Month: June 2023

Everyone who lives with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) knows their illness has a major impact on daily life. Many people are diagnosed in their 20s or 30s, a time when we might hope for few health challenges.

Medications, and sometimes surgery, may be used to treat IBD. If you identify as LGBTQ+, you might wonder how all of this may affect you — your physical health, of course, but also your sexual health and pleasure. Below are a few things to understand and consider.

What is inflammatory bowel disease?

IBD is a condition that causes inflammation along the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The two main types are Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis:

• Crohn's disease: inflammation can occur anywhere along the GI tract (from the mouth to the anus)
• Ulcerative colitis: typically affects the large intestine (colon) only.

IBD can cause diarrhea, bloody stool, weight loss, and abdominal pain, and is typically diagnosed with blood and stool tests, imaging, and colonoscopy. A diagnosis of IBD may increase the risk of developing anxiety or depression, and can also have an impact on sexual health. People with IBD may require long-term medical treatment or surgery for their condition.

The starting point: Talking to your doctor

Talking to your medical team about IBD and sexual health may not be easy. This may depend on how comfortable you feel disclosing your LGBTQ+ identity with your health care providers. Ideally, you should feel comfortable discussing sexuality with your medical team, including what types of sexual partners and activities you participate in and how IBD may affect this part of your life.

Be aware that health care providers may not be able to address all LGBTQ+-specific concerns. Optimal care for people with IBD who identify as LGBTQ+ is not fully understood. However, this is an active area of research.

How might medicines for IBD affect sexual health?

Many effective IBD medications subdue the immune system to decrease inflammation. These immunosuppressive medicines may raise your risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as HIV, chlamydia, syphilis, and gonorrhea.

What you can do: Discuss these concerns with your doctor so you can take appropriate protective measures. This might include:

• ensuring that your vaccinations, such as hepatitis B and HPV, are up to date.
• engaging in sex using barrier protection to prevent STI transmission.
• taking pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). This safe and effective medicine helps prevent the spread of HIV. Ask your primary care doctor or gastroenterologist if PrEP is appropriate for you.

How might surgery for IBD affect sexual health?

For some people with IBD, gut inflammation is severe enough to require surgery to remove part of the intestine. For example:

• Abscesses or fistulas (abnormal connections between two body parts) sometimes form when someone has Crohn's disease around the anus. This may require surgical treatment.
• Active inflammation in the rectum or anus may make sex painful, particularly for people who engage in anal receptive sex.
• We don't yet know whether anal receptive sex is safe for people who have had surgery to remove the colon and create a J-pouch, which is formed from small intestine to create an internal pouch that enables normal bowel movements.

What you can do: Discuss your concerns with your gastroenterologist and colorectal surgeon.

If you engage in anal sex, you may be confused about whether it is safe to do so. While you may feel uncomfortable discussing this concern and others with your doctor, try to be as honest and open as you can. That way, you'll receive the best information on how to engage in safe and enjoyable sex after an IBD diagnosis or surgery.

What else to consider if you are transgender

People with IBD who are transgender may have additional concerns to address.

For example, there may be a risk for sexual side effects from gender-affirming surgery. These procedures may include vaginoplasty (surgical creation of a vagina) for transgender females, or phalloplasty (surgical creation of a penis) for transgender males. The safety of these procedures in people with IBD is not currently well understood.

What you can do: If you identify as transgender, ask your doctor if any gender-affirming surgeries you've had or medicines you take, such as hormones, might affect your IBD, recommended treatments, or sexual health.

If you're considering gender-affirming surgery, discuss your options with your medical team. Be aware that gender-affirming surgery may be more challenging, or may not be advisable, for people with complex or active IBD. It's important to discuss your specific risks with your doctor when pursuing gender-affirming care. Having access to a team of physicians, including a surgeon and a gastroenterologist, may improve outcomes.

The bottom line

Try to talk to your gastroenterologist about how your sexual practices and gender identity may affect — and be affected by — your IBD. A conversation like this may feel uncomfortable, but being candid about your symptoms and concerns will help you receive the best possible care.

