

Metabolic effects (including overweight and obesity, cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome), child neurodevelopmental disorders (including behavioral disorders, intellectual deficits, and attention-deficit disorders), cancers (including breast cancer, prostate cancer, lymphomas, and leukemias in children), and asthma have also been highlighted.

Furthermore, 22 effects were considered low priorities or deemed nonpriorities when, for example, they presented weak or moderate evidence with varying levels of interest in implementing surveillance. Finally, 16 health effects could not be prioritized because of a lack of scientific experts on these topics and a failure to achieve consensus (eg, bone disorders, adrenal disorders, and skin and eye disorders). Consensus was sought during this consultation using a Delphi method.

“These results indicate the need to expand the scope of the Agency’s surveillance beyond reproductive health, incorporating new pathologies when surveillance data are available,” SPF declared in a press release.

“With the initial decision elements obtained through this study, Santé Publique France will analyze the feasibility of implementing surveillance for effects classified as priorities.”
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Santé Publique France (SPF), the French national public health agency, has released the findings of the PEPS’PE study, which was launched in 2021. The study aims to prioritize, following extensive consultation, the health effects to be monitored for their potential link to endocrine disruptors (EDs). Out of 59 health effects suspected to be associated with exposure to EDs, 21 have been considered a priority for surveillance. Based on these results and others, SPF will expand the scope of the Agency’s surveillance by incorporating new pathologies.

As part of its environmental health program and the National Strategy on EDs, SPF has been conducting surveillance related to EDs targeting reproductive health since 2015. To incorporate new scientific knowledge, the PEPS’PE project aims to prioritize health effects related to EDs and identify health events to integrate into the agency’s current surveillance. The 59 health effects suspected to be associated with exposure to EDs were to be evaluated based on two criteria: The weight of evidence and the epidemiological and societal impact of the health effect. A diverse panel of international experts and French stakeholders in the field of EDs classified 21 health effects as a priority for surveillance.

Among these effects, six reproductive health effects are already monitored in the surveillance program: Cryptorchidism, hypospadias, early puberty, testicular cancer, alteration of sperm quality, and endometriosis. In addition, infertility and decreased fertility (which are not currently monitored for their link to EDs) have been included.

Metabolic effects (including overweight and obesity, cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome), child neurodevelopmental disorders (including behavioral disorders, intellectual deficits, and attention-deficit disorders), cancers (including breast cancer, prostate cancer, lymphomas, and leukemias in children), and asthma have also been highlighted.

Furthermore, 22 effects were considered low priorities or deemed nonpriorities when, for example, they presented weak or moderate evidence with varying levels of interest in implementing surveillance. Finally, 16 health effects could not be prioritized because of a lack of scientific experts on these topics and a failure to achieve consensus (eg, bone disorders, adrenal disorders, and skin and eye disorders). Consensus was sought during this consultation using a Delphi method.

“These results indicate the need to expand the scope of the Agency’s surveillance beyond reproductive health, incorporating new pathologies when surveillance data are available,” SPF declared in a press release.

“With the initial decision elements obtained through this study, Santé Publique France will analyze the feasibility of implementing surveillance for effects classified as priorities.”
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Santé Publique France (SPF), the French national public health agency, has released the findings of the PEPS’PE study, which was launched in 2021. The study aims to prioritize, following extensive consultation, the health effects to be monitored for their potential link to endocrine disruptors (EDs). Out of 59 health effects suspected to be associated with exposure to EDs, 21 have been considered a priority for surveillance. Based on these results and others, SPF will expand the scope of the Agency’s surveillance by incorporating new pathologies.

As part of its environmental health program and the National Strategy on EDs, SPF has been conducting surveillance related to EDs targeting reproductive health since 2015. To incorporate new scientific knowledge, the PEPS’PE project aims to prioritize health effects related to EDs and identify health events to integrate into the agency’s current surveillance. The 59 health effects suspected to be associated with exposure to EDs were to be evaluated based on two criteria: The weight of evidence and the epidemiological and societal impact of the health effect. A diverse panel of international experts and French stakeholders in the field of EDs classified 21 health effects as a priority for surveillance.

