OBG Management

In the uterus, coordinated myometrial cell contraction is not triggered by neural activation; instead, myometrial cells work together as a contractile syncytium through cell-to-cell gap junction connections permitting the intercellular sharing of small molecules, which in turn facilitates activation of the actin-myosin contractile apparatus and coordinated uterine contraction. In myometrial cells, connexin 43 (Cx43) is the main gap junction protein. Cx43 permits the passage of small hydrophilic molecules (ATP) and ions (calcium) cell to cell. Estradiol increases Cx43 synthesis in human myometrial cells.¹ Progesterone decreases Cx43 synthesis effectively isolating myometrial cells, reducing cell-to-cell sharing of chemicals that stimulate contraction, blocking coordinated uterine contraction.² Progesterone suppression of Cx43 synthesis helps to prevent premature uterine contraction during pregnancy. At term, decreases in progesterone levels result in an increase in Cx43 synthesis, facilitating the onset of effective labor. In myometrial cells, antiprogestins, including mifepristone, increase the number of gap junction connections, facilitating a coordinated contractile signal in response to misoprostol or oxytocin.^3,4

It takes time for antiprogestins to stimulate myometrial cell production of Cx43. In the rat myometrium the administration of mifepristone results in a 2.5-fold increase of Cx43 mRNA transcripts within 9 hours and a 5.6-fold increase in 24 hours.³ Hence, most mifepristone treatment protocols involve administering mifepristone and waiting 24 to 48 hours before administering an agent that stimulates myometrial contraction, such as misoprostol. Antiprogestins also increase the sensitivity of myometrial cells to oxytocin stimulation of uterine contractions by increasing Cx43 concentration.⁴

Progesterone also regulates other important biological processes in the cervix, decidua, placenta, and cervix. Antiprogestins can facilitate cervical ripening and disrupt decidual function, interfering with the attachment of pregnancy tissue.⁵ In the cervix, antiprogestins increase matrix metalloproteinase expression, disrupting collagen organization, decreasing cervical tensile strength and leading to cervical ripening.⁶

Pharmacology of mifepristone

Mifepristone is an antiprogestin and antiglucocorticoid with high-affinity binding to both the progesterone and glucocorticoid receptors (FIGURE 1). The phenylaminodimethyl group at C-11 of mifepristone changes the positional equilibrium of helix 12 of the progesterone receptor, reducing the ability of the receptor to bind required co-activators, limiting receptor binding to DNA, resulting in an antiprogesterone effect.⁷ At the low, single-dose used for treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise (200 mg one dose), mifepristone is an antiprogestin. At the high, daily dose used for the treatment of hyperglycemia caused by Cushing disease (≥ 300 mg daily), mifepristone is also an antiglucocorticoid.

Although mifepristone is a powerful antiglucocorticoid, in patients with an intact hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, mifepristone does not cause adrenal insufficiency. In people with an intact hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, daily administration of mifepristone (≥ 200 mg) for 7 days or longer results in an increase in pituitary secretion of ACTH and adrenal secretion of cortisol, largely overcoming the antiglucocorticoid action of mifepristone.^8-10 This compensatory increase in ACTH and cortisol is not possible in patients who have had a hypophysectomy or bilateral adrenalectomy or have adrenal suppression due to long-term treatment with high doses of glucocorticoids. Mifepristone is contraindicated for patients with these conditions because it may cause glucocorticoid insufficiency by blocking glucocorticoid receptors.

The terminal half-life of mifepristone is 18 hours.¹¹ Following oral administration of a single dose of mifepristone 200 mg the peak circulating concentration is reached in 90 minutes. Mifepristone is metabolized by CYP3A4 and is also a strong inhibitor of CYP3A4. Contraindications to the use of mifepristone include adrenal failure, porphyria, hemorrhagic diseases, anticoagulation, an IUD in the uterus, ectopic pregnancy, long-term glucocorticoid administration, and an undiagnosed adnexal mass.

Continue to: Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of early missed miscarriage with a gestational sac...

Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of early missed miscarriage with a gestational sac

For patients with a miscarriage, the treatment options to resolve the pregnancy loss are expectant management, medication, or surgery.¹² Joint decision-making is recommended to establish a management plan that supports the patient’s values. Expectant management is most likely to result in a multi-week process to achieve completion of the miscarriage. A surgical procedure is most likely to result in rapid resolution of the miscarriage with the greatest rate of success. Surgical evacuation of the uterus may be the preferred option for patients who have excessive uterine bleeding or concerning vital signs. Both medical and surgical management are more likely than expectant management to successfully resolve the miscarriage.¹³

In the past, the standard approach to medication management of a miscarriage was the administration of one or more doses of misoprostol, a synthetic prostaglandin E1. However, two large trials have reported that the dual-medication sequence of mifepristone followed 24 to 48 hours later by misoprostol is more effective than misoprostol alone for resolving a miscarriage.^14,15 This is probably due to mifepristone making the uterus more responsive to the effects of misoprostol.

Schreiber and colleagues¹⁴ reported a study of 300 patients with an anembryonic gestation or embryonic demise, between 5 and 12 completed weeks of gestation, who were randomly assigned to treatment with mifepristone (200 mg) followed in 24 to 48 hours with vaginal misoprostol (800 µg) or vaginal misoprostol (800 µg) alone. Ultrasonography was performed 1 to 4 days after misoprostol administration. Successful treatment was defined as expulsion of the gestational sac plus no additional surgical or medical intervention within 30 days after treatment. In this study, the dual-medication regimen of mifepristone-misoprostol was more successful than misoprostol alone in resolving the miscarriage, 84% and 67%, respectively (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.43).

Surgical evacuation of the uterus occurred less often with mifepristone-misoprostol treatment than with misoprostol monotherapy—9% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21–0.68). Pelvic infection occurred in 2 patients (1.3%) in each group. Uterine bleeding managed with blood transfusion occurred in 3 patients who received mifepristone-misoprostol and 1 patient who received misoprostol alone. In this study, clinical factors including active bleeding, parity, and gestational age did not influence treatment success with the mifepristone-misoprostol regimen.¹⁶ The mifepristone-misoprostol regimen was reported to be more cost-effective than misoprostol alone.¹⁷

Chu and colleagues¹⁵ reported a study of medication treatment of missed miscarriage that included more than 700 patients randomly assigned to treatment with mifepristone-misoprostol or placebo-misoprostol. Missed miscarriage was diagnosed by an ultrasound demonstrating a gestational sac and a nonviable pregnancy. The doses of mifepristone and misoprostol were 200 mg and 800 µg, respectively. In this study the misoprostol was administered 48 hours following mifepristone or placebo using a vaginal, oral, or buccal route, but 90% of patients used the vaginal route. Treatment was considered successful if the patient passed the gestational sac as determined by an ultrasound performed 7 days after entry into the study. If the gestational sac was passed, the patients were asked to do a urine pregnancy test 3 weeks after entering the study to conclude their care episode. If patients did not pass the gestational sac, they were offered a second dose of misoprostol or surgical evacuation. In this study, mifepristone-misoprostol resulted in fewer patients who did not pass the gestational sac within 7 days after entry into the study than placebo (mifepristone-misoprostol, 17% vs placebo-misoprostol, 24% (P=.043). Surgical intervention was performed in 25% of patients treated with placebo-misoprostol and 17% of patients treated with mifepristone-misoprostol (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53–0.95; P=.021). A cost-effectiveness analysis of the trial results reported that the combination of mifepristone-misoprostol was less costly than misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriages.¹⁸

Misoprostol can be administered by an oral, buccal, rectal, or vaginal route.^19,20 Vaginal administration results in higher circulating concentrations of misoprostol than buccal administration, but both routes of administration produce similar mean uterine tone and mean uterine activity as measured by an intrauterine pressure transducer over 5 hours.²¹ Hence, at our institution, we most often use buccal administration of misoprostol. To assess effectiveness of mifepristone-misoprostol treatment, 1 week after treatment with a pelvic ultrasound to detect expulsion of the gestational sac. Alternatively, a urine pregnancy test can be performed 3 weeks following medication treatment. The mifepristone-misoprostol regimen is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of miscarriage.

Continue to: Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of fetal demise...

Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of fetal demise

Fetal loss in the second or third trimesters is a devastating experience for most patients, painfully echoing in the heart and mind for years. Empathic and effective treatment of fetal loss may reduce the adverse impact of the event. Multiple studies have reported that combinations of mifepristone and misoprostol reduced the time from initiation of labor contractions to birth compared with misoprostol alone.^22-28 In addition, the combination of mifepristone-misoprostol reduced the amount of misoprostol needed to achieve delivery.^22,23

In one clinical trial, 66 patients with fetal demise between 14 and 28 weeks’ gestation were randomized to receive mifepristone 200 mg or placebo.²² Twenty-four to 48 hours later, misoprostol for induction of labor was initiated. Among the patients from 14 to 23 completed weeks of gestation, the misoprostol dose was 400 µg vaginally every 6 hours. For patients from 24 to 28 weeks gestation, the misoprostol dose was 200 µg vaginally every 4 hours. The median times from initiation of misoprostol to birth for the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups were 6.8 hours and 10.5 hours (P=.002).

Compared with the patients in the placebo-misoprostol group, the patients in the mifepristone-misoprostol group required fewer doses of misoprostol (2.1 vs 3.4; P=.002) and a lower total dose of misoprostol (768 µg vs 1,182 µg; P=.003). All patients in the mifepristone group delivered within 24 hours. By contrast, 13% of the patients in the placebo group delivered more than 24 hours after the initiation of misoprostol treatment. Five patients were readmitted with retained products of conception needing suction curettage—4 in the placebo group and 1 in the mifepristone group.²²

In a second clinical trial, 110 patients with fetal demise after 20 weeks of gestation were randomized to receive mifepristone 200 mg or placebo.²³ Thirty-six to 48 hours later, misoprostol for induction of labor was initiated. Among the patients from 20 to 25 completed weeks of gestation, the misoprostol dose was 100 µg vaginally every 6 hours for a maximum of 4 doses. For patients ≥26 weeks gestation, the misoprostol dose was 50 µg vaginally every 4 hours for a maximum of 6 doses. The median times from initiation of misoprostol to birth for the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups were 9.8 hours and 16.3 hours. (P=.001).

Compared with the patients in the placebo-misoprostol group, the patients in the mifepristone-misoprostol group required a lower total dose of misoprostol (110 µg vs 198 µg, P<.001).

Delivery within 24 hours following initiation of misoprostol occurred in 93% and 73% of the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups, respectively (P<.001). Compared with patients in the mifepristone group, shivering occurred more frequently among the patients in the placebo group (7.5% vs 19.2%; P=.09), likely because they received greater doses of misoprostol.²³

Miscarriage and fetal demise frequently cause patients to experience a range of emotions including denial, numbness, grief, anger, guilt, and depression. It may take months or years for people to progress to a tentative acceptance of the loss, refocusing on future aspirations. Empathic care and timely and effective medical intervention to resolve the pregnancy loss optimize outcomes. For medication treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise, mifepristone is an important agent because it improves the success rate for resolution of miscarriage without surgery and it shortens the time of labor for inductions for fetal demise. Obstetrician-gynecologists are the specialists leading advances in treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise. I encourage you to use mifepristone in your care of appropriate patients with miscarriage and fetal demise. ●

In the uterus, coordinated myometrial cell contraction is not triggered by neural activation; instead, myometrial cells work together as a contractile syncytium through cell-to-cell gap junction connections permitting the intercellular sharing of small molecules, which in turn facilitates activation of the actin-myosin contractile apparatus and coordinated uterine contraction. In myometrial cells, connexin 43 (Cx43) is the main gap junction protein. Cx43 permits the passage of small hydrophilic molecules (ATP) and ions (calcium) cell to cell. Estradiol increases Cx43 synthesis in human myometrial cells.¹ Progesterone decreases Cx43 synthesis effectively isolating myometrial cells, reducing cell-to-cell sharing of chemicals that stimulate contraction, blocking coordinated uterine contraction.² Progesterone suppression of Cx43 synthesis helps to prevent premature uterine contraction during pregnancy. At term, decreases in progesterone levels result in an increase in Cx43 synthesis, facilitating the onset of effective labor. In myometrial cells, antiprogestins, including mifepristone, increase the number of gap junction connections, facilitating a coordinated contractile signal in response to misoprostol or oxytocin.^3,4

It takes time for antiprogestins to stimulate myometrial cell production of Cx43. In the rat myometrium the administration of mifepristone results in a 2.5-fold increase of Cx43 mRNA transcripts within 9 hours and a 5.6-fold increase in 24 hours.³ Hence, most mifepristone treatment protocols involve administering mifepristone and waiting 24 to 48 hours before administering an agent that stimulates myometrial contraction, such as misoprostol. Antiprogestins also increase the sensitivity of myometrial cells to oxytocin stimulation of uterine contractions by increasing Cx43 concentration.⁴

Progesterone also regulates other important biological processes in the cervix, decidua, placenta, and cervix. Antiprogestins can facilitate cervical ripening and disrupt decidual function, interfering with the attachment of pregnancy tissue.⁵ In the cervix, antiprogestins increase matrix metalloproteinase expression, disrupting collagen organization, decreasing cervical tensile strength and leading to cervical ripening.⁶

Pharmacology of mifepristone

Mifepristone is an antiprogestin and antiglucocorticoid with high-affinity binding to both the progesterone and glucocorticoid receptors (FIGURE 1). The phenylaminodimethyl group at C-11 of mifepristone changes the positional equilibrium of helix 12 of the progesterone receptor, reducing the ability of the receptor to bind required co-activators, limiting receptor binding to DNA, resulting in an antiprogesterone effect.⁷ At the low, single-dose used for treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise (200 mg one dose), mifepristone is an antiprogestin. At the high, daily dose used for the treatment of hyperglycemia caused by Cushing disease (≥ 300 mg daily), mifepristone is also an antiglucocorticoid.