Often, a multidisciplinary approach to care is helpful. Your health care providers, including your gastroenterologist and surgeon, may suggest seeing additional specialists.

Much remains unknown about sexual health and practices in LGBTQ+ people with IBD. While more research is needed, open communication on the impact of medications, surgery, and other aspects of living with IBD can do a lot to improve your quality of life.

About the Authors

Andrew Eidelberg, MD, Contributor

Dr. Andrew Eidelberg is a third-year internal medicine resident at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. After graduating from the University of Miami and Weill Cornell Medical College, he decided to pursue a career in gastroenterology, specifically … See Full Bio View all posts by Andrew Eidelberg, MD

Loren Rabinowitz, MD, Contributor

Dr. Loren Rabinowitz is an instructor in medicine Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, and an attending physician in the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at BIDMC. Her clinical research is focused on the … See Full Bio View all posts by Loren Rabinowitz, MD

I admit it: I’m not a fan of drug ads. I think the information provided is often confusing and rarely well-balanced. Plus, there are just so many ads. They show up on TV and streaming programs, on social media, on billboards and the sides of busses, on tote bags, and in public bathrooms. Yes, there’s no refuge — even there — from the billions spent on direct-to-consumer ads in the US.

I’ve often wondered how highly-promoted, expensive new drugs stack up against other available treatments. Now a new study in JAMA Network Open considers exactly that.

Many advertised drugs are no better than older drugs

The study assessed 73 of the most heavily advertised drugs in the US between 2015 and 2021. Each drug had been rated by at least one independent health agency. Researchers tallied how many of these drugs received a high therapeutic value rating, indicating that a drug had at least a moderate advantage compared with previously available treatments.

The results? Only about one in four of these heavily advertised drugs had high therapeutic value. During the six years of the study, pharmaceutical companies spent an estimated $15.9 billion promoting drugs on TV that showed no major advantage over less costly drugs!

Why drug ads are not popular

Only the US and New Zealand allow direct-to-consumer medication marketing. The American Medical Association recommended a ban in 2015. While I’ve often written about reasons to be skeptical, let’s focus here on three potential harms to your wallet and your health.

Drug ads may

• raise already astronomical health care costs by increasing requests for unnecessary treatment and promoting much costlier medicines than older or generic drugs.
• create diseases to be treated. Everyday experiences, such as fatigue or occasional dryness in the eyes, may be framed in drug ads as medical conditions warranting immediate treatment. Yet often, such symptoms are minor, temporary experiences. Another example is “low T” (referring to low blood testosterone). While it’s not a recognized illness on its own, ads for it have likely contributed to increased prescriptions for testosterone-containing medicines.
• promote new drugs before enough is known about long-term safety. The pain reliever rofecoxib (Vioxx) is one example. This anti-inflammatory medicine was supposed to be safer than older medicines. It was withdrawn from the market when evidence emerged that it might increase the risk of heart attack and stroke.

Four questions to ask your doctor if you’re curious about a drug ad

Wondering whether you should be taking an advertised drug? Ask your doctor:

• Do I have a condition for which this drug is recommended?
• Is there any reason to expect this drug will be more helpful than what I’m already taking?
• Is this drug more expensive than my current treatment?
• Do my health conditions or the medications I already take make the drug in the ad a poor choice for me?

The bottom line

The AMA recommended banning drug ads nearly a decade ago. But a drug ad ban seems unlikely, given strong lobbying by the pharmaceutical companies and concerns about violating their freedom of speech.

Still, cigarette commercials were banned in 1971, so it’s not an impossible dream. Meanwhile, my advice is to be skeptical about information in drug ads, and rely on more reliable sources of medical information, including your doctor. Consider contacting the Federal Communications Commission if you have complaints about these ads — a step few Americans seem to take. And try this: mute the TV, fast-forward your podcast, and close pop-ups as soon as drug ads appear.

