Sickle Cell Patients Make Difficult Choices About Fertility

By Farah Yousry, Kaiser Health News  

Teonna Woolford has always wanted six kids. Why six?

“I don’t know where that number came from. I just felt like four wasn’t enough,” said Woolford, a Baltimore resident. “Six is a good number.”

Woolford, 31, was born with sickle cell disease. The genetic disorder causes blood cells to become misshapen, which makes it harder for blood to carry oxygen and flow throughout the body. This can lead to strokes, organ damage, and frequent bouts of excruciating pain.

Sickle cell disease affects an estimated 100,000 people in the U.S., and the vast majority of them are Black. Federal and charitable dollars dedicated to fighting sickle cell disease pale in comparison to what is spent to combat other, less common diseases that mostly affect white patients.

Physicians and researchers said the disease is a stark example of the health inequities that pervade the U.S. health system. A poignant expression of this, patient advocates said, is the silence around the impact that sickle cell disease has on fertility and the lack of reproductive and sexual health care for the young people living with the complex disease.

Woolford’s sickle cell complications have run the gamut. By the time she was 15, her hip joints had become so damaged that she had to have both hips replaced. She depended on frequent blood transfusions to reduce pain episodes and vascular damage, and her liver was failing.

“So many complications, infections, hospitalizations, and so by the time I graduated high school, I just felt defeated [and] depressed,” said Woolford, speaking from a hospital bed in Baltimore.

She had experienced a sickle cell pain crisis a few days earlier and was receiving pain medication and intravenous fluids.

In her late teens, Woolford sought out a bone marrow transplant, a treatment that enables the sickle-shaped cells in the patient’s body to be replaced with healthy cells from a stem cell donor. The procedure comes with risks, and not everyone is eligible. It also relies on finding a compatible donor. But if it works, it can free a person from sickle cell disease forever.

Teonna Woolford

‘You’re Probably Already Infertile’

Woolford couldn’t find a perfect match, so she enrolled in a clinical trial in which doctors could use a “half-matched” donor. As part of the bone marrow transplant, patients first receive chemotherapy, which can impair or eliminate fertility. Woolford hesitated. After all, her ideal family included six children.

When she told her doctor about her worry, his response crushed her: “This doctor, he looked at me, and he was like, ‘Well, I’ll be honest, with all the complications you’ve already had from sickle cell, I don’t know why you’re even worried about this process making you infertile because you’re probably already infertile.’”

Even if patients don’t have the transplant, sickle cell disease can damage their bodies in ways that can affect their ability to have children, according to Dr. Leena Nahata, a pediatric endocrinologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Ohio.

For women, chronic inflammation and the sickling of blood cells in the ovaries can make getting pregnant harder. For men, sickled blood can jam inside the blood vessels of the penis, causing painful, unwanted erections that last for hours. This condition, called priapism, can damage sexual function and decrease sperm count. And it’s not just the disease. Researchers are evaluating how some widely used treatments may affect fertility — for example, by decreasing sperm count.

“It remains unclear how that translates directly to fertility outcomes but at least raises the concern that this may be an issue,” Nahata said. Even more concerning to Nahata were the results of a small study, which she co-authored, that showed some patients were unaware of the many fertility risks related to sickle cell disease.

Woolford said she was 19 and shocked when her doctor told her she was probably already infertile. But no one could be sure, so she held out hope that she might still undergo a procedure to preserve her fertility before having the chemotherapy required for the bone marrow transplant.

From extensive research, she learned that egg freezing could cost more than $10,000 and that her insurance wouldn’t cover it. She couldn’t afford to do it on her own. Woolford wondered whether she could find another way to pay for egg freezing. “So I started looking into financial resources,” she said. “And I saw all these foundations [that] give away grants. But you had to have a diagnosis of cancer.”

In the end, Woolford had the transplant without freezing her eggs. She said she felt that being cured would “be a fair trade-off to give up my dream of biological children.”

Unfortunately, the partial-match transplant did not work. Woolford’s body rejected it.

“So, here I am,” she said. “I am 30, still have sickle cell disease, and I’m infertile.”

Fertility Preservation and Reproductive Justice

A grim thought sometimes pops into Woolford’s mind: If she had cancer instead of sickle cell disease, her dreams of having biological children might still come true.

The first description of sickle cell disease in medical literature was published over a century ago. Because most sickle cell patients in the U.S. were Black, it quickly became labeled as a “Black disease.” And with that came a legacy of systemic racism that still affects patients today.

Black patients tend to have less social capital and fewer resources, said Dr. Lydia Pecker, a sickle cell disease researcher and an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University. For fertility treatment, the resources available to cancer patients differ starkly from those available to sickle cell patients.

“There are any number of foundations, large and small, that help support and pay for fertility preservation for people with cancer,” Pecker said. “Those foundations actually work with fertility preservation centers to negotiate lower rates for affected people.”

