Oral retinoids are a type of medicine used to treat severe acne. They’re sold under the brand name Roaccutane, among others.

While oral retinoids are very effective, they can have harmful effects if taken during pregnancy. These medicines can cause miscarriages and major congenital abnormalities (harm to unborn babies) including in the brain, heart and face. At least 30% of children exposed to oral retinoids in pregnancy have severe congenital abnormalities.

Neurodevelopmental problems (in learning, reading, social skills, memory and attention) are also common.

Because of these risks, the Australasian College of Dermatologists advises oral retinoids should not be prescribed a month before or during pregnancy under any circumstances. Dermatologists are instructed to make sure a woman isn’t pregnant before starting this treatment, and discuss the risks with women of childbearing age.

But despite this, and warnings on the medicines’ packaging, pregnancies exposed to oral retinoids continue to be reported in Australia and around the world.

In a study published this month, we wanted to find out what proportion of Australian women of reproductive age were taking oral retinoids, and how many of these women were using contraception.

Our results suggest a high proportion of women are not using effective contraception while on these drugs, indicating Australia needs a strategy to reduce the risk oral retinoids pose to unborn babies.

Contraception options

Using birth control to avoid pregnancy during oral retinoid treatment is essential for women who are sexually active. Some contraception methods, however, are more reliable than others.

Long-acting-reversible contraceptives include intrauterine devices (IUDs) inserted into the womb (such as Mirena, Kyleena, or copper devices) and implants under the skin (such as Implanon). These “set and forget” methods are more than 99% effective.

The effectiveness of oral contraceptive pills among “perfect” users (following the directions, with no missed or late pills) is similarly more than 99%. But in typical users, this can fall as low as 91%.

Condoms, when used as the sole method of contraception, have higher failure rates. Their effectiveness can be as low as 82% in typical users.

Oral retinoid use over time

For our study, we analysed medicine dispensing data among women aged 15–44 from Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) between 2013 and 2021.

We found the dispensing rate for oral retinoids doubled from one in every 71 women in 2013, to one in every 36 in 2021. The increase occurred across all ages but was most notable in young women.

Most women were not dispensed contraception at the same time they were using the oral retinoids. To be sure we weren’t missing any contraception that was supplied before the oral retinoids, we looked back in the data. For example, for an IUD that lasts five years, we looked back five years before the oral retinoid prescription.

Our analysis showed only one in four women provided oral retinoids were dispensed contraception simultaneously. This was even lower for 15- to 19-year-olds, where only about one in eight women who filled a prescription for oral retinoids were dispensed contraception.

A recent study found 43% of Australian year 10 and 69% of year 12 students are sexually active, so we can’t assume this younger age group largely had no need for contraception.

One limitation of our study is that it may underestimate contraception coverage, because not all contraceptive options are listed on the PBS. Those options not listed include male and female sterilisation, contraceptive rings, condoms, copper IUDs, and certain oral contraceptive pills.

But even if we presume some of the women in our study were using forms of contraception not listed on the PBS, we’re still left with a significant portion without evidence of contraception.

What are the solutions?

Other countries such as the United States and countries in Europe have pregnancy prevention programs for women taking oral retinoids. These programs include contraception requirements, risk acknowledgement forms and regular pregnancy tests. Despite these programs, unintended pregnancies among women using oral retinoids still occur in these countries.

But Australia has no official strategy for preventing pregnancies exposed to oral retinoids. Currently oral retinoids are prescribed by dermatologists, and most contraception is prescribed by GPs. Women therefore need to see two different doctors, which adds costs and burden.

Rather than a single fix, there are likely to be multiple solutions to this problem. Some dermatologists may not feel confident discussing sex or contraception with patients, so educating dermatologists about contraception is important. Education for women is equally important.

A clinical pathway is needed for reproductive-aged women to obtain both oral retinoids and effective contraception. Options may include GPs prescribing both medications, or dermatologists only prescribing oral retinoids when there’s a contraception plan already in place.

Some women may initially not be sexually active, but change their sexual behaviour while taking oral retinoids, so constant reminders and education are likely to be required.

Further, contraception access needs to be improved in Australia. Teenagers and young women in particular face barriers to accessing contraception, including costs, stigma and lack of knowledge.

Many doctors and women are doing the right thing. But every woman should have an effective contraception plan in place well before starting oral retinoids. Only if this happens can we reduce unintended pregnancies among women taking these medicines, and thereby reduce the risk of harm to unborn babies.

Dr Laura Gerhardy from NSW Health contributed to this article.

Antonia Shand, Research Fellow, Obstetrician, University of Sydney and Natasha Nassar, Professor of Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology and Chair in Translational Childhood Medicine, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Around 3.2 million Australians live with depression.