Among these effects, six reproductive health effects are already monitored in the surveillance program: Cryptorchidism, hypospadias, early puberty, testicular cancer, alteration of sperm quality, and endometriosis. In addition, infertility and decreased fertility (which are not currently monitored for their link to EDs) have been included.

Metabolic effects (including overweight and obesity, cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome), child neurodevelopmental disorders (including behavioral disorders, intellectual deficits, and attention-deficit disorders), cancers (including breast cancer, prostate cancer, lymphomas, and leukemias in children), and asthma have also been highlighted.

Furthermore, 22 effects were considered low priorities or deemed nonpriorities when, for example, they presented weak or moderate evidence with varying levels of interest in implementing surveillance. Finally, 16 health effects could not be prioritized because of a lack of scientific experts on these topics and a failure to achieve consensus (eg, bone disorders, adrenal disorders, and skin and eye disorders). Consensus was sought during this consultation using a Delphi method.

“These results indicate the need to expand the scope of the Agency’s surveillance beyond reproductive health, incorporating new pathologies when surveillance data are available,” SPF declared in a press release.

“With the initial decision elements obtained through this study, Santé Publique France will analyze the feasibility of implementing surveillance for effects classified as priorities.”
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I am showing you a graph without any labels.

166639_photo1_web.jpg

166639_photo2_web.jpg

166639_photo3_web.jpg

166639_photo4_web.jpg

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I am showing you a graph without any labels.

166639_photo1_web.jpg

166639_photo2_web.jpg

166639_photo3_web.jpg

166639_photo4_web.jpg

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I am showing you a graph without any labels.

166639_photo1_web.jpg

166639_photo2_web.jpg

166639_photo3_web.jpg

166639_photo4_web.jpg

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Underdiagnosis, reluctant doctors, patient preconceptions: Treating low testosterone levels is a tricky business in France despite the proven benefits of replacement therapy. About 20% of patients with symptomatic low testosterone levels are treated for the deficiency, said Eric Huygue, MD, PhD, urologic surgeon at Toulouse University Hospital in France, at the 117th annual conference of the French Urology Association (AFU).

“Treatment for low testosterone is effective and risk-free. It improves a patient’s quality of life and general health,” particularly affecting fatigue, mood, and libido, said Dr. Huygue, who was involved in drawing up the first French recommendations on treating low testosterone in 2021.

“We must keep up communication efforts to make patients and doctors aware” of the benefits of supplementation, he said.
 

Testosterone Levels

Testosterone deficiency mostly affects men older than 40 years. A drop in androgen levels, which varies by individual, can lead to sexual problems (such as erectile dysfunction and low libido), physical symptoms (fatigue, hot flashes, loss of muscle mass, and osteoporosis), and mental disorders (anxiety, irritability, and depression).

There are an estimated 340,000 men with symptomatic testosterone deficiency in France. Just 70,000 of these are receiving replacement therapy (see box), which accounts for only 20% of those affected. For Dr. Huygue, this low treatment rate is due to underdiagnosis, as well as reluctance on the part of doctors and patients.

Although routine screening of low testosterone in the general population is not recommended, some individuals are particularly at risk, noted the urologist.

This is especially true for patients with metabolic disorders associated with insulin resistance (such as obesity and type 2 diabetes), cardiovascular diseases (hypertension, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation), or other chronic conditions (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, and depression). Some medications (corticosteroids, antipsychotics, chemotherapy drugs, and antiretroviral therapies) can also lead to low testosterone.

Per the French recommendations for managing low testosterone, diagnosis must be based on free or bioavailable testosterone and not total testosterone levels, which can give a skewed result. Levels must be tested twice, 1 month apart, in the morning and while fasting. The reference range is determined by taking the lower threshold level of young men as measured in the laboratory.

Threshold Values

The current practice of using the reference range associated with the patient’s age group undoubtedly contributes to the underdiagnosis of low testosterone, said Dr. Huygue. According to a survey of AFU members in 2021, the year in which the recommendations were published, 77% of urologists interviewed reported referring to reference ranges for patients of the same age.