Although mifepristone is a powerful antiglucocorticoid, in patients with an intact hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, mifepristone does not cause adrenal insufficiency. In people with an intact hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, daily administration of mifepristone (≥ 200 mg) for 7 days or longer results in an increase in pituitary secretion of ACTH and adrenal secretion of cortisol, largely overcoming the antiglucocorticoid action of mifepristone.^8-10 This compensatory increase in ACTH and cortisol is not possible in patients who have had a hypophysectomy or bilateral adrenalectomy or have adrenal suppression due to long-term treatment with high doses of glucocorticoids. Mifepristone is contraindicated for patients with these conditions because it may cause glucocorticoid insufficiency by blocking glucocorticoid receptors.

The terminal half-life of mifepristone is 18 hours.¹¹ Following oral administration of a single dose of mifepristone 200 mg the peak circulating concentration is reached in 90 minutes. Mifepristone is metabolized by CYP3A4 and is also a strong inhibitor of CYP3A4. Contraindications to the use of mifepristone include adrenal failure, porphyria, hemorrhagic diseases, anticoagulation, an IUD in the uterus, ectopic pregnancy, long-term glucocorticoid administration, and an undiagnosed adnexal mass.

Continue to: Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of early missed miscarriage with a gestational sac...

Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of early missed miscarriage with a gestational sac

For patients with a miscarriage, the treatment options to resolve the pregnancy loss are expectant management, medication, or surgery.¹² Joint decision-making is recommended to establish a management plan that supports the patient’s values. Expectant management is most likely to result in a multi-week process to achieve completion of the miscarriage. A surgical procedure is most likely to result in rapid resolution of the miscarriage with the greatest rate of success. Surgical evacuation of the uterus may be the preferred option for patients who have excessive uterine bleeding or concerning vital signs. Both medical and surgical management are more likely than expectant management to successfully resolve the miscarriage.¹³

In the past, the standard approach to medication management of a miscarriage was the administration of one or more doses of misoprostol, a synthetic prostaglandin E1. However, two large trials have reported that the dual-medication sequence of mifepristone followed 24 to 48 hours later by misoprostol is more effective than misoprostol alone for resolving a miscarriage.^14,15 This is probably due to mifepristone making the uterus more responsive to the effects of misoprostol.

Schreiber and colleagues¹⁴ reported a study of 300 patients with an anembryonic gestation or embryonic demise, between 5 and 12 completed weeks of gestation, who were randomly assigned to treatment with mifepristone (200 mg) followed in 24 to 48 hours with vaginal misoprostol (800 µg) or vaginal misoprostol (800 µg) alone. Ultrasonography was performed 1 to 4 days after misoprostol administration. Successful treatment was defined as expulsion of the gestational sac plus no additional surgical or medical intervention within 30 days after treatment. In this study, the dual-medication regimen of mifepristone-misoprostol was more successful than misoprostol alone in resolving the miscarriage, 84% and 67%, respectively (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.43).

Surgical evacuation of the uterus occurred less often with mifepristone-misoprostol treatment than with misoprostol monotherapy—9% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21–0.68). Pelvic infection occurred in 2 patients (1.3%) in each group. Uterine bleeding managed with blood transfusion occurred in 3 patients who received mifepristone-misoprostol and 1 patient who received misoprostol alone. In this study, clinical factors including active bleeding, parity, and gestational age did not influence treatment success with the mifepristone-misoprostol regimen.¹⁶ The mifepristone-misoprostol regimen was reported to be more cost-effective than misoprostol alone.¹⁷

Chu and colleagues¹⁵ reported a study of medication treatment of missed miscarriage that included more than 700 patients randomly assigned to treatment with mifepristone-misoprostol or placebo-misoprostol. Missed miscarriage was diagnosed by an ultrasound demonstrating a gestational sac and a nonviable pregnancy. The doses of mifepristone and misoprostol were 200 mg and 800 µg, respectively. In this study the misoprostol was administered 48 hours following mifepristone or placebo using a vaginal, oral, or buccal route, but 90% of patients used the vaginal route. Treatment was considered successful if the patient passed the gestational sac as determined by an ultrasound performed 7 days after entry into the study. If the gestational sac was passed, the patients were asked to do a urine pregnancy test 3 weeks after entering the study to conclude their care episode. If patients did not pass the gestational sac, they were offered a second dose of misoprostol or surgical evacuation. In this study, mifepristone-misoprostol resulted in fewer patients who did not pass the gestational sac within 7 days after entry into the study than placebo (mifepristone-misoprostol, 17% vs placebo-misoprostol, 24% (P=.043). Surgical intervention was performed in 25% of patients treated with placebo-misoprostol and 17% of patients treated with mifepristone-misoprostol (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53–0.95; P=.021). A cost-effectiveness analysis of the trial results reported that the combination of mifepristone-misoprostol was less costly than misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriages.¹⁸

Misoprostol can be administered by an oral, buccal, rectal, or vaginal route.^19,20 Vaginal administration results in higher circulating concentrations of misoprostol than buccal administration, but both routes of administration produce similar mean uterine tone and mean uterine activity as measured by an intrauterine pressure transducer over 5 hours.²¹ Hence, at our institution, we most often use buccal administration of misoprostol. To assess effectiveness of mifepristone-misoprostol treatment, 1 week after treatment with a pelvic ultrasound to detect expulsion of the gestational sac. Alternatively, a urine pregnancy test can be performed 3 weeks following medication treatment. The mifepristone-misoprostol regimen is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of miscarriage.

Continue to: Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of fetal demise...

Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of fetal demise

Fetal loss in the second or third trimesters is a devastating experience for most patients, painfully echoing in the heart and mind for years. Empathic and effective treatment of fetal loss may reduce the adverse impact of the event. Multiple studies have reported that combinations of mifepristone and misoprostol reduced the time from initiation of labor contractions to birth compared with misoprostol alone.^22-28 In addition, the combination of mifepristone-misoprostol reduced the amount of misoprostol needed to achieve delivery.^22,23

In one clinical trial, 66 patients with fetal demise between 14 and 28 weeks’ gestation were randomized to receive mifepristone 200 mg or placebo.²² Twenty-four to 48 hours later, misoprostol for induction of labor was initiated. Among the patients from 14 to 23 completed weeks of gestation, the misoprostol dose was 400 µg vaginally every 6 hours. For patients from 24 to 28 weeks gestation, the misoprostol dose was 200 µg vaginally every 4 hours. The median times from initiation of misoprostol to birth for the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups were 6.8 hours and 10.5 hours (P=.002).

Compared with the patients in the placebo-misoprostol group, the patients in the mifepristone-misoprostol group required fewer doses of misoprostol (2.1 vs 3.4; P=.002) and a lower total dose of misoprostol (768 µg vs 1,182 µg; P=.003). All patients in the mifepristone group delivered within 24 hours. By contrast, 13% of the patients in the placebo group delivered more than 24 hours after the initiation of misoprostol treatment. Five patients were readmitted with retained products of conception needing suction curettage—4 in the placebo group and 1 in the mifepristone group.²²

In a second clinical trial, 110 patients with fetal demise after 20 weeks of gestation were randomized to receive mifepristone 200 mg or placebo.²³ Thirty-six to 48 hours later, misoprostol for induction of labor was initiated. Among the patients from 20 to 25 completed weeks of gestation, the misoprostol dose was 100 µg vaginally every 6 hours for a maximum of 4 doses. For patients ≥26 weeks gestation, the misoprostol dose was 50 µg vaginally every 4 hours for a maximum of 6 doses. The median times from initiation of misoprostol to birth for the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups were 9.8 hours and 16.3 hours. (P=.001).

Compared with the patients in the placebo-misoprostol group, the patients in the mifepristone-misoprostol group required a lower total dose of misoprostol (110 µg vs 198 µg, P<.001).

Delivery within 24 hours following initiation of misoprostol occurred in 93% and 73% of the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups, respectively (P<.001). Compared with patients in the mifepristone group, shivering occurred more frequently among the patients in the placebo group (7.5% vs 19.2%; P=.09), likely because they received greater doses of misoprostol.²³

Miscarriage and fetal demise frequently cause patients to experience a range of emotions including denial, numbness, grief, anger, guilt, and depression. It may take months or years for people to progress to a tentative acceptance of the loss, refocusing on future aspirations. Empathic care and timely and effective medical intervention to resolve the pregnancy loss optimize outcomes. For medication treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise, mifepristone is an important agent because it improves the success rate for resolution of miscarriage without surgery and it shortens the time of labor for inductions for fetal demise. Obstetrician-gynecologists are the specialists leading advances in treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise. I encourage you to use mifepristone in your care of appropriate patients with miscarriage and fetal demise. ●

In the uterus, coordinated myometrial cell contraction is not triggered by neural activation; instead, myometrial cells work together as a contractile syncytium through cell-to-cell gap junction connections permitting the intercellular sharing of small molecules, which in turn facilitates activation of the actin-myosin contractile apparatus and coordinated uterine contraction. In myometrial cells, connexin 43 (Cx43) is the main gap junction protein. Cx43 permits the passage of small hydrophilic molecules (ATP) and ions (calcium) cell to cell. Estradiol increases Cx43 synthesis in human myometrial cells.¹ Progesterone decreases Cx43 synthesis effectively isolating myometrial cells, reducing cell-to-cell sharing of chemicals that stimulate contraction, blocking coordinated uterine contraction.² Progesterone suppression of Cx43 synthesis helps to prevent premature uterine contraction during pregnancy. At term, decreases in progesterone levels result in an increase in Cx43 synthesis, facilitating the onset of effective labor. In myometrial cells, antiprogestins, including mifepristone, increase the number of gap junction connections, facilitating a coordinated contractile signal in response to misoprostol or oxytocin.^3,4

It takes time for antiprogestins to stimulate myometrial cell production of Cx43. In the rat myometrium the administration of mifepristone results in a 2.5-fold increase of Cx43 mRNA transcripts within 9 hours and a 5.6-fold increase in 24 hours.³ Hence, most mifepristone treatment protocols involve administering mifepristone and waiting 24 to 48 hours before administering an agent that stimulates myometrial contraction, such as misoprostol. Antiprogestins also increase the sensitivity of myometrial cells to oxytocin stimulation of uterine contractions by increasing Cx43 concentration.⁴

Progesterone also regulates other important biological processes in the cervix, decidua, placenta, and cervix. Antiprogestins can facilitate cervical ripening and disrupt decidual function, interfering with the attachment of pregnancy tissue.⁵ In the cervix, antiprogestins increase matrix metalloproteinase expression, disrupting collagen organization, decreasing cervical tensile strength and leading to cervical ripening.⁶

Pharmacology of mifepristone

Mifepristone is an antiprogestin and antiglucocorticoid with high-affinity binding to both the progesterone and glucocorticoid receptors (FIGURE 1). The phenylaminodimethyl group at C-11 of mifepristone changes the positional equilibrium of helix 12 of the progesterone receptor, reducing the ability of the receptor to bind required co-activators, limiting receptor binding to DNA, resulting in an antiprogesterone effect.⁷ At the low, single-dose used for treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise (200 mg one dose), mifepristone is an antiprogestin. At the high, daily dose used for the treatment of hyperglycemia caused by Cushing disease (≥ 300 mg daily), mifepristone is also an antiglucocorticoid.

Although mifepristone is a powerful antiglucocorticoid, in patients with an intact hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, mifepristone does not cause adrenal insufficiency. In people with an intact hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, daily administration of mifepristone (≥ 200 mg) for 7 days or longer results in an increase in pituitary secretion of ACTH and adrenal secretion of cortisol, largely overcoming the antiglucocorticoid action of mifepristone.^8-10 This compensatory increase in ACTH and cortisol is not possible in patients who have had a hypophysectomy or bilateral adrenalectomy or have adrenal suppression due to long-term treatment with high doses of glucocorticoids. Mifepristone is contraindicated for patients with these conditions because it may cause glucocorticoid insufficiency by blocking glucocorticoid receptors.

The terminal half-life of mifepristone is 18 hours.¹¹ Following oral administration of a single dose of mifepristone 200 mg the peak circulating concentration is reached in 90 minutes. Mifepristone is metabolized by CYP3A4 and is also a strong inhibitor of CYP3A4. Contraindications to the use of mifepristone include adrenal failure, porphyria, hemorrhagic diseases, anticoagulation, an IUD in the uterus, ectopic pregnancy, long-term glucocorticoid administration, and an undiagnosed adnexal mass.

Continue to: Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of early missed miscarriage with a gestational sac...

Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of early missed miscarriage with a gestational sac

For patients with a miscarriage, the treatment options to resolve the pregnancy loss are expectant management, medication, or surgery.¹² Joint decision-making is recommended to establish a management plan that supports the patient’s values. Expectant management is most likely to result in a multi-week process to achieve completion of the miscarriage. A surgical procedure is most likely to result in rapid resolution of the miscarriage with the greatest rate of success. Surgical evacuation of the uterus may be the preferred option for patients who have excessive uterine bleeding or concerning vital signs. Both medical and surgical management are more likely than expectant management to successfully resolve the miscarriage.¹³

In the past, the standard approach to medication management of a miscarriage was the administration of one or more doses of misoprostol, a synthetic prostaglandin E1. However, two large trials have reported that the dual-medication sequence of mifepristone followed 24 to 48 hours later by misoprostol is more effective than misoprostol alone for resolving a miscarriage.^14,15 This is probably due to mifepristone making the uterus more responsive to the effects of misoprostol.

