Breast Health

COVID-19

Cervical Health 

Contraception

Curbside Consults

Dermatology

Drug Pipeline News

Endometriosis

Genetic Testing

Gynecologic Oncology

Gynecology

Fetal Imaging

Abnormal Obstetrical Ultrasound

Ultrasound

Women's Imaging

Breast Imaging

Women's Ultrasound

Imaging

Infertility

LARC

Legally Speaking

Life Transitions

Malpractice

Menopause

Mental Health

Noninvasive Prenatal Testing

Obstetrics

Opinion

Osteoporosis

Pediatrics

Practice Management

Pregnancy and Birth

Sexual Health

Sexually Transmitted Infections

Surgery

Technology

Urology

Uterine Fibroids

Vulvovaginal Disease

Well Woman

News

Media

Podcasts

Insights

Investigator Perspectives

Medical World News

Peer Exchange

Peers & Perspectives

Videos

Conferences

Conference Coverage

Conference Listing

Publications

Contemporary OB/GYN® Journal

Digital Supplements

CME/CE

Resources

Physician Fact Sheets

Interactive Tools

Supplements and Featured Publications

Subscribe

About

Partnerships

She joined the MJH Life Sciences team in December 2019. She graduated from Youngstown State University in 2019 with a bachelor's degree in journalism and a minor in political science. Prior to graduating, Morgan worked as the editor-in-chief of her college newspaper. She went on to work as an assignment editor at a broadcast news station in Youngstown, Ohio, before joining 

 You can reach her at mebert@mjhlifesciences.com.

Articles

On October 2, 2025, the FDA quietly approved a generic version of mifepristone to be used in a regimen with misoprostol for abortion.

FDA approves generic mifepristone tablet for abortion

Take a quick look at everything you may have missed during Q3 of 2025, including the latest FDA approvals, top stories, and exclusive interviews.

Q3 Recap: What's new in obstetrics and gynecology?

A survey reveals declining confidence in COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, with fewer adults recommending it despite scientific evidence.

Low awareness of COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnancy reported

A panel issued new consensus statements on hormone therapy for breast cancer survivors, highlighting when estrogen may be considered.

Experts reach consensus on HRT after breast cancer

Advertise

Contact Us

Job Board

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Contemporary OB/GYN

Facebook

LinkedIn

RSS Feed

Spotlight

A Psychedelic to Treat Postpartum Depression?

CMV: In the Know

RSV Roundtable

STIs

Supplement: Closing the Gap in Cervical Cancer Screening

Vaginismus: Managing a Misunderstood and Underdiagnosed Condition

Why vNOTES Make Sense for My Patients

1rem

Authors

Data showed that fracture risk rises briefly after menopausal hormone therapy discontinuation, then falls below never-users.

Study shows persistent bone protective effect of menopausal hormone therapy

A recent clinical study presented by Koji Ishikawa, MD, PhD, orthopedic spine surgeon at Duke University, and Tony M. Keaveny, PhD, Founder and Chief Science Officer of O.N. Diagnostics, compared the effects of romosozumab, teriparatide, and denosumab on bone strength in patients with osteoporosis. 

The analysis focused on the hip and spine, where fracture risk is particularly great. Results showed that romosozumab provided substantially greater improvements in bone strength after 1 year of treatment compared to the other 2 drugs. At the spine, for example, romosozumab increased bone density by approximately 25% but boosted bone strength by about 40%, highlighting that strength gains are not fully reflected by bone density measurements from standard DXA scans.

The findings are significant because fracture prevention depends more on improved breaking strength than on density alone. Data from real-world clinical care also suggest even greater percentage gains than those seen in earlier phase-2 and phase-3 trials. 

Notably, romosozumab demonstrated the unique ability to transform highly osteoporotic vertebrae into bones at much lower risk of biomechanical failure, as shown through virtual stress testing models. According to the researchers, romosozumab stands out as the most effective treatment for strengthening both hip and spine bones, offering a compelling advantage over teriparatide and denosumab.

Below, Keaveny shares further details on their presentation 

”(SUN-416) Greater increase in bone strength with romosozumab vs teriparatide or denosumab in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis in real-world clinical setting

 and Ishikawa provides an overview of the presentation 

“(SUN-564) Greater increases in bone strength estimates of virtual bone-implant constructs for spinal surgery with romosozumab vs teriparatide or denosumab in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis”. 

