OBG Management

Restrepo J, Herrera T, Samakoses R, et al. Ten-year follow-up of 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine: immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safety. Pediatrics. 2023;152:e2022060993. doi:10.1542/peds.2022-060993

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) is associated with nearly all cases of cervical cancer. Long-term safety and efficacy of the bivalent (Cervarix) and quadrivalent (Gardasil) vaccines have been demonstrated for up to 10 to 14 years.^1-6 It is estimated that the 9-valent vaccine (Gardasil 9), which was licensed in 2014 and protects against HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58 and HPV 6/11, could prevent up to 90% of cervical cancer cases. The bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines could ideally prevent 70% of cases of cervical cancer. In a recent study, authors compared the efficacy and safety of the newer 9-valent vaccine at 10 years with long-term outcomes of previous vaccine studies.⁷

Details of the study

Study V503-002 conducted by Luxembourg and colleagues originally enrolled 1,935 boys and girls from 66 sites in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and North America to receive 3 doses of the 9-valent HPV vaccine, with follow-up for 12 to 36 months to monitor safety and immunogenicity.⁸ In an extension of this investigation, Restrepo and colleagues revisited 40 of these sites in 13 countries to gather 10 years of long-term follow-up data.⁷

The final long-term follow-up cohort included 971 girls and 301 boys aged 9 to 15 at vaccination.

Results. At month 126, participants continued to have very high seropositive rates (81%–100%, depending on assay sensitivity and HPV type). There were no cases of high-grade cervical, vaginal, or vulvar dysplasia related to HPV strains covered in the vaccine. Rates of infection in women with the vaccine-targeted HPV types were very low—54.6 per 10,000 person-years—compared with 927.4 per 10,000 person-years for HPV types not included in the vaccine. No adverse events attributable to the vaccine were reported.

Study strengths and limitations

Strengths of this study included the use of rigorous end points similar to those used in the initial efficacy studies for easy comparison. Limitations included the relatively small size, which precluded a robust assessment of adverse events, as well as the lack of controls. Furthermore, this study looked at children receiving 3 doses of HPV vaccine prior to the age of 15 and may not be generalizable to people who receive the vaccine at an older age or in fewer doses. ●

Restrepo J, Herrera T, Samakoses R, et al. Ten-year follow-up of 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine: immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safety. Pediatrics. 2023;152:e2022060993. doi:10.1542/peds.2022-060993

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) is associated with nearly all cases of cervical cancer. Long-term safety and efficacy of the bivalent (Cervarix) and quadrivalent (Gardasil) vaccines have been demonstrated for up to 10 to 14 years.^1-6 It is estimated that the 9-valent vaccine (Gardasil 9), which was licensed in 2014 and protects against HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58 and HPV 6/11, could prevent up to 90% of cervical cancer cases. The bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines could ideally prevent 70% of cases of cervical cancer. In a recent study, authors compared the efficacy and safety of the newer 9-valent vaccine at 10 years with long-term outcomes of previous vaccine studies.⁷

Details of the study

Study V503-002 conducted by Luxembourg and colleagues originally enrolled 1,935 boys and girls from 66 sites in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and North America to receive 3 doses of the 9-valent HPV vaccine, with follow-up for 12 to 36 months to monitor safety and immunogenicity.⁸ In an extension of this investigation, Restrepo and colleagues revisited 40 of these sites in 13 countries to gather 10 years of long-term follow-up data.⁷

The final long-term follow-up cohort included 971 girls and 301 boys aged 9 to 15 at vaccination.

Results. At month 126, participants continued to have very high seropositive rates (81%–100%, depending on assay sensitivity and HPV type). There were no cases of high-grade cervical, vaginal, or vulvar dysplasia related to HPV strains covered in the vaccine. Rates of infection in women with the vaccine-targeted HPV types were very low—54.6 per 10,000 person-years—compared with 927.4 per 10,000 person-years for HPV types not included in the vaccine. No adverse events attributable to the vaccine were reported.

Study strengths and limitations

Strengths of this study included the use of rigorous end points similar to those used in the initial efficacy studies for easy comparison. Limitations included the relatively small size, which precluded a robust assessment of adverse events, as well as the lack of controls. Furthermore, this study looked at children receiving 3 doses of HPV vaccine prior to the age of 15 and may not be generalizable to people who receive the vaccine at an older age or in fewer doses. ●

Restrepo J, Herrera T, Samakoses R, et al. Ten-year follow-up of 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine: immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safety. Pediatrics. 2023;152:e2022060993. doi:10.1542/peds.2022-060993

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) is associated with nearly all cases of cervical cancer. Long-term safety and efficacy of the bivalent (Cervarix) and quadrivalent (Gardasil) vaccines have been demonstrated for up to 10 to 14 years.^1-6 It is estimated that the 9-valent vaccine (Gardasil 9), which was licensed in 2014 and protects against HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58 and HPV 6/11, could prevent up to 90% of cervical cancer cases. The bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines could ideally prevent 70% of cases of cervical cancer. In a recent study, authors compared the efficacy and safety of the newer 9-valent vaccine at 10 years with long-term outcomes of previous vaccine studies.⁷

Details of the study

Study V503-002 conducted by Luxembourg and colleagues originally enrolled 1,935 boys and girls from 66 sites in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and North America to receive 3 doses of the 9-valent HPV vaccine, with follow-up for 12 to 36 months to monitor safety and immunogenicity.⁸ In an extension of this investigation, Restrepo and colleagues revisited 40 of these sites in 13 countries to gather 10 years of long-term follow-up data.⁷

The final long-term follow-up cohort included 971 girls and 301 boys aged 9 to 15 at vaccination.