Schreiber and colleagues¹⁴ reported a study of 300 patients with an anembryonic gestation or embryonic demise, between 5 and 12 completed weeks of gestation, who were randomly assigned to treatment with mifepristone (200 mg) followed in 24 to 48 hours with vaginal misoprostol (800 µg) or vaginal misoprostol (800 µg) alone. Ultrasonography was performed 1 to 4 days after misoprostol administration. Successful treatment was defined as expulsion of the gestational sac plus no additional surgical or medical intervention within 30 days after treatment. In this study, the dual-medication regimen of mifepristone-misoprostol was more successful than misoprostol alone in resolving the miscarriage, 84% and 67%, respectively (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.43).

Surgical evacuation of the uterus occurred less often with mifepristone-misoprostol treatment than with misoprostol monotherapy—9% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21–0.68). Pelvic infection occurred in 2 patients (1.3%) in each group. Uterine bleeding managed with blood transfusion occurred in 3 patients who received mifepristone-misoprostol and 1 patient who received misoprostol alone. In this study, clinical factors including active bleeding, parity, and gestational age did not influence treatment success with the mifepristone-misoprostol regimen.¹⁶ The mifepristone-misoprostol regimen was reported to be more cost-effective than misoprostol alone.¹⁷

Chu and colleagues¹⁵ reported a study of medication treatment of missed miscarriage that included more than 700 patients randomly assigned to treatment with mifepristone-misoprostol or placebo-misoprostol. Missed miscarriage was diagnosed by an ultrasound demonstrating a gestational sac and a nonviable pregnancy. The doses of mifepristone and misoprostol were 200 mg and 800 µg, respectively. In this study the misoprostol was administered 48 hours following mifepristone or placebo using a vaginal, oral, or buccal route, but 90% of patients used the vaginal route. Treatment was considered successful if the patient passed the gestational sac as determined by an ultrasound performed 7 days after entry into the study. If the gestational sac was passed, the patients were asked to do a urine pregnancy test 3 weeks after entering the study to conclude their care episode. If patients did not pass the gestational sac, they were offered a second dose of misoprostol or surgical evacuation. In this study, mifepristone-misoprostol resulted in fewer patients who did not pass the gestational sac within 7 days after entry into the study than placebo (mifepristone-misoprostol, 17% vs placebo-misoprostol, 24% (P=.043). Surgical intervention was performed in 25% of patients treated with placebo-misoprostol and 17% of patients treated with mifepristone-misoprostol (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53–0.95; P=.021). A cost-effectiveness analysis of the trial results reported that the combination of mifepristone-misoprostol was less costly than misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriages.¹⁸

Misoprostol can be administered by an oral, buccal, rectal, or vaginal route.^19,20 Vaginal administration results in higher circulating concentrations of misoprostol than buccal administration, but both routes of administration produce similar mean uterine tone and mean uterine activity as measured by an intrauterine pressure transducer over 5 hours.²¹ Hence, at our institution, we most often use buccal administration of misoprostol. To assess effectiveness of mifepristone-misoprostol treatment, 1 week after treatment with a pelvic ultrasound to detect expulsion of the gestational sac. Alternatively, a urine pregnancy test can be performed 3 weeks following medication treatment. The mifepristone-misoprostol regimen is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of miscarriage.

Continue to: Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of fetal demise...

Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of fetal demise

Fetal loss in the second or third trimesters is a devastating experience for most patients, painfully echoing in the heart and mind for years. Empathic and effective treatment of fetal loss may reduce the adverse impact of the event. Multiple studies have reported that combinations of mifepristone and misoprostol reduced the time from initiation of labor contractions to birth compared with misoprostol alone.^22-28 In addition, the combination of mifepristone-misoprostol reduced the amount of misoprostol needed to achieve delivery.^22,23

In one clinical trial, 66 patients with fetal demise between 14 and 28 weeks’ gestation were randomized to receive mifepristone 200 mg or placebo.²² Twenty-four to 48 hours later, misoprostol for induction of labor was initiated. Among the patients from 14 to 23 completed weeks of gestation, the misoprostol dose was 400 µg vaginally every 6 hours. For patients from 24 to 28 weeks gestation, the misoprostol dose was 200 µg vaginally every 4 hours. The median times from initiation of misoprostol to birth for the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups were 6.8 hours and 10.5 hours (P=.002).

Compared with the patients in the placebo-misoprostol group, the patients in the mifepristone-misoprostol group required fewer doses of misoprostol (2.1 vs 3.4; P=.002) and a lower total dose of misoprostol (768 µg vs 1,182 µg; P=.003). All patients in the mifepristone group delivered within 24 hours. By contrast, 13% of the patients in the placebo group delivered more than 24 hours after the initiation of misoprostol treatment. Five patients were readmitted with retained products of conception needing suction curettage—4 in the placebo group and 1 in the mifepristone group.²²

In a second clinical trial, 110 patients with fetal demise after 20 weeks of gestation were randomized to receive mifepristone 200 mg or placebo.²³ Thirty-six to 48 hours later, misoprostol for induction of labor was initiated. Among the patients from 20 to 25 completed weeks of gestation, the misoprostol dose was 100 µg vaginally every 6 hours for a maximum of 4 doses. For patients ≥26 weeks gestation, the misoprostol dose was 50 µg vaginally every 4 hours for a maximum of 6 doses. The median times from initiation of misoprostol to birth for the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups were 9.8 hours and 16.3 hours. (P=.001).

Compared with the patients in the placebo-misoprostol group, the patients in the mifepristone-misoprostol group required a lower total dose of misoprostol (110 µg vs 198 µg, P<.001).

Delivery within 24 hours following initiation of misoprostol occurred in 93% and 73% of the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups, respectively (P<.001). Compared with patients in the mifepristone group, shivering occurred more frequently among the patients in the placebo group (7.5% vs 19.2%; P=.09), likely because they received greater doses of misoprostol.²³

Miscarriage and fetal demise frequently cause patients to experience a range of emotions including denial, numbness, grief, anger, guilt, and depression. It may take months or years for people to progress to a tentative acceptance of the loss, refocusing on future aspirations. Empathic care and timely and effective medical intervention to resolve the pregnancy loss optimize outcomes. For medication treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise, mifepristone is an important agent because it improves the success rate for resolution of miscarriage without surgery and it shortens the time of labor for inductions for fetal demise. Obstetrician-gynecologists are the specialists leading advances in treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise. I encourage you to use mifepristone in your care of appropriate patients with miscarriage and fetal demise. ●

CASE Pregnant woman’s husband is ill after traveling

A 29-year-old primigravid woman at 18 weeks’ gestation just returned from a 10-day trip to Nigeria with her husband. While in Nigeria, the couple went on safari. On several occasions during the safari, they consumed bushmeat prepared by their guides. Her husband now has severe malaise, fever, chills, myalgias, cough, and prominent submandibular, cervical, and inguinal adenopathy. In addition, he has developed a diffuse papular-vesicular rash on his trunk and extremities.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• Does this condition pose a danger to his wife?
• What treatment is indicated for his wife?

What we know

In recent weeks, the specter of another poorly understood biological threat has emerged in the medical literature and lay press: monkeypox. This article will first review the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis of this infection, followed by a discussion of how to prevent and treat the condition, with special emphasis on the risks that this infection poses in pregnant women.

Virology

The monkeypox virus is a member of the orthopoxvirus genus. The variola (smallpox) virus and vaccinia virus are included in this genus. It is one of the largest of all viruses, measuring 200-250 nm. It is enveloped and contains double-stranded DNA. Its natural reservoir is probably African rodents. Two distinct strains of monkeypox exist in different geographical regions of Africa: the Central African clade and the West African clade. The Central African clade is significantly more virulent than the latter, with a mortality rate approaching 10%, versus 1% in the West African clade. The incubation period of the virus ranges from 4-20 days and averages 12 days.^1,2

Epidemiology

Monkeypox was first discovered in 1958 by Preben von Magnus in a colony of research monkeys in Copenhagen, Denmark. The first case of monkeypox in humans occurred in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1970 in a 9-year-old boy. Subsequently, cases were reported in the Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. The infection was limited to the rain forests of central and western Africa until 2003. At that time, the first cases in the United States were reported. The US cases occurred in the Midwest and were traced to exposure to pet prairie dogs. These animals all came from a single distributor, and they apparently were infected when they were housed in the same space with Gambian rats, which are well recognized reservoirs of monkeypox in their native habitat in Africa.^1-3

A limited outbreak of monkeypox occurred in the United Kingdom in 2018. Seventy-one cases, with no fatalities, were reported. In 2021 another US case of monkeypox was reported in Dallas, Texas, in an individual who had recently traveled to the United States from Nigeria. A second US case was reported in November 2021 from a patient in Maryland who had returned from a visit to Nigeria. Those were the only 2 reported cases of monkeypox in the United States in 2021.^1-3

Then in early May 2022, the United Kingdom reported 9 cases of monkeypox. The first infected patient had recently traveled to Nigeria and, subsequently, infected 2 members of his family.⁴ On May 18, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health confirmed a case of monkeypox in an adult man who had recently traveled to Canada. As of July 7, 6,027 cases have been reported from at least 39 countries.⁵ Eight states in the United States reported cases. To date, 73 deaths have occurred in this recent outbreak of infections (case fatality rate, 4.5%).^4-6

The current outbreak is unusual in that, previously, almost all cases occurred in western and central Africa in remote tropical rain forests. Infection usually resulted from close exposure to rats, rabbits, squirrels, monkeys, porcupines, and gazelles. Exposure occurred when persons captured, slaughtered, prepared, and then ate these animals for food without properly cooking the flesh.

The leading theory is that the present outbreak originated among men who had sex with men at 2 raves held in Spain and Belgium. The virus appears to have been spread by skin-to-skin contact, by respiratory droplets, by contact with contaminated bedding, and probably by sperm.^2,4,6

Continue to: Clinical manifestations...

Clinical manifestations

Monkeypox evolves through 2 stages: a pre-eruptive stage and an eruptive stage. Prodromal symptoms include malaise, severe headache, myalgias, fever, drenching sweats, backache, fatigue, sore throat, dyspnea, and cough. Within 2-3 days, the characteristic skin eruption develops. The lesions usually begin on the face and then spread in a centrifugal manner to the trunk and extremities, including the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. The lesions typically progress from macules to papules to vesicles to pustules. They then crust and scab over. An interesting additional finding is the presence of prominent lymphadenopathy behind the ear, beneath the mandible, in the neck, and in the groin.¹

Several different illnesses must be considered in the differential diagnosis of monkeypox infection. They include measles, scabies, secondary syphilis, and medication-associated allergic reactions. However, the 2 conditions most likely to be confused with monkeypox are chickenpox (varicella) and smallpox. Lymphadenopathy is much more prominent in monkeypox compared with chickenpox. Moreover, with monkeypox, all lesions tend to be at the same stage of evolution as opposed to appearing in crops as they do in chickenpox. Smallpox would be extremely unlikely in the absence of a recognized laboratory accident or a bioterrorism incident.⁷

Diagnosis

The presumptive diagnosis of monkeypox infection is made primarily based on clinical examination. However, laboratory testing is indicated to definitively differentiate monkeypox from other orthopoxvirus infections such as varicella and smallpox.

In specialized laboratories that employ highly trained personnel and maintain strict safety precautions, the virus can be isolated in mammalian cell cultures. Electron microscopy is a valuable tool for identifying the characteristic brick-shaped poxvirus virions. Routine histologic examination of a lesion will show ballooning degeneration of keratinocytes, prominent spongiosis, dermal edema, and acute inflammation, although these findings are not unique to monkeypox.¹

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed serologic tests that detect immunoglobulin (Ig) M- and IgG-specific antibody. However, the most useful and practical diagnostic test is assessment of a skin scraping by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This test is more sensitive than assessment of serum PCR.¹

When the diagnosis of monkeypox is being considered, the clinician should coordinate testing through the local and state public health departments and through the CDC. Effective communication with all agencies will ensure that laboratory specimens are processed in a timely and efficient manner. The CDC website presents information on specimen collection.⁸

How do we manage monkeypox?

Prevention

The first step in prevention of infection is to isolate infected individuals until all lesions have dried and crusted over. Susceptible people should avoid close contact with skin lesions, respiratory and genital secretions, and bedding of patients who are infected.

The ultimate preventive measure, however, is vaccination of susceptible people either immediately before exposure (eg, military personnel, first responders, infection control investigators, health care workers) or immediately after exposure (general population). Older individuals who received the original smallpox vaccine likely have immunity to monkeypox infection. Unfortunately, very few women who currently are of reproductive age received this vaccine because its use was discontinued in the United States in the early 1970s. Therefore, the vast majority of our patients are uniquely susceptible to this infection and should be vaccinated if there is an outbreak of monkeypox in their locality.^7,9

The current preferred vaccine for prevention of both smallpox and monkeypox is the Jynneos (Bavarian Nordic A/S) vaccine.¹⁰ This agent incorporates a replication-deficient live virus and does not pose the same risk for adverse events as the original versions of the smallpox vaccine. Jynneos is administered subcutaneously rather than by scarification. Two 0.5-mL doses, delivered 28 days apart, are required for optimal effect. The vaccine must be obtained from local and state health departments, in consultation with the CDC.^7,9

There is very little published information on the safety of the Jynneos vaccine in pregnant or lactating women, although animal data are reassuring. Moreover, the dangers of monkeypox infection are significant, and in the event of an outbreak, vaccination of susceptible individuals, including pregnant women, is indicated.

Continue to: Treatment...