Clear clinical guidelines state that children who have cancer and are going through chemotherapy should be referred for fertility preservation. Children with sickle cell disease going through transplants are exposed to chemotherapy, too, “but we don’t really have guidelines like that yet for people with sickle cell disease,” Pecker said.

It’s not a perfect comparison, she added, because the kinds of chemotherapy drugs used in pediatric cancer are different from the chemotherapies used in sickle cell treatment. But fertility preservation can be crucial when there is any risk of treatment-associated fertility impairment, Pecker said. Without clear and widely adopted clinical guidelines, sickle cell patients may not be referred to appropriate care.

Pecker said current medical practice forces sickle cell patients to make a difficult choice. “You can have treatment or you can have fertility,” she said. But in cancer care, she said, the thought is: You can have treatment and you can have fertility.

In the U.S., health insurance coverage for fertility preservation and treatment is not guaranteed and varies from state to state. Only 12 states have laws that mandate fertility preservation coverage for patients who undergo treatments that could imperil their ability to have biological children — usually referred to as iatrogenic treatments — like chemotherapy or radiation.

After Woolford’s transplant failed, the disease continued its assault on her body. And Woolford has had to come to terms with the impossibility of ever having a biological child. She launched a nonprofit, the Sickle Cell Reproductive Health Education Directive, to raise awareness of fertility issues at medical conferences and among patients. A future goal is to provide financial grants to sickle cell patients struggling to pay for fertility preservation and treatments.

Most days, Woolford finds the work empowering. On other days, she admitted, it reminds her of the bleak reality that she will probably never conceive a child.

“It’s really hard because I don’t think a lot of people realize that I’m fighting for something that I didn’t have access to,” she said.

At this point, she said, it’s no longer a medical justice fight. It’s a reproductive justice one.

Reporting for this story was supported by the USC Annenberg Center for Health Journalism’s Impact Fund for Reporting on Health Equity and Health Systems. It was produced in partnership with Side Effects Public Media, WFYI, and Kaiser Health News.

How Racial and Ethnic Disparities Affect Pain

By Madora Pennington, PNN Columnist

Much of the race-related research on chronic pain in the United States only compares Black and White Americans, leaving out many other ethnic groups and demographics.  

In an attempt to broaden our understanding of who experiences pain and why, researchers culled through eight years of public surveys conducted by the CDC and the U.S. Census Bureau from 2010 to 2018. These National Health Interview Surveys gathered information from White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American and multiracial Americans, giving us new insight into the role of race in pain prevalence. 

“People often tend to think about pain as a personal issue or personal struggle, but it’s really a broad social and societal issue,” says Anna Zajacova, PhD, a sociology professor at the University of Western Ontario and lead author of Beyond Black vs White, a study recently published in the journal PAIN.       

In addition to race, Zajacova and her colleagues looked at socioeconomic factors such as education, family income, home ownership and whether someone was born in the U.S. or abroad.  They found that racial disparities in pain are far larger than previously recognized, with Native Americans nearly five times more likely to have severe pain than Asian Americans. Hispanics, Whites and Blacks fell between the two extremes.

Severe Pain Prevalence

• 2.4% Asian Americans

• 5.0% Hispanics

• 6.8% Whites

• 7.6% Blacks

• 8.7% Multiracial Adults

• 11.1% Native Americans

Why is there so much disparity between races? Researchers found that Asian Americans collectively had the highest levels of education and family income, giving them a socioeconomic advantage that may explain their lower pain prevalence. Native Americans, on the other hand, tend to be the most socioeconomically disadvantaged ethnic group, which is likely a factor in their high pain prevalence.

“We really need to understand what is causing the high pain among Native American and multiracial adults, and what factors protect Asian Americans from reporting high pain on average. This question will require delving into upstream causes such as discrimination, resulting stress and corollary health impacts, as well as the role of protective factors such as community and individual resilience,” Zajacova told PNN. 

While socioeconomic factors play a role, they're not always a deciding one. Hispanics reported less severe pain than White Americans despite having fewer socioeconomic advantages, indicating that other factors may be involved.

One may be place of birth. Researchers found that immigrants reported significantly less pain than native-born adults. Since about half of Hispanic adults are foreign born, that may help explain their lower incidence of pain -- or at least a reluctance to report it. 

Researchers say we need a better understanding of the racial, ethnic, social and economic issues that contribute to chronic pain if we ever hope to manage it.   

“The biopsychosocial model of pain predicts that people marginalized by social conditions would experience more pain. Our foundational results show more nuanced patterns, in which some minoritized groups show higher pain prevalence than Whites, whereas others show lower prevalence,” Zajacova wrote.

“Given that pain is arguably the most prevalent and costly public health condition in the United States, enhanced knowledge of racial and ethnic disparities in pain is urgently needed to inform policy decisions and focus efforts at population-level prevention and intervention.” 