Results. At month 126, participants continued to have very high seropositive rates (81%–100%, depending on assay sensitivity and HPV type). There were no cases of high-grade cervical, vaginal, or vulvar dysplasia related to HPV strains covered in the vaccine. Rates of infection in women with the vaccine-targeted HPV types were very low—54.6 per 10,000 person-years—compared with 927.4 per 10,000 person-years for HPV types not included in the vaccine. No adverse events attributable to the vaccine were reported.

Study strengths and limitations

Strengths of this study included the use of rigorous end points similar to those used in the initial efficacy studies for easy comparison. Limitations included the relatively small size, which precluded a robust assessment of adverse events, as well as the lack of controls. Furthermore, this study looked at children receiving 3 doses of HPV vaccine prior to the age of 15 and may not be generalizable to people who receive the vaccine at an older age or in fewer doses. ●

Individuals spend close to half of their lives preventing, or planning for, pregnancy. As such, contraception plays a major role in patient-provider interactions. Contraception counseling and management is a common scenario encountered in the general gynecologist’s practice. Luckily, we have two evidence-based guidelines developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that support the provision of contraceptive care:

1. US Medical Eligibility for Contraceptive Use (US-MEC),¹ which provides guidance on which patients can safely use a method
2. US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (US-SPR),² which provides method-specific guidance on how to use a method (including how to: initiate or start a method; manage adherence issues, such as a missed pill, etc; and manage common issues like breakthrough bleeding). Both of these guidelines are updated routinely and are publicly available online or for free, through smartphone applications.

While most contraceptive care is straightforward, there are circumstances that require additional consideration. In this 3-part series we review 3 clinical cases, existing evidence to guide management decisions, and our recommendations. In part 1, we focus on restarting hormonal contraception after ulipristal acetate administration. In parts 2 and 3, we will discuss removal of a nonpalpable contraceptive implant and the consideration of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) for emergency contraception.

CASE Meeting emergency and follow-up contraception needs

A 27-year-old woman (G0) presents to you after having unprotected intercourse 4 days ago. She does not formally track her menstrual cycles and is unsure when her last menstrual period was. She is not using contraception but is interested in starting a method. After counseling, she elects to take a dose of oral ulipristal acetate (UPA; Ella) now for emergency contraception and would like to start a combined oral contraceptive (COC) pill moving forward.

How soon after taking UPA should you tell her to start the combined hormonal pill?

Effectiveness of hormonal contraception following UPA

UPA does not appear to decrease the efficacy of COCs when started around the same time. However, immediately starting a hormonal contraceptive can decrease the effectiveness of UPA, and as such, it is recommended to take UPA and then abstain or use a backup method for 7 days before initiating a hormonal contraceptive method.¹ By obtaining some additional information from your patient and with the use of shared decision making, though, your patient may be able to start their contraceptive method earlier than 5 days after UPA.

What is UPA

UPA is a progesterone receptor modulator used for emergency contraception intenhded to prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure.³ It works by delaying follicular rupture at least 5 days, if taken before the peak of the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge. If taken after that timeframe, it does not work. Since UPA competes for the progesterone receptor, there is a concern that the effectiveness of UPA may be decreased if a progestin-containing form of contraception is started immediately after taking UPA, or vice versa.⁴ Several studies have now specifically looked at the interaction between UPA and progestin-containing contraceptives, including at how UPA is impacted by the contraceptive method, and conversely, how the contraceptive method is impacted by UPA.^5-8

Data on types of hormonal contraception. Brache and colleagues demonstrated that UPA users who started a desogestrel progestin-only pill (DSG POP) the next day had higher rates of ovulation within 5 days of taking UPA (45%), compared with those who the next day started a placebo pill (3%).⁶ This type of progestin-only pill is not available in the United States.

A study by Edelman and colleagues demonstrated similar findings in those starting a COC pill containing estrogen and progestin. When taking a COC two days after UPA use, more participants had evidence of follicular rupture in less than 5 days.⁵ It should be noted that these studies focused on ovulation, which—while necessary for conception to occur—is a surrogate biomarker for pregnancy risk. Additional studies have looked at the impact of UPA on the COC and have not found that UPA impacts ovulation suppression of the COC with its initiation or use.⁸

Considering unprotected intercourse and UPA timing. Of course, the risk of pregnancy is reliant on cycle timing plus the presence of viable sperm in the reproductive tract. Sperm have been shown to only be viable in the reproductive tract for 5 days, which could result in fertilization and subsequent pregnancy. Longevity of an egg is much shorter, at 12 to 24 hours after ovulation. For this patient, her exposure was 4 days ago, but sperm are only viable for approximately 5 days—she could consider taking the UPA now and then starting a COC earlier than 5 days since she only needs an extra day or two of protection from the UPA from the sperm in her reproductive tract. Your patient’s involvement in this decision making is paramount, as only they can prioritize their desire to avoid pregnancy from their recent act of unprotected intercourse versus their immediate needs for starting their method of contraception. It is important that individuals abstain from sexual activity or use an additional back-up method during the first 7 days of starting their method of contraception.