Treatment

Infected pregnant women should receive acetaminophen 1,000 mg orally every 8 hours, to control fever and provide analgesia. An antihistamine such as diphenhydramine 25 mg orally every 6-8 hours, may be used to control pruritus and provide mild sedation. Adequate fluid intake and optimal nutrition should be encouraged. Skin lesions should be inspected regularly to detect signs of superimposed bacterial infections. Small, localized bacterial skin infections can be treated with topical application of mupirocin ointment 2%, 3 times daily for 7-14 days. For diffuse and more severe bacterial skin infections, a systemic antibiotic may be necessary. Reasonable choices include amoxicillin-clavulanate 875 mg/125 mg orally every 12 hours, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength 800 mg/160 mg orally every 12 hours.¹¹ The latter agent should be avoided in the first trimester of pregnancy because of potential teratogenic effects.

Several specific agents are available through the CDC for treatment of orthopoxvirus infections such as smallpox and monkeypox. Information about these agents is summarized in the TABLE.^12-16

Unique considerations in pregnancy

Because monkeypox is so rare, there is very little information about the effects of this infection in pregnant women. The report most commonly cited in the literature is that by Mbala et al, which was published in 2017.¹⁷ These authors described 4 pregnant patients in the Democratic Republic of Congo who contracted monkeypox infection over a 4-year period. All 4 women were hospitalized and treated with systemic antibiotics, antiparasitic medications, and analgesics. One patient delivered a healthy infant. Two women had spontaneous abortions in the first trimester. The fourth patient experienced a stillbirth at 22 weeks’ gestation. At postmortem examination, the fetus had diffuse cutaneous lesions, prominent hepatomegaly, and hydrops. No structural malformations were noted. The placenta demonstrated numerous punctate hemorrhages, and high concentrations of virus were recovered from the placenta and from fetal tissue.

Although the information on pregnancy outcome is quite limited, it seems clear that the virus can cross the placenta and cause adverse effects such as spontaneous abortion and fetal death. Accordingly, I think the following guidelines are a reasonable approach to a pregnant patient who has been exposed to monkeypox or who has developed manifestations of infection.^3,7,9

• In the event of a community outbreak, bioterrorism event, or exposure to a person with suspected or confirmed monkeypox infection, the pregnant patient should receive the Jynneos vaccine.
• The pregnant patient should be isolated from any individual with suspected or confirmed monkeypox.
• If infection develops despite these measures, the patient should be treated with either tecovirimat or vaccinia immune globulin IV. Hospitalization may be necessary for seriously ill individuals.

• Within 2 weeks of infection, a comprehensive ultrasound examination should be performed to assess for structural abnormalities in the fetus.

• Subsequently, serial ultrasound examinations should be performed at intervals of 4-6 weeks to assess fetal growth and re-evaluate fetal anatomy.
• Following delivery, a detailed neonatal examination should be performed to assess for evidence of viral injury. Neonatal skin lesions and neonatal serum can be assessed by PCR for monkeypox virus. The newborn should be isolated from the mother until all the mother’s lesions have dried and crusted over.

CASE Resolved

Given the husband’s recent travel to Nigeria and consumption of bushmeat, he most likely has monkeypox. The infection can be spread from person to person by close contact; thus, his wife is at risk. The couple should isolate until all of his lesions have dried and crusted over. The woman also should receive the Jynneos vaccine. If she becomes symptomatic, she should be treated with tecovirimat or vaccinia immune globulin IV. ●

CASE Pregnant woman’s husband is ill after traveling

A 29-year-old primigravid woman at 18 weeks’ gestation just returned from a 10-day trip to Nigeria with her husband. While in Nigeria, the couple went on safari. On several occasions during the safari, they consumed bushmeat prepared by their guides. Her husband now has severe malaise, fever, chills, myalgias, cough, and prominent submandibular, cervical, and inguinal adenopathy. In addition, he has developed a diffuse papular-vesicular rash on his trunk and extremities.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• Does this condition pose a danger to his wife?
• What treatment is indicated for his wife?

What we know

In recent weeks, the specter of another poorly understood biological threat has emerged in the medical literature and lay press: monkeypox. This article will first review the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis of this infection, followed by a discussion of how to prevent and treat the condition, with special emphasis on the risks that this infection poses in pregnant women.

Virology

The monkeypox virus is a member of the orthopoxvirus genus. The variola (smallpox) virus and vaccinia virus are included in this genus. It is one of the largest of all viruses, measuring 200-250 nm. It is enveloped and contains double-stranded DNA. Its natural reservoir is probably African rodents. Two distinct strains of monkeypox exist in different geographical regions of Africa: the Central African clade and the West African clade. The Central African clade is significantly more virulent than the latter, with a mortality rate approaching 10%, versus 1% in the West African clade. The incubation period of the virus ranges from 4-20 days and averages 12 days.^1,2

Epidemiology

Monkeypox was first discovered in 1958 by Preben von Magnus in a colony of research monkeys in Copenhagen, Denmark. The first case of monkeypox in humans occurred in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1970 in a 9-year-old boy. Subsequently, cases were reported in the Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. The infection was limited to the rain forests of central and western Africa until 2003. At that time, the first cases in the United States were reported. The US cases occurred in the Midwest and were traced to exposure to pet prairie dogs. These animals all came from a single distributor, and they apparently were infected when they were housed in the same space with Gambian rats, which are well recognized reservoirs of monkeypox in their native habitat in Africa.^1-3

A limited outbreak of monkeypox occurred in the United Kingdom in 2018. Seventy-one cases, with no fatalities, were reported. In 2021 another US case of monkeypox was reported in Dallas, Texas, in an individual who had recently traveled to the United States from Nigeria. A second US case was reported in November 2021 from a patient in Maryland who had returned from a visit to Nigeria. Those were the only 2 reported cases of monkeypox in the United States in 2021.^1-3

Then in early May 2022, the United Kingdom reported 9 cases of monkeypox. The first infected patient had recently traveled to Nigeria and, subsequently, infected 2 members of his family.⁴ On May 18, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health confirmed a case of monkeypox in an adult man who had recently traveled to Canada. As of July 7, 6,027 cases have been reported from at least 39 countries.⁵ Eight states in the United States reported cases. To date, 73 deaths have occurred in this recent outbreak of infections (case fatality rate, 4.5%).^4-6

The current outbreak is unusual in that, previously, almost all cases occurred in western and central Africa in remote tropical rain forests. Infection usually resulted from close exposure to rats, rabbits, squirrels, monkeys, porcupines, and gazelles. Exposure occurred when persons captured, slaughtered, prepared, and then ate these animals for food without properly cooking the flesh.

The leading theory is that the present outbreak originated among men who had sex with men at 2 raves held in Spain and Belgium. The virus appears to have been spread by skin-to-skin contact, by respiratory droplets, by contact with contaminated bedding, and probably by sperm.^2,4,6

Continue to: Clinical manifestations...

Clinical manifestations

Monkeypox evolves through 2 stages: a pre-eruptive stage and an eruptive stage. Prodromal symptoms include malaise, severe headache, myalgias, fever, drenching sweats, backache, fatigue, sore throat, dyspnea, and cough. Within 2-3 days, the characteristic skin eruption develops. The lesions usually begin on the face and then spread in a centrifugal manner to the trunk and extremities, including the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. The lesions typically progress from macules to papules to vesicles to pustules. They then crust and scab over. An interesting additional finding is the presence of prominent lymphadenopathy behind the ear, beneath the mandible, in the neck, and in the groin.¹

Several different illnesses must be considered in the differential diagnosis of monkeypox infection. They include measles, scabies, secondary syphilis, and medication-associated allergic reactions. However, the 2 conditions most likely to be confused with monkeypox are chickenpox (varicella) and smallpox. Lymphadenopathy is much more prominent in monkeypox compared with chickenpox. Moreover, with monkeypox, all lesions tend to be at the same stage of evolution as opposed to appearing in crops as they do in chickenpox. Smallpox would be extremely unlikely in the absence of a recognized laboratory accident or a bioterrorism incident.⁷

Diagnosis

The presumptive diagnosis of monkeypox infection is made primarily based on clinical examination. However, laboratory testing is indicated to definitively differentiate monkeypox from other orthopoxvirus infections such as varicella and smallpox.

In specialized laboratories that employ highly trained personnel and maintain strict safety precautions, the virus can be isolated in mammalian cell cultures. Electron microscopy is a valuable tool for identifying the characteristic brick-shaped poxvirus virions. Routine histologic examination of a lesion will show ballooning degeneration of keratinocytes, prominent spongiosis, dermal edema, and acute inflammation, although these findings are not unique to monkeypox.¹

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed serologic tests that detect immunoglobulin (Ig) M- and IgG-specific antibody. However, the most useful and practical diagnostic test is assessment of a skin scraping by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This test is more sensitive than assessment of serum PCR.¹

When the diagnosis of monkeypox is being considered, the clinician should coordinate testing through the local and state public health departments and through the CDC. Effective communication with all agencies will ensure that laboratory specimens are processed in a timely and efficient manner. The CDC website presents information on specimen collection.⁸

How do we manage monkeypox?

Prevention

The first step in prevention of infection is to isolate infected individuals until all lesions have dried and crusted over. Susceptible people should avoid close contact with skin lesions, respiratory and genital secretions, and bedding of patients who are infected.

The ultimate preventive measure, however, is vaccination of susceptible people either immediately before exposure (eg, military personnel, first responders, infection control investigators, health care workers) or immediately after exposure (general population). Older individuals who received the original smallpox vaccine likely have immunity to monkeypox infection. Unfortunately, very few women who currently are of reproductive age received this vaccine because its use was discontinued in the United States in the early 1970s. Therefore, the vast majority of our patients are uniquely susceptible to this infection and should be vaccinated if there is an outbreak of monkeypox in their locality.^7,9

The current preferred vaccine for prevention of both smallpox and monkeypox is the Jynneos (Bavarian Nordic A/S) vaccine.¹⁰ This agent incorporates a replication-deficient live virus and does not pose the same risk for adverse events as the original versions of the smallpox vaccine. Jynneos is administered subcutaneously rather than by scarification. Two 0.5-mL doses, delivered 28 days apart, are required for optimal effect. The vaccine must be obtained from local and state health departments, in consultation with the CDC.^7,9

There is very little published information on the safety of the Jynneos vaccine in pregnant or lactating women, although animal data are reassuring. Moreover, the dangers of monkeypox infection are significant, and in the event of an outbreak, vaccination of susceptible individuals, including pregnant women, is indicated.

Continue to: Treatment...

Treatment

Infected pregnant women should receive acetaminophen 1,000 mg orally every 8 hours, to control fever and provide analgesia. An antihistamine such as diphenhydramine 25 mg orally every 6-8 hours, may be used to control pruritus and provide mild sedation. Adequate fluid intake and optimal nutrition should be encouraged. Skin lesions should be inspected regularly to detect signs of superimposed bacterial infections. Small, localized bacterial skin infections can be treated with topical application of mupirocin ointment 2%, 3 times daily for 7-14 days. For diffuse and more severe bacterial skin infections, a systemic antibiotic may be necessary. Reasonable choices include amoxicillin-clavulanate 875 mg/125 mg orally every 12 hours, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength 800 mg/160 mg orally every 12 hours.¹¹ The latter agent should be avoided in the first trimester of pregnancy because of potential teratogenic effects.

Several specific agents are available through the CDC for treatment of orthopoxvirus infections such as smallpox and monkeypox. Information about these agents is summarized in the TABLE.^12-16

Unique considerations in pregnancy

Because monkeypox is so rare, there is very little information about the effects of this infection in pregnant women. The report most commonly cited in the literature is that by Mbala et al, which was published in 2017.¹⁷ These authors described 4 pregnant patients in the Democratic Republic of Congo who contracted monkeypox infection over a 4-year period. All 4 women were hospitalized and treated with systemic antibiotics, antiparasitic medications, and analgesics. One patient delivered a healthy infant. Two women had spontaneous abortions in the first trimester. The fourth patient experienced a stillbirth at 22 weeks’ gestation. At postmortem examination, the fetus had diffuse cutaneous lesions, prominent hepatomegaly, and hydrops. No structural malformations were noted. The placenta demonstrated numerous punctate hemorrhages, and high concentrations of virus were recovered from the placenta and from fetal tissue.

Although the information on pregnancy outcome is quite limited, it seems clear that the virus can cross the placenta and cause adverse effects such as spontaneous abortion and fetal death. Accordingly, I think the following guidelines are a reasonable approach to a pregnant patient who has been exposed to monkeypox or who has developed manifestations of infection.^3,7,9

• In the event of a community outbreak, bioterrorism event, or exposure to a person with suspected or confirmed monkeypox infection, the pregnant patient should receive the Jynneos vaccine.
• The pregnant patient should be isolated from any individual with suspected or confirmed monkeypox.
• If infection develops despite these measures, the patient should be treated with either tecovirimat or vaccinia immune globulin IV. Hospitalization may be necessary for seriously ill individuals.

• Within 2 weeks of infection, a comprehensive ultrasound examination should be performed to assess for structural abnormalities in the fetus.

• Subsequently, serial ultrasound examinations should be performed at intervals of 4-6 weeks to assess fetal growth and re-evaluate fetal anatomy.
• Following delivery, a detailed neonatal examination should be performed to assess for evidence of viral injury. Neonatal skin lesions and neonatal serum can be assessed by PCR for monkeypox virus. The newborn should be isolated from the mother until all the mother’s lesions have dried and crusted over.

CASE Resolved

Given the husband’s recent travel to Nigeria and consumption of bushmeat, he most likely has monkeypox. The infection can be spread from person to person by close contact; thus, his wife is at risk. The couple should isolate until all of his lesions have dried and crusted over. The woman also should receive the Jynneos vaccine. If she becomes symptomatic, she should be treated with tecovirimat or vaccinia immune globulin IV. ●

CASE Pregnant woman’s husband is ill after traveling

A 29-year-old primigravid woman at 18 weeks’ gestation just returned from a 10-day trip to Nigeria with her husband. While in Nigeria, the couple went on safari. On several occasions during the safari, they consumed bushmeat prepared by their guides. Her husband now has severe malaise, fever, chills, myalgias, cough, and prominent submandibular, cervical, and inguinal adenopathy. In addition, he has developed a diffuse papular-vesicular rash on his trunk and extremities.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• Does this condition pose a danger to his wife?
• What treatment is indicated for his wife?