In their defense, “this method has long been in use, but it has eventually become apparent that symptomatic patients with an undiagnosed deficiency could be in the reference patients’ group,” Dr. Huygue explained.

Once a deficiency has been diagnosed, doctors may be reluctant to prescribe replacement therapy due to the perceived risk of developing prostate cancer. Several international studies have shown that “the risk of prostate cancer is the single biggest reason for doctors refusing to prescribe testosterone,” said Dr. Huygue.

Despite this reluctance, numerous studies have clearly shown that there is no link between a high testosterone level and the risk of developing prostate cancer. It even seems that a low testosterone level might expose a person to an increased risk for an aggressive form of cancer.

“This is a time of many surprising discoveries concerning the link between the prostate and testosterone, which go against what we have thought up to now. It has been observed that men with low testosterone develop more serious types of cancer,” said Dr. Huygue at a previous meeting of the AFU, during which he announced the publication of the French recommendations.
 

Prostate Cancer Recurrence

Urologists are also wary of testosterone supplementation in patients with a previous history of prostate cancer. According to the AFU’s survey, 40% of urologists questioned think that testosterone is contraindicated in this population. One in two urologists prescribe testosterone after radical prostatectomy for low or intermediate risk and most commonly after 3 years of undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.

Nevertheless, “several retrospective studies show the safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men who have undergone radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy or who are under active monitoring,” said Dr. Huygue. Testosterone “does not appear to increase the risk of relapse” after treatment of prostate cancer.

Dr. Huygue invited prescribing physicians to refer to the French recommendations, which specify that 1 year of undetectable PSA after prostatectomy is sufficient before prescribing replacement therapy. “This is clearly indicated in the recommendations for patients with a previous history of prostate cancer.”

Neither prostate cancer nor benign prostatic hyperplasia is a contraindication. According to the recommendations, the only contraindications to testosterone prescription are the following:

• Hematocrit > 54%
• Current breast or prostate cancer
• Cardiovascular event less than 3-6 months prior
• Trying to conceive

Cardiovascular Benefits

Another more commonly used argument by general practitioners and endocrinologists to justify their reluctance to prescribe testosterone is the risk to cardiovascular health. In early 2010, a series of American studies alerted clinicians to this risk when taking testosterone. Since then, other studies have had reassuring findings.

In response to the alert issued by the United States, the European Medicines Agency specified that “the data are not sufficient for a warning,” before the American Heart Association colleagues concluded that testosterone should only be avoided in the first 6 months following a severe cardiovascular event.

Conversely, in 2021, the European Society of Cardiology put forward the benefits of testosterone in an article in favor of replacement therapy to prevent cardiovascular risk. In particular, the hormone is thought to have a beneficial effect on arterial stiffness, the appearance of calcified plaques, and coronary artery dilatation.

The final hurdle to overcome before a testosterone prescription is filled relates to patients themselves, who often regard such treatment unfavorably. Many wrongly believe that androgens are hormones that “increase the risk of cancer, make you aggressive, cause weight gain, lead to hair loss, and cause body hair growth,” said Dr. Huygue.

Finally, breaks in the supply chain for Androtardyl, the only injectable form available for reimbursement by French social security schemes, were reported in the country in 2023, said Dr. Huygue. This situation only complicates further the prescription and use of testosterone replacement therapy.
 

Which Supplement?

Testosterone replacement therapies are available on the market in the following formulations:

Via transcutaneous administration: Testosterone-based gels, not covered by the French social security system (Androgel and Fortigel), to be applied daily. Users must be careful to avoid any potential transfer of the product to women or children in case of contact with the site after application.

Via an injection: Androtardyl (testosterone enanthate), covered by French social security, to be administered intramuscularly once a month. Nebido (testosterone undecanoate), not covered by French social security, with a more beneficial bioavailability profile, to be administered once every 3 months.

