User login
Offering HPV vaccine at age 9 linked to greater series completion
BALTIMORE – , according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.
Changing attitudes
“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.
Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.
However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.
“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
Debundling vaccines
Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.
Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.
The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
Timing is important
“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”
One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.
“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”
The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.
“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.
Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.
BALTIMORE – , according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.
Changing attitudes
“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.
Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.
However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.
“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
Debundling vaccines
Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.
Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.
The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
Timing is important
“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”
One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.
“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”
The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.
“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.
Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.
BALTIMORE – , according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.
Changing attitudes
“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.
Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.
However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.
“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
Debundling vaccines
Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.
Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.
The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
Timing is important
“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”
One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.
“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”
The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.
“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.
Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.
AT ACOG 2023
Prenatal sleep problems, depression linked to poorer outcomes
BALTIMORE – , according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Together, the two studies suggest that commonly overlooked experiences in the prenatal period can have negative effects down the line if clinicians aren’t asking patients about them and addressing the issue.
”I think the national conversation around mental health in general will hopefully carry us forward to better supporting the patients who are coming in with preexisting conditions,” lead author Minnie Jang, a 4th-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.
Most of the attention on mood disorders of pregnancy focus on the postpartum period, but preexisting or new-onset depression during pregnancy deserves more attention, Ms. Jang told attendees. ACOG recommends that clinicians screen all patients at least once during the perinatal period, but that could be anywhere from early pregnancy to the postpartum period. Ms. Jang would like to see recommendations addressing both early pregnancy and the postpartum period.
“I think there’s this framing that postpartum depression is a distinct entity from other mental health conditions whereas it’s really part of a continuum,” Ms. Jang said in an interview.
She retrospectively analyzed the medical records of all pregnant women who completed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) during their first or second trimesters between 2002 and 2021 at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Among the 718 women who were screened in early pregnancy, 44.6% were Black or African American, 39.7% were white, and 15.7% were of a different race. Nearly all (94%) were not Hispanic/Latino.
Most (59%) were partnered, employed (68%), and had private insurance (58%). Only 7% used tobacco while 11% used alcohol and 6% used illicit drugs.
Twelve percent of the patients scored positive for depression, with a score of at least 10 or an affirmative answer to question 10 regarding self-harm. These women tended to be younger (P = .034), with an median age of 28 at their first visit versus 31 for those who screened negative, and were more likely to be publicly insured (P = .013) and without a partner (P = .005).
Patients who screened positive were more likely to have a history of substance use or history of a previous psychiatric diagnosis (P < .0001 for both). In addition, more patients who screened positive (49%) than those who screened negative (26%) had fetal complications (P < .001).
”There are some interesting subgroups of patients who are screening positive for depressive symptoms early on in pregnancy,” Ms. Jang said. Some come into pregnancy with preexisting mental health conditions while others have situational depressive symptoms, such as the subgroup referred to social work who had diagnosed fetal complications, she said. “Then there’s a whole other group of patients who are developing new symptoms during pregnancy.”
Patients who screened positive tended to start prenatal care later, at a median 12.3 weeks gestational age, than patients who screened negative, at a median 10.7 weeks gestational age (P = .002), the analysis found.
The number of routine prenatal care visits did not significantly differ between those who screened positive and those who screened negative, but patients with positive depression screens were almost half as likely to complete glucose tolerance testing (odds ratio, 0.6) or group B streptococcus testing (OR, 0.56) after adjusting for insurance status, gravidity, and gestational age at the patient’s first visit.
The researchers also identified a significant positive association between higher EPDS scores and the number of labor and delivery triage visits (P = .006). There were no significant differences in the rates of Tdap vaccination or screening for sexually transmitted infections between the two groups.
Poor sleep linked to later depression
The other study was prospective, using data from the PATCH Prenatal Care and Maternal and Child Health Outcomes study, which initially “compared health outcomes and satisfaction with prenatal care between patients receiving Centering Pregnancy group prenatal care and patients receiving traditional prenatal care,” the authors explained. This secondary analysis looked at sleep problems and postpartum depression.
“We don’t routinely ask patients about sleep or screen patients for sleeping issues,” lead author Carolyn Sinow, MD, a 4th-year resident at Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara (Calif.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “I think that we need to take sleep complaints more seriously overall, especially in early pregnancy.” While sleep problems in the third trimester often have more to do with discomforts from pregnancy itself, better sleep “in the first and second trimester is something we can really target with good sleep hygiene,” she added.
The 336 pregnant participants were recruited from Health Connect as long as they had a singleton pregnancy, were receiving prenatal care from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and completed baseline questionnaires about their sleep and depression and anxiety symptoms during their first trimester between August 2020 and April 2021. Those with clinical depression or a high-risk pregnancy were excluded. The participants then completed the questionnaires again between 4 and 8 weeks post partum.
After adjusting for baseline depression and potential confounders, patients with poor sleep quality, indicated by a score greater than 5 on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), were 12% more likely to develop postpartum depression, indicated by a score on the Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8) of 10 or greater (relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.25).
The two aspects of sleep that specifically correlated with postpartum depression were sleep quality and sleep latency, or taking a long time to fall asleep. Those reporting poor sleep quality were twice as likely to develop postpartum depression (relative risk, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.22-3.91), and those who took a while to fall asleep were 52% more likely to develop postpartum depression (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.06-2.17).
Though the study also found prenatal sleep problems correlated with higher postpartum anxiety scores on the General Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), the results were not statistically significant.
Kathleen Morrell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. in New York, was not involved in the study and said she was surprised it wasn’t something that had been studied much before because it makes sense.
“I always like it when studies confirm what we think should make sense, so it’s nice to see it,” Dr. Morrell said in an interview. “I think anytime you put something out, research it, and define it with numbers for doctors, that sometimes allows us to [realize], ‘Oh, that’s probably something we should be paying more attention to, especially if we have available treatments for it,’” she added.
“The clinical takeaway is that we really need to be screening for sleep pattern disruptions early in pregnancy, because even though it makes logical sense, it might not be something on our radar to think about,” Dr. Morrell said. “If people aren’t sleeping, well, their mental health is negatively affected.”
The most promising therapy for sleep issues currently is cognitive-behavioral therapy, which can accessed through various apps, Dr. Sinow said in an interview. “There are also safe interventions, such as melatonin and Unisom, that are totally safe in pregnancy that we can use to target sleep in early pregnancy.”
Dr. Morrell added that vitamin B6, often taken for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, can also sometimes help people sleep and is safe during pregnancy.
“We know that postpartum depression does not necessarily only have a negative effect on the mother, but also has a negative effect on the infant and the family dynamic as well,” Dr. Morrell said. “So, we should be looking and screening for it so that we can offer people potential treatment because we know it can have long-term effects.”
Ms. Jang and Dr. Sinow did not have any disclosures. Dr. Morrell has done training for Nexplanon. Neither study noted external funding.
BALTIMORE – , according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Together, the two studies suggest that commonly overlooked experiences in the prenatal period can have negative effects down the line if clinicians aren’t asking patients about them and addressing the issue.
”I think the national conversation around mental health in general will hopefully carry us forward to better supporting the patients who are coming in with preexisting conditions,” lead author Minnie Jang, a 4th-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.
Most of the attention on mood disorders of pregnancy focus on the postpartum period, but preexisting or new-onset depression during pregnancy deserves more attention, Ms. Jang told attendees. ACOG recommends that clinicians screen all patients at least once during the perinatal period, but that could be anywhere from early pregnancy to the postpartum period. Ms. Jang would like to see recommendations addressing both early pregnancy and the postpartum period.
“I think there’s this framing that postpartum depression is a distinct entity from other mental health conditions whereas it’s really part of a continuum,” Ms. Jang said in an interview.
She retrospectively analyzed the medical records of all pregnant women who completed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) during their first or second trimesters between 2002 and 2021 at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Among the 718 women who were screened in early pregnancy, 44.6% were Black or African American, 39.7% were white, and 15.7% were of a different race. Nearly all (94%) were not Hispanic/Latino.
Most (59%) were partnered, employed (68%), and had private insurance (58%). Only 7% used tobacco while 11% used alcohol and 6% used illicit drugs.
Twelve percent of the patients scored positive for depression, with a score of at least 10 or an affirmative answer to question 10 regarding self-harm. These women tended to be younger (P = .034), with an median age of 28 at their first visit versus 31 for those who screened negative, and were more likely to be publicly insured (P = .013) and without a partner (P = .005).
Patients who screened positive were more likely to have a history of substance use or history of a previous psychiatric diagnosis (P < .0001 for both). In addition, more patients who screened positive (49%) than those who screened negative (26%) had fetal complications (P < .001).
”There are some interesting subgroups of patients who are screening positive for depressive symptoms early on in pregnancy,” Ms. Jang said. Some come into pregnancy with preexisting mental health conditions while others have situational depressive symptoms, such as the subgroup referred to social work who had diagnosed fetal complications, she said. “Then there’s a whole other group of patients who are developing new symptoms during pregnancy.”
Patients who screened positive tended to start prenatal care later, at a median 12.3 weeks gestational age, than patients who screened negative, at a median 10.7 weeks gestational age (P = .002), the analysis found.
The number of routine prenatal care visits did not significantly differ between those who screened positive and those who screened negative, but patients with positive depression screens were almost half as likely to complete glucose tolerance testing (odds ratio, 0.6) or group B streptococcus testing (OR, 0.56) after adjusting for insurance status, gravidity, and gestational age at the patient’s first visit.
The researchers also identified a significant positive association between higher EPDS scores and the number of labor and delivery triage visits (P = .006). There were no significant differences in the rates of Tdap vaccination or screening for sexually transmitted infections between the two groups.
Poor sleep linked to later depression
The other study was prospective, using data from the PATCH Prenatal Care and Maternal and Child Health Outcomes study, which initially “compared health outcomes and satisfaction with prenatal care between patients receiving Centering Pregnancy group prenatal care and patients receiving traditional prenatal care,” the authors explained. This secondary analysis looked at sleep problems and postpartum depression.
“We don’t routinely ask patients about sleep or screen patients for sleeping issues,” lead author Carolyn Sinow, MD, a 4th-year resident at Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara (Calif.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “I think that we need to take sleep complaints more seriously overall, especially in early pregnancy.” While sleep problems in the third trimester often have more to do with discomforts from pregnancy itself, better sleep “in the first and second trimester is something we can really target with good sleep hygiene,” she added.
The 336 pregnant participants were recruited from Health Connect as long as they had a singleton pregnancy, were receiving prenatal care from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and completed baseline questionnaires about their sleep and depression and anxiety symptoms during their first trimester between August 2020 and April 2021. Those with clinical depression or a high-risk pregnancy were excluded. The participants then completed the questionnaires again between 4 and 8 weeks post partum.
After adjusting for baseline depression and potential confounders, patients with poor sleep quality, indicated by a score greater than 5 on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), were 12% more likely to develop postpartum depression, indicated by a score on the Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8) of 10 or greater (relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.25).
The two aspects of sleep that specifically correlated with postpartum depression were sleep quality and sleep latency, or taking a long time to fall asleep. Those reporting poor sleep quality were twice as likely to develop postpartum depression (relative risk, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.22-3.91), and those who took a while to fall asleep were 52% more likely to develop postpartum depression (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.06-2.17).
Though the study also found prenatal sleep problems correlated with higher postpartum anxiety scores on the General Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), the results were not statistically significant.
Kathleen Morrell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. in New York, was not involved in the study and said she was surprised it wasn’t something that had been studied much before because it makes sense.
“I always like it when studies confirm what we think should make sense, so it’s nice to see it,” Dr. Morrell said in an interview. “I think anytime you put something out, research it, and define it with numbers for doctors, that sometimes allows us to [realize], ‘Oh, that’s probably something we should be paying more attention to, especially if we have available treatments for it,’” she added.
“The clinical takeaway is that we really need to be screening for sleep pattern disruptions early in pregnancy, because even though it makes logical sense, it might not be something on our radar to think about,” Dr. Morrell said. “If people aren’t sleeping, well, their mental health is negatively affected.”
The most promising therapy for sleep issues currently is cognitive-behavioral therapy, which can accessed through various apps, Dr. Sinow said in an interview. “There are also safe interventions, such as melatonin and Unisom, that are totally safe in pregnancy that we can use to target sleep in early pregnancy.”
Dr. Morrell added that vitamin B6, often taken for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, can also sometimes help people sleep and is safe during pregnancy.
“We know that postpartum depression does not necessarily only have a negative effect on the mother, but also has a negative effect on the infant and the family dynamic as well,” Dr. Morrell said. “So, we should be looking and screening for it so that we can offer people potential treatment because we know it can have long-term effects.”
Ms. Jang and Dr. Sinow did not have any disclosures. Dr. Morrell has done training for Nexplanon. Neither study noted external funding.
BALTIMORE – , according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Together, the two studies suggest that commonly overlooked experiences in the prenatal period can have negative effects down the line if clinicians aren’t asking patients about them and addressing the issue.
”I think the national conversation around mental health in general will hopefully carry us forward to better supporting the patients who are coming in with preexisting conditions,” lead author Minnie Jang, a 4th-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.
Most of the attention on mood disorders of pregnancy focus on the postpartum period, but preexisting or new-onset depression during pregnancy deserves more attention, Ms. Jang told attendees. ACOG recommends that clinicians screen all patients at least once during the perinatal period, but that could be anywhere from early pregnancy to the postpartum period. Ms. Jang would like to see recommendations addressing both early pregnancy and the postpartum period.
“I think there’s this framing that postpartum depression is a distinct entity from other mental health conditions whereas it’s really part of a continuum,” Ms. Jang said in an interview.
She retrospectively analyzed the medical records of all pregnant women who completed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) during their first or second trimesters between 2002 and 2021 at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Among the 718 women who were screened in early pregnancy, 44.6% were Black or African American, 39.7% were white, and 15.7% were of a different race. Nearly all (94%) were not Hispanic/Latino.
Most (59%) were partnered, employed (68%), and had private insurance (58%). Only 7% used tobacco while 11% used alcohol and 6% used illicit drugs.
Twelve percent of the patients scored positive for depression, with a score of at least 10 or an affirmative answer to question 10 regarding self-harm. These women tended to be younger (P = .034), with an median age of 28 at their first visit versus 31 for those who screened negative, and were more likely to be publicly insured (P = .013) and without a partner (P = .005).
Patients who screened positive were more likely to have a history of substance use or history of a previous psychiatric diagnosis (P < .0001 for both). In addition, more patients who screened positive (49%) than those who screened negative (26%) had fetal complications (P < .001).
”There are some interesting subgroups of patients who are screening positive for depressive symptoms early on in pregnancy,” Ms. Jang said. Some come into pregnancy with preexisting mental health conditions while others have situational depressive symptoms, such as the subgroup referred to social work who had diagnosed fetal complications, she said. “Then there’s a whole other group of patients who are developing new symptoms during pregnancy.”
Patients who screened positive tended to start prenatal care later, at a median 12.3 weeks gestational age, than patients who screened negative, at a median 10.7 weeks gestational age (P = .002), the analysis found.
The number of routine prenatal care visits did not significantly differ between those who screened positive and those who screened negative, but patients with positive depression screens were almost half as likely to complete glucose tolerance testing (odds ratio, 0.6) or group B streptococcus testing (OR, 0.56) after adjusting for insurance status, gravidity, and gestational age at the patient’s first visit.
The researchers also identified a significant positive association between higher EPDS scores and the number of labor and delivery triage visits (P = .006). There were no significant differences in the rates of Tdap vaccination or screening for sexually transmitted infections between the two groups.