At the same time, few Australians meet recommended dietary or physical activity guidelines. What has one got to do with the other?

Our world-first trial, published this week, shows improving diet and doing more physical activity can be as effective as therapy with a psychologist for treating low-grade depression.

Previous studies (including our own) have found “lifestyle” therapies are effective for depression. But they have never been directly compared with psychological therapies – until now.

Amid a nation-wide shortage of mental health professionals, our research points to a potential solution. As we found lifestyle counselling was as effective as psychological therapy, our findings suggest dietitians and exercise physiologists may one day play a role in managing depression.

What did our study measure?

During the prolonged COVID lockdowns, Victorians’ distress levels were high and widespread. Face-to-face mental health services were limited.

Our trial targeted people living in Victoria with elevated distress, meaning at least mild depression but not necessarily a diagnosed mental disorder. Typical symptoms included feeling down, hopeless, irritable or tearful.

We partnered with our local mental health service to recruit 182 adults and provided group-based sessions on Zoom. All participants took part in up to six sessions over eight weeks, facilitated by health professionals.

Half were randomly assigned to participate in a program co-facilitated by an accredited practising dietitian and an exercise physiologist. That group – called the lifestyle program – developed nutrition and movement goals:

• eating a wide variety of foods
• choosing high-fibre plant foods
• including high quality fats
• limiting discretionary foods, such as those high in saturated fats and added sugars
• doing enjoyable physical activity.

The second group took part in psychotherapy sessions convened by two psychologists. The psychotherapy program used cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), the gold standard for treating depression in groups and when delivered remotely.

In both groups, participants could continue existing treatments (such as taking antidepressant medication). We gave both groups workbooks and hampers. The lifestyle group received a food hamper, while the psychotherapy group received items such as a colouring book, stress ball and head massager.

Lifestyle therapies just as effective

We found similar results in each program.

At the trial’s beginning we gave each participant a score based on their self-reported mental health. We measured them again at the end of the program.

Over eight weeks, those scores showed symptoms of depression reduced for participants in the lifestyle program (42%) and the psychotherapy program (37%). That difference was not statistically or clinically meaningful so we could conclude both treatments were as good as each other.

There were some differences between groups. People in the lifestyle program improved their diet, while those in the psychotherapy program felt they had increased their social support – meaning how connected they felt to other people – compared to at the start of the treatment.

Participants in both programs increased their physical activity. While this was expected for those in the lifestyle program, it was less expected for those in the psychotherapy program. It may be because they knew they were enrolled in a research study about lifestyle and subconsciously changed their activity patterns, or it could be a positive by-product of doing psychotherapy.

There was also not much difference in cost. The lifestyle program was slightly cheaper to deliver: A$482 per participant, versus $503 for psychotherapy. That’s because hourly rates differ between dietitians and exercise physiologists, and psychologists.

What does this mean for mental health workforce shortages?

Demand for mental health services is increasing in Australia, while at the same time the workforce faces worsening nation-wide shortages.

Psychologists, who provide about half of all mental health services, can have long wait times. Our results suggest that, with the appropriate training and guidelines, allied health professionals who specialise in diet and exercise could help address this gap.

Lifestyle therapies can be combined with psychology sessions for multi-disciplinary care. But diet and exercise therapies could prove particularly effective for those on waitlists to see a psychologists, who may be receiving no other professional support while they wait.

Many dietitians and exercise physiologists already have advanced skills and expertise in motivating behaviour change. Most accredited practising dietitians are trained in managing eating disorders or gastrointestinal conditions, which commonly overlap with depression.

There is also a cost argument. It is overall cheaper to train a dietitian ($153,039) than a psychologist ($189,063) – and it takes less time.

Potential barriers

Australians with chronic conditions (such as diabetes) can access subsidised dietitian and exercise physiologist appointments under various Medicare treatment plans. Those with eating disorders can also access subsidised dietitian appointments. But mental health care plans for people with depression do not support subsidised sessions with dietitians or exercise physiologists, despite peak bodies urging them to do so.

Increased training, upskilling and Medicare subsidies would be needed to support dietitians and exercise physiologists to be involved in treating mental health issues.

Our training and clinical guidelines are intended to help clinicians practising lifestyle-based mental health care within their scope of practice (activities a health care provider can undertake).

Future directions

Our trial took place during COVID lockdowns and examined people with at least mild symptoms of depression who did not necessarily have a mental disorder. We are seeking to replicate these findings and are now running a study open to Australians with mental health conditions such as major depression or bipolar disorder.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Adrienne O’Neil, Professor, Food & Mood Centre, Deakin University and Sophie Mahoney, Associate Research Fellow, Food and Mood Centre, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.