What we know

In recent weeks, the specter of another poorly understood biological threat has emerged in the medical literature and lay press: monkeypox. This article will first review the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis of this infection, followed by a discussion of how to prevent and treat the condition, with special emphasis on the risks that this infection poses in pregnant women.

Virology

The monkeypox virus is a member of the orthopoxvirus genus. The variola (smallpox) virus and vaccinia virus are included in this genus. It is one of the largest of all viruses, measuring 200-250 nm. It is enveloped and contains double-stranded DNA. Its natural reservoir is probably African rodents. Two distinct strains of monkeypox exist in different geographical regions of Africa: the Central African clade and the West African clade. The Central African clade is significantly more virulent than the latter, with a mortality rate approaching 10%, versus 1% in the West African clade. The incubation period of the virus ranges from 4-20 days and averages 12 days.^1,2

Epidemiology

Monkeypox was first discovered in 1958 by Preben von Magnus in a colony of research monkeys in Copenhagen, Denmark. The first case of monkeypox in humans occurred in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1970 in a 9-year-old boy. Subsequently, cases were reported in the Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. The infection was limited to the rain forests of central and western Africa until 2003. At that time, the first cases in the United States were reported. The US cases occurred in the Midwest and were traced to exposure to pet prairie dogs. These animals all came from a single distributor, and they apparently were infected when they were housed in the same space with Gambian rats, which are well recognized reservoirs of monkeypox in their native habitat in Africa.^1-3

A limited outbreak of monkeypox occurred in the United Kingdom in 2018. Seventy-one cases, with no fatalities, were reported. In 2021 another US case of monkeypox was reported in Dallas, Texas, in an individual who had recently traveled to the United States from Nigeria. A second US case was reported in November 2021 from a patient in Maryland who had returned from a visit to Nigeria. Those were the only 2 reported cases of monkeypox in the United States in 2021.^1-3

Then in early May 2022, the United Kingdom reported 9 cases of monkeypox. The first infected patient had recently traveled to Nigeria and, subsequently, infected 2 members of his family.⁴ On May 18, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health confirmed a case of monkeypox in an adult man who had recently traveled to Canada. As of July 7, 6,027 cases have been reported from at least 39 countries.⁵ Eight states in the United States reported cases. To date, 73 deaths have occurred in this recent outbreak of infections (case fatality rate, 4.5%).^4-6

The current outbreak is unusual in that, previously, almost all cases occurred in western and central Africa in remote tropical rain forests. Infection usually resulted from close exposure to rats, rabbits, squirrels, monkeys, porcupines, and gazelles. Exposure occurred when persons captured, slaughtered, prepared, and then ate these animals for food without properly cooking the flesh.

The leading theory is that the present outbreak originated among men who had sex with men at 2 raves held in Spain and Belgium. The virus appears to have been spread by skin-to-skin contact, by respiratory droplets, by contact with contaminated bedding, and probably by sperm.^2,4,6

Continue to: Clinical manifestations...

Clinical manifestations

Monkeypox evolves through 2 stages: a pre-eruptive stage and an eruptive stage. Prodromal symptoms include malaise, severe headache, myalgias, fever, drenching sweats, backache, fatigue, sore throat, dyspnea, and cough. Within 2-3 days, the characteristic skin eruption develops. The lesions usually begin on the face and then spread in a centrifugal manner to the trunk and extremities, including the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. The lesions typically progress from macules to papules to vesicles to pustules. They then crust and scab over. An interesting additional finding is the presence of prominent lymphadenopathy behind the ear, beneath the mandible, in the neck, and in the groin.¹

Several different illnesses must be considered in the differential diagnosis of monkeypox infection. They include measles, scabies, secondary syphilis, and medication-associated allergic reactions. However, the 2 conditions most likely to be confused with monkeypox are chickenpox (varicella) and smallpox. Lymphadenopathy is much more prominent in monkeypox compared with chickenpox. Moreover, with monkeypox, all lesions tend to be at the same stage of evolution as opposed to appearing in crops as they do in chickenpox. Smallpox would be extremely unlikely in the absence of a recognized laboratory accident or a bioterrorism incident.⁷

Diagnosis

The presumptive diagnosis of monkeypox infection is made primarily based on clinical examination. However, laboratory testing is indicated to definitively differentiate monkeypox from other orthopoxvirus infections such as varicella and smallpox.

In specialized laboratories that employ highly trained personnel and maintain strict safety precautions, the virus can be isolated in mammalian cell cultures. Electron microscopy is a valuable tool for identifying the characteristic brick-shaped poxvirus virions. Routine histologic examination of a lesion will show ballooning degeneration of keratinocytes, prominent spongiosis, dermal edema, and acute inflammation, although these findings are not unique to monkeypox.¹

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed serologic tests that detect immunoglobulin (Ig) M- and IgG-specific antibody. However, the most useful and practical diagnostic test is assessment of a skin scraping by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This test is more sensitive than assessment of serum PCR.¹

When the diagnosis of monkeypox is being considered, the clinician should coordinate testing through the local and state public health departments and through the CDC. Effective communication with all agencies will ensure that laboratory specimens are processed in a timely and efficient manner. The CDC website presents information on specimen collection.⁸

How do we manage monkeypox?

Prevention

The first step in prevention of infection is to isolate infected individuals until all lesions have dried and crusted over. Susceptible people should avoid close contact with skin lesions, respiratory and genital secretions, and bedding of patients who are infected.

The ultimate preventive measure, however, is vaccination of susceptible people either immediately before exposure (eg, military personnel, first responders, infection control investigators, health care workers) or immediately after exposure (general population). Older individuals who received the original smallpox vaccine likely have immunity to monkeypox infection. Unfortunately, very few women who currently are of reproductive age received this vaccine because its use was discontinued in the United States in the early 1970s. Therefore, the vast majority of our patients are uniquely susceptible to this infection and should be vaccinated if there is an outbreak of monkeypox in their locality.^7,9

The current preferred vaccine for prevention of both smallpox and monkeypox is the Jynneos (Bavarian Nordic A/S) vaccine.¹⁰ This agent incorporates a replication-deficient live virus and does not pose the same risk for adverse events as the original versions of the smallpox vaccine. Jynneos is administered subcutaneously rather than by scarification. Two 0.5-mL doses, delivered 28 days apart, are required for optimal effect. The vaccine must be obtained from local and state health departments, in consultation with the CDC.^7,9

There is very little published information on the safety of the Jynneos vaccine in pregnant or lactating women, although animal data are reassuring. Moreover, the dangers of monkeypox infection are significant, and in the event of an outbreak, vaccination of susceptible individuals, including pregnant women, is indicated.

Continue to: Treatment...

Treatment

Infected pregnant women should receive acetaminophen 1,000 mg orally every 8 hours, to control fever and provide analgesia. An antihistamine such as diphenhydramine 25 mg orally every 6-8 hours, may be used to control pruritus and provide mild sedation. Adequate fluid intake and optimal nutrition should be encouraged. Skin lesions should be inspected regularly to detect signs of superimposed bacterial infections. Small, localized bacterial skin infections can be treated with topical application of mupirocin ointment 2%, 3 times daily for 7-14 days. For diffuse and more severe bacterial skin infections, a systemic antibiotic may be necessary. Reasonable choices include amoxicillin-clavulanate 875 mg/125 mg orally every 12 hours, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength 800 mg/160 mg orally every 12 hours.¹¹ The latter agent should be avoided in the first trimester of pregnancy because of potential teratogenic effects.

Several specific agents are available through the CDC for treatment of orthopoxvirus infections such as smallpox and monkeypox. Information about these agents is summarized in the TABLE.^12-16

Unique considerations in pregnancy

Because monkeypox is so rare, there is very little information about the effects of this infection in pregnant women. The report most commonly cited in the literature is that by Mbala et al, which was published in 2017.¹⁷ These authors described 4 pregnant patients in the Democratic Republic of Congo who contracted monkeypox infection over a 4-year period. All 4 women were hospitalized and treated with systemic antibiotics, antiparasitic medications, and analgesics. One patient delivered a healthy infant. Two women had spontaneous abortions in the first trimester. The fourth patient experienced a stillbirth at 22 weeks’ gestation. At postmortem examination, the fetus had diffuse cutaneous lesions, prominent hepatomegaly, and hydrops. No structural malformations were noted. The placenta demonstrated numerous punctate hemorrhages, and high concentrations of virus were recovered from the placenta and from fetal tissue.

Although the information on pregnancy outcome is quite limited, it seems clear that the virus can cross the placenta and cause adverse effects such as spontaneous abortion and fetal death. Accordingly, I think the following guidelines are a reasonable approach to a pregnant patient who has been exposed to monkeypox or who has developed manifestations of infection.^3,7,9

• In the event of a community outbreak, bioterrorism event, or exposure to a person with suspected or confirmed monkeypox infection, the pregnant patient should receive the Jynneos vaccine.
• The pregnant patient should be isolated from any individual with suspected or confirmed monkeypox.
• If infection develops despite these measures, the patient should be treated with either tecovirimat or vaccinia immune globulin IV. Hospitalization may be necessary for seriously ill individuals.

• Within 2 weeks of infection, a comprehensive ultrasound examination should be performed to assess for structural abnormalities in the fetus.

• Subsequently, serial ultrasound examinations should be performed at intervals of 4-6 weeks to assess fetal growth and re-evaluate fetal anatomy.
• Following delivery, a detailed neonatal examination should be performed to assess for evidence of viral injury. Neonatal skin lesions and neonatal serum can be assessed by PCR for monkeypox virus. The newborn should be isolated from the mother until all the mother’s lesions have dried and crusted over.

CASE Resolved

Given the husband’s recent travel to Nigeria and consumption of bushmeat, he most likely has monkeypox. The infection can be spread from person to person by close contact; thus, his wife is at risk. The couple should isolate until all of his lesions have dried and crusted over. The woman also should receive the Jynneos vaccine. If she becomes symptomatic, she should be treated with tecovirimat or vaccinia immune globulin IV. ●

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

Continue to: Methods...

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.
 

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

Continue to: RESULTS...

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Continue to: Clinic environment...

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“[Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)
 

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.
 

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male- dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries. ¹⁹  Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.


Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other   specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs. ^8,24  However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; ktgold@umich.edu

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

Continue to: Methods...

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.
 

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

Continue to: RESULTS...

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Continue to: Clinic environment...

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“[Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)
 

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.
 

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male- dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries. ¹⁹  Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.


Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other   specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs. ^8,24  However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; ktgold@umich.edu

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

Continue to: Methods...

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.
 

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

Continue to: RESULTS...

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Continue to: Clinic environment...

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“[Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)
 

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.
 

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male- dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries. ¹⁹  Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.


Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other   specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs. ^8,24  However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; ktgold@umich.edu

This year’s Menopause Update focuses on 2 menopause-related issues relevant to ObGyns and our menopausal patients:

• choosing the safest regimens, particularly with respect to risk of breast cancer, when prescribing hormone therapy (HT) to menopausal women
• reviewing the risks and benefits of premenopausal bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and the pros and cons of replacement HT in surgically menopausal patients.

We hope that you find this updated information useful as you care for menopausal women.

Revisiting menopausal HT  and the risk of breast cancer:  What we know now

Abenhaim HA, Suissa S,  Azoulay L, et al. Menopausal hormone therapy formulation and breast cancer risk. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:1103-1110. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004723.

Reevaluation of the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trials (WHI RCTs), long-term (median follow-up more than 20 years) cumulative  follow-up data, and results from additional studies have suggested that estrogen therapy (ET) alone in menopausal women with prior hysterectomy does not increase the risk of breast cancer. By contrast, estrogen with progestin (synthetic progestogens that include medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA] and norethindrone acetate) slightly increases the risk of breast cancer. In the past 10 years, several publications have shed light on whether the type of progestogen affects the risk of breast cancer and can help provide evidence-based information to guide clinicians.

Breast cancer risk with combined HT and synthetic progestin

In the first part of the WHI RCT, women were randomly assigned to receive either conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) plus synthetic progestin (MPA) or a placebo. Combined estrogen-progestin therapy (EPT) was associated with a modestly elevated risk of breast cancer.¹ In the second part of the WHI trial, CEE only (estrogen alone, ET) was compared with placebo among women with prior  hysterectomy, with no effect found on breast cancer incidence.²

Most older observational studies published in 2003 to 2005 found that neither CEE nor estradiol appeared to increase the risk of breast cancer when used alone.^3-5 However, estrogen use in combination with synthetic progestins (MPA, norethindrone, levonorgestrel, and norgestrel) has been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer,^4,6 while the elevated risk of breast cancer with micronized progesterone has been less substantial.^7,8

Continue to: Newer data suggest the type of progestogen used affects risk...

In a report published in the June 2022 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Abenhaim and colleagues used a nested population-based case-control study of administrative data available in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and provider prescriptions to evaluate the additive effect on the risk of breast cancer of the type of progestogen (micronized progesterone or synthetic progestins) when combined with estradiol for the treatment of menopausal symptoms.⁹ A cohort of 561,379 women was included in the case-control study (10:1 ratio), 43,183 in the case group (patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer), and 431,830 in the matched control group.