Please provide an overview of your presentation about bone strength from romosozumab vs teriparatide or denosumab.

This study compared the breaking strength of the hip and spine bones for different osteoporosis drug treatments and showed that the strength benefits after 1 year of treatment were substantially greater for romosozumab compared to both teriparatide and denosumab.

Spinal instrumentation remains challenging in patients with bone fragility. The concept behind this project is to provide additional support for achieving favorable surgical outcomes, beyond surgical techniques. Based on simulation-based biomechanical analysis, we found that romosozumab offered multiple advantages over denosumab and teriparatide in terms of biomechanical parameters relevant to spinal surgery.

What is the significance of these findings?

Changes in bone density as measured by clinical-standard DXA testing are difficult to interpret because what matters most in terms of fracture reduction is how much the 

 changes. This study is significant because it demonstrates the substantial benefits for breaking strength – more than for bone density. For example, at the spine, romosozumab increased bone density by about 25% but bone strength by about 40%. So, the benefits of the treatment are underestimated when measured by bone density. And of course, those benefits were greater for romosozumab than either of the other 2 treatments.

Evaluating mechanical parameters such as screw fixation strength or bone-breaking force in clinical practice for assessing drugs effects is impractical and often difficult with traditional biomechanical methods. To address this, we developed a simulation approach using patient CT data. Our findings provide a new perspective on their effectiveness in the context of implant surgery.

What were the main takeaways of your presentation?

As we have seen in other clinical trials, romosozumab is the better treatment in terms of its bone-strengthening benefits, both at the hip and spine. Here we have data from actual clinical care.

After 1 year of treatment, romosozumab showed greater improvements than denosumab and teriparatide in surgical instrumentation-related biomechanical analyses.

What other research about the impact of romosozumab on bone strength would you like to highlight?

These results suggest even greater gains, percentage-wise at least, for these highly osteoporotic and treatment-naïve patients from clinical care than what we observed in a prior phase-2 BCT study in women with low bone mass (Keaveny JBMR 2017) and also in a phase-3 imaging substudy of osteoporotic women with prior bisphosphonate therapy (Langdahl Lancet 2017).

In a previous study, we were the first to demonstrate the potential benefits of short-term romosozumab treatment (3 months) in reducing postoperative complications after spinal surgery (Ishikawa K, JOR Spine 2024). Taken together with the present findings, our research further supports the role of romosozumab for surgical support.

These results are particularly compelling at the spine for romosozumab because the drug benefit is so large — it takes a highly osteoporotic bone and transforms it into one at much lower risk of biomechanical failure. This is seen visually with the virtual stress testing. Here, virtual forces are placed on the bone that would normally fracture and crush an osteoporotic bone. After treatment with romosozumab, that same level of force produces almost no damage in the bone. Romosozumab appears to be the only drug treatment that can transform the osteoporotic vertebra in this way.

Even the best surgeons face complications when patients have osteoporosis. Yet perioperative bone health care is often overlooked. Our studies underscore the importance of assessing and managing bone health in perioperative settings to improve surgical outcomes.

Recent work presented at the 2025 annual meeting of American Society of Bone & Mineral Research found that romosozumab significantly outperformed teriparatide and denosumab in improving hip and spine bone strength. 

Clinical

Romosozumab outperforms teriparatide and denosumab in bone strength

A recent cohort study evaluated the relationship between poverty, social disadvantage, and fertility outcomes among couples actively pursuing pregnancy. Investigators reported that socioeconomic disadvantage, reflected in household income and educational attainment, was associated with lower fecundability and increased risk of subfertility but not with miscarriage.¹

According to the study findings, published in 

fecundability was defined as the per-month probability of conceiving, whereas subfertility was defined as a time to pregnancy longer than 12 months or the use of assisted reproductive technology (ART). Miscarriage risk was also evaluated as an outcome measure.¹

The prospective cohort included men and women attempting conception without the use of fertility treatment at enrollment. Participants provided baseline demographic information, including household income, highest level of education, and additional health and lifestyle factors. Couples were then followed for up to 12 months or until pregnancy was achieved.¹