Continue to: Counseling considerations for the case patient...

For a patient planning to start or resume a hormonal contraceptive method after taking UPA, the waiting period recommended by the CDC (5 days) is most beneficial for patients who are uncertain about their menstrual cycle timing in relation to the act of unprotected intercourse that already occurred and need to prioritize maximum effectiveness of emergency contraception.

Patients with unsure cycle-sex timing planning to self-start or resume a short-term hormonal contraceptive method (eg, pills, patches, or rings), should be counseled to wait 5 days after the most recent act of unprotected sex, before taking their hormonal contraceptive method.⁷ Patients with unsure cycle-sex timing planning to use provider-dependent hormonal contraceptive methods (eg, those requiring a prescription, including a progestin-contraceptive implant or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate) should also be counseled to wait. Timing of levonorgestrel and copper intrauterine devices are addressed in part 3 of this series.

However, if your patient has a good understanding of their menstrual cycle, and the primary concern is exposure from subsequent sexual encounters and not the recent unprotected intercourse, it is advisable to provide UPA and immediately initiate a contraceptive method. One of the primary reasons for emergency contraception failure is that its effectiveness is limited to the most recent act of unprotected sexual intercourse and does not extend to subsequent acts throughout the month.

For these patients with sure cycle-sex timing who are planning to start or resume short-or long-term contraceptive methods, and whose primary concern is to prevent pregnancy risk from subsequent sexual encounters, immediately initiating a contraceptive method is advisable. For provider-dependent methods, we must weigh the risk of unintended pregnancy from the act of intercourse that already occurred (and the potential to increase that risk by initiating a method that could compromise UPA efficacy) versus the future risk of pregnancy if the patient cannot return for a contraception visit.⁷

In short, starting the contraceptive method at the time of UPA use can be considered after shared decision making with the patient and understanding what their primary concerns are.

Important point

Counsel on using backup barrier contraception after UPA

Oral emergency contraception only covers that one act of unprotected intercourse and does not continue to protect a patient from pregnancy for the rest of their cycle. When taken before ovulation, UPA works by delaying follicular development and rupture for at least 5 days. Patients who continue to have unprotected intercourse after taking UPA are at a high risk of an unintended pregnancy from this ‘stalled’ follicle that will eventually ovulate. Follicular maturation resumes after UPA’s effects wane, and the patient is primed for ovulation (and therefore unintended pregnancy) if ongoing unprotected intercourse occurs for the rest of their cycle.

Therefore, it is important to counsel patients on the need, if they do not desire a pregnancy, to abstain or start a method of contraception.

Final question

What about starting or resuming non–hormonal contraceptive methods?

Non-hormonal contraceptive methods can be started immediately with UPA use.¹

CASE Resolved

After shared decision making, the patient decides to start using the COC pill. You prescribe her both UPA for emergency contraception and a combined hormonal contraceptive pill. Given her unsure cycle-sex timing, she expresses to you that her most important priority is preventing unintended pregnancy. You counsel her to set a reminder on her phone to start taking the pill 5 days from her most recent act of unprotected intercourse. You also counsel her to use a back-up barrier method of contraception for 7 days after starting her COC pill. ●

Individuals spend close to half of their lives preventing, or planning for, pregnancy. As such, contraception plays a major role in patient-provider interactions. Contraception counseling and management is a common scenario encountered in the general gynecologist’s practice. Luckily, we have two evidence-based guidelines developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that support the provision of contraceptive care:

1. US Medical Eligibility for Contraceptive Use (US-MEC),¹ which provides guidance on which patients can safely use a method
2. US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (US-SPR),² which provides method-specific guidance on how to use a method (including how to: initiate or start a method; manage adherence issues, such as a missed pill, etc; and manage common issues like breakthrough bleeding). Both of these guidelines are updated routinely and are publicly available online or for free, through smartphone applications.

While most contraceptive care is straightforward, there are circumstances that require additional consideration. In this 3-part series we review 3 clinical cases, existing evidence to guide management decisions, and our recommendations. In part 1, we focus on restarting hormonal contraception after ulipristal acetate administration. In parts 2 and 3, we will discuss removal of a nonpalpable contraceptive implant and the consideration of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) for emergency contraception.

CASE Meeting emergency and follow-up contraception needs

A 27-year-old woman (G0) presents to you after having unprotected intercourse 4 days ago. She does not formally track her menstrual cycles and is unsure when her last menstrual period was. She is not using contraception but is interested in starting a method. After counseling, she elects to take a dose of oral ulipristal acetate (UPA; Ella) now for emergency contraception and would like to start a combined oral contraceptive (COC) pill moving forward.

How soon after taking UPA should you tell her to start the combined hormonal pill?

Effectiveness of hormonal contraception following UPA

UPA does not appear to decrease the efficacy of COCs when started around the same time. However, immediately starting a hormonal contraceptive can decrease the effectiveness of UPA, and as such, it is recommended to take UPA and then abstain or use a backup method for 7 days before initiating a hormonal contraceptive method.¹ By obtaining some additional information from your patient and with the use of shared decision making, though, your patient may be able to start their contraceptive method earlier than 5 days after UPA.