Poor sleep linked to later depression
The other study was prospective, using data from the PATCH Prenatal Care and Maternal and Child Health Outcomes study, which initially “compared health outcomes and satisfaction with prenatal care between patients receiving Centering Pregnancy group prenatal care and patients receiving traditional prenatal care,” the authors explained. This secondary analysis looked at sleep problems and postpartum depression.
“We don’t routinely ask patients about sleep or screen patients for sleeping issues,” lead author Carolyn Sinow, MD, a 4th-year resident at Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara (Calif.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “I think that we need to take sleep complaints more seriously overall, especially in early pregnancy.” While sleep problems in the third trimester often have more to do with discomforts from pregnancy itself, better sleep “in the first and second trimester is something we can really target with good sleep hygiene,” she added.
The 336 pregnant participants were recruited from Health Connect as long as they had a singleton pregnancy, were receiving prenatal care from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and completed baseline questionnaires about their sleep and depression and anxiety symptoms during their first trimester between August 2020 and April 2021. Those with clinical depression or a high-risk pregnancy were excluded. The participants then completed the questionnaires again between 4 and 8 weeks post partum.
After adjusting for baseline depression and potential confounders, patients with poor sleep quality, indicated by a score greater than 5 on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), were 12% more likely to develop postpartum depression, indicated by a score on the Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8) of 10 or greater (relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.25).
The two aspects of sleep that specifically correlated with postpartum depression were sleep quality and sleep latency, or taking a long time to fall asleep. Those reporting poor sleep quality were twice as likely to develop postpartum depression (relative risk, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.22-3.91), and those who took a while to fall asleep were 52% more likely to develop postpartum depression (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.06-2.17).
Though the study also found prenatal sleep problems correlated with higher postpartum anxiety scores on the General Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), the results were not statistically significant.
Kathleen Morrell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. in New York, was not involved in the study and said she was surprised it wasn’t something that had been studied much before because it makes sense.
“I always like it when studies confirm what we think should make sense, so it’s nice to see it,” Dr. Morrell said in an interview. “I think anytime you put something out, research it, and define it with numbers for doctors, that sometimes allows us to [realize], ‘Oh, that’s probably something we should be paying more attention to, especially if we have available treatments for it,’” she added.
“The clinical takeaway is that we really need to be screening for sleep pattern disruptions early in pregnancy, because even though it makes logical sense, it might not be something on our radar to think about,” Dr. Morrell said. “If people aren’t sleeping, well, their mental health is negatively affected.”
The most promising therapy for sleep issues currently is cognitive-behavioral therapy, which can accessed through various apps, Dr. Sinow said in an interview. “There are also safe interventions, such as melatonin and Unisom, that are totally safe in pregnancy that we can use to target sleep in early pregnancy.”
Dr. Morrell added that vitamin B6, often taken for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, can also sometimes help people sleep and is safe during pregnancy.
“We know that postpartum depression does not necessarily only have a negative effect on the mother, but also has a negative effect on the infant and the family dynamic as well,” Dr. Morrell said. “So, we should be looking and screening for it so that we can offer people potential treatment because we know it can have long-term effects.”
Ms. Jang and Dr. Sinow did not have any disclosures. Dr. Morrell has done training for Nexplanon. Neither study noted external funding.
AT ACOG 2023
Abortion restrictions linked to less evidence-based care for miscarriages
BALTIMORE – , according to a cross-sectional study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The results revealed that “abortion restrictions have far-reaching effects on early pregnancy loss care and on resident education,” the researchers concluded.
“Abortion restrictions don’t just affect people seeking abortions; they affect people also suffering from early pregnancy loss,” Aurora Phillips, MD, an ob.gyn. resident at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “It’s harder to make that diagnosis and to be able to offer interventions, and these institutions that had restrictions also were less likely to have mifepristone or office based human aspiration, which are the most efficient and cost-effective interventions that we have.”
For example, less than half the programs surveyed offered mifepristone to help manage a miscarriage, “with availability varying inversely with abortion restrictions,” they found. After considering all characteristics of residency programs, “institutional abortion restrictions and bans were more important than state policies or religious affiliation in determining whether evidence-based early pregnancy loss treatments were available,” the researchers found, though their findings predated the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. “Training institutions with a commitment to evidence-based family planning care and education are able to ensure access to the most evidence-based, cost-effective, and timely treatments for pregnancy loss even in the face of state abortion restrictions, thereby preserving patient safety, physician competency, and health care system sustainability,” they wrote.
Reduced access leads to higher risk interventions
An estimated 10%-20% of pregnancies result in early miscarriage, totaling more than one million cases in the U.S. each year. But since treatments for miscarriage often overlap with those for abortion, the researchers wondered whether differences existed in how providers managed miscarriages in states or institutions with strict abortion restrictions versus management in hospitals without restrictions.
They also looked at how closely the management strategies adhered to ACOG’s recommendations, which advise that providers consider both ultrasound imaging and other factors, including clinical reasoning and patient preferences, before diagnosing early pregnancy loss and considering possible interventions.
For imaging guidelines, ACOG endorses the criteria established for ultrasound diagnosis of first trimester pregnancy loss from the Society of Radiologists in 2012. But, the authors note, these guidelines are very conservative, exceeding previous measurements that had a 99%-100% predictive value for pregnancy loss, in the interest of “[prioritizing preservation of] fetal potential over facilitating expeditious care.” Hence the reason ACOG advises providers to include clinical judgment and patient preferences in their approach to care.
”In places where abortion is heavily regulated, clinicians managing miscarriages may cautiously rely on the strictest criteria to differentiate early pregnancy loss from potentially viable pregnancy and may not offer certain treatments commonly associated with abortion,” the authors noted. ACOG recommends surgical aspiration and medical treatment with both mifepristone and misoprostol as the safest and most effective options in managing miscarriages.
“Treating early pregnancy loss without the use of mifepristone is more likely to fail, is more likely to require an unscheduled procedure, and people who choose medication management for their miscarriages are usually trying to avoid a procedure, so that is the downside of not using mifepristone,” coauthor Rachel M. Flink-Bochacki, MD, an associate professor at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview.
“Office-based uterine aspiration has the same safety profile as uterine aspiration in the operating room minus the risks of anesthesia and also helps patients get in faster because they don’t need to wait for OR time,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki explained. “So again, for a patient who wants an aspiration and does not want to pass the pregnancy at home, not having access to office-based aspiration could lead them to miscarry at home, which has higher risks and is not what they wanted.”
Reduced access to miscarriage care options in ‘hostile’ states
Among all 296 U.S. ob.gyn. residency programs that were contacted between November 2021 and January 2022, half (50.3%) responded to the researchers’ survey about their institutional practices around miscarriage, including location of diagnosis, use of ultrasound diagnostic guidelines, treatment options offered by their institution, and institutional restrictions on abortions based on indication.
The survey also collected characteristics of each program, including its state, setting, religious affiliation, and affiliation with the Ryan Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning. The responding sample had similar geographic distribution and state abortion policies as those who did not respond, but the responding programs were slightly more likely to be academic programs and to be affiliated with the Ryan program.
At the time of the study, prior to the Dobbs ruling, more than half the U.S. states had legislation restricting abortion care, and 57% of national teaching hospitals had internal restrictions that limited care based on gestational age and indication, particularly if the indication was elective, the authors reported. The researchers relied on designations from the Guttmacher Institute in December 2020 to categorize states as “hostile” to abortion (very hostile, hostile, and leans hostile) or non-hostile (neutral, leans supportive, supportive, and very supportive).
Most of the programs (80%) had no religious affiliation, but 11% had a Catholic affiliation and 5% had a different Christian affiliation. Institutional policies either had no restrictions on abortion care (38%), had restrictions (39%) based on certain maternal or fetal indications, or completely banned abortion services unless the mother’s life was threatened (23%). Among the Christian-affiliated programs, 60% had bans and 40% had restrictions.
Half (49.7%) of the responding programs relied rigidly on ultrasound criteria before offering any intervention for suspected early pregnancy loss, regardless of patient preferences. The other half (50.3%) incorporated ultrasound criteria and other factors, including clinical judgment and patient preferences, into a holistic determination of what options to present to the patient.
Before accounting for other factors, the researchers found that only a third (33%) of programs in states with severe abortion restrictions considered additional factors besides imaging when offering patients options for miscarriage management. In states without such abortion restrictions, 79% of programs considered both imaging and other factors (P < .001).
In states with “hostile abortion legislation,” only 32% of the programs used mifepristone for miscarriage management, compared with 75% of the programs in states without onerous abortion restrictions (P < .001). The results were similar for use of office-based suction aspiration: Just under half the programs (48%) in states with severe abortion restrictions included this technique as part of standard miscarriage management, compared with 68% of programs in states without such restrictions (P = .014).
Those findings match up with the experience of Cara Heuser, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist from Salt Lake City, who was not involved in this study.
“We had a lot of restrictions even before Roe fell,” including heavy regulation of mifepristone, Dr. Heuser said in an interview. “In non-restricted states, it’s pretty easy to get, but even before Roe in our state, it was very, very difficult to get institutions and individual doctor’s offices to carry mifepristone to treat miscarriages. They were still treating miscarriages in a way that was known to be less effective.” Adding mifepristone to misoprostol reduces the risk of needing an evacuation surgery procedure, she explained, “so adding the mifepristone makes it safer.”
Institutional policies had the strongest impact
Before accounting for the state a hospital was in, 27% of institutions with restrictive abortion policies looked at more than imaging in determining how to proceed, compared with 88% of institutions without abortion restrictions that included clinical judgment and patient preferences in their management.
After controlling for state policies and affiliation with a family planning training program or a religious entity, the odds of an institution relying solely on imaging guidelines were over 12 times greater for institutions with abortion restrictions or bans (odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-47.9). Specifically, the odds were 9 times greater for institutions with restrictions and 27 times greater for institutions with bans.
Only 12% of the institutions without restrictions relied solely on ultrasound criteria, compared with 67% of the institutions with restrictions and 82% of the institutions that banned all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant individual (P < .001).
Only one in four (25%) of the programs with institutional abortion restrictions used mifepristone, compared with 86% of unrestricted programs (P < .001), and 40% of programs with institutional abortion restrictions used office-based aspiration, compared with 81% of unrestricted programs (P < .001).
Without access to all evidence-based treatments, doctors are often forced to choose expectant management for miscarriages. “So you’re kind of forced to have them to pass the pregnancy at home, which can be traumatic for patients” if that’s not what they wanted, Dr. Phillips said.
Dr. Flink-Bochacki further noted that this patient population is already particularly vulnerable.
“Especially for patients with early pregnancy loss, it’s such a feeling of powerlessness already, so the mental state that many of these patients are in is already quite fraught,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “Then to not even have power to choose the interventions that you want or to be able to access interventions in a timely fashion because you’re being held to some arbitrary guideline further takes away the power and further exacerbates the trauma of the experience.”
The biggest factor likely driving the reduced access to those interventions is the fear that the care could be confused with providing an abortion instead of simply managing a miscarriage, Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “I think that’s why a lot of these programs don’t have mifepristone and don’t offer outpatient uterine aspiration,” she said. “Because those are so widely used in abortion and the connotation is with abortion, they’re just kind of steering clear of it, but meanwhile, patients with pregnancy loss are suffering because they’re being unnecessarily restrictive.”
The research did not use any external funding, and the authors and Dr. Heuser had no disclosures.
BALTIMORE – , according to a cross-sectional study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The results revealed that “abortion restrictions have far-reaching effects on early pregnancy loss care and on resident education,” the researchers concluded.
“Abortion restrictions don’t just affect people seeking abortions; they affect people also suffering from early pregnancy loss,” Aurora Phillips, MD, an ob.gyn. resident at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “It’s harder to make that diagnosis and to be able to offer interventions, and these institutions that had restrictions also were less likely to have mifepristone or office based human aspiration, which are the most efficient and cost-effective interventions that we have.”
For example, less than half the programs surveyed offered mifepristone to help manage a miscarriage, “with availability varying inversely with abortion restrictions,” they found. After considering all characteristics of residency programs, “institutional abortion restrictions and bans were more important than state policies or religious affiliation in determining whether evidence-based early pregnancy loss treatments were available,” the researchers found, though their findings predated the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. “Training institutions with a commitment to evidence-based family planning care and education are able to ensure access to the most evidence-based, cost-effective, and timely treatments for pregnancy loss even in the face of state abortion restrictions, thereby preserving patient safety, physician competency, and health care system sustainability,” they wrote.
Reduced access leads to higher risk interventions
An estimated 10%-20% of pregnancies result in early miscarriage, totaling more than one million cases in the U.S. each year. But since treatments for miscarriage often overlap with those for abortion, the researchers wondered whether differences existed in how providers managed miscarriages in states or institutions with strict abortion restrictions versus management in hospitals without restrictions.
They also looked at how closely the management strategies adhered to ACOG’s recommendations, which advise that providers consider both ultrasound imaging and other factors, including clinical reasoning and patient preferences, before diagnosing early pregnancy loss and considering possible interventions.
For imaging guidelines, ACOG endorses the criteria established for ultrasound diagnosis of first trimester pregnancy loss from the Society of Radiologists in 2012. But, the authors note, these guidelines are very conservative, exceeding previous measurements that had a 99%-100% predictive value for pregnancy loss, in the interest of “[prioritizing preservation of] fetal potential over facilitating expeditious care.” Hence the reason ACOG advises providers to include clinical judgment and patient preferences in their approach to care.
”In places where abortion is heavily regulated, clinicians managing miscarriages may cautiously rely on the strictest criteria to differentiate early pregnancy loss from potentially viable pregnancy and may not offer certain treatments commonly associated with abortion,” the authors noted. ACOG recommends surgical aspiration and medical treatment with both mifepristone and misoprostol as the safest and most effective options in managing miscarriages.
“Treating early pregnancy loss without the use of mifepristone is more likely to fail, is more likely to require an unscheduled procedure, and people who choose medication management for their miscarriages are usually trying to avoid a procedure, so that is the downside of not using mifepristone,” coauthor Rachel M. Flink-Bochacki, MD, an associate professor at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview.
“Office-based uterine aspiration has the same safety profile as uterine aspiration in the operating room minus the risks of anesthesia and also helps patients get in faster because they don’t need to wait for OR time,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki explained. “So again, for a patient who wants an aspiration and does not want to pass the pregnancy at home, not having access to office-based aspiration could lead them to miscarry at home, which has higher risks and is not what they wanted.”
Reduced access to miscarriage care options in ‘hostile’ states
Among all 296 U.S. ob.gyn. residency programs that were contacted between November 2021 and January 2022, half (50.3%) responded to the researchers’ survey about their institutional practices around miscarriage, including location of diagnosis, use of ultrasound diagnostic guidelines, treatment options offered by their institution, and institutional restrictions on abortions based on indication.
The survey also collected characteristics of each program, including its state, setting, religious affiliation, and affiliation with the Ryan Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning. The responding sample had similar geographic distribution and state abortion policies as those who did not respond, but the responding programs were slightly more likely to be academic programs and to be affiliated with the Ryan program.
At the time of the study, prior to the Dobbs ruling, more than half the U.S. states had legislation restricting abortion care, and 57% of national teaching hospitals had internal restrictions that limited care based on gestational age and indication, particularly if the indication was elective, the authors reported. The researchers relied on designations from the Guttmacher Institute in December 2020 to categorize states as “hostile” to abortion (very hostile, hostile, and leans hostile) or non-hostile (neutral, leans supportive, supportive, and very supportive).