About the Author

Robert H. Shmerling, MD, Senior Faculty Editor, Harvard Health Publishing; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Robert H. Shmerling is the former clinical chief of the division of rheumatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), and is a current member of the corresponding faculty in medicine at Harvard Medical School. … See Full Bio View all posts by Robert H. Shmerling, MD

In June, the FDA approved a new treatment for the most advanced type of prostate cancer. Patients who have this condition, which is called metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), have few therapeutic options, so the approval helps to fill an urgent need.

mCRPC sets in when the front-line hormonal therapies that doctors use first for treating metastatic prostate cancer stop working. These drugs limit the body’s production of testosterone, a hormone that fuels prostate cancer growth. If they are no longer effective, then doctors switch to a different class of drugs known as anti-androgens that further inhibit testosterone by blocking its cell receptor. One of those drugs is called enzalutamide.

The newly approved treatment combines enzalutamide with a second drug, talazoparib, that was already on the market for female cancer patients who test positive for BRCA mutations. These inherited gene defects boost risks for breast and ovarian cancer, but they can also elevate risks for prostate cancer in men. Indeed, an estimated 10% of men with metastatic prostate cancer are BRCA-positive.

Talazoparib inhibits a DNA-repair system called PARP that the tumor cells need to keep their own genes in working order. When PARP is blocked by treatment, the cancer cells will eventually die. Other PARP inhibitors, including olaparib and rucaparib, are already approved for advanced prostate cancer in BRCA-positive men.

During research leading to this latest approval, 399 men with mCRPC were randomly divided into two groups. One group received talazoparib plus enzalutamide; the other group was treated with enzalutamide plus placebo. The men averaged 70 years in age, and most of them had already been treated with chemotherapy and/or a different anti-androgen called abiraterone. All the men were positive for either BRCA mutations or defects affecting other DNA-repair genes.

What the study showed

Results from the still-unpublished study were presented at the 2023 American Society of Oncology Annual Meeting in June. After a median follow-up of roughly 17 months, the enzalutamide/talazoparib combination reduced the risk of death or visible signs of tumor progression by 55%.

Among the specific subgroup of BRCA-positive patients, “there was an 80% reduction in risk progression or death, which is enormous for these men and obviously very welcome,” said lead researcher Dr. Karim Fizazi, a professor at the University of Paris-Saclay in France.

Scientists had hoped that combining PARP inhibitors with anti-androgens would similarly benefit prostate cancer patients with no DNA-repair defects, but evidence from a different study by Dr. Fizazi and his colleagues shows they do not.

For that reason, the FDA approved the new combination only for mCRPC patients who test positive for mutations affecting DNA-repair genes. Dr. Fizazi and his colleagues are continuing to monitor the enrolled patients for improvements in other areas, such as overall survival, quality of life, and subsequent need for chemotherapy.

Dr. David Einstein, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a medical oncologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, says the evidence helps to confirm that PARP inhibitors have a role to play in genetically-selected men with mCRPC. Additional research is needed to assess if the observed benefits are “specific to the combination or just because access to PARP inhibition was provided at some point in the disease course,” he says.

“Genetic testing for BRCA, which originally targeted females, is now becoming mainstream for men with a family history of breast and ovarian cancers, as well as men with mCRPC regardless of family history,” says Dr. Marc B. Garnick, the Gorman Brothers Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “This is important, as it has implications for other family members and treatment choices alike. Also important to note is that where this study enrolled men who had already been treated with chemotherapy and/or abiraterone, future research will likely move the enzalutamide/talazoparib combination — or components of it — to earlier disease stages.”

About the Author

Charlie Schmidt, Editor, Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases

Charlie Schmidt is an award-winning freelance science writer based in Portland, Maine. In addition to writing for Harvard Health Publishing, Charlie has written for Science magazine, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Environmental Health Perspectives, … See Full Bio View all posts by Charlie Schmidt

About the Reviewer

Marc B. Garnick, MD, Editor in Chief, Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Marc B. Garnick is an internationally renowned expert in medical oncology and urologic cancer. A clinical professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, he also maintains an active clinical practice at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical … See Full Bio View all posts by Marc B. Garnick, MD