What is UPA

UPA is a progesterone receptor modulator used for emergency contraception intenhded to prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure.³ It works by delaying follicular rupture at least 5 days, if taken before the peak of the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge. If taken after that timeframe, it does not work. Since UPA competes for the progesterone receptor, there is a concern that the effectiveness of UPA may be decreased if a progestin-containing form of contraception is started immediately after taking UPA, or vice versa.⁴ Several studies have now specifically looked at the interaction between UPA and progestin-containing contraceptives, including at how UPA is impacted by the contraceptive method, and conversely, how the contraceptive method is impacted by UPA.^5-8

Data on types of hormonal contraception. Brache and colleagues demonstrated that UPA users who started a desogestrel progestin-only pill (DSG POP) the next day had higher rates of ovulation within 5 days of taking UPA (45%), compared with those who the next day started a placebo pill (3%).⁶ This type of progestin-only pill is not available in the United States.

A study by Edelman and colleagues demonstrated similar findings in those starting a COC pill containing estrogen and progestin. When taking a COC two days after UPA use, more participants had evidence of follicular rupture in less than 5 days.⁵ It should be noted that these studies focused on ovulation, which—while necessary for conception to occur—is a surrogate biomarker for pregnancy risk. Additional studies have looked at the impact of UPA on the COC and have not found that UPA impacts ovulation suppression of the COC with its initiation or use.⁸

Considering unprotected intercourse and UPA timing. Of course, the risk of pregnancy is reliant on cycle timing plus the presence of viable sperm in the reproductive tract. Sperm have been shown to only be viable in the reproductive tract for 5 days, which could result in fertilization and subsequent pregnancy. Longevity of an egg is much shorter, at 12 to 24 hours after ovulation. For this patient, her exposure was 4 days ago, but sperm are only viable for approximately 5 days—she could consider taking the UPA now and then starting a COC earlier than 5 days since she only needs an extra day or two of protection from the UPA from the sperm in her reproductive tract. Your patient’s involvement in this decision making is paramount, as only they can prioritize their desire to avoid pregnancy from their recent act of unprotected intercourse versus their immediate needs for starting their method of contraception. It is important that individuals abstain from sexual activity or use an additional back-up method during the first 7 days of starting their method of contraception.

Continue to: Counseling considerations for the case patient...

For a patient planning to start or resume a hormonal contraceptive method after taking UPA, the waiting period recommended by the CDC (5 days) is most beneficial for patients who are uncertain about their menstrual cycle timing in relation to the act of unprotected intercourse that already occurred and need to prioritize maximum effectiveness of emergency contraception.

Patients with unsure cycle-sex timing planning to self-start or resume a short-term hormonal contraceptive method (eg, pills, patches, or rings), should be counseled to wait 5 days after the most recent act of unprotected sex, before taking their hormonal contraceptive method.⁷ Patients with unsure cycle-sex timing planning to use provider-dependent hormonal contraceptive methods (eg, those requiring a prescription, including a progestin-contraceptive implant or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate) should also be counseled to wait. Timing of levonorgestrel and copper intrauterine devices are addressed in part 3 of this series.

However, if your patient has a good understanding of their menstrual cycle, and the primary concern is exposure from subsequent sexual encounters and not the recent unprotected intercourse, it is advisable to provide UPA and immediately initiate a contraceptive method. One of the primary reasons for emergency contraception failure is that its effectiveness is limited to the most recent act of unprotected sexual intercourse and does not extend to subsequent acts throughout the month.

For these patients with sure cycle-sex timing who are planning to start or resume short-or long-term contraceptive methods, and whose primary concern is to prevent pregnancy risk from subsequent sexual encounters, immediately initiating a contraceptive method is advisable. For provider-dependent methods, we must weigh the risk of unintended pregnancy from the act of intercourse that already occurred (and the potential to increase that risk by initiating a method that could compromise UPA efficacy) versus the future risk of pregnancy if the patient cannot return for a contraception visit.⁷

In short, starting the contraceptive method at the time of UPA use can be considered after shared decision making with the patient and understanding what their primary concerns are.

Important point

Counsel on using backup barrier contraception after UPA

Oral emergency contraception only covers that one act of unprotected intercourse and does not continue to protect a patient from pregnancy for the rest of their cycle. When taken before ovulation, UPA works by delaying follicular development and rupture for at least 5 days. Patients who continue to have unprotected intercourse after taking UPA are at a high risk of an unintended pregnancy from this ‘stalled’ follicle that will eventually ovulate. Follicular maturation resumes after UPA’s effects wane, and the patient is primed for ovulation (and therefore unintended pregnancy) if ongoing unprotected intercourse occurs for the rest of their cycle.

Therefore, it is important to counsel patients on the need, if they do not desire a pregnancy, to abstain or start a method of contraception.

Final question

What about starting or resuming non–hormonal contraceptive methods?