Pantestone (testosterone undecanoate), administered orally, is not marketed since 2021. It had the major disadvantage of requiring a high-fat diet to ensure optimal absorption.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Underdiagnosis, reluctant doctors, patient preconceptions: Treating low testosterone levels is a tricky business in France despite the proven benefits of replacement therapy. About 20% of patients with symptomatic low testosterone levels are treated for the deficiency, said Eric Huygue, MD, PhD, urologic surgeon at Toulouse University Hospital in France, at the 117th annual conference of the French Urology Association (AFU).

“Treatment for low testosterone is effective and risk-free. It improves a patient’s quality of life and general health,” particularly affecting fatigue, mood, and libido, said Dr. Huygue, who was involved in drawing up the first French recommendations on treating low testosterone in 2021.

“We must keep up communication efforts to make patients and doctors aware” of the benefits of supplementation, he said.
 

Testosterone Levels

Testosterone deficiency mostly affects men older than 40 years. A drop in androgen levels, which varies by individual, can lead to sexual problems (such as erectile dysfunction and low libido), physical symptoms (fatigue, hot flashes, loss of muscle mass, and osteoporosis), and mental disorders (anxiety, irritability, and depression).

There are an estimated 340,000 men with symptomatic testosterone deficiency in France. Just 70,000 of these are receiving replacement therapy (see box), which accounts for only 20% of those affected. For Dr. Huygue, this low treatment rate is due to underdiagnosis, as well as reluctance on the part of doctors and patients.

Although routine screening of low testosterone in the general population is not recommended, some individuals are particularly at risk, noted the urologist.

This is especially true for patients with metabolic disorders associated with insulin resistance (such as obesity and type 2 diabetes), cardiovascular diseases (hypertension, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation), or other chronic conditions (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, and depression). Some medications (corticosteroids, antipsychotics, chemotherapy drugs, and antiretroviral therapies) can also lead to low testosterone.

Per the French recommendations for managing low testosterone, diagnosis must be based on free or bioavailable testosterone and not total testosterone levels, which can give a skewed result. Levels must be tested twice, 1 month apart, in the morning and while fasting. The reference range is determined by taking the lower threshold level of young men as measured in the laboratory.

Threshold Values

The current practice of using the reference range associated with the patient’s age group undoubtedly contributes to the underdiagnosis of low testosterone, said Dr. Huygue. According to a survey of AFU members in 2021, the year in which the recommendations were published, 77% of urologists interviewed reported referring to reference ranges for patients of the same age.

In their defense, “this method has long been in use, but it has eventually become apparent that symptomatic patients with an undiagnosed deficiency could be in the reference patients’ group,” Dr. Huygue explained.

Once a deficiency has been diagnosed, doctors may be reluctant to prescribe replacement therapy due to the perceived risk of developing prostate cancer. Several international studies have shown that “the risk of prostate cancer is the single biggest reason for doctors refusing to prescribe testosterone,” said Dr. Huygue.

Despite this reluctance, numerous studies have clearly shown that there is no link between a high testosterone level and the risk of developing prostate cancer. It even seems that a low testosterone level might expose a person to an increased risk for an aggressive form of cancer.

“This is a time of many surprising discoveries concerning the link between the prostate and testosterone, which go against what we have thought up to now. It has been observed that men with low testosterone develop more serious types of cancer,” said Dr. Huygue at a previous meeting of the AFU, during which he announced the publication of the French recommendations.
 

Prostate Cancer Recurrence

Urologists are also wary of testosterone supplementation in patients with a previous history of prostate cancer. According to the AFU’s survey, 40% of urologists questioned think that testosterone is contraindicated in this population. One in two urologists prescribe testosterone after radical prostatectomy for low or intermediate risk and most commonly after 3 years of undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.

Nevertheless, “several retrospective studies show the safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men who have undergone radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy or who are under active monitoring,” said Dr. Huygue. Testosterone “does not appear to increase the risk of relapse” after treatment of prostate cancer.

Dr. Huygue invited prescribing physicians to refer to the French recommendations, which specify that 1 year of undetectable PSA after prostatectomy is sufficient before prescribing replacement therapy. “This is clearly indicated in the recommendations for patients with a previous history of prostate cancer.”