Investigators measured monthly fecundability using self-reported time to pregnancy, and they categorized outcomes as conception within 12 months, subfertility, or pregnancy loss. The study design allowed for the assessment of both female and male partner characteristics.¹

The results demonstrated consistent associations between markers of socioeconomic disadvantage and fertility outcomes. Couples in lower income brackets and those with lower levels of education had reduced fecundability and a higher likelihood of experiencing subfertility. These associations were observed for both female and male partners, suggesting the impact of disadvantage extended beyond maternal characteristics.¹

However, the analysis did not identify an association between disadvantage and miscarriage risk. Rates of pregnancy loss were similar across socioeconomic strata once conception occurred.¹

In the press release accompanying the publication, investigators emphasized the potential implications for public health strategies.

 “The findings of this cohort study suggest that poverty and social disadvantage, characterized by low educational level and household income among both women and men, were associated with lower fecundability (defined as the per-month probability of conceiving) and increased risks of subfertility (defined as a time to pregnancy or the duration of actively pursuing pregnancy of more than 12 months or use of assisted reproductive technology) but not with miscarriage risk," authors wrote.

The authors added, “Further studies are needed to identify the underlying and explanatory mechanisms associated with fertility outcomes and the potential for novel public health strategies for couples desiring pregnancy.”²

These findings highlight the influence of social determinants of health on fertility outcomes, independent of clinical or biological factors.

 For physicians, the results suggest that lower fecundability and subfertility may be partially explained by broader socioeconomic conditions.

The absence of an association between social disadvantage and miscarriage risk indicates that once pregnancy is achieved, adverse outcomes may be less influenced by socioeconomic status than by other clinical or biological factors.¹

The investigators emphasized the need for further research to clarify mechanisms linking disadvantage and reduced fertility, including environmental exposures, access to health care, and chronic stress. Additional studies could also inform targeted interventions for couples at increased risk of subfertility.²

Although the findings do not directly alter clinical management, they underscore the importance of considering social and economic context when counseling couples on fertility expectations and potential challenges in conception.¹

Boxem AJ, Mulders AGMGJ, van Rossum I, Bekkers EL, Gaillard R, Jaddoe VWV. Poverty and social disadvantage in women and men and fertility outcomes. 

 2025;8(9):e2532741. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.32741

Poverty and social disadvantage in women and men and fertility outcomes. News release. JAMA Network. September 19, 2025. Accessed September 23, 2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1098703.

A cohort study found that poverty and social disadvantage were associated with reduced fecundability and greater subfertility risk.

Poverty and social disadvantage are linked to lower fecundability and greater risk of subfertility

Investigators have published data in the journal 

indicating efficacy for an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm using only routine mammogram images and age to assess major cardiovascular disease risk in women.

Equal efficacy to modern risk scores using age and clinical factors was highlighted for the algorithm. Based on these data, investigators suggested cardiovascular risk assessment through routine mammograms may be an effective, cost-effective solution by relying on existing health infrastructure.

“In contrast with what is commonly thought, breast cancer causes only about 10% of the total deaths globally compared with those resulting from cardiovascular disease,” wrote the investigators. “Mammography may therefore represent a 'touch point' for raising awareness about cardiovascular risk and disease in women.”

The trial was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of routine mammogram images undergoing an automated AI analysis of the full range of internal breast structure and characteristics to determine cardiovascular risk in women. Data from 49,196 women aged a mean of 59 years were obtained from the Lifepool cohort registry.

Baseline information included age, alcohol intake, smoking status, weight, and histories of diabetes, high blood pressure, or cholesterol drug use and blood thinner use. Additionally, menopause status, hormone therapy use, reproductive history, and factors influencing internal breast structure, such as radiation, surgery, and cancer, were reported.

Smoking was reported in 5% of participants, having a body mass index over 25 in 62%, and type 2 diabetes in 6%. Thirty-three percent took drugs for high cholesterol, 27% for high blood pressure, and 11% took a blood thinner.

Of 49,196 participants, 3392 experienced a first cardiovascular event during the follow-up period. This included coronary artery disease in 2383, heart attack in 656, stroke in 434, and heart failure in 731.