Non-hormonal contraceptive methods can be started immediately with UPA use.¹

CASE Resolved

After shared decision making, the patient decides to start using the COC pill. You prescribe her both UPA for emergency contraception and a combined hormonal contraceptive pill. Given her unsure cycle-sex timing, she expresses to you that her most important priority is preventing unintended pregnancy. You counsel her to set a reminder on her phone to start taking the pill 5 days from her most recent act of unprotected intercourse. You also counsel her to use a back-up barrier method of contraception for 7 days after starting her COC pill. ●

Individuals spend close to half of their lives preventing, or planning for, pregnancy. As such, contraception plays a major role in patient-provider interactions. Contraception counseling and management is a common scenario encountered in the general gynecologist’s practice. Luckily, we have two evidence-based guidelines developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that support the provision of contraceptive care:

1. US Medical Eligibility for Contraceptive Use (US-MEC),¹ which provides guidance on which patients can safely use a method
2. US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (US-SPR),² which provides method-specific guidance on how to use a method (including how to: initiate or start a method; manage adherence issues, such as a missed pill, etc; and manage common issues like breakthrough bleeding). Both of these guidelines are updated routinely and are publicly available online or for free, through smartphone applications.

While most contraceptive care is straightforward, there are circumstances that require additional consideration. In this 3-part series we review 3 clinical cases, existing evidence to guide management decisions, and our recommendations. In part 1, we focus on restarting hormonal contraception after ulipristal acetate administration. In parts 2 and 3, we will discuss removal of a nonpalpable contraceptive implant and the consideration of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) for emergency contraception.

CASE Meeting emergency and follow-up contraception needs

A 27-year-old woman (G0) presents to you after having unprotected intercourse 4 days ago. She does not formally track her menstrual cycles and is unsure when her last menstrual period was. She is not using contraception but is interested in starting a method. After counseling, she elects to take a dose of oral ulipristal acetate (UPA; Ella) now for emergency contraception and would like to start a combined oral contraceptive (COC) pill moving forward.

How soon after taking UPA should you tell her to start the combined hormonal pill?

Effectiveness of hormonal contraception following UPA

UPA does not appear to decrease the efficacy of COCs when started around the same time. However, immediately starting a hormonal contraceptive can decrease the effectiveness of UPA, and as such, it is recommended to take UPA and then abstain or use a backup method for 7 days before initiating a hormonal contraceptive method.¹ By obtaining some additional information from your patient and with the use of shared decision making, though, your patient may be able to start their contraceptive method earlier than 5 days after UPA.

What is UPA

UPA is a progesterone receptor modulator used for emergency contraception intenhded to prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure.³ It works by delaying follicular rupture at least 5 days, if taken before the peak of the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge. If taken after that timeframe, it does not work. Since UPA competes for the progesterone receptor, there is a concern that the effectiveness of UPA may be decreased if a progestin-containing form of contraception is started immediately after taking UPA, or vice versa.⁴ Several studies have now specifically looked at the interaction between UPA and progestin-containing contraceptives, including at how UPA is impacted by the contraceptive method, and conversely, how the contraceptive method is impacted by UPA.^5-8

Data on types of hormonal contraception. Brache and colleagues demonstrated that UPA users who started a desogestrel progestin-only pill (DSG POP) the next day had higher rates of ovulation within 5 days of taking UPA (45%), compared with those who the next day started a placebo pill (3%).⁶ This type of progestin-only pill is not available in the United States.

A study by Edelman and colleagues demonstrated similar findings in those starting a COC pill containing estrogen and progestin. When taking a COC two days after UPA use, more participants had evidence of follicular rupture in less than 5 days.⁵ It should be noted that these studies focused on ovulation, which—while necessary for conception to occur—is a surrogate biomarker for pregnancy risk. Additional studies have looked at the impact of UPA on the COC and have not found that UPA impacts ovulation suppression of the COC with its initiation or use.⁸

Considering unprotected intercourse and UPA timing. Of course, the risk of pregnancy is reliant on cycle timing plus the presence of viable sperm in the reproductive tract. Sperm have been shown to only be viable in the reproductive tract for 5 days, which could result in fertilization and subsequent pregnancy. Longevity of an egg is much shorter, at 12 to 24 hours after ovulation. For this patient, her exposure was 4 days ago, but sperm are only viable for approximately 5 days—she could consider taking the UPA now and then starting a COC earlier than 5 days since she only needs an extra day or two of protection from the UPA from the sperm in her reproductive tract. Your patient’s involvement in this decision making is paramount, as only they can prioritize their desire to avoid pregnancy from their recent act of unprotected intercourse versus their immediate needs for starting their method of contraception. It is important that individuals abstain from sexual activity or use an additional back-up method during the first 7 days of starting their method of contraception.

Continue to: Counseling considerations for the case patient...

For a patient planning to start or resume a hormonal contraceptive method after taking UPA, the waiting period recommended by the CDC (5 days) is most beneficial for patients who are uncertain about their menstrual cycle timing in relation to the act of unprotected intercourse that already occurred and need to prioritize maximum effectiveness of emergency contraception.

Patients with unsure cycle-sex timing planning to self-start or resume a short-term hormonal contraceptive method (eg, pills, patches, or rings), should be counseled to wait 5 days after the most recent act of unprotected sex, before taking their hormonal contraceptive method.⁷ Patients with unsure cycle-sex timing planning to use provider-dependent hormonal contraceptive methods (eg, those requiring a prescription, including a progestin-contraceptive implant or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate) should also be counseled to wait. Timing of levonorgestrel and copper intrauterine devices are addressed in part 3 of this series.