Most of the programs (80%) had no religious affiliation, but 11% had a Catholic affiliation and 5% had a different Christian affiliation. Institutional policies either had no restrictions on abortion care (38%), had restrictions (39%) based on certain maternal or fetal indications, or completely banned abortion services unless the mother’s life was threatened (23%). Among the Christian-affiliated programs, 60% had bans and 40% had restrictions.
Half (49.7%) of the responding programs relied rigidly on ultrasound criteria before offering any intervention for suspected early pregnancy loss, regardless of patient preferences. The other half (50.3%) incorporated ultrasound criteria and other factors, including clinical judgment and patient preferences, into a holistic determination of what options to present to the patient.
Before accounting for other factors, the researchers found that only a third (33%) of programs in states with severe abortion restrictions considered additional factors besides imaging when offering patients options for miscarriage management. In states without such abortion restrictions, 79% of programs considered both imaging and other factors (P < .001).
In states with “hostile abortion legislation,” only 32% of the programs used mifepristone for miscarriage management, compared with 75% of the programs in states without onerous abortion restrictions (P < .001). The results were similar for use of office-based suction aspiration: Just under half the programs (48%) in states with severe abortion restrictions included this technique as part of standard miscarriage management, compared with 68% of programs in states without such restrictions (P = .014).
Those findings match up with the experience of Cara Heuser, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist from Salt Lake City, who was not involved in this study.
“We had a lot of restrictions even before Roe fell,” including heavy regulation of mifepristone, Dr. Heuser said in an interview. “In non-restricted states, it’s pretty easy to get, but even before Roe in our state, it was very, very difficult to get institutions and individual doctor’s offices to carry mifepristone to treat miscarriages. They were still treating miscarriages in a way that was known to be less effective.” Adding mifepristone to misoprostol reduces the risk of needing an evacuation surgery procedure, she explained, “so adding the mifepristone makes it safer.”
Institutional policies had the strongest impact
Before accounting for the state a hospital was in, 27% of institutions with restrictive abortion policies looked at more than imaging in determining how to proceed, compared with 88% of institutions without abortion restrictions that included clinical judgment and patient preferences in their management.
After controlling for state policies and affiliation with a family planning training program or a religious entity, the odds of an institution relying solely on imaging guidelines were over 12 times greater for institutions with abortion restrictions or bans (odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-47.9). Specifically, the odds were 9 times greater for institutions with restrictions and 27 times greater for institutions with bans.
Only 12% of the institutions without restrictions relied solely on ultrasound criteria, compared with 67% of the institutions with restrictions and 82% of the institutions that banned all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant individual (P < .001).
Only one in four (25%) of the programs with institutional abortion restrictions used mifepristone, compared with 86% of unrestricted programs (P < .001), and 40% of programs with institutional abortion restrictions used office-based aspiration, compared with 81% of unrestricted programs (P < .001).
Without access to all evidence-based treatments, doctors are often forced to choose expectant management for miscarriages. “So you’re kind of forced to have them to pass the pregnancy at home, which can be traumatic for patients” if that’s not what they wanted, Dr. Phillips said.
Dr. Flink-Bochacki further noted that this patient population is already particularly vulnerable.
“Especially for patients with early pregnancy loss, it’s such a feeling of powerlessness already, so the mental state that many of these patients are in is already quite fraught,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “Then to not even have power to choose the interventions that you want or to be able to access interventions in a timely fashion because you’re being held to some arbitrary guideline further takes away the power and further exacerbates the trauma of the experience.”
The biggest factor likely driving the reduced access to those interventions is the fear that the care could be confused with providing an abortion instead of simply managing a miscarriage, Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “I think that’s why a lot of these programs don’t have mifepristone and don’t offer outpatient uterine aspiration,” she said. “Because those are so widely used in abortion and the connotation is with abortion, they’re just kind of steering clear of it, but meanwhile, patients with pregnancy loss are suffering because they’re being unnecessarily restrictive.”
The research did not use any external funding, and the authors and Dr. Heuser had no disclosures.
BALTIMORE – , according to a cross-sectional study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The results revealed that “abortion restrictions have far-reaching effects on early pregnancy loss care and on resident education,” the researchers concluded.
“Abortion restrictions don’t just affect people seeking abortions; they affect people also suffering from early pregnancy loss,” Aurora Phillips, MD, an ob.gyn. resident at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “It’s harder to make that diagnosis and to be able to offer interventions, and these institutions that had restrictions also were less likely to have mifepristone or office based human aspiration, which are the most efficient and cost-effective interventions that we have.”
For example, less than half the programs surveyed offered mifepristone to help manage a miscarriage, “with availability varying inversely with abortion restrictions,” they found. After considering all characteristics of residency programs, “institutional abortion restrictions and bans were more important than state policies or religious affiliation in determining whether evidence-based early pregnancy loss treatments were available,” the researchers found, though their findings predated the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. “Training institutions with a commitment to evidence-based family planning care and education are able to ensure access to the most evidence-based, cost-effective, and timely treatments for pregnancy loss even in the face of state abortion restrictions, thereby preserving patient safety, physician competency, and health care system sustainability,” they wrote.
Reduced access leads to higher risk interventions
An estimated 10%-20% of pregnancies result in early miscarriage, totaling more than one million cases in the U.S. each year. But since treatments for miscarriage often overlap with those for abortion, the researchers wondered whether differences existed in how providers managed miscarriages in states or institutions with strict abortion restrictions versus management in hospitals without restrictions.
They also looked at how closely the management strategies adhered to ACOG’s recommendations, which advise that providers consider both ultrasound imaging and other factors, including clinical reasoning and patient preferences, before diagnosing early pregnancy loss and considering possible interventions.
For imaging guidelines, ACOG endorses the criteria established for ultrasound diagnosis of first trimester pregnancy loss from the Society of Radiologists in 2012. But, the authors note, these guidelines are very conservative, exceeding previous measurements that had a 99%-100% predictive value for pregnancy loss, in the interest of “[prioritizing preservation of] fetal potential over facilitating expeditious care.” Hence the reason ACOG advises providers to include clinical judgment and patient preferences in their approach to care.
”In places where abortion is heavily regulated, clinicians managing miscarriages may cautiously rely on the strictest criteria to differentiate early pregnancy loss from potentially viable pregnancy and may not offer certain treatments commonly associated with abortion,” the authors noted. ACOG recommends surgical aspiration and medical treatment with both mifepristone and misoprostol as the safest and most effective options in managing miscarriages.
“Treating early pregnancy loss without the use of mifepristone is more likely to fail, is more likely to require an unscheduled procedure, and people who choose medication management for their miscarriages are usually trying to avoid a procedure, so that is the downside of not using mifepristone,” coauthor Rachel M. Flink-Bochacki, MD, an associate professor at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview.
“Office-based uterine aspiration has the same safety profile as uterine aspiration in the operating room minus the risks of anesthesia and also helps patients get in faster because they don’t need to wait for OR time,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki explained. “So again, for a patient who wants an aspiration and does not want to pass the pregnancy at home, not having access to office-based aspiration could lead them to miscarry at home, which has higher risks and is not what they wanted.”
Reduced access to miscarriage care options in ‘hostile’ states
Among all 296 U.S. ob.gyn. residency programs that were contacted between November 2021 and January 2022, half (50.3%) responded to the researchers’ survey about their institutional practices around miscarriage, including location of diagnosis, use of ultrasound diagnostic guidelines, treatment options offered by their institution, and institutional restrictions on abortions based on indication.
The survey also collected characteristics of each program, including its state, setting, religious affiliation, and affiliation with the Ryan Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning. The responding sample had similar geographic distribution and state abortion policies as those who did not respond, but the responding programs were slightly more likely to be academic programs and to be affiliated with the Ryan program.
At the time of the study, prior to the Dobbs ruling, more than half the U.S. states had legislation restricting abortion care, and 57% of national teaching hospitals had internal restrictions that limited care based on gestational age and indication, particularly if the indication was elective, the authors reported. The researchers relied on designations from the Guttmacher Institute in December 2020 to categorize states as “hostile” to abortion (very hostile, hostile, and leans hostile) or non-hostile (neutral, leans supportive, supportive, and very supportive).
Most of the programs (80%) had no religious affiliation, but 11% had a Catholic affiliation and 5% had a different Christian affiliation. Institutional policies either had no restrictions on abortion care (38%), had restrictions (39%) based on certain maternal or fetal indications, or completely banned abortion services unless the mother’s life was threatened (23%). Among the Christian-affiliated programs, 60% had bans and 40% had restrictions.
Half (49.7%) of the responding programs relied rigidly on ultrasound criteria before offering any intervention for suspected early pregnancy loss, regardless of patient preferences. The other half (50.3%) incorporated ultrasound criteria and other factors, including clinical judgment and patient preferences, into a holistic determination of what options to present to the patient.
Before accounting for other factors, the researchers found that only a third (33%) of programs in states with severe abortion restrictions considered additional factors besides imaging when offering patients options for miscarriage management. In states without such abortion restrictions, 79% of programs considered both imaging and other factors (P < .001).
In states with “hostile abortion legislation,” only 32% of the programs used mifepristone for miscarriage management, compared with 75% of the programs in states without onerous abortion restrictions (P < .001). The results were similar for use of office-based suction aspiration: Just under half the programs (48%) in states with severe abortion restrictions included this technique as part of standard miscarriage management, compared with 68% of programs in states without such restrictions (P = .014).
Those findings match up with the experience of Cara Heuser, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist from Salt Lake City, who was not involved in this study.
“We had a lot of restrictions even before Roe fell,” including heavy regulation of mifepristone, Dr. Heuser said in an interview. “In non-restricted states, it’s pretty easy to get, but even before Roe in our state, it was very, very difficult to get institutions and individual doctor’s offices to carry mifepristone to treat miscarriages. They were still treating miscarriages in a way that was known to be less effective.” Adding mifepristone to misoprostol reduces the risk of needing an evacuation surgery procedure, she explained, “so adding the mifepristone makes it safer.”
Institutional policies had the strongest impact
Before accounting for the state a hospital was in, 27% of institutions with restrictive abortion policies looked at more than imaging in determining how to proceed, compared with 88% of institutions without abortion restrictions that included clinical judgment and patient preferences in their management.
After controlling for state policies and affiliation with a family planning training program or a religious entity, the odds of an institution relying solely on imaging guidelines were over 12 times greater for institutions with abortion restrictions or bans (odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-47.9). Specifically, the odds were 9 times greater for institutions with restrictions and 27 times greater for institutions with bans.
Only 12% of the institutions without restrictions relied solely on ultrasound criteria, compared with 67% of the institutions with restrictions and 82% of the institutions that banned all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant individual (P < .001).
Only one in four (25%) of the programs with institutional abortion restrictions used mifepristone, compared with 86% of unrestricted programs (P < .001), and 40% of programs with institutional abortion restrictions used office-based aspiration, compared with 81% of unrestricted programs (P < .001).
Without access to all evidence-based treatments, doctors are often forced to choose expectant management for miscarriages. “So you’re kind of forced to have them to pass the pregnancy at home, which can be traumatic for patients” if that’s not what they wanted, Dr. Phillips said.
Dr. Flink-Bochacki further noted that this patient population is already particularly vulnerable.
“Especially for patients with early pregnancy loss, it’s such a feeling of powerlessness already, so the mental state that many of these patients are in is already quite fraught,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “Then to not even have power to choose the interventions that you want or to be able to access interventions in a timely fashion because you’re being held to some arbitrary guideline further takes away the power and further exacerbates the trauma of the experience.”
The biggest factor likely driving the reduced access to those interventions is the fear that the care could be confused with providing an abortion instead of simply managing a miscarriage, Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “I think that’s why a lot of these programs don’t have mifepristone and don’t offer outpatient uterine aspiration,” she said. “Because those are so widely used in abortion and the connotation is with abortion, they’re just kind of steering clear of it, but meanwhile, patients with pregnancy loss are suffering because they’re being unnecessarily restrictive.”
The research did not use any external funding, and the authors and Dr. Heuser had no disclosures.
AT ACOG 2023
Youth-led sexual health program improves teen knowledge, autonomy
BALTIMORE – , according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
While the small pilot study focused primarily on assessing feasibility and effectiveness, the results suggest potential for scaling the program up to reach a larger audience and assessing the knowledge disseminated from direct youth participants.
“The good thing about this subject is that not a lot of it has to be context-specific,” Saumya Sao, a clinical researcher in gynecology and obstetrics at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the study’s lead author, said in an interview. “A lot of it is just baseline information that everybody needs and doesn’t get.”
Jaime Friedman, MD, a pediatrician and director of marketing at Children’s Primary Care Medical Group in San Diego, was not involved in the study but was impressed with the program’s objectives and results so far.
“While education is massively important, teens don’t always want to hear it from their parents or other adults,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview. “Learning from their peers is one way to overcome this hurdle.”
Given the high rate of sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies in youth, paired with low sexual and reproductive health literacy in this population, the researchers sought to learn whether a program focused on peer-to-peer health education on these topics was feasible. The goal was to increase youth sexual and reproductive health knowledge, self-efficacy, and autonomy using a youth-led intervention.
The researchers hosted nine monthly, interactive, youth-led sessions that lasted 2 hours over Zoom or in person. Incorporated into the meetings were principles from Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) and Positive Youth Development (PYD).
The major topics included the following: Use of social media, values and goal-setting, anatomy and menstrual health, risk factors of sexual activities , STI and HIV prevention, contraceptive methods, healthy relationships and consent, practice responding to unhealthy behavior, gender and sexuality, and social media and body image.
The 24 participants were provided with transportation to the study site at the researchers’ institution and received financial compensation for their participation. They were an average 15.8 years old, lived in the greater Baltimore area, and mostly self-identified as female. Eight percent identified as non-binary and half (50%) identified as LGBTQIA+. Just over half the participants (52%) were Black/African American, 28% were Asian/Asian American, 12% were White, and 8% were Hispanic. The participants attended an average 88% of the sessions throughout the full intervention.
For each of the nine sessions, more than 50% of participants reported that they “learned a lot,” and only one participant reported for one session (session 5) that they “didn’t learn” anything. The researchers assessed participants’ knowledge, self-efficacy, and sense of autonomy at baseline and after completion of the intervention. Significant improvements occurred across all areas.
The average score improved by 31% in sexual and reproductive health knowledge (P < .001), 33% in sexual and reproductive health services awareness (P = .002), 46% in advocacy and empowerment (P < .001), 16% in general perceived efficacy (P = .002), and 22% personal sexuality empowerment (P = .006).
Ms. Sao said she was very pleased to see that the improvements were significant in every domain they measured, which she attributed largely to the incorporation of YPAR and PYD into the program.
“We approached it using these two frameworks that really do focus on involving youth in the teaching themselves, so I think that’s what increased their general perceived efficacy and advocacy empowerment without us necessarily having to emphasize, ‘You are advocates,’” Ms. Sao said. “Those frameworks ask the youth for their opinions and then give the youth an opportunity in every single session to be teachers themselves, and I think that lends itself well to all of the domains.”
Ms. Sao was also pleasantly surprised at the high level of retention across the 9 months.
“Every single session was slotted for 2 hours, but they would want to stay for 3 hours. Eventually, we actually started meeting with them twice a month, just adding an extra session,” she said. “As they gained confidence, they were so excited to be peer educators and realized, ‘I can really do this. I can teach my peers. We’re not getting this from anywhere else.’ ”
Ms. Sao and another study author, Maclaine Barré-Quick, an undergraduate research assistant at Johns Hopkins University, said the participants quickly discovered how easy it was to have a non-stigmatizing conversation about many of the topics once a subject was brought up.
“They’re actively looking for that opportunity,” Ms. Barré-Quick said in an interview.