Overall, in the stratified analysis, a small but significant increase in the risk of breast cancer was found in ever users of menopausal HT (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.15). Neither estradiol (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09) nor CEE (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96–1.06) was associated with an elevated risk of being diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Of note, no elevated risk of breast cancer was associated with combination estrogen-progesterone therapy. However, the risk of breast cancer for women who had used synthetic progestins, mostly MPA, was significantly elevated (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.35). Notably, this modestly elevated odds ratio with the use of estrogen-progestin HT is almost identical to that observed with CEE/ MPA in the WHI.¹ Similar findings were found in women aged 50 to 60 years.

The adjusted analyses from the large WHI RCTs provide additional support: the synthetic progestin MPA combined with CEE showed a higher risk of breast cancer than CEE alone in women with prior hysterectomy.¹⁰

In the long-term follow-up of the WHI RCTs, after a median of 20.3 years postrandomization, prior randomization to CEE alone for postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy was associated with a significantly lowered risk of breast cancer incidence and mortality.¹¹ By contrast, prior randomization to CEE plus MPA (EPT) for women with an intact uterus was associated with a small but significantly increased incidence of breast cancer but no significant difference in breast cancer mortality.

In the French E3N EPIC population-based prospective cohort study, Fournier and colleagues^4,5 found that women who received estrogen combined with synthetic progestins (mostly MPA) had a higher risk of breast cancer, with an age-adjusted relative risk of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2–1.7), a finding not seen in women who received estrogen combined with micronized progesterone, similar to findings by Cordina-Duverger and colleagues and Simin and colleagues.^12,13 In the E3N study, only 948 women were identified with breast cancer; 268 of these had used synthetic progestins.^4,5

Both the Abenhaim cohort⁹ and the longterm outcomes of WHI RCT trial data¹¹ found a significant contributing effect of MPA (synthetic progestin) in the risk of breast cancer. Progestogens are not thought to exert a class effect. Although it is clear that progestogens (progesterone or progestins) prevent estrogeninduced endometrial neoplasia when dosed adequately, different types of progestogens have a differential risk of breast epithelium proliferation and carcinogenic potential.¹⁴ A systematic review by Stute and colleagues found that micronized progesterone did not appear to alter mammographic breast density assessments or breast biopsy results.¹⁵

Race considerations

The study by Abenhaim and colleagues was unable to address the issues of race or ethnicity.⁹ However, in the racially diverse WHI trial of women with prior hysterectomy, estrogen-alone use significantly reduced breast cancer incidence in all participants.^10,16 Post hoc analysis of the 1,616 Black women with prior hysterectomy in the WHI RCT showed a significantly decreased breast cancer incidence with use of estrogen alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26–0.82).¹ When race was evaluated in the long-term cumulative follow-up of the WHI trial, estrogen-alone use significantly reduced breast cancer incidence in Black women, with no adverse effect on coronary heart disease, global index, or all-cause mortality, and with fewer cases of venous thromboembolism.¹⁷ The global index findings were favorable for Black women in their 50s and those with vasomotor symptoms.

Continue to: Impact of HT in women with an elevated risk of breast cancer...

Impact of HT in women with an elevated risk of breast cancer

Abenhaim and colleagues could not evaluate the effect of HT in women with a baseline elevated risk of breast cancer.⁹ For these women, HT may be recommended after premature surgical menopause due to increased risks for coronary heart disease, osteoporosis, genitourinary syndrome of menopause, and cognitive changes when estrogen is not taken postsurgery through to at least the average age of menopause, considered age 51.^18,19

Marchetti and colleagues reviewed 3 clinical trials that assessed breast cancer events in 1,100 BRCA gene mutation carriers with intact breasts who underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) who used or did not use HT.²⁰ For BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers who received HT after RRSO, no elevated risk of breast cancer risk was seen (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63–1.52). There was a nonsignificant reduction in breast cancer risk for the estrogen-alone users compared with EPT HT (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.25–1.15). Thus, short-term use of HT, estrogen alone or EPT, does not appear to elevate the risk of breast cancer after RRSO in these high-risk women.

Individualizing HT  for menopausal symptoms

The data presented provide reassuring evidence that longer-term use of ET does not appear to increase breast cancer risk, regardless of the type of estrogen (CEE or estradiol).^4,5,9,11 For women with a uterus, micronized progesterone has less (if any) effect on breast cancer risk. By contrast, the use of synthetic progestins (such as MPA), when combined with estrogen, has been associated with a small but real increased breast cancer risk.

The most evident benefit of HT is in treating vasomotor symptoms and preventing bone loss for those at elevated risk in healthy women without contraindications who initiate systemic HT when younger than age 60 or within 10 years of menopause onset. Benefit and risk ratio depends on age and time from menopause onset when HT is initiated. Hormone therapy safety varies depending on type, dose, duration, route of administration, timing of initiation, and whether, and type, of progestogen is used. Transdermal estradiol, particularly when dosed at 0.05 mg or less, has been shown to have less thrombotic and stroke risk than oral estrogen.²¹

Individualizing treatment includes using the best available evidence to maximize benefits and minimize risks, with periodic reevaluation of benefits and risks of continuing or discontinuing HT or changing to lower doses. ObGyns who follow best practices in prescribing systemic HT can now help menopausal patients with bothersome symptoms take advantage of systemic HT’s benefits while providing reassurance regarding menopausal HT’s safety.¹⁸ Transdermal therapy is a safer option for women at elevated baseline risk of venous thrombosis (for example, obese women) and older patients. Likewise, given its safety with respect to risk of breast cancer, the use of micronized progesterone over synthetic progestins should be considered when prescribing EPT to women with an intact uterus.

Continue to: Benefits of avoiding BSO in women at average risk of ovarian cancer...

Benefits of avoiding BSO in women at average risk of ovarian cancer

Erickson Z, Rocca WA, Smith CY, et al. Time trends in unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy in a geographically defined American population. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:724-734. doi: 10.1097/ AOG.0000000000004728.

In 2005, gynecologist William Parker, MD, and colleagues used modeling methodology to assess the long-term risks and benefits of performing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease in women at average risk for ovarian cancer.²³ They concluded that practicing ovarian conservation until age 65 increased women’s long-term survival. Among their findings were that women with BSO before age 55 had an 8.6% excess overall mortality by age 80, while those with oophorectomy before age 59 had 3.9% excess mortality. They noted a sustained, but decreasing, mortality benefit until the age of 75 and stated that at no age did their model suggest higher mortality in women who chose ovarian conservation. Parker and colleagues concluded that ovarian conservation until at least age 65 benefited long-term survival for women at average risk for ovarian cancer when undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease.²³

Certain risks decreased, others increased

A second report in 2009 by Parker and colleagues from the large prospective Nurses’ Health Study found that, while BSO at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease was associated with a decreased risk of breast and ovarian cancer, BSO was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease, and lung cancer.²⁴ Similar to the findings of the 2005 report, the authors noted that in no analysis or age group was BSO associated with increased survival. They also noted that compared with those who underwent BSO before age 50 and used ET, women with no history of ET use had an approximately 2-fold elevated risk of new onset coronary heart disease (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.18–3.32).²⁴

In 2007, Walter Rocca, MD, a Mayo Clinic neurologist with a particular interest in the epidemiology of dementia, and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic published results of a study that assessed a cohort of women who had undergone unilateral oophorectomy or BSO prior to the onset of menopause.²⁵ The risk of cognitive impairment or dementia was higher in these women compared with women who had intact ovaries (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.90). Of note, this elevated risk was confined to those who underwent oophorectomy before 49 years of age and were not prescribed estrogen until age 50 or older.²⁵

In a subsequent publication, Rocca and colleagues pointed out that BSO prior to menopause not only is associated with higher rates of all-cause mortality and cognitive impairment but also with coronary heart disease, parkinsonism, osteoporosis, and other chronic conditions associated with aging, including metabolic, mental health, and arthritic disorders.²⁶

Oophorectomy trends tracked

Given these and other reports²⁷ that highlighted the health risks of premenopausal BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, Rocca and colleagues recently assessed trends in the occurrence of unilateral oophorectomy or BSO versus ovarian conservation among all women residing in the Minnesota county (Olmsted) in which Mayo Clinic is located, and who underwent gynecologic surgery between 1950 and 2018.²⁸

The investigators limited their analysis to women who had undergone unilateral oophorectomy or BSO between ages 18 and 49 years (these women are assumed to have been premenopausal). The authors considered as indications for oophorectomy primary or metastatic ovarian cancer, risk-reducing BSO for women at elevated risk for ovarian cancer (for example, strong family history or known BRCA gene mutation), adnexal mass, endometriosis, torsion, and other benign gynecologic conditions that included pelvic pain, abscess, oophoritis, or ectopic pregnancy. When more than 1 indication for ovarian surgery was present, the authors used the most clinically important indication. Unilateral oophorectomy or BSO was considered not indicated if the surgery was performed during another primary procedure (usually hysterectomy) without indication, or if the surgeon referred to the ovarian surgery as elective.

Results. Among 5,154 women who had oophorectomies between 1950 and 2018, the proportion of these women who underwent unilateral oophorectomy and BSO was 40.6% and 59.4%, respectively.

For most years between 1950 and 1979, the incidence of unilateral oophorectomy was higher than BSO. However, from 1980 to 2004, the incidence of BSO increased more than 2-fold while the incidence of unilateral surgery declined. After 2005, however, both types of ovarian surgery declined. During the years 2005–2018, a marked decline in BSO occurred, with the reduced incidence in premenopausal BSO most notable among women undergoing hysterectomy or those without an indication for oophorectomy.

Historically, ObGyns were taught that the benefits of removing normal ovaries (to prevent ovarian cancer) in average-risk women at the time of hysterectomy outweighed the risks. We agree with the authors’ speculation that beginning with Parker’s 2005 publication,²³ ObGyns have become more conservative in performing unindicated BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, now recognizing that the harms of this procedure often outweigh any benefits.²⁸

Women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations are at elevated risk for ovarian, tubal, and breast malignancies. In this population, risk-reducing BSO dramatically lowers future risk of ovarian and tubal cancer.

Data addressing the effect of RRSO in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers continue to be evaluated, with differences between the 2 mutations, but they suggest that the surgery reduces not only ovarian cancer and tubal cancer but also possibly breast cancer.²⁹

Continue to: Trends show decline in ET use in surgically menopausal women... 

Trends show decline in ET use in surgically menopausal women 

Suzuki Y, Huang Y, Melamed A, et al. Use of estrogen therapy after surgical menopause in women who are premenopausal. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:756-763. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004762.

In addition to highlighting the risks associated with premenopausal BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, the reports referred to above also underscore that the use of replacement menopausal HT in premenopausal women who undergo BSO prevents morbidity and mortality that otherwise accompanies surgical menopause. In addition, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS) recommends replacement menopausal HT in the setting of induced early menopause when no contraindications are present.¹⁸

To assess the prevalence of HT use in surgically menopausal women, investigators at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons used a national database that captures health insurance claims for some 280 million US patients, focusing on women aged 18 to 50 years who underwent BSO from 2008 to 2019.³⁰ The great majority of women in this database have private insurance. Although the authors used the term estrogen therapy in their article, this term refers to systemic estrogen alone or with progestogen, as well as vaginal ET (personal communication with Jason Wright, MD, a coauthor of the study, May 19, 2022). In this Update section, we use the term HT to include use of any systemic HT or vaginal estrogen.

Prevalence of HT use changed over time period and patient age range

Among almost 61,980 evaluable women who had undergone BSO (median age, 45 years; 75.1% with concomitant hysterectomy; median follow-up time, 27 months), with no history of gynecologic or breast cancer, HT was used within 3 years of BSO by 64.5%. The highest percentage of women in this cohort who used HT peaked in 2008 (69.5%), declining to 58.2% by 2016. The median duration of HT use was 5.3 months. The prevalence of HT use 3 years after BSO declined with age, from 79.1% in women aged 18–29 to 60.0% in women aged 45–50.³⁰

This report, published in the June 2022 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, makes several sobering observations: Many surgically menopausal women aged 50 years and younger are not prescribed HT, the proportion of such women receiving a prescription for HT is declining over time, and the duration of HT use following BSO is short. ●

This year’s Menopause Update focuses on 2 menopause-related issues relevant to ObGyns and our menopausal patients:

• choosing the safest regimens, particularly with respect to risk of breast cancer, when prescribing hormone therapy (HT) to menopausal women
• reviewing the risks and benefits of premenopausal bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and the pros and cons of replacement HT in surgically menopausal patients.

We hope that you find this updated information useful as you care for menopausal women.

Revisiting menopausal HT  and the risk of breast cancer:  What we know now

Abenhaim HA, Suissa S,  Azoulay L, et al. Menopausal hormone therapy formulation and breast cancer risk. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:1103-1110. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004723.

Reevaluation of the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trials (WHI RCTs), long-term (median follow-up more than 20 years) cumulative  follow-up data, and results from additional studies have suggested that estrogen therapy (ET) alone in menopausal women with prior hysterectomy does not increase the risk of breast cancer. By contrast, estrogen with progestin (synthetic progestogens that include medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA] and norethindrone acetate) slightly increases the risk of breast cancer. In the past 10 years, several publications have shed light on whether the type of progestogen affects the risk of breast cancer and can help provide evidence-based information to guide clinicians.

Breast cancer risk with combined HT and synthetic progestin

In the first part of the WHI RCT, women were randomly assigned to receive either conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) plus synthetic progestin (MPA) or a placebo. Combined estrogen-progestin therapy (EPT) was associated with a modestly elevated risk of breast cancer.¹ In the second part of the WHI trial, CEE only (estrogen alone, ET) was compared with placebo among women with prior  hysterectomy, with no effect found on breast cancer incidence.²

Most older observational studies published in 2003 to 2005 found that neither CEE nor estradiol appeared to increase the risk of breast cancer when used alone.^3-5 However, estrogen use in combination with synthetic progestins (MPA, norethindrone, levonorgestrel, and norgestrel) has been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer,^4,6 while the elevated risk of breast cancer with micronized progesterone has been less substantial.^7,8

Continue to: Newer data suggest the type of progestogen used affects risk...