In these patients, the AI algorithm using mammography features and patient age had a concordance index of 0.72.

 Investigators noted that this performance is equally effective as current prediction models, such as the New Zealand PREDICT tool and the American Heart Association PREVENT equations.

According to investigators, women are often underscreened and undertreated for cardiovascular disease and its associated risk factors, with risk prediction algorithms often underperforming.

 Although arterial calcium deposits, or breast arterial calcification (BAC), and breast tissue density are used in current risk assessment models, BAC is not linked to obesity.

Additionally, a negative association has been reported between BAC and smoking. This suggests it is not effective for cardiovascular risk prediction by itself.

“Risk assessments based on mammography may be a novel opportunity for improving cardiovascular risk screening in women,” concluded the investigators.

Importance of nontraditional risk factors

This screening method may support women with nontraditional risk factors of heart attack, which are more common in this population.

 The increased presence of nontraditional risk factors has been confirmed in a trial from Mayo Clinic researchers including women aged under 65.

In this population, over 50% of heart attacks were linked to nontraditional risk factors. Additionally, women were more likely to have their primary cause of heart attack misdiagnosed than men.

Misdiagnoses were more common in cases of spontaneous coronary artery dissection in younger, otherwise healthy women. Investigators concluded that sex-specific considerations are vital for preventing cardiovascular events.

AI algorithm based on routine mammogram + age can predict women’s major cardiovascular disease risk. News release. BMJ Group. September 16, 2025. Accessed September 23, 2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1098150.

Barraclough JY, Gandomkar Z, Fletcher RA, et al. Predicting cardiovascular events from routine mammograms using machine learning.

Krewson C. Nontraditional causes linked to many heart attacks in younger women. 

. September 17, 2025. Accessed September 23, 2025. https://www.contemporaryobgyn.net/view/nontraditional-causes-linked-to-many-heart-attacks-in-younger-women

A large study shows that an AI algorithm analyzing routine mammograms can match leading cardiovascular risk models.

AI uses mammograms to accurately predict women’s heart disease risk

Findings from the OASIS-3 trial, published in 

highlight the efficacy of elinzanetant for significantly reducing vasomotor symptoms (VMS) such as hot flashes and night sweats in postmenopausal women.

Results of the international clinical trial indicated a 73% reduction in the frequency and severity of VMS by week 12. Additionally, reduced sleep disturbances and improved quality of life were reported in participants taking elinzanetant. No adverse liver or bone density outcomes were linked to the investigational drug.

“The disruptive nature of these bothersome hot flashes, particularly when they are more severe, can significantly affect women’s daily lives, both at work and at home, underscoring the urgent need for effective nonhormonal treatments,” said JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, division director of midlife health at UVA Health.

The OASIS-3 trial was conducted to assess elinzanetant’s effects against VMS beyond 6 months of use in postmenopausal women.

 Participants included postmenopausal women aged 40 to 65 years seeking moderate to severe VMS treatment. Those with abnormal liver parameters, hyperplasia, or other specific disorders were excluded from the analysis.

After being randomly assigned, participants received a 52-week regimen of either elinzanetant 120 mg or a matching placebo. The drug was taken once per day orally, with visits performed every 4 weeks until week 12 and every 6 weeks until week 42. Additional visits included an end-of-treatment visit at week 52 and follow-up after 4 weeks.

Investigators recorded the mean change in moderate to severe VMS frequency between baseline and week 12 as the primary outcome. This outcome was based on data from an electronic hot flash daily diary, collected for the final time at weeks 49 and 50.

Mean changes in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance Short Form and Menopause-Specific Quality Of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire scores across 52 weeks were reported as secondary outcomes. Participants also reported instances of adverse events (AEs), with intensity and relatedness to the intervention recorded by investigators.

The final analysis included 628 women aged a mean of 54.7 years; 49.8%  received elinzanetan, and 50.2% received placebo. Similar baseline demographics were reported between patients receiving elinzanetant vs placebo, including the number of participants taking prohibited medication in each group.

Moderate to severe VMS events were reported an average of 6.7 times per day in the elinzanetant group vs 6.8 in the placebo group at baseline. By week 12, mean percentage changes in VMS events were –73.8% and –47%, respectively, with a mean of 1.4 and 3.5 events, respectively, reported by week 50.