Dr. Friedman agreed that this type of program provides what many adolescents need in a way that they may welcome more than through other methods.
“Adolescents’ bodies are approaching adulthood and function like adults, but their brains are still developing. They don’t have the worldly experience and education of adults, but they think they know everything,” Dr. Friedman said. “They are a population known for their high risk behavior due to their natural impulsivity. This can be a scary combination, especially when it comes to sexual health.”
But if teens don’t want to hear some of the information they need from adults, they may be more open to hearing it from other teens, Dr. Friedman said.
“Using an evidence-based approach ensures the desired outcome of healthier habits, decreased STIs and decreased teen pregnancy,” Dr. Friedman said. “It also adds weight to the argument against abstinence-only education. Teens deserve accurate and evidence-based education about their own bodies.”
Ms. Sao said the next steps will be exploring ways to scale the program up, such as putting the curriculum resources into a bundle available to other educators. They’re also looking at ways to put it into an online platform that’s self-paced, though that requires solving the challenge of having synchronous meetings for youth-led discussion.
“There are certain kinks that we have to work out because there were some activities where I think the students really benefited from having those open discussions with each other, so [we need to determine] how to replicate that in an online format,” Ms. Sao said.
Dr. Friedman agreed that scalability appears to be the biggest challenge, along with funding programs. But if those obstacles can be overcome, such programs would complement and expand on the education she does currently with families.
“I don’t have time for a full sex ed course at each visit,” Dr. Friedman said. “I would like to be able to direct them to a program that I know works and would be easy for them to complete. Even better, this would be an amazing program to ‘sell’ to practices interested in hosting these sessions themselves.”
Ms. Sao said they also hope to assess the impact of the intervention on the participants’ peers to see how well the knowledge and self-efficacy spread through the youths’ teaching.
No external funding was noted. One author reported research support from Hologic and Merck. Dr. Friedman had no disclosures.
BALTIMORE – , according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
While the small pilot study focused primarily on assessing feasibility and effectiveness, the results suggest potential for scaling the program up to reach a larger audience and assessing the knowledge disseminated from direct youth participants.
“The good thing about this subject is that not a lot of it has to be context-specific,” Saumya Sao, a clinical researcher in gynecology and obstetrics at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the study’s lead author, said in an interview. “A lot of it is just baseline information that everybody needs and doesn’t get.”
Jaime Friedman, MD, a pediatrician and director of marketing at Children’s Primary Care Medical Group in San Diego, was not involved in the study but was impressed with the program’s objectives and results so far.
“While education is massively important, teens don’t always want to hear it from their parents or other adults,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview. “Learning from their peers is one way to overcome this hurdle.”
Given the high rate of sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies in youth, paired with low sexual and reproductive health literacy in this population, the researchers sought to learn whether a program focused on peer-to-peer health education on these topics was feasible. The goal was to increase youth sexual and reproductive health knowledge, self-efficacy, and autonomy using a youth-led intervention.
The researchers hosted nine monthly, interactive, youth-led sessions that lasted 2 hours over Zoom or in person. Incorporated into the meetings were principles from Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) and Positive Youth Development (PYD).
The major topics included the following: Use of social media, values and goal-setting, anatomy and menstrual health, risk factors of sexual activities , STI and HIV prevention, contraceptive methods, healthy relationships and consent, practice responding to unhealthy behavior, gender and sexuality, and social media and body image.
The 24 participants were provided with transportation to the study site at the researchers’ institution and received financial compensation for their participation. They were an average 15.8 years old, lived in the greater Baltimore area, and mostly self-identified as female. Eight percent identified as non-binary and half (50%) identified as LGBTQIA+. Just over half the participants (52%) were Black/African American, 28% were Asian/Asian American, 12% were White, and 8% were Hispanic. The participants attended an average 88% of the sessions throughout the full intervention.
For each of the nine sessions, more than 50% of participants reported that they “learned a lot,” and only one participant reported for one session (session 5) that they “didn’t learn” anything. The researchers assessed participants’ knowledge, self-efficacy, and sense of autonomy at baseline and after completion of the intervention. Significant improvements occurred across all areas.
The average score improved by 31% in sexual and reproductive health knowledge (P < .001), 33% in sexual and reproductive health services awareness (P = .002), 46% in advocacy and empowerment (P < .001), 16% in general perceived efficacy (P = .002), and 22% personal sexuality empowerment (P = .006).
Ms. Sao said she was very pleased to see that the improvements were significant in every domain they measured, which she attributed largely to the incorporation of YPAR and PYD into the program.
“We approached it using these two frameworks that really do focus on involving youth in the teaching themselves, so I think that’s what increased their general perceived efficacy and advocacy empowerment without us necessarily having to emphasize, ‘You are advocates,’” Ms. Sao said. “Those frameworks ask the youth for their opinions and then give the youth an opportunity in every single session to be teachers themselves, and I think that lends itself well to all of the domains.”
Ms. Sao was also pleasantly surprised at the high level of retention across the 9 months.
“Every single session was slotted for 2 hours, but they would want to stay for 3 hours. Eventually, we actually started meeting with them twice a month, just adding an extra session,” she said. “As they gained confidence, they were so excited to be peer educators and realized, ‘I can really do this. I can teach my peers. We’re not getting this from anywhere else.’ ”
Ms. Sao and another study author, Maclaine Barré-Quick, an undergraduate research assistant at Johns Hopkins University, said the participants quickly discovered how easy it was to have a non-stigmatizing conversation about many of the topics once a subject was brought up.
“They’re actively looking for that opportunity,” Ms. Barré-Quick said in an interview.
Dr. Friedman agreed that this type of program provides what many adolescents need in a way that they may welcome more than through other methods.
“Adolescents’ bodies are approaching adulthood and function like adults, but their brains are still developing. They don’t have the worldly experience and education of adults, but they think they know everything,” Dr. Friedman said. “They are a population known for their high risk behavior due to their natural impulsivity. This can be a scary combination, especially when it comes to sexual health.”
But if teens don’t want to hear some of the information they need from adults, they may be more open to hearing it from other teens, Dr. Friedman said.
“Using an evidence-based approach ensures the desired outcome of healthier habits, decreased STIs and decreased teen pregnancy,” Dr. Friedman said. “It also adds weight to the argument against abstinence-only education. Teens deserve accurate and evidence-based education about their own bodies.”
Ms. Sao said the next steps will be exploring ways to scale the program up, such as putting the curriculum resources into a bundle available to other educators. They’re also looking at ways to put it into an online platform that’s self-paced, though that requires solving the challenge of having synchronous meetings for youth-led discussion.
“There are certain kinks that we have to work out because there were some activities where I think the students really benefited from having those open discussions with each other, so [we need to determine] how to replicate that in an online format,” Ms. Sao said.
Dr. Friedman agreed that scalability appears to be the biggest challenge, along with funding programs. But if those obstacles can be overcome, such programs would complement and expand on the education she does currently with families.
“I don’t have time for a full sex ed course at each visit,” Dr. Friedman said. “I would like to be able to direct them to a program that I know works and would be easy for them to complete. Even better, this would be an amazing program to ‘sell’ to practices interested in hosting these sessions themselves.”
Ms. Sao said they also hope to assess the impact of the intervention on the participants’ peers to see how well the knowledge and self-efficacy spread through the youths’ teaching.
No external funding was noted. One author reported research support from Hologic and Merck. Dr. Friedman had no disclosures.
BALTIMORE – , according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
While the small pilot study focused primarily on assessing feasibility and effectiveness, the results suggest potential for scaling the program up to reach a larger audience and assessing the knowledge disseminated from direct youth participants.
“The good thing about this subject is that not a lot of it has to be context-specific,” Saumya Sao, a clinical researcher in gynecology and obstetrics at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the study’s lead author, said in an interview. “A lot of it is just baseline information that everybody needs and doesn’t get.”
Jaime Friedman, MD, a pediatrician and director of marketing at Children’s Primary Care Medical Group in San Diego, was not involved in the study but was impressed with the program’s objectives and results so far.
“While education is massively important, teens don’t always want to hear it from their parents or other adults,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview. “Learning from their peers is one way to overcome this hurdle.”
Given the high rate of sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies in youth, paired with low sexual and reproductive health literacy in this population, the researchers sought to learn whether a program focused on peer-to-peer health education on these topics was feasible. The goal was to increase youth sexual and reproductive health knowledge, self-efficacy, and autonomy using a youth-led intervention.
The researchers hosted nine monthly, interactive, youth-led sessions that lasted 2 hours over Zoom or in person. Incorporated into the meetings were principles from Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) and Positive Youth Development (PYD).
The major topics included the following: Use of social media, values and goal-setting, anatomy and menstrual health, risk factors of sexual activities , STI and HIV prevention, contraceptive methods, healthy relationships and consent, practice responding to unhealthy behavior, gender and sexuality, and social media and body image.
The 24 participants were provided with transportation to the study site at the researchers’ institution and received financial compensation for their participation. They were an average 15.8 years old, lived in the greater Baltimore area, and mostly self-identified as female. Eight percent identified as non-binary and half (50%) identified as LGBTQIA+. Just over half the participants (52%) were Black/African American, 28% were Asian/Asian American, 12% were White, and 8% were Hispanic. The participants attended an average 88% of the sessions throughout the full intervention.
For each of the nine sessions, more than 50% of participants reported that they “learned a lot,” and only one participant reported for one session (session 5) that they “didn’t learn” anything. The researchers assessed participants’ knowledge, self-efficacy, and sense of autonomy at baseline and after completion of the intervention. Significant improvements occurred across all areas.
The average score improved by 31% in sexual and reproductive health knowledge (P < .001), 33% in sexual and reproductive health services awareness (P = .002), 46% in advocacy and empowerment (P < .001), 16% in general perceived efficacy (P = .002), and 22% personal sexuality empowerment (P = .006).
Ms. Sao said she was very pleased to see that the improvements were significant in every domain they measured, which she attributed largely to the incorporation of YPAR and PYD into the program.
“We approached it using these two frameworks that really do focus on involving youth in the teaching themselves, so I think that’s what increased their general perceived efficacy and advocacy empowerment without us necessarily having to emphasize, ‘You are advocates,’” Ms. Sao said. “Those frameworks ask the youth for their opinions and then give the youth an opportunity in every single session to be teachers themselves, and I think that lends itself well to all of the domains.”
Ms. Sao was also pleasantly surprised at the high level of retention across the 9 months.
“Every single session was slotted for 2 hours, but they would want to stay for 3 hours. Eventually, we actually started meeting with them twice a month, just adding an extra session,” she said. “As they gained confidence, they were so excited to be peer educators and realized, ‘I can really do this. I can teach my peers. We’re not getting this from anywhere else.’ ”
Ms. Sao and another study author, Maclaine Barré-Quick, an undergraduate research assistant at Johns Hopkins University, said the participants quickly discovered how easy it was to have a non-stigmatizing conversation about many of the topics once a subject was brought up.
“They’re actively looking for that opportunity,” Ms. Barré-Quick said in an interview.
Dr. Friedman agreed that this type of program provides what many adolescents need in a way that they may welcome more than through other methods.
“Adolescents’ bodies are approaching adulthood and function like adults, but their brains are still developing. They don’t have the worldly experience and education of adults, but they think they know everything,” Dr. Friedman said. “They are a population known for their high risk behavior due to their natural impulsivity. This can be a scary combination, especially when it comes to sexual health.”
But if teens don’t want to hear some of the information they need from adults, they may be more open to hearing it from other teens, Dr. Friedman said.
“Using an evidence-based approach ensures the desired outcome of healthier habits, decreased STIs and decreased teen pregnancy,” Dr. Friedman said. “It also adds weight to the argument against abstinence-only education. Teens deserve accurate and evidence-based education about their own bodies.”
Ms. Sao said the next steps will be exploring ways to scale the program up, such as putting the curriculum resources into a bundle available to other educators. They’re also looking at ways to put it into an online platform that’s self-paced, though that requires solving the challenge of having synchronous meetings for youth-led discussion.
“There are certain kinks that we have to work out because there were some activities where I think the students really benefited from having those open discussions with each other, so [we need to determine] how to replicate that in an online format,” Ms. Sao said.
Dr. Friedman agreed that scalability appears to be the biggest challenge, along with funding programs. But if those obstacles can be overcome, such programs would complement and expand on the education she does currently with families.
“I don’t have time for a full sex ed course at each visit,” Dr. Friedman said. “I would like to be able to direct them to a program that I know works and would be easy for them to complete. Even better, this would be an amazing program to ‘sell’ to practices interested in hosting these sessions themselves.”
Ms. Sao said they also hope to assess the impact of the intervention on the participants’ peers to see how well the knowledge and self-efficacy spread through the youths’ teaching.
No external funding was noted. One author reported research support from Hologic and Merck. Dr. Friedman had no disclosures.
AT ACOG 2023
Should you prescribe bioidentical hormones for menopause?
BALTIMORE – according to an expert at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
Clinicians write an estimated 26 to 33 million prescriptions for compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (cBHT) every year, and almost 41% of menopausal women who need treatment try cBHT during their lives. But these drugs lack the approval for this indication from the Food and Drug Administration.
“There is a public perception that this is natural, safer, and anti-aging,” said Robert Kauffman, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and assistant dean for research at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Amarillo.
Following the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative report showing a link between hormone therapy (HT) and an increase in the incidence of breast cancer, medical schools have slowed or paused instructing trainees on the traditional treatment, Dr. Kauffman said. The association was later determined to be spurious: HT is not associated with a risk for all-cause mortality or deaths from cardiovascular disease or cancer. However, HT still is largely ignored by younger physicians, Dr. Kauffman said, because of unsubstantiated “dangers” such as heart attack, stroke, and deep vein thrombosis.
The lack of education on HT for medical school students and residents has “opened the door to unsubstantiated marketing claims and practices” for cBHT, Dr. Kauffman said. “Hence, the use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy has increased” as clinicians look for alternatives.
Groups including ACOG, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend against the use of Non–FDA-approved therapies such as cBHT, except for narrow indications. Dr. Kauffman said that drug manufacturers have not conducted randomized controlled trials or observational studies on cBHT in treating menopause.
He cited studies showing quality problems with the compounding process of these drugs, and wide variations in the amount of actual ingredients from product labels. One 2021 study published in Menopause comparing patients taking cBHT or FDA-approved HT found that side effects were significantly higher in the cBHT group (57.6% vs. 14.8%; P < .0001).
But manufacturers of cBHT claim that their products prevent cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease and decrease the risk for breast cancer and stroke – assertions that are at best unproven, according to Dr. Kauffman.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2020 said that clinicians have a duty to inform patients of the insufficient evidence to support clinical use of cBHT and should prescribe the products only to patients with documented allergies to an active ingredient in an FDA-approved agent or who require an alternative dosage.
Patients may also have to pay much more out of pocket for cBHT products because they often are not covered by insurance. Generic HT products, meanwhile, are relatively inexpensive and typically are covered, he noted.
“We have to be careful to avoid financial harm to patients by prescribing things, which are much more expensive than those which are usually available,” Dr. Kauffman said.
Prescribing any non–FDA-approved product, especially when biosimilars are available, places physicians at legal risk, Dr. Kauffman said. Physicians who recommend cBHT should inform patients that the products are not FDA approved and carefully document this discussion in the patient’s electronic health record. State boards of medicine can sanction physicians for “coercion” for prescribing cBHT products without mentioning alternatives, he added.
JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and executive director emeritus of NAMS, who attended the session, praised Dr. Kauffman for providing a balanced and evidence-based overview of the subject.