In a report published in the June 2022 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Abenhaim and colleagues used a nested population-based case-control study of administrative data available in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and provider prescriptions to evaluate the additive effect on the risk of breast cancer of the type of progestogen (micronized progesterone or synthetic progestins) when combined with estradiol for the treatment of menopausal symptoms.⁹ A cohort of 561,379 women was included in the case-control study (10:1 ratio), 43,183 in the case group (patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer), and 431,830 in the matched control group.

Overall, in the stratified analysis, a small but significant increase in the risk of breast cancer was found in ever users of menopausal HT (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.15). Neither estradiol (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09) nor CEE (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96–1.06) was associated with an elevated risk of being diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Of note, no elevated risk of breast cancer was associated with combination estrogen-progesterone therapy. However, the risk of breast cancer for women who had used synthetic progestins, mostly MPA, was significantly elevated (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.35). Notably, this modestly elevated odds ratio with the use of estrogen-progestin HT is almost identical to that observed with CEE/ MPA in the WHI.¹ Similar findings were found in women aged 50 to 60 years.

The adjusted analyses from the large WHI RCTs provide additional support: the synthetic progestin MPA combined with CEE showed a higher risk of breast cancer than CEE alone in women with prior hysterectomy.¹⁰

In the long-term follow-up of the WHI RCTs, after a median of 20.3 years postrandomization, prior randomization to CEE alone for postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy was associated with a significantly lowered risk of breast cancer incidence and mortality.¹¹ By contrast, prior randomization to CEE plus MPA (EPT) for women with an intact uterus was associated with a small but significantly increased incidence of breast cancer but no significant difference in breast cancer mortality.

In the French E3N EPIC population-based prospective cohort study, Fournier and colleagues^4,5 found that women who received estrogen combined with synthetic progestins (mostly MPA) had a higher risk of breast cancer, with an age-adjusted relative risk of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2–1.7), a finding not seen in women who received estrogen combined with micronized progesterone, similar to findings by Cordina-Duverger and colleagues and Simin and colleagues.^12,13 In the E3N study, only 948 women were identified with breast cancer; 268 of these had used synthetic progestins.^4,5

Both the Abenhaim cohort⁹ and the longterm outcomes of WHI RCT trial data¹¹ found a significant contributing effect of MPA (synthetic progestin) in the risk of breast cancer. Progestogens are not thought to exert a class effect. Although it is clear that progestogens (progesterone or progestins) prevent estrogeninduced endometrial neoplasia when dosed adequately, different types of progestogens have a differential risk of breast epithelium proliferation and carcinogenic potential.¹⁴ A systematic review by Stute and colleagues found that micronized progesterone did not appear to alter mammographic breast density assessments or breast biopsy results.¹⁵

Race considerations

The study by Abenhaim and colleagues was unable to address the issues of race or ethnicity.⁹ However, in the racially diverse WHI trial of women with prior hysterectomy, estrogen-alone use significantly reduced breast cancer incidence in all participants.^10,16 Post hoc analysis of the 1,616 Black women with prior hysterectomy in the WHI RCT showed a significantly decreased breast cancer incidence with use of estrogen alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26–0.82).¹ When race was evaluated in the long-term cumulative follow-up of the WHI trial, estrogen-alone use significantly reduced breast cancer incidence in Black women, with no adverse effect on coronary heart disease, global index, or all-cause mortality, and with fewer cases of venous thromboembolism.¹⁷ The global index findings were favorable for Black women in their 50s and those with vasomotor symptoms.

Continue to: Impact of HT in women with an elevated risk of breast cancer...

Impact of HT in women with an elevated risk of breast cancer

Abenhaim and colleagues could not evaluate the effect of HT in women with a baseline elevated risk of breast cancer.⁹ For these women, HT may be recommended after premature surgical menopause due to increased risks for coronary heart disease, osteoporosis, genitourinary syndrome of menopause, and cognitive changes when estrogen is not taken postsurgery through to at least the average age of menopause, considered age 51.^18,19

Marchetti and colleagues reviewed 3 clinical trials that assessed breast cancer events in 1,100 BRCA gene mutation carriers with intact breasts who underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) who used or did not use HT.²⁰ For BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers who received HT after RRSO, no elevated risk of breast cancer risk was seen (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63–1.52). There was a nonsignificant reduction in breast cancer risk for the estrogen-alone users compared with EPT HT (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.25–1.15). Thus, short-term use of HT, estrogen alone or EPT, does not appear to elevate the risk of breast cancer after RRSO in these high-risk women.

Individualizing HT  for menopausal symptoms

The data presented provide reassuring evidence that longer-term use of ET does not appear to increase breast cancer risk, regardless of the type of estrogen (CEE or estradiol).^4,5,9,11 For women with a uterus, micronized progesterone has less (if any) effect on breast cancer risk. By contrast, the use of synthetic progestins (such as MPA), when combined with estrogen, has been associated with a small but real increased breast cancer risk.

The most evident benefit of HT is in treating vasomotor symptoms and preventing bone loss for those at elevated risk in healthy women without contraindications who initiate systemic HT when younger than age 60 or within 10 years of menopause onset. Benefit and risk ratio depends on age and time from menopause onset when HT is initiated. Hormone therapy safety varies depending on type, dose, duration, route of administration, timing of initiation, and whether, and type, of progestogen is used. Transdermal estradiol, particularly when dosed at 0.05 mg or less, has been shown to have less thrombotic and stroke risk than oral estrogen.²¹

Individualizing treatment includes using the best available evidence to maximize benefits and minimize risks, with periodic reevaluation of benefits and risks of continuing or discontinuing HT or changing to lower doses. ObGyns who follow best practices in prescribing systemic HT can now help menopausal patients with bothersome symptoms take advantage of systemic HT’s benefits while providing reassurance regarding menopausal HT’s safety.¹⁸ Transdermal therapy is a safer option for women at elevated baseline risk of venous thrombosis (for example, obese women) and older patients. Likewise, given its safety with respect to risk of breast cancer, the use of micronized progesterone over synthetic progestins should be considered when prescribing EPT to women with an intact uterus.

Continue to: Benefits of avoiding BSO in women at average risk of ovarian cancer...

Benefits of avoiding BSO in women at average risk of ovarian cancer

Erickson Z, Rocca WA, Smith CY, et al. Time trends in unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy in a geographically defined American population. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:724-734. doi: 10.1097/ AOG.0000000000004728.

In 2005, gynecologist William Parker, MD, and colleagues used modeling methodology to assess the long-term risks and benefits of performing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease in women at average risk for ovarian cancer.²³ They concluded that practicing ovarian conservation until age 65 increased women’s long-term survival. Among their findings were that women with BSO before age 55 had an 8.6% excess overall mortality by age 80, while those with oophorectomy before age 59 had 3.9% excess mortality. They noted a sustained, but decreasing, mortality benefit until the age of 75 and stated that at no age did their model suggest higher mortality in women who chose ovarian conservation. Parker and colleagues concluded that ovarian conservation until at least age 65 benefited long-term survival for women at average risk for ovarian cancer when undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease.²³

Certain risks decreased, others increased

A second report in 2009 by Parker and colleagues from the large prospective Nurses’ Health Study found that, while BSO at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease was associated with a decreased risk of breast and ovarian cancer, BSO was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease, and lung cancer.²⁴ Similar to the findings of the 2005 report, the authors noted that in no analysis or age group was BSO associated with increased survival. They also noted that compared with those who underwent BSO before age 50 and used ET, women with no history of ET use had an approximately 2-fold elevated risk of new onset coronary heart disease (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.18–3.32).²⁴

In 2007, Walter Rocca, MD, a Mayo Clinic neurologist with a particular interest in the epidemiology of dementia, and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic published results of a study that assessed a cohort of women who had undergone unilateral oophorectomy or BSO prior to the onset of menopause.²⁵ The risk of cognitive impairment or dementia was higher in these women compared with women who had intact ovaries (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.90). Of note, this elevated risk was confined to those who underwent oophorectomy before 49 years of age and were not prescribed estrogen until age 50 or older.²⁵

In a subsequent publication, Rocca and colleagues pointed out that BSO prior to menopause not only is associated with higher rates of all-cause mortality and cognitive impairment but also with coronary heart disease, parkinsonism, osteoporosis, and other chronic conditions associated with aging, including metabolic, mental health, and arthritic disorders.²⁶

Oophorectomy trends tracked

Given these and other reports²⁷ that highlighted the health risks of premenopausal BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, Rocca and colleagues recently assessed trends in the occurrence of unilateral oophorectomy or BSO versus ovarian conservation among all women residing in the Minnesota county (Olmsted) in which Mayo Clinic is located, and who underwent gynecologic surgery between 1950 and 2018.²⁸

The investigators limited their analysis to women who had undergone unilateral oophorectomy or BSO between ages 18 and 49 years (these women are assumed to have been premenopausal). The authors considered as indications for oophorectomy primary or metastatic ovarian cancer, risk-reducing BSO for women at elevated risk for ovarian cancer (for example, strong family history or known BRCA gene mutation), adnexal mass, endometriosis, torsion, and other benign gynecologic conditions that included pelvic pain, abscess, oophoritis, or ectopic pregnancy. When more than 1 indication for ovarian surgery was present, the authors used the most clinically important indication. Unilateral oophorectomy or BSO was considered not indicated if the surgery was performed during another primary procedure (usually hysterectomy) without indication, or if the surgeon referred to the ovarian surgery as elective.

Results. Among 5,154 women who had oophorectomies between 1950 and 2018, the proportion of these women who underwent unilateral oophorectomy and BSO was 40.6% and 59.4%, respectively.

For most years between 1950 and 1979, the incidence of unilateral oophorectomy was higher than BSO. However, from 1980 to 2004, the incidence of BSO increased more than 2-fold while the incidence of unilateral surgery declined. After 2005, however, both types of ovarian surgery declined. During the years 2005–2018, a marked decline in BSO occurred, with the reduced incidence in premenopausal BSO most notable among women undergoing hysterectomy or those without an indication for oophorectomy.

Historically, ObGyns were taught that the benefits of removing normal ovaries (to prevent ovarian cancer) in average-risk women at the time of hysterectomy outweighed the risks. We agree with the authors’ speculation that beginning with Parker’s 2005 publication,²³ ObGyns have become more conservative in performing unindicated BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, now recognizing that the harms of this procedure often outweigh any benefits.²⁸

Women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations are at elevated risk for ovarian, tubal, and breast malignancies. In this population, risk-reducing BSO dramatically lowers future risk of ovarian and tubal cancer.

Data addressing the effect of RRSO in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers continue to be evaluated, with differences between the 2 mutations, but they suggest that the surgery reduces not only ovarian cancer and tubal cancer but also possibly breast cancer.²⁹

Continue to: Trends show decline in ET use in surgically menopausal women... 

Trends show decline in ET use in surgically menopausal women 

Suzuki Y, Huang Y, Melamed A, et al. Use of estrogen therapy after surgical menopause in women who are premenopausal. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:756-763. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004762.

In addition to highlighting the risks associated with premenopausal BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, the reports referred to above also underscore that the use of replacement menopausal HT in premenopausal women who undergo BSO prevents morbidity and mortality that otherwise accompanies surgical menopause. In addition, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS) recommends replacement menopausal HT in the setting of induced early menopause when no contraindications are present.¹⁸

To assess the prevalence of HT use in surgically menopausal women, investigators at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons used a national database that captures health insurance claims for some 280 million US patients, focusing on women aged 18 to 50 years who underwent BSO from 2008 to 2019.³⁰ The great majority of women in this database have private insurance. Although the authors used the term estrogen therapy in their article, this term refers to systemic estrogen alone or with progestogen, as well as vaginal ET (personal communication with Jason Wright, MD, a coauthor of the study, May 19, 2022). In this Update section, we use the term HT to include use of any systemic HT or vaginal estrogen.

Prevalence of HT use changed over time period and patient age range

Among almost 61,980 evaluable women who had undergone BSO (median age, 45 years; 75.1% with concomitant hysterectomy; median follow-up time, 27 months), with no history of gynecologic or breast cancer, HT was used within 3 years of BSO by 64.5%. The highest percentage of women in this cohort who used HT peaked in 2008 (69.5%), declining to 58.2% by 2016. The median duration of HT use was 5.3 months. The prevalence of HT use 3 years after BSO declined with age, from 79.1% in women aged 18–29 to 60.0% in women aged 45–50.³⁰

This report, published in the June 2022 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, makes several sobering observations: Many surgically menopausal women aged 50 years and younger are not prescribed HT, the proportion of such women receiving a prescription for HT is declining over time, and the duration of HT use following BSO is short. ●

This year’s Menopause Update focuses on 2 menopause-related issues relevant to ObGyns and our menopausal patients:

• choosing the safest regimens, particularly with respect to risk of breast cancer, when prescribing hormone therapy (HT) to menopausal women
• reviewing the risks and benefits of premenopausal bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and the pros and cons of replacement HT in surgically menopausal patients.

We hope that you find this updated information useful as you care for menopausal women.

Revisiting menopausal HT  and the risk of breast cancer:  What we know now

Abenhaim HA, Suissa S,  Azoulay L, et al. Menopausal hormone therapy formulation and breast cancer risk. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:1103-1110. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004723.

Reevaluation of the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trials (WHI RCTs), long-term (median follow-up more than 20 years) cumulative  follow-up data, and results from additional studies have suggested that estrogen therapy (ET) alone in menopausal women with prior hysterectomy does not increase the risk of breast cancer. By contrast, estrogen with progestin (synthetic progestogens that include medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA] and norethindrone acetate) slightly increases the risk of breast cancer. In the past 10 years, several publications have shed light on whether the type of progestogen affects the risk of breast cancer and can help provide evidence-based information to guide clinicians.