Neither prostate cancer nor benign prostatic hyperplasia is a contraindication. According to the recommendations, the only contraindications to testosterone prescription are the following:

• Hematocrit > 54%
• Current breast or prostate cancer
• Cardiovascular event less than 3-6 months prior
• Trying to conceive

Cardiovascular Benefits

Another more commonly used argument by general practitioners and endocrinologists to justify their reluctance to prescribe testosterone is the risk to cardiovascular health. In early 2010, a series of American studies alerted clinicians to this risk when taking testosterone. Since then, other studies have had reassuring findings.

In response to the alert issued by the United States, the European Medicines Agency specified that “the data are not sufficient for a warning,” before the American Heart Association colleagues concluded that testosterone should only be avoided in the first 6 months following a severe cardiovascular event.

Conversely, in 2021, the European Society of Cardiology put forward the benefits of testosterone in an article in favor of replacement therapy to prevent cardiovascular risk. In particular, the hormone is thought to have a beneficial effect on arterial stiffness, the appearance of calcified plaques, and coronary artery dilatation.

The final hurdle to overcome before a testosterone prescription is filled relates to patients themselves, who often regard such treatment unfavorably. Many wrongly believe that androgens are hormones that “increase the risk of cancer, make you aggressive, cause weight gain, lead to hair loss, and cause body hair growth,” said Dr. Huygue.

Finally, breaks in the supply chain for Androtardyl, the only injectable form available for reimbursement by French social security schemes, were reported in the country in 2023, said Dr. Huygue. This situation only complicates further the prescription and use of testosterone replacement therapy.
 

Which Supplement?

Testosterone replacement therapies are available on the market in the following formulations:

Via transcutaneous administration: Testosterone-based gels, not covered by the French social security system (Androgel and Fortigel), to be applied daily. Users must be careful to avoid any potential transfer of the product to women or children in case of contact with the site after application.

Via an injection: Androtardyl (testosterone enanthate), covered by French social security, to be administered intramuscularly once a month. Nebido (testosterone undecanoate), not covered by French social security, with a more beneficial bioavailability profile, to be administered once every 3 months.

Pantestone (testosterone undecanoate), administered orally, is not marketed since 2021. It had the major disadvantage of requiring a high-fat diet to ensure optimal absorption.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Underdiagnosis, reluctant doctors, patient preconceptions: Treating low testosterone levels is a tricky business in France despite the proven benefits of replacement therapy. About 20% of patients with symptomatic low testosterone levels are treated for the deficiency, said Eric Huygue, MD, PhD, urologic surgeon at Toulouse University Hospital in France, at the 117th annual conference of the French Urology Association (AFU).

“Treatment for low testosterone is effective and risk-free. It improves a patient’s quality of life and general health,” particularly affecting fatigue, mood, and libido, said Dr. Huygue, who was involved in drawing up the first French recommendations on treating low testosterone in 2021.

“We must keep up communication efforts to make patients and doctors aware” of the benefits of supplementation, he said.
 

Testosterone Levels

Testosterone deficiency mostly affects men older than 40 years. A drop in androgen levels, which varies by individual, can lead to sexual problems (such as erectile dysfunction and low libido), physical symptoms (fatigue, hot flashes, loss of muscle mass, and osteoporosis), and mental disorders (anxiety, irritability, and depression).

There are an estimated 340,000 men with symptomatic testosterone deficiency in France. Just 70,000 of these are receiving replacement therapy (see box), which accounts for only 20% of those affected. For Dr. Huygue, this low treatment rate is due to underdiagnosis, as well as reluctance on the part of doctors and patients.

Although routine screening of low testosterone in the general population is not recommended, some individuals are particularly at risk, noted the urologist.

This is especially true for patients with metabolic disorders associated with insulin resistance (such as obesity and type 2 diabetes), cardiovascular diseases (hypertension, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation), or other chronic conditions (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, and depression). Some medications (corticosteroids, antipsychotics, chemotherapy drugs, and antiretroviral therapies) can also lead to low testosterone.