“There are issues concerning safety, contaminants, and not knowing exactly what dose you’re getting,” with compounded hormones, Dr. Pinkerton said. “They’re being hyped as safer and more effective when in reality, we don’t have any studies that show that information.”
Dr. Pinkerton noted that while a compounded form of physiological testosterone might be relatively reliable, “if you’re using something like a pellet that is super physiologic with incredibly high doses, that you really don’t have any information to stand on that it’s safe or effective ... it might be putting your license at risk.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BALTIMORE – according to an expert at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
Clinicians write an estimated 26 to 33 million prescriptions for compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (cBHT) every year, and almost 41% of menopausal women who need treatment try cBHT during their lives. But these drugs lack the approval for this indication from the Food and Drug Administration.
“There is a public perception that this is natural, safer, and anti-aging,” said Robert Kauffman, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and assistant dean for research at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Amarillo.
Following the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative report showing a link between hormone therapy (HT) and an increase in the incidence of breast cancer, medical schools have slowed or paused instructing trainees on the traditional treatment, Dr. Kauffman said. The association was later determined to be spurious: HT is not associated with a risk for all-cause mortality or deaths from cardiovascular disease or cancer. However, HT still is largely ignored by younger physicians, Dr. Kauffman said, because of unsubstantiated “dangers” such as heart attack, stroke, and deep vein thrombosis.
The lack of education on HT for medical school students and residents has “opened the door to unsubstantiated marketing claims and practices” for cBHT, Dr. Kauffman said. “Hence, the use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy has increased” as clinicians look for alternatives.
Groups including ACOG, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend against the use of Non–FDA-approved therapies such as cBHT, except for narrow indications. Dr. Kauffman said that drug manufacturers have not conducted randomized controlled trials or observational studies on cBHT in treating menopause.
He cited studies showing quality problems with the compounding process of these drugs, and wide variations in the amount of actual ingredients from product labels. One 2021 study published in Menopause comparing patients taking cBHT or FDA-approved HT found that side effects were significantly higher in the cBHT group (57.6% vs. 14.8%; P < .0001).
But manufacturers of cBHT claim that their products prevent cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease and decrease the risk for breast cancer and stroke – assertions that are at best unproven, according to Dr. Kauffman.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2020 said that clinicians have a duty to inform patients of the insufficient evidence to support clinical use of cBHT and should prescribe the products only to patients with documented allergies to an active ingredient in an FDA-approved agent or who require an alternative dosage.
Patients may also have to pay much more out of pocket for cBHT products because they often are not covered by insurance. Generic HT products, meanwhile, are relatively inexpensive and typically are covered, he noted.
“We have to be careful to avoid financial harm to patients by prescribing things, which are much more expensive than those which are usually available,” Dr. Kauffman said.
Prescribing any non–FDA-approved product, especially when biosimilars are available, places physicians at legal risk, Dr. Kauffman said. Physicians who recommend cBHT should inform patients that the products are not FDA approved and carefully document this discussion in the patient’s electronic health record. State boards of medicine can sanction physicians for “coercion” for prescribing cBHT products without mentioning alternatives, he added.
JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and executive director emeritus of NAMS, who attended the session, praised Dr. Kauffman for providing a balanced and evidence-based overview of the subject.
“There are issues concerning safety, contaminants, and not knowing exactly what dose you’re getting,” with compounded hormones, Dr. Pinkerton said. “They’re being hyped as safer and more effective when in reality, we don’t have any studies that show that information.”
Dr. Pinkerton noted that while a compounded form of physiological testosterone might be relatively reliable, “if you’re using something like a pellet that is super physiologic with incredibly high doses, that you really don’t have any information to stand on that it’s safe or effective ... it might be putting your license at risk.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BALTIMORE – according to an expert at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
Clinicians write an estimated 26 to 33 million prescriptions for compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (cBHT) every year, and almost 41% of menopausal women who need treatment try cBHT during their lives. But these drugs lack the approval for this indication from the Food and Drug Administration.
“There is a public perception that this is natural, safer, and anti-aging,” said Robert Kauffman, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and assistant dean for research at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Amarillo.
Following the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative report showing a link between hormone therapy (HT) and an increase in the incidence of breast cancer, medical schools have slowed or paused instructing trainees on the traditional treatment, Dr. Kauffman said. The association was later determined to be spurious: HT is not associated with a risk for all-cause mortality or deaths from cardiovascular disease or cancer. However, HT still is largely ignored by younger physicians, Dr. Kauffman said, because of unsubstantiated “dangers” such as heart attack, stroke, and deep vein thrombosis.
The lack of education on HT for medical school students and residents has “opened the door to unsubstantiated marketing claims and practices” for cBHT, Dr. Kauffman said. “Hence, the use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy has increased” as clinicians look for alternatives.
Groups including ACOG, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend against the use of Non–FDA-approved therapies such as cBHT, except for narrow indications. Dr. Kauffman said that drug manufacturers have not conducted randomized controlled trials or observational studies on cBHT in treating menopause.
He cited studies showing quality problems with the compounding process of these drugs, and wide variations in the amount of actual ingredients from product labels. One 2021 study published in Menopause comparing patients taking cBHT or FDA-approved HT found that side effects were significantly higher in the cBHT group (57.6% vs. 14.8%; P < .0001).
But manufacturers of cBHT claim that their products prevent cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease and decrease the risk for breast cancer and stroke – assertions that are at best unproven, according to Dr. Kauffman.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2020 said that clinicians have a duty to inform patients of the insufficient evidence to support clinical use of cBHT and should prescribe the products only to patients with documented allergies to an active ingredient in an FDA-approved agent or who require an alternative dosage.
Patients may also have to pay much more out of pocket for cBHT products because they often are not covered by insurance. Generic HT products, meanwhile, are relatively inexpensive and typically are covered, he noted.
“We have to be careful to avoid financial harm to patients by prescribing things, which are much more expensive than those which are usually available,” Dr. Kauffman said.
Prescribing any non–FDA-approved product, especially when biosimilars are available, places physicians at legal risk, Dr. Kauffman said. Physicians who recommend cBHT should inform patients that the products are not FDA approved and carefully document this discussion in the patient’s electronic health record. State boards of medicine can sanction physicians for “coercion” for prescribing cBHT products without mentioning alternatives, he added.
JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and executive director emeritus of NAMS, who attended the session, praised Dr. Kauffman for providing a balanced and evidence-based overview of the subject.
“There are issues concerning safety, contaminants, and not knowing exactly what dose you’re getting,” with compounded hormones, Dr. Pinkerton said. “They’re being hyped as safer and more effective when in reality, we don’t have any studies that show that information.”
Dr. Pinkerton noted that while a compounded form of physiological testosterone might be relatively reliable, “if you’re using something like a pellet that is super physiologic with incredibly high doses, that you really don’t have any information to stand on that it’s safe or effective ... it might be putting your license at risk.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ACOG 2023
Female sexual pleasure: Is it in the water?
BALTIMORE – , according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In a secondary analysis also presented at the meeting, the lubricants were found not to alter the vaginal microbiome.
Using these types of lubricants during vaginal intercourse at least once a week over a 4-week period resulted in a statistically significant increase of over four points in the 36-point Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), a self-reported measure of sexual functioning, for participants, said Michael Krychman, MD, executive director of the Southern California Center for Sexual Health and Survivorship Medicine, Newport Beach, the senior author of the study. Statistically significant improvements also were observed in individual areas such as sexual desire and arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction. Results of the study have been published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.
In the open-label, five-arm, parallel study conducted in Germany, 174 women aged 18-65 years were randomly assigned to use one of five lubricants from three popular brands. After a 4-week run-in period with no use of lubricants, participants were shown how to apply the products and instructed to use the substances during vaginal intercourse at least once a week over a 4-week period.
Participants reported experiencing mild to moderate vaginal dryness and dyspareunia during vaginal intercourse within the previous 3 months.
Statistically significant improvements were seen across all six individual domain scores of the FSFI (desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain reduction) from baseline to week 4 with all five lubricants (P < .0001 for lubrication and pain reduction; P < .05 for desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction), according to the researchers.
After 4 weeks, a clinically meaningful improvement in the total FSFI score was observed for four lubricants among premenopausal women and for all lubricants among postmenopausal women. The percentage of participants with sexual function as defined as a score of at least 26.55 on the FSFI was significantly greater after treatment (76.9%) than before treatment (20.8%; P < .0001).
“You would assume if you’re using lubricant it would improve the dryness, but what was very exciting for us is that it improved desire, it improved orgasm, it improved arousal,” Dr. Krychman said in an interview. Like concentric overlapping circles of female sexual function, he said, “if you improve one aspect, you improve the other.”
Nearly 80 nonserious adverse effects occurred in 43 participants, five of which were thought to be possibly attributed to the products, such as vulvovaginal burning, itching, or discomfort. In questionnaires, most women agreed that using the lubricants made sex more enjoyable and provided an overall pleasant experience.
One limitation of the study is that because most participants were Caucasian, the results may not be generalizable to all populations, according to the researchers. Further research is required to fully determine safety and efficacy in patients of all races and ethnicities, they reported, especially given that vaginal dryness has been reported more frequently in non-White ethnic groups.
In a companion presentation, Dr. Krychman discussed another aspect of the study looking at the lubricants’ effects on the vaginal microbiome. Repeated application of the products did not significantly alter the vaginal microbiome for up to 4 weeks, and vaginal pH slightly increased in all treatment groups shortly after use but was restored in most cases after a day.
Water-based lubricants are recommended by the WHO for use with condoms because they do not erode latex, said Karen Adams, MD, professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynecology and founding director of the Menopause and Sexual Medicine Program at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. Guidelines from the group recommend lubricants should have an osmolality that is as close to normal vaginal secretions as possible to decrease the likelihood of irritation or other side effects, she said. Some available lubricants have four to six times that osmolality, which potentially could dehydrate cells, achieving the opposite of the desired effect.
“The reason this is important is they’re trying to develop lubricants that are more ‘vaginal friendly’ and more in line with the WHO guidelines,” said Dr. Adams, who is joining Stanford (Calif.) University in July to create and lead a new program in menopause and healthy aging. “They came up with four formulas consistent with WHO guidelines to see if these new ones worked at least as well [as commercially available products with higher osmolality], and it turns out they did,” she said. “They worked just fine.”
The study was funded by Reckitt Healthcare. Dr. Krychman is a paid medical consultant for the company. Dr. Adams disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
BALTIMORE – , according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In a secondary analysis also presented at the meeting, the lubricants were found not to alter the vaginal microbiome.
Using these types of lubricants during vaginal intercourse at least once a week over a 4-week period resulted in a statistically significant increase of over four points in the 36-point Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), a self-reported measure of sexual functioning, for participants, said Michael Krychman, MD, executive director of the Southern California Center for Sexual Health and Survivorship Medicine, Newport Beach, the senior author of the study. Statistically significant improvements also were observed in individual areas such as sexual desire and arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction. Results of the study have been published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.
In the open-label, five-arm, parallel study conducted in Germany, 174 women aged 18-65 years were randomly assigned to use one of five lubricants from three popular brands. After a 4-week run-in period with no use of lubricants, participants were shown how to apply the products and instructed to use the substances during vaginal intercourse at least once a week over a 4-week period.
Participants reported experiencing mild to moderate vaginal dryness and dyspareunia during vaginal intercourse within the previous 3 months.
Statistically significant improvements were seen across all six individual domain scores of the FSFI (desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain reduction) from baseline to week 4 with all five lubricants (P < .0001 for lubrication and pain reduction; P < .05 for desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction), according to the researchers.
After 4 weeks, a clinically meaningful improvement in the total FSFI score was observed for four lubricants among premenopausal women and for all lubricants among postmenopausal women. The percentage of participants with sexual function as defined as a score of at least 26.55 on the FSFI was significantly greater after treatment (76.9%) than before treatment (20.8%; P < .0001).
“You would assume if you’re using lubricant it would improve the dryness, but what was very exciting for us is that it improved desire, it improved orgasm, it improved arousal,” Dr. Krychman said in an interview. Like concentric overlapping circles of female sexual function, he said, “if you improve one aspect, you improve the other.”
Nearly 80 nonserious adverse effects occurred in 43 participants, five of which were thought to be possibly attributed to the products, such as vulvovaginal burning, itching, or discomfort. In questionnaires, most women agreed that using the lubricants made sex more enjoyable and provided an overall pleasant experience.
One limitation of the study is that because most participants were Caucasian, the results may not be generalizable to all populations, according to the researchers. Further research is required to fully determine safety and efficacy in patients of all races and ethnicities, they reported, especially given that vaginal dryness has been reported more frequently in non-White ethnic groups.
In a companion presentation, Dr. Krychman discussed another aspect of the study looking at the lubricants’ effects on the vaginal microbiome. Repeated application of the products did not significantly alter the vaginal microbiome for up to 4 weeks, and vaginal pH slightly increased in all treatment groups shortly after use but was restored in most cases after a day.
Water-based lubricants are recommended by the WHO for use with condoms because they do not erode latex, said Karen Adams, MD, professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynecology and founding director of the Menopause and Sexual Medicine Program at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. Guidelines from the group recommend lubricants should have an osmolality that is as close to normal vaginal secretions as possible to decrease the likelihood of irritation or other side effects, she said. Some available lubricants have four to six times that osmolality, which potentially could dehydrate cells, achieving the opposite of the desired effect.
“The reason this is important is they’re trying to develop lubricants that are more ‘vaginal friendly’ and more in line with the WHO guidelines,” said Dr. Adams, who is joining Stanford (Calif.) University in July to create and lead a new program in menopause and healthy aging. “They came up with four formulas consistent with WHO guidelines to see if these new ones worked at least as well [as commercially available products with higher osmolality], and it turns out they did,” she said. “They worked just fine.”
The study was funded by Reckitt Healthcare. Dr. Krychman is a paid medical consultant for the company. Dr. Adams disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
BALTIMORE – , according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In a secondary analysis also presented at the meeting, the lubricants were found not to alter the vaginal microbiome.
Using these types of lubricants during vaginal intercourse at least once a week over a 4-week period resulted in a statistically significant increase of over four points in the 36-point Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), a self-reported measure of sexual functioning, for participants, said Michael Krychman, MD, executive director of the Southern California Center for Sexual Health and Survivorship Medicine, Newport Beach, the senior author of the study. Statistically significant improvements also were observed in individual areas such as sexual desire and arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction. Results of the study have been published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.
In the open-label, five-arm, parallel study conducted in Germany, 174 women aged 18-65 years were randomly assigned to use one of five lubricants from three popular brands. After a 4-week run-in period with no use of lubricants, participants were shown how to apply the products and instructed to use the substances during vaginal intercourse at least once a week over a 4-week period.
Participants reported experiencing mild to moderate vaginal dryness and dyspareunia during vaginal intercourse within the previous 3 months.
Statistically significant improvements were seen across all six individual domain scores of the FSFI (desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain reduction) from baseline to week 4 with all five lubricants (P < .0001 for lubrication and pain reduction; P < .05 for desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction), according to the researchers.
After 4 weeks, a clinically meaningful improvement in the total FSFI score was observed for four lubricants among premenopausal women and for all lubricants among postmenopausal women. The percentage of participants with sexual function as defined as a score of at least 26.55 on the FSFI was significantly greater after treatment (76.9%) than before treatment (20.8%; P < .0001).
“You would assume if you’re using lubricant it would improve the dryness, but what was very exciting for us is that it improved desire, it improved orgasm, it improved arousal,” Dr. Krychman said in an interview. Like concentric overlapping circles of female sexual function, he said, “if you improve one aspect, you improve the other.”