However, if your patient has a good understanding of their menstrual cycle, and the primary concern is exposure from subsequent sexual encounters and not the recent unprotected intercourse, it is advisable to provide UPA and immediately initiate a contraceptive method. One of the primary reasons for emergency contraception failure is that its effectiveness is limited to the most recent act of unprotected sexual intercourse and does not extend to subsequent acts throughout the month.

For these patients with sure cycle-sex timing who are planning to start or resume short-or long-term contraceptive methods, and whose primary concern is to prevent pregnancy risk from subsequent sexual encounters, immediately initiating a contraceptive method is advisable. For provider-dependent methods, we must weigh the risk of unintended pregnancy from the act of intercourse that already occurred (and the potential to increase that risk by initiating a method that could compromise UPA efficacy) versus the future risk of pregnancy if the patient cannot return for a contraception visit.⁷

In short, starting the contraceptive method at the time of UPA use can be considered after shared decision making with the patient and understanding what their primary concerns are.

Important point

Counsel on using backup barrier contraception after UPA

Oral emergency contraception only covers that one act of unprotected intercourse and does not continue to protect a patient from pregnancy for the rest of their cycle. When taken before ovulation, UPA works by delaying follicular development and rupture for at least 5 days. Patients who continue to have unprotected intercourse after taking UPA are at a high risk of an unintended pregnancy from this ‘stalled’ follicle that will eventually ovulate. Follicular maturation resumes after UPA’s effects wane, and the patient is primed for ovulation (and therefore unintended pregnancy) if ongoing unprotected intercourse occurs for the rest of their cycle.

Therefore, it is important to counsel patients on the need, if they do not desire a pregnancy, to abstain or start a method of contraception.

Final question

What about starting or resuming non–hormonal contraceptive methods?

Non-hormonal contraceptive methods can be started immediately with UPA use.¹

CASE Resolved

After shared decision making, the patient decides to start using the COC pill. You prescribe her both UPA for emergency contraception and a combined hormonal contraceptive pill. Given her unsure cycle-sex timing, she expresses to you that her most important priority is preventing unintended pregnancy. You counsel her to set a reminder on her phone to start taking the pill 5 days from her most recent act of unprotected intercourse. You also counsel her to use a back-up barrier method of contraception for 7 days after starting her COC pill. ●

CASE Pregnant woman asks about the RSV vaccine

A 28-year-old primigravid woman at 30 weeks’ gestation inquires about the new vaccine to protect her newborn baby against respiratory syncytial virus infection (RSV). Her neighbor’s daughter recently was hospitalized for the treatment of RSV, and she is understandably concerned about her own newborn. The patient is healthy, and she has never had any serious respiratory infection. She is taking no medications other than prenatal vitamins.

What advice should you give her? 

If you decide to administer this vaccine, what is the appropriate timing of administration?

Are there any maternal or fetal safety concerns related to use of this vaccine in pregnancy?
 

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a member of the Paramyxoviridae family. It is an enveloped, single-stranded RNA virus that is 150-300 nm in size. The virus codes for 10 virus-specific proteins. The 2 most important are the G protein, which enables the virus to attach to host cells, and the F protein, which facilitates the entry of the virus into the host cell by fusing the host and viral membranes. Two distinct subtypes exist: A and B. There is genetic variation within each subtype and between subtypes. These subtle genetic variations create the potential for reinfections, and hence, research has focused on development of a vaccine that covers both subtypes.¹

RSV is the most common cause of acute lower respiratory tract infection in infants younger than 6 months of age. In these children, RSV is one of the most prominent causes of death, with mortality particularly marked in low- and middle-resource countries as well as in children who were born premature and/or who are immunocompromised. RSV has its greatest impact during winter epidemics in temperate climates and during the rainy seasons in tropical climates. The virus rarely is encountered in the summer.¹ Among young children, RSV primarily is transmitted via close contact with contaminated fingers or fomites and by self-inoculation of the conjunctiva or anterior nares. The incubation period of the infection is 4 to 6 days, and viral shedding may persist for 2 weeks or longer. Most patients gradually recover within 1 to 2 weeks.¹ Adults who contract RSV usually have symptoms suggestive of a common cold; however, in older adults or those who have comorbidities, serious and potentially life-threatening lower respiratory tract infections may develop.

Recently, there have been 2 main approaches to the prevention and treatment of RSV in infants. One has been the development of monoclonal antibodies such as motavizumab, palivizumab, and nirsevimab. The other has been the development of a vaccine that could be administered to pregnant women and which could provide protection for the neonate in the early months of life.^2,3

In late August 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the approval of a new bivalent RSV prefusion F vaccine (ABRYSVO, Pfizer) intended for administration to pregnant women.⁴ Of note, previous efforts to develop whole-virus vaccines either have been ineffective or have potentiated the disease in infants who became infected; development of an effective vaccine had eluded scientists and clinicians for nearly 50 years.² Thus, the new vaccine that targets the F protein of the virus represents a major and welcomed breakthrough.

This article reviews the 3 most recent investigations that preceded the ultimate approval of this vaccine and discusses specific logistical issues related to vaccine administration.

Continue to: First step toward vaccine approval...