Per the French recommendations for managing low testosterone, diagnosis must be based on free or bioavailable testosterone and not total testosterone levels, which can give a skewed result. Levels must be tested twice, 1 month apart, in the morning and while fasting. The reference range is determined by taking the lower threshold level of young men as measured in the laboratory.

Threshold Values

The current practice of using the reference range associated with the patient’s age group undoubtedly contributes to the underdiagnosis of low testosterone, said Dr. Huygue. According to a survey of AFU members in 2021, the year in which the recommendations were published, 77% of urologists interviewed reported referring to reference ranges for patients of the same age.

In their defense, “this method has long been in use, but it has eventually become apparent that symptomatic patients with an undiagnosed deficiency could be in the reference patients’ group,” Dr. Huygue explained.

Once a deficiency has been diagnosed, doctors may be reluctant to prescribe replacement therapy due to the perceived risk of developing prostate cancer. Several international studies have shown that “the risk of prostate cancer is the single biggest reason for doctors refusing to prescribe testosterone,” said Dr. Huygue.

Despite this reluctance, numerous studies have clearly shown that there is no link between a high testosterone level and the risk of developing prostate cancer. It even seems that a low testosterone level might expose a person to an increased risk for an aggressive form of cancer.

“This is a time of many surprising discoveries concerning the link between the prostate and testosterone, which go against what we have thought up to now. It has been observed that men with low testosterone develop more serious types of cancer,” said Dr. Huygue at a previous meeting of the AFU, during which he announced the publication of the French recommendations.
 

Prostate Cancer Recurrence

Urologists are also wary of testosterone supplementation in patients with a previous history of prostate cancer. According to the AFU’s survey, 40% of urologists questioned think that testosterone is contraindicated in this population. One in two urologists prescribe testosterone after radical prostatectomy for low or intermediate risk and most commonly after 3 years of undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.

Nevertheless, “several retrospective studies show the safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men who have undergone radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy or who are under active monitoring,” said Dr. Huygue. Testosterone “does not appear to increase the risk of relapse” after treatment of prostate cancer.

Dr. Huygue invited prescribing physicians to refer to the French recommendations, which specify that 1 year of undetectable PSA after prostatectomy is sufficient before prescribing replacement therapy. “This is clearly indicated in the recommendations for patients with a previous history of prostate cancer.”

Neither prostate cancer nor benign prostatic hyperplasia is a contraindication. According to the recommendations, the only contraindications to testosterone prescription are the following:

• Hematocrit > 54%
• Current breast or prostate cancer
• Cardiovascular event less than 3-6 months prior
• Trying to conceive

Cardiovascular Benefits

Another more commonly used argument by general practitioners and endocrinologists to justify their reluctance to prescribe testosterone is the risk to cardiovascular health. In early 2010, a series of American studies alerted clinicians to this risk when taking testosterone. Since then, other studies have had reassuring findings.

In response to the alert issued by the United States, the European Medicines Agency specified that “the data are not sufficient for a warning,” before the American Heart Association colleagues concluded that testosterone should only be avoided in the first 6 months following a severe cardiovascular event.

Conversely, in 2021, the European Society of Cardiology put forward the benefits of testosterone in an article in favor of replacement therapy to prevent cardiovascular risk. In particular, the hormone is thought to have a beneficial effect on arterial stiffness, the appearance of calcified plaques, and coronary artery dilatation.

The final hurdle to overcome before a testosterone prescription is filled relates to patients themselves, who often regard such treatment unfavorably. Many wrongly believe that androgens are hormones that “increase the risk of cancer, make you aggressive, cause weight gain, lead to hair loss, and cause body hair growth,” said Dr. Huygue.

Finally, breaks in the supply chain for Androtardyl, the only injectable form available for reimbursement by French social security schemes, were reported in the country in 2023, said Dr. Huygue. This situation only complicates further the prescription and use of testosterone replacement therapy.
 

Which Supplement?

Testosterone replacement therapies are available on the market in the following formulations:

Via transcutaneous administration: Testosterone-based gels, not covered by the French social security system (Androgel and Fortigel), to be applied daily. Users must be careful to avoid any potential transfer of the product to women or children in case of contact with the site after application.