Nearly 80 nonserious adverse effects occurred in 43 participants, five of which were thought to be possibly attributed to the products, such as vulvovaginal burning, itching, or discomfort. In questionnaires, most women agreed that using the lubricants made sex more enjoyable and provided an overall pleasant experience.
One limitation of the study is that because most participants were Caucasian, the results may not be generalizable to all populations, according to the researchers. Further research is required to fully determine safety and efficacy in patients of all races and ethnicities, they reported, especially given that vaginal dryness has been reported more frequently in non-White ethnic groups.
In a companion presentation, Dr. Krychman discussed another aspect of the study looking at the lubricants’ effects on the vaginal microbiome. Repeated application of the products did not significantly alter the vaginal microbiome for up to 4 weeks, and vaginal pH slightly increased in all treatment groups shortly after use but was restored in most cases after a day.
Water-based lubricants are recommended by the WHO for use with condoms because they do not erode latex, said Karen Adams, MD, professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynecology and founding director of the Menopause and Sexual Medicine Program at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. Guidelines from the group recommend lubricants should have an osmolality that is as close to normal vaginal secretions as possible to decrease the likelihood of irritation or other side effects, she said. Some available lubricants have four to six times that osmolality, which potentially could dehydrate cells, achieving the opposite of the desired effect.
“The reason this is important is they’re trying to develop lubricants that are more ‘vaginal friendly’ and more in line with the WHO guidelines,” said Dr. Adams, who is joining Stanford (Calif.) University in July to create and lead a new program in menopause and healthy aging. “They came up with four formulas consistent with WHO guidelines to see if these new ones worked at least as well [as commercially available products with higher osmolality], and it turns out they did,” she said. “They worked just fine.”
The study was funded by Reckitt Healthcare. Dr. Krychman is a paid medical consultant for the company. Dr. Adams disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ACOG 2023
Maternal health clinic teams with legal services to aid patients
BALTIMORE – A novel partnership between a legal services program and a maternal health clinic is helping pregnant patients with issues such as housing or employment discrimination.
The Perinatal Legal Assistance and Well-being (P-LAW) program at Georgetown University, Washington, launched 2 years ago as a collaboration between GU’s Health Justice Alliance clinic and the Women’s and Infants Services division of nearby MedStar Washington Hospital Center, integrating attorneys into the health care team to offer no-cost legal aid for its diverse, urban population during the perinatal period. Since then, the effort has assisted more than 120 women.
“Our goal was to see how integrating a lawyer can help address some of those issues that, unfortunately, providers are not able to assist with because they go beyond the hospital or clinic walls,” said Roxana Richardson, JD, the project director and managing attorney for P-LAW, during a poster presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Our initial findings showed that there are issues that patients were facing that needed an intervention from an attorney. We trained the providers and social workers to identify these issues so that we could intervene.”
Improving health by tackling legal barriers
, Ms. Richardson said.
The program is one of few medical-legal partnerships specifically focused on the perinatal population. P-LAW is one component of a larger initiative at MedStar Health called DC Safe Babies Safe Moms. The initiative includes integrated mental health programming, treatment of health conditions that complicate pregnancy, assessments of social determinants of health, expanded support for lactation and nutrition, access to home visiting referrals, and extended postpartum follow-up. The work is supported through the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation.
Patients are evaluated for health-harming legal needs as part of a comprehensive social and behavioral health screening at their initial prenatal visit, 28-week appointment, and postpartum visit. Those who screen positive are contacted by a referral specialist on the health care team who confirms the patient has an active legal need and would like to be connected to the P-LAW team. The team then reaches out to conduct a legal intake and determine the appropriate course of action.
From March 2021 through February of this year, Ms. Richardson and others with the program have provided legal representation to 123 patients on 186 legal issues in areas such as public benefits, employment, and housing and family concerns. Services range from advising patients on steps they can take on their own (like reporting a housing condition issue to the Department of Buildings), to sending letters on patients’ behalf, to appearing in court. Most patients served were in their second and third trimesters of pregnancy. The majority were Black or African American, aged 20-34 years, and had incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level.
The most common legal issues were in the areas of public benefits (SNAP/food stamps, cash assistance), employment (parental leave, discrimination), housing (conditions, eviction), and family law (child support, domestic violence). Among the 186 issues, work has been completed on 106 concerns and 33 still have a case open; for 47, the client withdrew or ceased contact, Ms. Richardson reported.
Most times when obstetricians hear concerns like these, they wonder what to do, said Tamika Auguste, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at MedStar Health. Having the P-LAW program as a resource is a huge help, she said. If patients express concerns, or if obstetricians uncover concerns during office visits, doctors can enter a referral directly in the electronic medical record.
Patients are “so relieved,” Dr. Auguste said in an interview, because they often wonder if their doctor can help. “Your doctor is only going to be able to help to a certain point. But to know they’re pregnant and they have this resource, and they’re going to get legal help, has been game-changing for so many patients.”
COVID ... or morning sickness?
In one rewarding case, Ms. Richardson said, a single mother of one child who was pregnant and experiencing hyperemesis explained that her employer would forbid her from working if she had any symptoms similar to COVID-19. The employer mistook her vomiting, nausea, and exhaustion as COVID symptoms and docked her pay. That started a cascade in which earning less meant she was facing eviction and car repossession – and, eventually, overdraft fees and withdrawals from her bank. She was so despondent she was thinking about self-harm, Ms. Richardson said.
With the aid of the P-LAW program, the woman had short-term disability approved within 72 hours, was referred to the hospital for inpatient mental health treatment, and received the care she needed. She ultimately delivered a healthy baby girl and found a new job.
Tiffany Moore Simas, MD, MPH, MEd, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Massachusetts and UMass Memorial Health in Worcester, said she encounters similar concerns among her patients, with the vast majority having one or more issues with social determinants of health.
“I think it’s incredible, as we’re trying to address equity in perinatal health and maternal mortality and morbidity, to have a more holistic view of what health means, and all of the social determinants of health, and actually helping our patients address that in real time at their visits and connecting them,” said Dr. Simas, who also is professor of ob/gyn, pediatrics, psychiatry, and population and quantitative health sciences at UMass. “It has really opened my mind to the possibilities of things we need to explore and do differently.”
Ms. Richardson, Dr. Auguste, and Dr. Simas reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
BALTIMORE – A novel partnership between a legal services program and a maternal health clinic is helping pregnant patients with issues such as housing or employment discrimination.
The Perinatal Legal Assistance and Well-being (P-LAW) program at Georgetown University, Washington, launched 2 years ago as a collaboration between GU’s Health Justice Alliance clinic and the Women’s and Infants Services division of nearby MedStar Washington Hospital Center, integrating attorneys into the health care team to offer no-cost legal aid for its diverse, urban population during the perinatal period. Since then, the effort has assisted more than 120 women.
“Our goal was to see how integrating a lawyer can help address some of those issues that, unfortunately, providers are not able to assist with because they go beyond the hospital or clinic walls,” said Roxana Richardson, JD, the project director and managing attorney for P-LAW, during a poster presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Our initial findings showed that there are issues that patients were facing that needed an intervention from an attorney. We trained the providers and social workers to identify these issues so that we could intervene.”
Improving health by tackling legal barriers
, Ms. Richardson said.
The program is one of few medical-legal partnerships specifically focused on the perinatal population. P-LAW is one component of a larger initiative at MedStar Health called DC Safe Babies Safe Moms. The initiative includes integrated mental health programming, treatment of health conditions that complicate pregnancy, assessments of social determinants of health, expanded support for lactation and nutrition, access to home visiting referrals, and extended postpartum follow-up. The work is supported through the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation.
Patients are evaluated for health-harming legal needs as part of a comprehensive social and behavioral health screening at their initial prenatal visit, 28-week appointment, and postpartum visit. Those who screen positive are contacted by a referral specialist on the health care team who confirms the patient has an active legal need and would like to be connected to the P-LAW team. The team then reaches out to conduct a legal intake and determine the appropriate course of action.
From March 2021 through February of this year, Ms. Richardson and others with the program have provided legal representation to 123 patients on 186 legal issues in areas such as public benefits, employment, and housing and family concerns. Services range from advising patients on steps they can take on their own (like reporting a housing condition issue to the Department of Buildings), to sending letters on patients’ behalf, to appearing in court. Most patients served were in their second and third trimesters of pregnancy. The majority were Black or African American, aged 20-34 years, and had incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level.
The most common legal issues were in the areas of public benefits (SNAP/food stamps, cash assistance), employment (parental leave, discrimination), housing (conditions, eviction), and family law (child support, domestic violence). Among the 186 issues, work has been completed on 106 concerns and 33 still have a case open; for 47, the client withdrew or ceased contact, Ms. Richardson reported.
Most times when obstetricians hear concerns like these, they wonder what to do, said Tamika Auguste, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at MedStar Health. Having the P-LAW program as a resource is a huge help, she said. If patients express concerns, or if obstetricians uncover concerns during office visits, doctors can enter a referral directly in the electronic medical record.
Patients are “so relieved,” Dr. Auguste said in an interview, because they often wonder if their doctor can help. “Your doctor is only going to be able to help to a certain point. But to know they’re pregnant and they have this resource, and they’re going to get legal help, has been game-changing for so many patients.”
COVID ... or morning sickness?
In one rewarding case, Ms. Richardson said, a single mother of one child who was pregnant and experiencing hyperemesis explained that her employer would forbid her from working if she had any symptoms similar to COVID-19. The employer mistook her vomiting, nausea, and exhaustion as COVID symptoms and docked her pay. That started a cascade in which earning less meant she was facing eviction and car repossession – and, eventually, overdraft fees and withdrawals from her bank. She was so despondent she was thinking about self-harm, Ms. Richardson said.
With the aid of the P-LAW program, the woman had short-term disability approved within 72 hours, was referred to the hospital for inpatient mental health treatment, and received the care she needed. She ultimately delivered a healthy baby girl and found a new job.
Tiffany Moore Simas, MD, MPH, MEd, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Massachusetts and UMass Memorial Health in Worcester, said she encounters similar concerns among her patients, with the vast majority having one or more issues with social determinants of health.
“I think it’s incredible, as we’re trying to address equity in perinatal health and maternal mortality and morbidity, to have a more holistic view of what health means, and all of the social determinants of health, and actually helping our patients address that in real time at their visits and connecting them,” said Dr. Simas, who also is professor of ob/gyn, pediatrics, psychiatry, and population and quantitative health sciences at UMass. “It has really opened my mind to the possibilities of things we need to explore and do differently.”
Ms. Richardson, Dr. Auguste, and Dr. Simas reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
BALTIMORE – A novel partnership between a legal services program and a maternal health clinic is helping pregnant patients with issues such as housing or employment discrimination.
The Perinatal Legal Assistance and Well-being (P-LAW) program at Georgetown University, Washington, launched 2 years ago as a collaboration between GU’s Health Justice Alliance clinic and the Women’s and Infants Services division of nearby MedStar Washington Hospital Center, integrating attorneys into the health care team to offer no-cost legal aid for its diverse, urban population during the perinatal period. Since then, the effort has assisted more than 120 women.
“Our goal was to see how integrating a lawyer can help address some of those issues that, unfortunately, providers are not able to assist with because they go beyond the hospital or clinic walls,” said Roxana Richardson, JD, the project director and managing attorney for P-LAW, during a poster presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Our initial findings showed that there are issues that patients were facing that needed an intervention from an attorney. We trained the providers and social workers to identify these issues so that we could intervene.”
Improving health by tackling legal barriers
, Ms. Richardson said.
The program is one of few medical-legal partnerships specifically focused on the perinatal population. P-LAW is one component of a larger initiative at MedStar Health called DC Safe Babies Safe Moms. The initiative includes integrated mental health programming, treatment of health conditions that complicate pregnancy, assessments of social determinants of health, expanded support for lactation and nutrition, access to home visiting referrals, and extended postpartum follow-up. The work is supported through the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation.
Patients are evaluated for health-harming legal needs as part of a comprehensive social and behavioral health screening at their initial prenatal visit, 28-week appointment, and postpartum visit. Those who screen positive are contacted by a referral specialist on the health care team who confirms the patient has an active legal need and would like to be connected to the P-LAW team. The team then reaches out to conduct a legal intake and determine the appropriate course of action.
From March 2021 through February of this year, Ms. Richardson and others with the program have provided legal representation to 123 patients on 186 legal issues in areas such as public benefits, employment, and housing and family concerns. Services range from advising patients on steps they can take on their own (like reporting a housing condition issue to the Department of Buildings), to sending letters on patients’ behalf, to appearing in court. Most patients served were in their second and third trimesters of pregnancy. The majority were Black or African American, aged 20-34 years, and had incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level.
The most common legal issues were in the areas of public benefits (SNAP/food stamps, cash assistance), employment (parental leave, discrimination), housing (conditions, eviction), and family law (child support, domestic violence). Among the 186 issues, work has been completed on 106 concerns and 33 still have a case open; for 47, the client withdrew or ceased contact, Ms. Richardson reported.
Most times when obstetricians hear concerns like these, they wonder what to do, said Tamika Auguste, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at MedStar Health. Having the P-LAW program as a resource is a huge help, she said. If patients express concerns, or if obstetricians uncover concerns during office visits, doctors can enter a referral directly in the electronic medical record.
Patients are “so relieved,” Dr. Auguste said in an interview, because they often wonder if their doctor can help. “Your doctor is only going to be able to help to a certain point. But to know they’re pregnant and they have this resource, and they’re going to get legal help, has been game-changing for so many patients.”
COVID ... or morning sickness?
In one rewarding case, Ms. Richardson said, a single mother of one child who was pregnant and experiencing hyperemesis explained that her employer would forbid her from working if she had any symptoms similar to COVID-19. The employer mistook her vomiting, nausea, and exhaustion as COVID symptoms and docked her pay. That started a cascade in which earning less meant she was facing eviction and car repossession – and, eventually, overdraft fees and withdrawals from her bank. She was so despondent she was thinking about self-harm, Ms. Richardson said.
With the aid of the P-LAW program, the woman had short-term disability approved within 72 hours, was referred to the hospital for inpatient mental health treatment, and received the care she needed. She ultimately delivered a healthy baby girl and found a new job.
Tiffany Moore Simas, MD, MPH, MEd, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Massachusetts and UMass Memorial Health in Worcester, said she encounters similar concerns among her patients, with the vast majority having one or more issues with social determinants of health.
“I think it’s incredible, as we’re trying to address equity in perinatal health and maternal mortality and morbidity, to have a more holistic view of what health means, and all of the social determinants of health, and actually helping our patients address that in real time at their visits and connecting them,” said Dr. Simas, who also is professor of ob/gyn, pediatrics, psychiatry, and population and quantitative health sciences at UMass. “It has really opened my mind to the possibilities of things we need to explore and do differently.”
Ms. Richardson, Dr. Auguste, and Dr. Simas reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ACOG 2023
Scheduled bleeding may boost tolerability of hormone implants
BALTIMORE – The bleeding causes some women to have the device removed, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
In a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 51 patients desiring the implants – which suppress ovulation by releasing progestin over a 3-year period – taking norethindrone acetate for 1 week every 4 weeks led to 80% of participants in the treatment group reporting satisfactory bleeding patterns with the etonogestrel implants in place.
Rates of early discontinuation have been variable, according to published literature, ranging from 13% to 21.1%, said Jordan Gray, MD, a fourth-year resident in ob.gyn. at Baylor Scott and White Medical Center, Temple, Tex., who helped conduct the new study. Reasons included bothersome bleeding. Dr. Gray and colleagues found that 24% of women in the placebo group requested removal of the implant, compared with 9% of those in the treatment group. Among these women, none requested removal for bothersome bleeding but rather for reasons such as wanting to get pregnant. One person requested removal because she did not like amenorrhea.