Madora Pennington is the author of the blog LessFlexible.com about her life with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. She graduated from UC Berkeley with minors in Journalism and Disability Studies. 

Latina and Asian Women at Significantly Higher Risk from Lupus

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Asians and Latinos diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are significantly more likely to die from the disease than other racial groups, according to a new analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC set up half dozen state registries over a decade ago to help track the illness.

SLE is the most common form of lupus, a condition in which the body's immune system attacks its own healthy tissues, especially joints and skin, causing flare-ups of pain and fatigue that keep nearly half of adult patients from working.

In an effort to better understand why the disease disproportionately affects women and people of color, CDC researchers analyzed a database of over 800 SLE patients in San Francisco from 2007 to 2017. About 90 percent of them were female. Mortality rates were highest in racial and ethnic minorities who died during the study period,

“Asian females with SLE were four times more likely to die than were Asian females without SLE in the general San Francisco County population, and Hispanic/Latina females with SLE were six times more likely to die than were persons in the corresponding general populations,” researchers reported. “Higher mortality within these populations might be the result of more severe outcomes and manifestations of SLE, as previously demonstrated, or possibly less access to care.”

The mean age at death for people with SLE was 62 years. On average, Black persons died 6.8 years earlier than White people with SLE, while people of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity died 9.5 years earlier.

A recent study published in the journal Arthritis and Rheumatology estimated that over 200,000 Americans suffer from SLE, a number that comes statistically close to officially reclassifying the illness as a rare disease. The Rare Diseases Act of 2002 classifies conditions as rare when they affect 200,000 or fewer Americans. Until now, SLE disease estimates were larger but unverified.

“Our study potentially redefines systemic lupus erythematosus as a rare disease in the United States and lays the groundwork for where we need to focus our efforts to reduce the burden of this disease on Americans,” said lead investigator and rheumatologist Peter Izmirly, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone Health.

Rare-disease classification could, according to Izmirly, significantly improve efforts to study and treat SLE by reducing the number of participants needed for clinical trials.

Current treatments for lupus include steroids or other anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressing medications, including newer biologic drugs made from living cells.

Minorities in Oregon Less Likely to Get Emergency Pain Care

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Oregon’s treatment of chronic pain patients came under fire this year when state health officials drafted a controversial plan to forcibly taper thousands of Medicaid patients on long-term opioid therapy. The proposal was scaled back after nationwide criticism from patient advocates and pain management experts, who said it would “exacerbate suffering for thousands of patients.”

Minorities in Oregon needing emergency treatment for pain may also be suffering unnecessarily, according to a new study by Portland State University researchers.

"We found evidence that the odds of receiving a lower quality of care from EMS providers are higher among racial minorities in Oregon, when compared to white patients in Oregon, after experiencing traumatic and painful injuries," said Jamie Kennel, a PhD student and lead author of the study published in the journal Medical Care.

PSU researchers analyzed nearly 26,000 health records of patients who received emergency care for traumatic injuries in Oregon between 2015 and 2017.

Only about one in five white patients received opioids or other types of pain medication from EMS responders in Oregon. But the odds were 32% lower for black patients, 24% lower for Asian patients and 21% lower for Latino patients. This was despite the fact that black and Latino patients reported higher average pain scores than white patients.

ODDS OF GETTING EMS PAIN MEDICATION

• White Patients 20.1%

• Latino Patients 17.2%

• Asian Patients 14.2%

• Black Patients 13.9%

"This is very large, concerning and should be motivating for change," said Kennel. "Like most healthcare providers, EMS providers don't desire to provide inequitable healthcare but often have never been exposed to evidence suggesting these disparities are taking place."  

The researchers also found that Asian and Latino patients were less likely to have their pain assessed – a simple procedure in which patients are asked to rate their pain on a scale of zero to 10.

While previous studies have found racial and ethnic disparities in medical care, this was the first to look at both pain assessment and pain medication during emergency care in a large statewide database. Researchers did not look at what caused the inequities in pain treatment, but speculated that racial stereotypes and difficulty in communicating with patients with limited English played a role.

“Although it has been shown conclusively that there are no medically significant biological differences between individuals of different races/ethnicities, there is evidence that medical providers nevertheless believe race/ethnicity to be a medically relevant factor and may be adjusting their clinical actions accordingly,” researchers concluded.  

"We hope that, when exposed to this new evidence, individual EMS providers will work with their agencies to better understand, and take steps to mitigate, this phenomenon in their community." 

A large 2016 study found that black patients who visit hospital emergency rooms are significantly less likely to receive opioid prescriptions than white patients. Opioids were prescribed for blacks at about half the rate for whites with back and abdominal pain.

Another large study of VA patients found that African-Americans on long-term opioid therapy were more likely to be drug tested and significantly more likely to have their opioid prescriptions stopped if an illicit drug was detected.