Breast cancer risk with combined HT and synthetic progestin

In the first part of the WHI RCT, women were randomly assigned to receive either conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) plus synthetic progestin (MPA) or a placebo. Combined estrogen-progestin therapy (EPT) was associated with a modestly elevated risk of breast cancer.¹ In the second part of the WHI trial, CEE only (estrogen alone, ET) was compared with placebo among women with prior  hysterectomy, with no effect found on breast cancer incidence.²

Most older observational studies published in 2003 to 2005 found that neither CEE nor estradiol appeared to increase the risk of breast cancer when used alone.^3-5 However, estrogen use in combination with synthetic progestins (MPA, norethindrone, levonorgestrel, and norgestrel) has been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer,^4,6 while the elevated risk of breast cancer with micronized progesterone has been less substantial.^7,8

Continue to: Newer data suggest the type of progestogen used affects risk...

In a report published in the June 2022 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Abenhaim and colleagues used a nested population-based case-control study of administrative data available in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and provider prescriptions to evaluate the additive effect on the risk of breast cancer of the type of progestogen (micronized progesterone or synthetic progestins) when combined with estradiol for the treatment of menopausal symptoms.⁹ A cohort of 561,379 women was included in the case-control study (10:1 ratio), 43,183 in the case group (patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer), and 431,830 in the matched control group.

Overall, in the stratified analysis, a small but significant increase in the risk of breast cancer was found in ever users of menopausal HT (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.15). Neither estradiol (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09) nor CEE (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96–1.06) was associated with an elevated risk of being diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Of note, no elevated risk of breast cancer was associated with combination estrogen-progesterone therapy. However, the risk of breast cancer for women who had used synthetic progestins, mostly MPA, was significantly elevated (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.35). Notably, this modestly elevated odds ratio with the use of estrogen-progestin HT is almost identical to that observed with CEE/ MPA in the WHI.¹ Similar findings were found in women aged 50 to 60 years.

The adjusted analyses from the large WHI RCTs provide additional support: the synthetic progestin MPA combined with CEE showed a higher risk of breast cancer than CEE alone in women with prior hysterectomy.¹⁰

In the long-term follow-up of the WHI RCTs, after a median of 20.3 years postrandomization, prior randomization to CEE alone for postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy was associated with a significantly lowered risk of breast cancer incidence and mortality.¹¹ By contrast, prior randomization to CEE plus MPA (EPT) for women with an intact uterus was associated with a small but significantly increased incidence of breast cancer but no significant difference in breast cancer mortality.

In the French E3N EPIC population-based prospective cohort study, Fournier and colleagues^4,5 found that women who received estrogen combined with synthetic progestins (mostly MPA) had a higher risk of breast cancer, with an age-adjusted relative risk of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2–1.7), a finding not seen in women who received estrogen combined with micronized progesterone, similar to findings by Cordina-Duverger and colleagues and Simin and colleagues.^12,13 In the E3N study, only 948 women were identified with breast cancer; 268 of these had used synthetic progestins.^4,5

Both the Abenhaim cohort⁹ and the longterm outcomes of WHI RCT trial data¹¹ found a significant contributing effect of MPA (synthetic progestin) in the risk of breast cancer. Progestogens are not thought to exert a class effect. Although it is clear that progestogens (progesterone or progestins) prevent estrogeninduced endometrial neoplasia when dosed adequately, different types of progestogens have a differential risk of breast epithelium proliferation and carcinogenic potential.¹⁴ A systematic review by Stute and colleagues found that micronized progesterone did not appear to alter mammographic breast density assessments or breast biopsy results.¹⁵

Race considerations

The study by Abenhaim and colleagues was unable to address the issues of race or ethnicity.⁹ However, in the racially diverse WHI trial of women with prior hysterectomy, estrogen-alone use significantly reduced breast cancer incidence in all participants.^10,16 Post hoc analysis of the 1,616 Black women with prior hysterectomy in the WHI RCT showed a significantly decreased breast cancer incidence with use of estrogen alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26–0.82).¹ When race was evaluated in the long-term cumulative follow-up of the WHI trial, estrogen-alone use significantly reduced breast cancer incidence in Black women, with no adverse effect on coronary heart disease, global index, or all-cause mortality, and with fewer cases of venous thromboembolism.¹⁷ The global index findings were favorable for Black women in their 50s and those with vasomotor symptoms.

Continue to: Impact of HT in women with an elevated risk of breast cancer...

Impact of HT in women with an elevated risk of breast cancer

Abenhaim and colleagues could not evaluate the effect of HT in women with a baseline elevated risk of breast cancer.⁹ For these women, HT may be recommended after premature surgical menopause due to increased risks for coronary heart disease, osteoporosis, genitourinary syndrome of menopause, and cognitive changes when estrogen is not taken postsurgery through to at least the average age of menopause, considered age 51.^18,19

Marchetti and colleagues reviewed 3 clinical trials that assessed breast cancer events in 1,100 BRCA gene mutation carriers with intact breasts who underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) who used or did not use HT.²⁰ For BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers who received HT after RRSO, no elevated risk of breast cancer risk was seen (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63–1.52). There was a nonsignificant reduction in breast cancer risk for the estrogen-alone users compared with EPT HT (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.25–1.15). Thus, short-term use of HT, estrogen alone or EPT, does not appear to elevate the risk of breast cancer after RRSO in these high-risk women.

Individualizing HT  for menopausal symptoms

The data presented provide reassuring evidence that longer-term use of ET does not appear to increase breast cancer risk, regardless of the type of estrogen (CEE or estradiol).^4,5,9,11 For women with a uterus, micronized progesterone has less (if any) effect on breast cancer risk. By contrast, the use of synthetic progestins (such as MPA), when combined with estrogen, has been associated with a small but real increased breast cancer risk.

The most evident benefit of HT is in treating vasomotor symptoms and preventing bone loss for those at elevated risk in healthy women without contraindications who initiate systemic HT when younger than age 60 or within 10 years of menopause onset. Benefit and risk ratio depends on age and time from menopause onset when HT is initiated. Hormone therapy safety varies depending on type, dose, duration, route of administration, timing of initiation, and whether, and type, of progestogen is used. Transdermal estradiol, particularly when dosed at 0.05 mg or less, has been shown to have less thrombotic and stroke risk than oral estrogen.²¹

Individualizing treatment includes using the best available evidence to maximize benefits and minimize risks, with periodic reevaluation of benefits and risks of continuing or discontinuing HT or changing to lower doses. ObGyns who follow best practices in prescribing systemic HT can now help menopausal patients with bothersome symptoms take advantage of systemic HT’s benefits while providing reassurance regarding menopausal HT’s safety.¹⁸ Transdermal therapy is a safer option for women at elevated baseline risk of venous thrombosis (for example, obese women) and older patients. Likewise, given its safety with respect to risk of breast cancer, the use of micronized progesterone over synthetic progestins should be considered when prescribing EPT to women with an intact uterus.

Continue to: Benefits of avoiding BSO in women at average risk of ovarian cancer...

Benefits of avoiding BSO in women at average risk of ovarian cancer

Erickson Z, Rocca WA, Smith CY, et al. Time trends in unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy in a geographically defined American population. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:724-734. doi: 10.1097/ AOG.0000000000004728.

In 2005, gynecologist William Parker, MD, and colleagues used modeling methodology to assess the long-term risks and benefits of performing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease in women at average risk for ovarian cancer.²³ They concluded that practicing ovarian conservation until age 65 increased women’s long-term survival. Among their findings were that women with BSO before age 55 had an 8.6% excess overall mortality by age 80, while those with oophorectomy before age 59 had 3.9% excess mortality. They noted a sustained, but decreasing, mortality benefit until the age of 75 and stated that at no age did their model suggest higher mortality in women who chose ovarian conservation. Parker and colleagues concluded that ovarian conservation until at least age 65 benefited long-term survival for women at average risk for ovarian cancer when undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease.²³

Certain risks decreased, others increased

A second report in 2009 by Parker and colleagues from the large prospective Nurses’ Health Study found that, while BSO at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease was associated with a decreased risk of breast and ovarian cancer, BSO was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease, and lung cancer.²⁴ Similar to the findings of the 2005 report, the authors noted that in no analysis or age group was BSO associated with increased survival. They also noted that compared with those who underwent BSO before age 50 and used ET, women with no history of ET use had an approximately 2-fold elevated risk of new onset coronary heart disease (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.18–3.32).²⁴

In 2007, Walter Rocca, MD, a Mayo Clinic neurologist with a particular interest in the epidemiology of dementia, and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic published results of a study that assessed a cohort of women who had undergone unilateral oophorectomy or BSO prior to the onset of menopause.²⁵ The risk of cognitive impairment or dementia was higher in these women compared with women who had intact ovaries (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.90). Of note, this elevated risk was confined to those who underwent oophorectomy before 49 years of age and were not prescribed estrogen until age 50 or older.²⁵

In a subsequent publication, Rocca and colleagues pointed out that BSO prior to menopause not only is associated with higher rates of all-cause mortality and cognitive impairment but also with coronary heart disease, parkinsonism, osteoporosis, and other chronic conditions associated with aging, including metabolic, mental health, and arthritic disorders.²⁶

Oophorectomy trends tracked

Given these and other reports²⁷ that highlighted the health risks of premenopausal BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, Rocca and colleagues recently assessed trends in the occurrence of unilateral oophorectomy or BSO versus ovarian conservation among all women residing in the Minnesota county (Olmsted) in which Mayo Clinic is located, and who underwent gynecologic surgery between 1950 and 2018.²⁸

The investigators limited their analysis to women who had undergone unilateral oophorectomy or BSO between ages 18 and 49 years (these women are assumed to have been premenopausal). The authors considered as indications for oophorectomy primary or metastatic ovarian cancer, risk-reducing BSO for women at elevated risk for ovarian cancer (for example, strong family history or known BRCA gene mutation), adnexal mass, endometriosis, torsion, and other benign gynecologic conditions that included pelvic pain, abscess, oophoritis, or ectopic pregnancy. When more than 1 indication for ovarian surgery was present, the authors used the most clinically important indication. Unilateral oophorectomy or BSO was considered not indicated if the surgery was performed during another primary procedure (usually hysterectomy) without indication, or if the surgeon referred to the ovarian surgery as elective.

Results. Among 5,154 women who had oophorectomies between 1950 and 2018, the proportion of these women who underwent unilateral oophorectomy and BSO was 40.6% and 59.4%, respectively.

For most years between 1950 and 1979, the incidence of unilateral oophorectomy was higher than BSO. However, from 1980 to 2004, the incidence of BSO increased more than 2-fold while the incidence of unilateral surgery declined. After 2005, however, both types of ovarian surgery declined. During the years 2005–2018, a marked decline in BSO occurred, with the reduced incidence in premenopausal BSO most notable among women undergoing hysterectomy or those without an indication for oophorectomy.

Historically, ObGyns were taught that the benefits of removing normal ovaries (to prevent ovarian cancer) in average-risk women at the time of hysterectomy outweighed the risks. We agree with the authors’ speculation that beginning with Parker’s 2005 publication,²³ ObGyns have become more conservative in performing unindicated BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, now recognizing that the harms of this procedure often outweigh any benefits.²⁸

Women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations are at elevated risk for ovarian, tubal, and breast malignancies. In this population, risk-reducing BSO dramatically lowers future risk of ovarian and tubal cancer.

Data addressing the effect of RRSO in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers continue to be evaluated, with differences between the 2 mutations, but they suggest that the surgery reduces not only ovarian cancer and tubal cancer but also possibly breast cancer.²⁹

Continue to: Trends show decline in ET use in surgically menopausal women... 

Trends show decline in ET use in surgically menopausal women 

Suzuki Y, Huang Y, Melamed A, et al. Use of estrogen therapy after surgical menopause in women who are premenopausal. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:756-763. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004762.

In addition to highlighting the risks associated with premenopausal BSO in women at average risk for ovarian cancer, the reports referred to above also underscore that the use of replacement menopausal HT in premenopausal women who undergo BSO prevents morbidity and mortality that otherwise accompanies surgical menopause. In addition, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS) recommends replacement menopausal HT in the setting of induced early menopause when no contraindications are present.¹⁸

To assess the prevalence of HT use in surgically menopausal women, investigators at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons used a national database that captures health insurance claims for some 280 million US patients, focusing on women aged 18 to 50 years who underwent BSO from 2008 to 2019.³⁰ The great majority of women in this database have private insurance. Although the authors used the term estrogen therapy in their article, this term refers to systemic estrogen alone or with progestogen, as well as vaginal ET (personal communication with Jason Wright, MD, a coauthor of the study, May 19, 2022). In this Update section, we use the term HT to include use of any systemic HT or vaginal estrogen.

Prevalence of HT use changed over time period and patient age range

Among almost 61,980 evaluable women who had undergone BSO (median age, 45 years; 75.1% with concomitant hysterectomy; median follow-up time, 27 months), with no history of gynecologic or breast cancer, HT was used within 3 years of BSO by 64.5%. The highest percentage of women in this cohort who used HT peaked in 2008 (69.5%), declining to 58.2% by 2016. The median duration of HT use was 5.3 months. The prevalence of HT use 3 years after BSO declined with age, from 79.1% in women aged 18–29 to 60.0% in women aged 45–50.³⁰

This report, published in the June 2022 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, makes several sobering observations: Many surgically menopausal women aged 50 years and younger are not prescribed HT, the proportion of such women receiving a prescription for HT is declining over time, and the duration of HT use following BSO is short. ●