While the results of the study did not achieve statistical significance, owing to its size and noncompliance among some participants, it does indicate that norethindrone acetate may be helpful, Dr. Gray said.
During the study, participants in the treatment group (n = 22) received a monthly treatment regimen of 5 mg of oral norethindrone acetate daily for 7 days each month for the first 6 months after placement of an etonogestrel implant. The placebo group (n = 29) was given inert tablets prescribed in the same regimen. Both groups received products from a mail-order pharmacy.
Participants were women aged 18-48 years who desired an implant or those aged 14 years who had permission from a parent or guardian to receive the contraceptive. The study excluded people with known or suspected pregnancy, those less than 8 weeks’ post partum, those who experienced menarche less than 2 years ago, those with body mass index greater than 40, and those who received depot medroxyprogesterone acetate within the previous 12 weeks. Excessive bleeding was defined as bleeding or spotting on more than 7 consecutive days or a fifth episode of bleeding in 90 days.
Overall, 11 patients (38%) in the placebo group and 10 (45%) in the treatment arm withdrew from the study. Reasons included wanting to get pregnant, mood changes, or noncompliance with study parameters, which included not responding or returning bleeding diaries, Dr. Gray said.
A limitation of the study was that compliance was less than expected. In addition, there were challenges with rates of responses, Dr. Gray said. The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when all in-person visits were transitioned to telehealth. Although the investigators offered payment to participants, not all returned text-message surveys. The researchers had intended to enroll 124 participants but curtailed the study early, owing to the limited number of participants.
Given that there is no standard approach to treating prolonged or excessive bleeding with etonogestrel implants, Dr. Gray said, “Our data suggests that this regimen is a simple and acceptable method to treat bothersome bleeding and that predictable bleeding may be more satisfactory than unpredictable bleeding.”
Veronica Maria Pimentel, MD, moderator of the session and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and director of research for the ob.gyn. residency program at St. Francis Hospital, part of Trinity Health of New England in Hartford, Conn., praised the researchers for a well-designed study.
“However, unfortunately, they were not able to recruit the number of patients that they needed in order to achieve the power to show the difference [between treatment arms], so another study would have to be done to show if there is a difference,” Dr. Pimentel said.
Dr. Pimentel complimented Dr. Gray following her presentation, congratulating her for conducting a randomized, controlled trial: “That’s not easy, as you have shown, but it’s also a good try, so you can actually see how hard it is to obtain quality data from research.”
The study was supported in part by a research grant from the Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Organon. Dr. Gray is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Pimentel has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BALTIMORE – The bleeding causes some women to have the device removed, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
In a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 51 patients desiring the implants – which suppress ovulation by releasing progestin over a 3-year period – taking norethindrone acetate for 1 week every 4 weeks led to 80% of participants in the treatment group reporting satisfactory bleeding patterns with the etonogestrel implants in place.
Rates of early discontinuation have been variable, according to published literature, ranging from 13% to 21.1%, said Jordan Gray, MD, a fourth-year resident in ob.gyn. at Baylor Scott and White Medical Center, Temple, Tex., who helped conduct the new study. Reasons included bothersome bleeding. Dr. Gray and colleagues found that 24% of women in the placebo group requested removal of the implant, compared with 9% of those in the treatment group. Among these women, none requested removal for bothersome bleeding but rather for reasons such as wanting to get pregnant. One person requested removal because she did not like amenorrhea.
While the results of the study did not achieve statistical significance, owing to its size and noncompliance among some participants, it does indicate that norethindrone acetate may be helpful, Dr. Gray said.
During the study, participants in the treatment group (n = 22) received a monthly treatment regimen of 5 mg of oral norethindrone acetate daily for 7 days each month for the first 6 months after placement of an etonogestrel implant. The placebo group (n = 29) was given inert tablets prescribed in the same regimen. Both groups received products from a mail-order pharmacy.
Participants were women aged 18-48 years who desired an implant or those aged 14 years who had permission from a parent or guardian to receive the contraceptive. The study excluded people with known or suspected pregnancy, those less than 8 weeks’ post partum, those who experienced menarche less than 2 years ago, those with body mass index greater than 40, and those who received depot medroxyprogesterone acetate within the previous 12 weeks. Excessive bleeding was defined as bleeding or spotting on more than 7 consecutive days or a fifth episode of bleeding in 90 days.
Overall, 11 patients (38%) in the placebo group and 10 (45%) in the treatment arm withdrew from the study. Reasons included wanting to get pregnant, mood changes, or noncompliance with study parameters, which included not responding or returning bleeding diaries, Dr. Gray said.
A limitation of the study was that compliance was less than expected. In addition, there were challenges with rates of responses, Dr. Gray said. The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when all in-person visits were transitioned to telehealth. Although the investigators offered payment to participants, not all returned text-message surveys. The researchers had intended to enroll 124 participants but curtailed the study early, owing to the limited number of participants.
Given that there is no standard approach to treating prolonged or excessive bleeding with etonogestrel implants, Dr. Gray said, “Our data suggests that this regimen is a simple and acceptable method to treat bothersome bleeding and that predictable bleeding may be more satisfactory than unpredictable bleeding.”
Veronica Maria Pimentel, MD, moderator of the session and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and director of research for the ob.gyn. residency program at St. Francis Hospital, part of Trinity Health of New England in Hartford, Conn., praised the researchers for a well-designed study.
“However, unfortunately, they were not able to recruit the number of patients that they needed in order to achieve the power to show the difference [between treatment arms], so another study would have to be done to show if there is a difference,” Dr. Pimentel said.
Dr. Pimentel complimented Dr. Gray following her presentation, congratulating her for conducting a randomized, controlled trial: “That’s not easy, as you have shown, but it’s also a good try, so you can actually see how hard it is to obtain quality data from research.”
The study was supported in part by a research grant from the Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Organon. Dr. Gray is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Pimentel has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BALTIMORE – The bleeding causes some women to have the device removed, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
In a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 51 patients desiring the implants – which suppress ovulation by releasing progestin over a 3-year period – taking norethindrone acetate for 1 week every 4 weeks led to 80% of participants in the treatment group reporting satisfactory bleeding patterns with the etonogestrel implants in place.
Rates of early discontinuation have been variable, according to published literature, ranging from 13% to 21.1%, said Jordan Gray, MD, a fourth-year resident in ob.gyn. at Baylor Scott and White Medical Center, Temple, Tex., who helped conduct the new study. Reasons included bothersome bleeding. Dr. Gray and colleagues found that 24% of women in the placebo group requested removal of the implant, compared with 9% of those in the treatment group. Among these women, none requested removal for bothersome bleeding but rather for reasons such as wanting to get pregnant. One person requested removal because she did not like amenorrhea.
While the results of the study did not achieve statistical significance, owing to its size and noncompliance among some participants, it does indicate that norethindrone acetate may be helpful, Dr. Gray said.
During the study, participants in the treatment group (n = 22) received a monthly treatment regimen of 5 mg of oral norethindrone acetate daily for 7 days each month for the first 6 months after placement of an etonogestrel implant. The placebo group (n = 29) was given inert tablets prescribed in the same regimen. Both groups received products from a mail-order pharmacy.
Participants were women aged 18-48 years who desired an implant or those aged 14 years who had permission from a parent or guardian to receive the contraceptive. The study excluded people with known or suspected pregnancy, those less than 8 weeks’ post partum, those who experienced menarche less than 2 years ago, those with body mass index greater than 40, and those who received depot medroxyprogesterone acetate within the previous 12 weeks. Excessive bleeding was defined as bleeding or spotting on more than 7 consecutive days or a fifth episode of bleeding in 90 days.
Overall, 11 patients (38%) in the placebo group and 10 (45%) in the treatment arm withdrew from the study. Reasons included wanting to get pregnant, mood changes, or noncompliance with study parameters, which included not responding or returning bleeding diaries, Dr. Gray said.
A limitation of the study was that compliance was less than expected. In addition, there were challenges with rates of responses, Dr. Gray said. The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when all in-person visits were transitioned to telehealth. Although the investigators offered payment to participants, not all returned text-message surveys. The researchers had intended to enroll 124 participants but curtailed the study early, owing to the limited number of participants.
Given that there is no standard approach to treating prolonged or excessive bleeding with etonogestrel implants, Dr. Gray said, “Our data suggests that this regimen is a simple and acceptable method to treat bothersome bleeding and that predictable bleeding may be more satisfactory than unpredictable bleeding.”
Veronica Maria Pimentel, MD, moderator of the session and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and director of research for the ob.gyn. residency program at St. Francis Hospital, part of Trinity Health of New England in Hartford, Conn., praised the researchers for a well-designed study.
“However, unfortunately, they were not able to recruit the number of patients that they needed in order to achieve the power to show the difference [between treatment arms], so another study would have to be done to show if there is a difference,” Dr. Pimentel said.
Dr. Pimentel complimented Dr. Gray following her presentation, congratulating her for conducting a randomized, controlled trial: “That’s not easy, as you have shown, but it’s also a good try, so you can actually see how hard it is to obtain quality data from research.”
The study was supported in part by a research grant from the Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Organon. Dr. Gray is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Pimentel has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ACOG 2023
Once-daily nifedipine sufficient for hypertension in pregnancy
BALTIMORE – , according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.*
The findings suggest that starting patients on a once-daily 60-mg dose is therefore reasonable, Isabelle Band, BA, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, told attendees. Ms. Band said in an interview that there does not appear to be a consensus on the standard of care for nifedipine dosing regimen in this population but that previous in vitro studies have shown increased metabolism of nifedipine in a physiologic state that mimics pregnancy.
“I’ve spoken to some colleagues here who say that they frequently have this debate of which dosing regimen to go with,” Ms. Band said. “I was pleasantly surprised that there was no significant difference between the two dosing regimens because once-daily dosing is less burdensome for patients and will likely improve compliance and convenience for patients.” An additional benefit of once-daily dosing relates to payers because anecdotal reports suggest insurance companies do not tend to approve twice-daily dosing as readily as once-daily dosing, Ms. Band added.
Ms. Band and her colleagues conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy who were admitted to the Mount Sinai Health System between Jan. 1, 2015, and April 30, 2021, and were prescribed nifedipine in a once-daily (60-mg) or twice-daily (two 30-mg) dose. They excluded patients with renal disease and those already taking hypertensives prior to admission.
Among 237 patients who met the criteria, 59% received 60 mg in a twice-daily 30-mg dose, and 41% received 60 mg in a once-daily dose. Among patients requiring an up titration, two-thirds (67%) needed an increase in the nifedipine dose – the most common adjustment – and 20.7% needed both an increase in nifedipine and an additional medication.
The researchers observed no statistically significant differences in the proportion of patients who required a dose increase or an additional antihypertensive in the group taking the twice-daily dose (33.8%) or those receiving the once-daily dose (35.7%). This finding remained statistically insignificant after controlling for gestational diabetes, delivery mode, administration of Lasix, and receipt of emergency antihypertensive treatment (P = .71). The time that passed before patients needed a dose increase was also statistically similar between the groups: 24.3 hours in the twice-daily group and 24 hours in the once-daily group (P = .49).
There were no statistically significant differences in the need for a dose increase or an additional hypertensive agent based on race, ethnicity, body mass index, or history of preeclampsia as well. However, 24.5% of those taking the once-daily dosage had a history of preeclampsia, compared with 7.2% of those taking the twice-daily dosage (P < .001). Further, the median number of prior pregnancies was two in the twice-daily group versus three in the once-daily group (P = .002).
The authors found no significant difference between the two dosing groups in the need for emergency hypertensive treatment after reaching the study dose or in readmission for blood pressure control. In the twice-daily group, 21.6% of patients needed emergency antihypertensive treatment, compared with 14.3% in the once-daily group (P = .19). Readmission was necessary for 7.2% of the twice-daily group and 6.1% of the once-daily group (P > .99).
A subgroup analysis compared those who started nifedipine antepartum and those who started it post partum, but again, no significant difference in the dosing regimens existed.
Michael Ruma, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Perinatal Associates of New Mexico in Albuquerque, was not involved in the study and said he welcomed the results.
“We have too many choices in medicine, so we need to just simplify the plan of attack,” reducing the number of things that clinicians need to think about, Dr. Ruma said in an interview. “A singular dose is always easiest for the patient, always easier for nursing staff, and usually, if you can optimize the dosing, that’s the best approach.”
Annabeth Brewton, MD, a resident at University of Tennessee, Knoxville, agreed, adding that new parents already have a lot going on immediately post partum.
“They’re going to be breastfeeding, they’re not sleeping, they’re going to forget to take that [second] dose,” Dr. Brewton said.
Ms. Band and Dr. Brewton had no disclosures. Dr. Ruma reported consulting and speaking for Hologic and consulting for Philips Ultrasound.
Correction, 5/24/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the daily doses of nifedipine. The study compared a
BALTIMORE – , according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.*
The findings suggest that starting patients on a once-daily 60-mg dose is therefore reasonable, Isabelle Band, BA, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, told attendees. Ms. Band said in an interview that there does not appear to be a consensus on the standard of care for nifedipine dosing regimen in this population but that previous in vitro studies have shown increased metabolism of nifedipine in a physiologic state that mimics pregnancy.
“I’ve spoken to some colleagues here who say that they frequently have this debate of which dosing regimen to go with,” Ms. Band said. “I was pleasantly surprised that there was no significant difference between the two dosing regimens because once-daily dosing is less burdensome for patients and will likely improve compliance and convenience for patients.” An additional benefit of once-daily dosing relates to payers because anecdotal reports suggest insurance companies do not tend to approve twice-daily dosing as readily as once-daily dosing, Ms. Band added.
Ms. Band and her colleagues conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy who were admitted to the Mount Sinai Health System between Jan. 1, 2015, and April 30, 2021, and were prescribed nifedipine in a once-daily (60-mg) or twice-daily (two 30-mg) dose. They excluded patients with renal disease and those already taking hypertensives prior to admission.
Among 237 patients who met the criteria, 59% received 60 mg in a twice-daily 30-mg dose, and 41% received 60 mg in a once-daily dose. Among patients requiring an up titration, two-thirds (67%) needed an increase in the nifedipine dose – the most common adjustment – and 20.7% needed both an increase in nifedipine and an additional medication.
The researchers observed no statistically significant differences in the proportion of patients who required a dose increase or an additional antihypertensive in the group taking the twice-daily dose (33.8%) or those receiving the once-daily dose (35.7%). This finding remained statistically insignificant after controlling for gestational diabetes, delivery mode, administration of Lasix, and receipt of emergency antihypertensive treatment (P = .71). The time that passed before patients needed a dose increase was also statistically similar between the groups: 24.3 hours in the twice-daily group and 24 hours in the once-daily group (P = .49).
There were no statistically significant differences in the need for a dose increase or an additional hypertensive agent based on race, ethnicity, body mass index, or history of preeclampsia as well. However, 24.5% of those taking the once-daily dosage had a history of preeclampsia, compared with 7.2% of those taking the twice-daily dosage (P < .001). Further, the median number of prior pregnancies was two in the twice-daily group versus three in the once-daily group (P = .002).
The authors found no significant difference between the two dosing groups in the need for emergency hypertensive treatment after reaching the study dose or in readmission for blood pressure control. In the twice-daily group, 21.6% of patients needed emergency antihypertensive treatment, compared with 14.3% in the once-daily group (P = .19). Readmission was necessary for 7.2% of the twice-daily group and 6.1% of the once-daily group (P > .99).