First step toward vaccine approval

Madhi and colleagues⁵ were among the first to conduct a large well-designed study to evaluate the effectiveness of maternal vaccination in preventing neonatal infection in the first few months of life. The authors enrolled more than 4,500 healthy pregnant women at 28 to 36 weeks of gestation and assigned them to receive either a single intramuscular dose of an RSV fusion (F) protein vaccine or placebo in a ratio of 2:1. The primary end point was a “medically significant lower respiratory tract infection” within the first 90 days of life. The percentage of infants who met the primary end point was low in both groups: 1.5% in the vaccine group and 2.4% in the placebo group (efficacy 39.4%). The efficacy of the vaccine in preventing lower respiratory tract infection with severe hypoxemia was 48.3% and 44.4% in preventing hospitalization. Although there were differences between the 2 groups, they did not meet the prespecified success criterion for efficacy. Vaccine recipients had more local injection site reactions (40.7% vs 9.9%); however, there was no difference in the frequency of other adverse effects.

Intermediate step: Continued assessment of vaccine safety and immunogenicity

The next important step in the development of the RSV vaccine was a study by Simoes et al,⁶ who conducted a phase 2b trial to determine the safety and immunogenicity of the RSVpreF vaccine. The authors randomly assigned pregnant women at 24 to 36 weeks of gestation to receive either 120 or 240 µg of RSVpreF vaccine or placebo. The key endpoints were the following: maternal and infant safety; the maternal-to-infant transplacental transfer ratio; and the presence of RSV A, B, and combined A/B neutralizing antibody in maternal serum and umbilical cord blood at delivery. The authors conducted a planned interim analysis that included 327 mothers who received the vaccine. The incidence of adverse effects was similar in mothers and infants in the vaccine compared with the placebo group. None of the adverse effects were judged to be serious. The transplacental neutralizing antibody transfer ratios ranged from 1.4 to 2.1 across a range of gestational ages. The vaccine elicited meaningful neutralizing titers of antibody in maternal serum even up to 7 weeks after immunization. The levels of neutralizing antibodies in umbilical cord blood did not vary substantially with respect to gestational age. A post hoc analysis showed that the transferred antibodies prevented medically-attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illnesses in the infants.

Final step: Convincing proof of efficacy

The most recent of the 3 studies, and the one that had the greatest impact in convincing the FDA to approve the vaccine, was the report by Kampmann and colleagues.⁷ The authors conducted a phase 3 prospective, randomized, double-blind trial in 18 different countries over 4 RSV seasons: 2 in the northern hemisphere and 2 in the southern hemisphere. They enrolled healthy pregnant women with singleton gestations at 24 to 36 weeks of gestation and assigned them in a 1:1 ratio to a single intramuscular injection of 120 µg of a bivalent RSV prefusion F protein-based (RSVpreF) vaccine or placebo. They excluded patients with any recognized risk factor for an adverse pregnancy outcome, including preterm labor. The 2 primary efficacy endpoints were a medically-attended severe RSV–lower respiratory tract infection and any medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness in infants within 90, 120, 150, and 180 days after birth.

The efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe lower respiratory tract illness within 90 days of delivery was 81.8% (99.5% confidence interval [CI], 40.6–96.3). The efficacy within 180 days of delivery was 69.4% (97.58% CI, 44.3–84.1). These differences reached the study’s pre-established statistical criteria for success. The overall rate of lower respiratory tract infections was not significantly different. The frequencies of adverse effects in mothers and infants were similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. In particular, the frequency of preterm delivery in the vaccine group was 0.8%, compared with 0.6% in the placebo group (P = NS).

In previous reports to the FDA,⁴ the frequency rate of preterm delivery in RSV vaccine recipients was slightly increased in vaccine recipients compared with patients who received placebo. The difference among the groups was too small to infer a causal relationship; however, as a condition of vaccine approval, the FDA has required Pfizer to conduct a postmarketing study to be certain that administration of the vaccine does not increase the risk for preterm delivery.

Practical details

The new vaccine is a bivalent recombinant vaccine that elicits a robust antibody response against the F (fusion) protein of the virus. In addition to the F antigen, the vaccine contains the following buffer ingredients: tromethamine, sucrose, mannitol, polysorbate, and sodium chloride.⁸ There are no preservatives in the vaccine.

The vaccine should be administered in a single, 0.5 mL, intramuscular injection at 32 to 36 weeks of gestation. Patients who are allergic to any of the components of the vaccine should not be vaccinated. Patients with a mild upper respiratory tract infection may receive the vaccine. Administration should be delayed in patients who are moderately to severely ill. The vaccine may be administered at the same time as other vaccines, such as influenza or Tdap.

The most common side effects of the vaccine are local injection site reactions, such as pain, redness, or swelling. Some patients may experience mild systemic manifestations, including fatigue, fever, headache, nausea, diarrhea, arthralgias, and myalgias. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the approximate wholesale acquisition cost of the vaccine is $320 for 1 injection.

CASE Resolution

This patient is healthy and has no contraindication to the new RSV vaccine. According to the FDA, the optimal time for administration of the vaccine is 32 to 36 weeks of gestation. The patient should anticipate very few side effects following the vaccination, and the vaccine has approximately 80% efficacy in preventing severe lower respiratory tract infection in her neonate. ●

CASE Pregnant woman asks about the RSV vaccine

A 28-year-old primigravid woman at 30 weeks’ gestation inquires about the new vaccine to protect her newborn baby against respiratory syncytial virus infection (RSV). Her neighbor’s daughter recently was hospitalized for the treatment of RSV, and she is understandably concerned about her own newborn. The patient is healthy, and she has never had any serious respiratory infection. She is taking no medications other than prenatal vitamins.