For moderate to severe severity between baseline and week 12, mean changes of –1.2 and –0.8, respectively, were reported. Additionally, declines in mean Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance Short Form were –9.4 and –5.7, respectively, with scores of 57.4 and 58, respectively, at baseline.

MENQOL scores were 4.1 and 4.4, respectively, at baseline, with reductions of –1.3 and –1.1 by week 50. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were reported in 70% of patients receiving elinzanetant vs 61.1% receiving placebo. Of these, 89.5% and 89.6%, respectively, were mild or moderate.

The rates of serious TEAEs were 4.2% and 1.9%, respectively. However, none of these events were considered treatment related. Overall, the data highlighted the safety and efficacy of elinzanetant in reducing moderate to severe VMS in postmenopausal women.

“What is so exciting is that with elinzanetant, we potentially have a new treatment option that can be used first line for moderate to severe hot flashes, whether due to menopause or breast cancer endocrine therapy,” said Pinkerton.

Menopause drug reduces hot flashes by more than 70%, international clinical trial finds. University of Virginia Health System. September 18, 2025. Accessed September 23, 2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1098754.

Panay N, Joffe H, Maki PM, et al. Elinzanetant for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause: a phase 3 randomized clinical trial. 

 Published online September 8, 2025. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.4421

Findings from the OASIS-3 trial show the nonhormonal drug elinzanetant cut vasomotor symptoms by 73%.

OASIS-3 highlights safety and efficacy of elinzanetant against VMS

Fetal movement

A recent study led by Helena Rutherford, PhD, associate professor in the Child Study Center at Yale School of Medicine, highlights the important role of fetal movement in shaping maternal-fetal attachment during pregnancy, with implications for clinical practice and long-term child development.

Rutherford emphasized that the transition to parenthood begins well before birth, with psychological and neurobiological processes unfolding during pregnancy. Parents often begin bonding with their child prenatally, and a stronger attachment during this time is associated with improved outcomes for maternal health, well-being, and child development. This underscores the importance of exploring early relational factors that can influence family health across generations.

The study measured fetal movement objectively using Doppler technology over a 30-minute session, focusing on the frequency and duration of activity. Researchers found that mothers whose fetuses were more active reported stronger emotional attachment to their unborn child. Notably, these results align with those of prior studies that relied on mothers’ subjective reports of fetal movement, but the new approach adds rigor by incorporating an objective, quantitative measure. Even after adjusting for factors such as parity and knowledge of fetal sex, the association remained strong, reinforcing the reliability of the findings.

Clinically, Rutherford suggested that fetal movement monitoring offers a low-cost, low-tech avenue to support maternal-fetal attachment. Beyond its well-established role as an indicator of fetal health and well-being, movement may also serve as a communicative signal that enhances bonding. Interventions such as structured fetal movement counting could be framed not only as tools for health surveillance but also as opportunities for mothers to engage emotionally with their developing baby. Findings from randomized trials have suggested that the value lies less in the counting alone, and more in the mindful attention mothers give to the baby during these moments.

Fetal movement's dual role as a biological health marker and a psychological bonding tool provides new opportunities for prenatal care. By fostering attachment during pregnancy, clinicians may be able to improve family outcomes earlier rather than waiting for postpartum interventions.

Looking ahead, Rutherford and colleagues are expanding this line of research to explore maternal brain activity in response to fetal movement, as well as testing these findings in more clinically relevant populations, including mothers experiencing depression or anxiety. The ultimate goal is to translate these insights into meaningful, accessible interventions that strengthen maternal-child relationships during the earliest stages of development.

Do fetal movements influence the level of attachment between mother and baby? Bial Foundation. September 17, 2025. Accessed September 22, 2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1098640.

Ayla K, Falcioni L, Elibott J, Lamore J, Voegtline K, Rutherford HJV. Associations between fetal movement and maternal-fetal attachment in late pregnancy. 

 Published online August 6, 2025. doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2025.106351

A study using objective Doppler measures shows that more active fetuses are associated with stronger maternal-fetal bonds.

Hannah Clarke

Articles

Latest Updated Articles