A subgroup analysis compared those who started nifedipine antepartum and those who started it post partum, but again, no significant difference in the dosing regimens existed.
Michael Ruma, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Perinatal Associates of New Mexico in Albuquerque, was not involved in the study and said he welcomed the results.
“We have too many choices in medicine, so we need to just simplify the plan of attack,” reducing the number of things that clinicians need to think about, Dr. Ruma said in an interview. “A singular dose is always easiest for the patient, always easier for nursing staff, and usually, if you can optimize the dosing, that’s the best approach.”
Annabeth Brewton, MD, a resident at University of Tennessee, Knoxville, agreed, adding that new parents already have a lot going on immediately post partum.
“They’re going to be breastfeeding, they’re not sleeping, they’re going to forget to take that [second] dose,” Dr. Brewton said.
Ms. Band and Dr. Brewton had no disclosures. Dr. Ruma reported consulting and speaking for Hologic and consulting for Philips Ultrasound.
Correction, 5/24/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the daily doses of nifedipine. The study compared a
BALTIMORE – , according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.*
The findings suggest that starting patients on a once-daily 60-mg dose is therefore reasonable, Isabelle Band, BA, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, told attendees. Ms. Band said in an interview that there does not appear to be a consensus on the standard of care for nifedipine dosing regimen in this population but that previous in vitro studies have shown increased metabolism of nifedipine in a physiologic state that mimics pregnancy.
“I’ve spoken to some colleagues here who say that they frequently have this debate of which dosing regimen to go with,” Ms. Band said. “I was pleasantly surprised that there was no significant difference between the two dosing regimens because once-daily dosing is less burdensome for patients and will likely improve compliance and convenience for patients.” An additional benefit of once-daily dosing relates to payers because anecdotal reports suggest insurance companies do not tend to approve twice-daily dosing as readily as once-daily dosing, Ms. Band added.
Ms. Band and her colleagues conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy who were admitted to the Mount Sinai Health System between Jan. 1, 2015, and April 30, 2021, and were prescribed nifedipine in a once-daily (60-mg) or twice-daily (two 30-mg) dose. They excluded patients with renal disease and those already taking hypertensives prior to admission.
Among 237 patients who met the criteria, 59% received 60 mg in a twice-daily 30-mg dose, and 41% received 60 mg in a once-daily dose. Among patients requiring an up titration, two-thirds (67%) needed an increase in the nifedipine dose – the most common adjustment – and 20.7% needed both an increase in nifedipine and an additional medication.
The researchers observed no statistically significant differences in the proportion of patients who required a dose increase or an additional antihypertensive in the group taking the twice-daily dose (33.8%) or those receiving the once-daily dose (35.7%). This finding remained statistically insignificant after controlling for gestational diabetes, delivery mode, administration of Lasix, and receipt of emergency antihypertensive treatment (P = .71). The time that passed before patients needed a dose increase was also statistically similar between the groups: 24.3 hours in the twice-daily group and 24 hours in the once-daily group (P = .49).
There were no statistically significant differences in the need for a dose increase or an additional hypertensive agent based on race, ethnicity, body mass index, or history of preeclampsia as well. However, 24.5% of those taking the once-daily dosage had a history of preeclampsia, compared with 7.2% of those taking the twice-daily dosage (P < .001). Further, the median number of prior pregnancies was two in the twice-daily group versus three in the once-daily group (P = .002).
The authors found no significant difference between the two dosing groups in the need for emergency hypertensive treatment after reaching the study dose or in readmission for blood pressure control. In the twice-daily group, 21.6% of patients needed emergency antihypertensive treatment, compared with 14.3% in the once-daily group (P = .19). Readmission was necessary for 7.2% of the twice-daily group and 6.1% of the once-daily group (P > .99).
A subgroup analysis compared those who started nifedipine antepartum and those who started it post partum, but again, no significant difference in the dosing regimens existed.
Michael Ruma, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Perinatal Associates of New Mexico in Albuquerque, was not involved in the study and said he welcomed the results.
“We have too many choices in medicine, so we need to just simplify the plan of attack,” reducing the number of things that clinicians need to think about, Dr. Ruma said in an interview. “A singular dose is always easiest for the patient, always easier for nursing staff, and usually, if you can optimize the dosing, that’s the best approach.”
Annabeth Brewton, MD, a resident at University of Tennessee, Knoxville, agreed, adding that new parents already have a lot going on immediately post partum.
“They’re going to be breastfeeding, they’re not sleeping, they’re going to forget to take that [second] dose,” Dr. Brewton said.
Ms. Band and Dr. Brewton had no disclosures. Dr. Ruma reported consulting and speaking for Hologic and consulting for Philips Ultrasound.
Correction, 5/24/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the daily doses of nifedipine. The study compared a
AT ACOG 2023
Over half of pregnant patients not properly screened for thyroid disease
BALTIMORE – Less than half of the pregnant patients who met the criteria for thyroid screening were actually screened by their clinician, according to a retrospective cohort study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Baltimore. Those who met criteria and did receive screening had higher live birth rates and lower miscarriage rates than those who met the criteria but did not undergo screening, the study found.
“These results suggest that improving thyroid screening adherence may lead to improved pregnancy outcomes,” lead author Allan Dong, MD, of Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Des Plaines, Ill., told attendees. “However, following targeted screening guidelines can be difficult for clinicians. In practice, universal screening for diabetes and pregnancy may provide more comprehensive screening coverage and potentially lead to improved outcomes.”
Instead of universal screening for thyroid disease, ACOG and the American Thyroid Association recommend targeted screening of high-risk patients, though ATA’s criteria are substantially broader than ACOG’s. But, Dr. Dong told attendees, “guidelines are only beneficial if they are followed appropriately,” and Ob.Gyns. have limited time to screen for risk factors in the midst of other clinical priorities. So he aimed to learn whether Ob.Gyns. were following the guidelines of either organization in screening people at higher risk for thyroid disease.
Dr. Dong and his coauthor, Melisa Lott, DO, reviewed the charts of all 1,025 patients who presented at their institution for new obstetrical visits in 2020 to determine which ones had risk factors that would qualify them for screening under ATA or ACOG guidelines. ACOG’s screening criteria included having a personal or family history of thyroid disease or type 1 diabetes, or there being clinical suspicion for thyroid disease. ATA’s screening criteria included the following:
- Personal or family history of thyroid disease.
- History of head or neck radiation.
- History of a prior thyroid surgery.
- Over age 30.
- Any autoimmune disease.
- A body mass index greater than 40 kg/m2.
- History of pregnancy loss, preterm delivery, or infertility.
- Recently used amiodarone lithium or iodine-based contrast.
- Lived in an area of known iodine deficiency.
- Clinical suspicion of thyroid disease.
ATA screening criteria identified four times as many patients requiring screening than did ACOG criteria, Dr. Dong noted. Of the 198 patients who met ACOG’s criteria, 43.9% were screened with thyroid function testing. Meanwhile, 826 patients – including all those who met ACOG’s criteria – met ATA’s criteria for screening, but only 13.1% of them underwent thyroid function testing.
Live birth rates were significantly higher among patients who met ATA criteria and were screened (92.6%) than among patients who met ATA criteria but were not screened (83.3%, P = .006). Similarly, the miscarriage rate was 4.6% in patients who met ATA criteria and were screened, compared to 12.4% in patients who met the criteria but did not undergo thyroid function testing (P = .009).
“A similar difference, although not statistically significant, was noted when comparing patients who were screened appropriately per ACOG criteria with those who met criteria for screening but were not screened,” Dr. Dong told attendees. “However, our study was underpowered to detect this difference due to the lower number of patients who meet criteria for screening under ACOG guidelines.”
The researchers did not find any significant difference in preterm delivery rates.
Anna Whelan, MD, of Women & Infants Hospital of Brown University, Providence, R.I., was not involved in the study but viewed the poster and pointed out that many of the patients, if seen by a primary care provider prior to pregnancy, would likely have been screened by their PCP. The rate of underscreening therefore suggests that patients “are not getting good, consistent primary care because there’s a lack of primary care physicians,” Dr. Whelan said in an interview.
In addition, she added, “maybe not all obstetricians and those providing care, such as midwives and other providers, are aware of the [ATA] guidelines on who should be screened.” She added that additional education about thyroid screening guidelines might be helpful for providers.
Dr. Dong reported being a stock shareholder in 3M, AbbVie, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Viking Therapeutics. Dr. Whelan had no disclosures.
BALTIMORE – Less than half of the pregnant patients who met the criteria for thyroid screening were actually screened by their clinician, according to a retrospective cohort study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Baltimore. Those who met criteria and did receive screening had higher live birth rates and lower miscarriage rates than those who met the criteria but did not undergo screening, the study found.
“These results suggest that improving thyroid screening adherence may lead to improved pregnancy outcomes,” lead author Allan Dong, MD, of Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Des Plaines, Ill., told attendees. “However, following targeted screening guidelines can be difficult for clinicians. In practice, universal screening for diabetes and pregnancy may provide more comprehensive screening coverage and potentially lead to improved outcomes.”
Instead of universal screening for thyroid disease, ACOG and the American Thyroid Association recommend targeted screening of high-risk patients, though ATA’s criteria are substantially broader than ACOG’s. But, Dr. Dong told attendees, “guidelines are only beneficial if they are followed appropriately,” and Ob.Gyns. have limited time to screen for risk factors in the midst of other clinical priorities. So he aimed to learn whether Ob.Gyns. were following the guidelines of either organization in screening people at higher risk for thyroid disease.
Dr. Dong and his coauthor, Melisa Lott, DO, reviewed the charts of all 1,025 patients who presented at their institution for new obstetrical visits in 2020 to determine which ones had risk factors that would qualify them for screening under ATA or ACOG guidelines. ACOG’s screening criteria included having a personal or family history of thyroid disease or type 1 diabetes, or there being clinical suspicion for thyroid disease. ATA’s screening criteria included the following:
- Personal or family history of thyroid disease.
- History of head or neck radiation.
- History of a prior thyroid surgery.
- Over age 30.
- Any autoimmune disease.
- A body mass index greater than 40 kg/m2.
- History of pregnancy loss, preterm delivery, or infertility.
- Recently used amiodarone lithium or iodine-based contrast.
- Lived in an area of known iodine deficiency.
- Clinical suspicion of thyroid disease.
ATA screening criteria identified four times as many patients requiring screening than did ACOG criteria, Dr. Dong noted. Of the 198 patients who met ACOG’s criteria, 43.9% were screened with thyroid function testing. Meanwhile, 826 patients – including all those who met ACOG’s criteria – met ATA’s criteria for screening, but only 13.1% of them underwent thyroid function testing.
Live birth rates were significantly higher among patients who met ATA criteria and were screened (92.6%) than among patients who met ATA criteria but were not screened (83.3%, P = .006). Similarly, the miscarriage rate was 4.6% in patients who met ATA criteria and were screened, compared to 12.4% in patients who met the criteria but did not undergo thyroid function testing (P = .009).
“A similar difference, although not statistically significant, was noted when comparing patients who were screened appropriately per ACOG criteria with those who met criteria for screening but were not screened,” Dr. Dong told attendees. “However, our study was underpowered to detect this difference due to the lower number of patients who meet criteria for screening under ACOG guidelines.”
The researchers did not find any significant difference in preterm delivery rates.
Anna Whelan, MD, of Women & Infants Hospital of Brown University, Providence, R.I., was not involved in the study but viewed the poster and pointed out that many of the patients, if seen by a primary care provider prior to pregnancy, would likely have been screened by their PCP. The rate of underscreening therefore suggests that patients “are not getting good, consistent primary care because there’s a lack of primary care physicians,” Dr. Whelan said in an interview.
In addition, she added, “maybe not all obstetricians and those providing care, such as midwives and other providers, are aware of the [ATA] guidelines on who should be screened.” She added that additional education about thyroid screening guidelines might be helpful for providers.
Dr. Dong reported being a stock shareholder in 3M, AbbVie, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Viking Therapeutics. Dr. Whelan had no disclosures.
BALTIMORE – Less than half of the pregnant patients who met the criteria for thyroid screening were actually screened by their clinician, according to a retrospective cohort study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Baltimore. Those who met criteria and did receive screening had higher live birth rates and lower miscarriage rates than those who met the criteria but did not undergo screening, the study found.
“These results suggest that improving thyroid screening adherence may lead to improved pregnancy outcomes,” lead author Allan Dong, MD, of Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Des Plaines, Ill., told attendees. “However, following targeted screening guidelines can be difficult for clinicians. In practice, universal screening for diabetes and pregnancy may provide more comprehensive screening coverage and potentially lead to improved outcomes.”
Instead of universal screening for thyroid disease, ACOG and the American Thyroid Association recommend targeted screening of high-risk patients, though ATA’s criteria are substantially broader than ACOG’s. But, Dr. Dong told attendees, “guidelines are only beneficial if they are followed appropriately,” and Ob.Gyns. have limited time to screen for risk factors in the midst of other clinical priorities. So he aimed to learn whether Ob.Gyns. were following the guidelines of either organization in screening people at higher risk for thyroid disease.
Dr. Dong and his coauthor, Melisa Lott, DO, reviewed the charts of all 1,025 patients who presented at their institution for new obstetrical visits in 2020 to determine which ones had risk factors that would qualify them for screening under ATA or ACOG guidelines. ACOG’s screening criteria included having a personal or family history of thyroid disease or type 1 diabetes, or there being clinical suspicion for thyroid disease. ATA’s screening criteria included the following:
- Personal or family history of thyroid disease.
- History of head or neck radiation.
- History of a prior thyroid surgery.
- Over age 30.
- Any autoimmune disease.
- A body mass index greater than 40 kg/m2.
- History of pregnancy loss, preterm delivery, or infertility.
- Recently used amiodarone lithium or iodine-based contrast.
- Lived in an area of known iodine deficiency.
- Clinical suspicion of thyroid disease.
ATA screening criteria identified four times as many patients requiring screening than did ACOG criteria, Dr. Dong noted. Of the 198 patients who met ACOG’s criteria, 43.9% were screened with thyroid function testing. Meanwhile, 826 patients – including all those who met ACOG’s criteria – met ATA’s criteria for screening, but only 13.1% of them underwent thyroid function testing.
Live birth rates were significantly higher among patients who met ATA criteria and were screened (92.6%) than among patients who met ATA criteria but were not screened (83.3%, P = .006). Similarly, the miscarriage rate was 4.6% in patients who met ATA criteria and were screened, compared to 12.4% in patients who met the criteria but did not undergo thyroid function testing (P = .009).
“A similar difference, although not statistically significant, was noted when comparing patients who were screened appropriately per ACOG criteria with those who met criteria for screening but were not screened,” Dr. Dong told attendees. “However, our study was underpowered to detect this difference due to the lower number of patients who meet criteria for screening under ACOG guidelines.”
The researchers did not find any significant difference in preterm delivery rates.
Anna Whelan, MD, of Women & Infants Hospital of Brown University, Providence, R.I., was not involved in the study but viewed the poster and pointed out that many of the patients, if seen by a primary care provider prior to pregnancy, would likely have been screened by their PCP. The rate of underscreening therefore suggests that patients “are not getting good, consistent primary care because there’s a lack of primary care physicians,” Dr. Whelan said in an interview.
In addition, she added, “maybe not all obstetricians and those providing care, such as midwives and other providers, are aware of the [ATA] guidelines on who should be screened.” She added that additional education about thyroid screening guidelines might be helpful for providers.
Dr. Dong reported being a stock shareholder in 3M, AbbVie, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Viking Therapeutics. Dr. Whelan had no disclosures.
FROM ACOG 2023