Via an injection: Androtardyl (testosterone enanthate), covered by French social security, to be administered intramuscularly once a month. Nebido (testosterone undecanoate), not covered by French social security, with a more beneficial bioavailability profile, to be administered once every 3 months.

Pantestone (testosterone undecanoate), administered orally, is not marketed since 2021. It had the major disadvantage of requiring a high-fat diet to ensure optimal absorption.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The relationship between testosterone replacement therapy and prostate cancer risk remains unclear.
• Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
• Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
• The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
• The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
• Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The relationship between testosterone replacement therapy and prostate cancer risk remains unclear.
• Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
• Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
• The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
• The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
• Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The relationship between testosterone replacement therapy and prostate cancer risk remains unclear.
• Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
• Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
• The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
• The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
• Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The frequency of follow-up after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer can be tailored based on high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) tests and cytology.

METHODOLOGY:

• Among patients with early-stage cervical cancer, the optimal follow-up strategy to detect recurrence after fertility-sparing surgery remains unclear. The authors wanted to find out if follow-up could be tailored to the patient’s risk for recurrence instead of using the current inefficient one-size-fits-all approach.
• The retrospective cohort study, which used data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank, included 1462 patients aged 18-40 years with early-stage cervical cancer who received fertility-sparing surgery (large loop excision of the transformation zone, conization, or trachelectomy) between 2000 and 2020.
• The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), including recurrent cervical cancer.
• The authors stratified the likelihood of recurrence by cytology and high-risk HPV results at the first follow-up visit within 12 months of fertility-sparing surgery; they also compared the cumulative incidence of recurrence — the number of new cases divided by all at-risk individuals over a specific interval — at four timepoints in 2 years (6, 12, 18, and 24 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ was 89.3%. Patients with high-grade cytology at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ (43.1%) than those who had normal (92.1%) and low-grade cytology (84.6%). Similarly for HPV status, patients positive for high-risk HPV at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival rates for CIN2+ (73.6%) than those negative for high-risk HPV (91.1%).
• Patients negative for both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-0.7% within 6 months of follow-up compared with 0.0%-33.3% among patients negative for high-risk HPV but who had high-grade cytology.
• By contrast, patients positive for high-risk HPV but not high-grade cytology had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-15.4% within 6 months of any follow-up visit compared with 50.0%-100.0% among those with both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology.
• Patients who remained free of high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology at their 6-month and 12-month follow-ups had no disease recurrence over the next 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients who are negative for high-risk HPV with normal or low-grade cytology at 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery could be offered a prolonged follow-up interval of 6 months,” the authors concluded, adding that this “group comprises 80% of all patients receiving fertility-sparing surgery.”

“Reducing the number of follow-up visits, and subsequently the number of follow-up tests, in patients with low risk for recurrence on the basis of co-testing has the potential to substantially reduce healthcare costs,” the authors explained.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Teska N. Schuurman, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published in the December 2023 issue of The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of the study meant that analysis was limited to available records, so data on patients’ symptoms, physical examinations, or colposcopic findings were not available. Follow-up biopsies, considered the gold standard for diagnosing recurrence, are not routine in the Netherlands, so recurrence could have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no competing interests.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The frequency of follow-up after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer can be tailored based on high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) tests and cytology.

METHODOLOGY:

• Among patients with early-stage cervical cancer, the optimal follow-up strategy to detect recurrence after fertility-sparing surgery remains unclear. The authors wanted to find out if follow-up could be tailored to the patient’s risk for recurrence instead of using the current inefficient one-size-fits-all approach.
• The retrospective cohort study, which used data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank, included 1462 patients aged 18-40 years with early-stage cervical cancer who received fertility-sparing surgery (large loop excision of the transformation zone, conization, or trachelectomy) between 2000 and 2020.
• The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), including recurrent cervical cancer.
• The authors stratified the likelihood of recurrence by cytology and high-risk HPV results at the first follow-up visit within 12 months of fertility-sparing surgery; they also compared the cumulative incidence of recurrence — the number of new cases divided by all at-risk individuals over a specific interval — at four timepoints in 2 years (6, 12, 18, and 24 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ was 89.3%. Patients with high-grade cytology at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ (43.1%) than those who had normal (92.1%) and low-grade cytology (84.6%). Similarly for HPV status, patients positive for high-risk HPV at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival rates for CIN2+ (73.6%) than those negative for high-risk HPV (91.1%).
• Patients negative for both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-0.7% within 6 months of follow-up compared with 0.0%-33.3% among patients negative for high-risk HPV but who had high-grade cytology.
• By contrast, patients positive for high-risk HPV but not high-grade cytology had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-15.4% within 6 months of any follow-up visit compared with 50.0%-100.0% among those with both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology.
• Patients who remained free of high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology at their 6-month and 12-month follow-ups had no disease recurrence over the next 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients who are negative for high-risk HPV with normal or low-grade cytology at 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery could be offered a prolonged follow-up interval of 6 months,” the authors concluded, adding that this “group comprises 80% of all patients receiving fertility-sparing surgery.”

“Reducing the number of follow-up visits, and subsequently the number of follow-up tests, in patients with low risk for recurrence on the basis of co-testing has the potential to substantially reduce healthcare costs,” the authors explained.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Teska N. Schuurman, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published in the December 2023 issue of The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of the study meant that analysis was limited to available records, so data on patients’ symptoms, physical examinations, or colposcopic findings were not available. Follow-up biopsies, considered the gold standard for diagnosing recurrence, are not routine in the Netherlands, so recurrence could have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no competing interests.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The frequency of follow-up after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer can be tailored based on high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) tests and cytology.

METHODOLOGY:

• Among patients with early-stage cervical cancer, the optimal follow-up strategy to detect recurrence after fertility-sparing surgery remains unclear. The authors wanted to find out if follow-up could be tailored to the patient’s risk for recurrence instead of using the current inefficient one-size-fits-all approach.
• The retrospective cohort study, which used data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank, included 1462 patients aged 18-40 years with early-stage cervical cancer who received fertility-sparing surgery (large loop excision of the transformation zone, conization, or trachelectomy) between 2000 and 2020.
• The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), including recurrent cervical cancer.
• The authors stratified the likelihood of recurrence by cytology and high-risk HPV results at the first follow-up visit within 12 months of fertility-sparing surgery; they also compared the cumulative incidence of recurrence — the number of new cases divided by all at-risk individuals over a specific interval — at four timepoints in 2 years (6, 12, 18, and 24 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ was 89.3%. Patients with high-grade cytology at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ (43.1%) than those who had normal (92.1%) and low-grade cytology (84.6%). Similarly for HPV status, patients positive for high-risk HPV at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival rates for CIN2+ (73.6%) than those negative for high-risk HPV (91.1%).
• Patients negative for both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-0.7% within 6 months of follow-up compared with 0.0%-33.3% among patients negative for high-risk HPV but who had high-grade cytology.
• By contrast, patients positive for high-risk HPV but not high-grade cytology had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-15.4% within 6 months of any follow-up visit compared with 50.0%-100.0% among those with both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology.
• Patients who remained free of high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology at their 6-month and 12-month follow-ups had no disease recurrence over the next 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients who are negative for high-risk HPV with normal or low-grade cytology at 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery could be offered a prolonged follow-up interval of 6 months,” the authors concluded, adding that this “group comprises 80% of all patients receiving fertility-sparing surgery.”

“Reducing the number of follow-up visits, and subsequently the number of follow-up tests, in patients with low risk for recurrence on the basis of co-testing has the potential to substantially reduce healthcare costs,” the authors explained.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Teska N. Schuurman, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published in the December 2023 issue of The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of the study meant that analysis was limited to available records, so data on patients’ symptoms, physical examinations, or colposcopic findings were not available. Follow-up biopsies, considered the gold standard for diagnosing recurrence, are not routine in the Netherlands, so recurrence could have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no competing interests.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.