What advice should you give her? 

If you decide to administer this vaccine, what is the appropriate timing of administration?

Are there any maternal or fetal safety concerns related to use of this vaccine in pregnancy?
 

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a member of the Paramyxoviridae family. It is an enveloped, single-stranded RNA virus that is 150-300 nm in size. The virus codes for 10 virus-specific proteins. The 2 most important are the G protein, which enables the virus to attach to host cells, and the F protein, which facilitates the entry of the virus into the host cell by fusing the host and viral membranes. Two distinct subtypes exist: A and B. There is genetic variation within each subtype and between subtypes. These subtle genetic variations create the potential for reinfections, and hence, research has focused on development of a vaccine that covers both subtypes.¹

RSV is the most common cause of acute lower respiratory tract infection in infants younger than 6 months of age. In these children, RSV is one of the most prominent causes of death, with mortality particularly marked in low- and middle-resource countries as well as in children who were born premature and/or who are immunocompromised. RSV has its greatest impact during winter epidemics in temperate climates and during the rainy seasons in tropical climates. The virus rarely is encountered in the summer.¹ Among young children, RSV primarily is transmitted via close contact with contaminated fingers or fomites and by self-inoculation of the conjunctiva or anterior nares. The incubation period of the infection is 4 to 6 days, and viral shedding may persist for 2 weeks or longer. Most patients gradually recover within 1 to 2 weeks.¹ Adults who contract RSV usually have symptoms suggestive of a common cold; however, in older adults or those who have comorbidities, serious and potentially life-threatening lower respiratory tract infections may develop.

Recently, there have been 2 main approaches to the prevention and treatment of RSV in infants. One has been the development of monoclonal antibodies such as motavizumab, palivizumab, and nirsevimab. The other has been the development of a vaccine that could be administered to pregnant women and which could provide protection for the neonate in the early months of life.^2,3

In late August 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the approval of a new bivalent RSV prefusion F vaccine (ABRYSVO, Pfizer) intended for administration to pregnant women.⁴ Of note, previous efforts to develop whole-virus vaccines either have been ineffective or have potentiated the disease in infants who became infected; development of an effective vaccine had eluded scientists and clinicians for nearly 50 years.² Thus, the new vaccine that targets the F protein of the virus represents a major and welcomed breakthrough.

This article reviews the 3 most recent investigations that preceded the ultimate approval of this vaccine and discusses specific logistical issues related to vaccine administration.

Continue to: First step toward vaccine approval...

First step toward vaccine approval

Madhi and colleagues⁵ were among the first to conduct a large well-designed study to evaluate the effectiveness of maternal vaccination in preventing neonatal infection in the first few months of life. The authors enrolled more than 4,500 healthy pregnant women at 28 to 36 weeks of gestation and assigned them to receive either a single intramuscular dose of an RSV fusion (F) protein vaccine or placebo in a ratio of 2:1. The primary end point was a “medically significant lower respiratory tract infection” within the first 90 days of life. The percentage of infants who met the primary end point was low in both groups: 1.5% in the vaccine group and 2.4% in the placebo group (efficacy 39.4%). The efficacy of the vaccine in preventing lower respiratory tract infection with severe hypoxemia was 48.3% and 44.4% in preventing hospitalization. Although there were differences between the 2 groups, they did not meet the prespecified success criterion for efficacy. Vaccine recipients had more local injection site reactions (40.7% vs 9.9%); however, there was no difference in the frequency of other adverse effects.

Intermediate step: Continued assessment of vaccine safety and immunogenicity

The next important step in the development of the RSV vaccine was a study by Simoes et al,⁶ who conducted a phase 2b trial to determine the safety and immunogenicity of the RSVpreF vaccine. The authors randomly assigned pregnant women at 24 to 36 weeks of gestation to receive either 120 or 240 µg of RSVpreF vaccine or placebo. The key endpoints were the following: maternal and infant safety; the maternal-to-infant transplacental transfer ratio; and the presence of RSV A, B, and combined A/B neutralizing antibody in maternal serum and umbilical cord blood at delivery. The authors conducted a planned interim analysis that included 327 mothers who received the vaccine. The incidence of adverse effects was similar in mothers and infants in the vaccine compared with the placebo group. None of the adverse effects were judged to be serious. The transplacental neutralizing antibody transfer ratios ranged from 1.4 to 2.1 across a range of gestational ages. The vaccine elicited meaningful neutralizing titers of antibody in maternal serum even up to 7 weeks after immunization. The levels of neutralizing antibodies in umbilical cord blood did not vary substantially with respect to gestational age. A post hoc analysis showed that the transferred antibodies prevented medically-attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illnesses in the infants.

Final step: Convincing proof of efficacy

The most recent of the 3 studies, and the one that had the greatest impact in convincing the FDA to approve the vaccine, was the report by Kampmann and colleagues.⁷ The authors conducted a phase 3 prospective, randomized, double-blind trial in 18 different countries over 4 RSV seasons: 2 in the northern hemisphere and 2 in the southern hemisphere. They enrolled healthy pregnant women with singleton gestations at 24 to 36 weeks of gestation and assigned them in a 1:1 ratio to a single intramuscular injection of 120 µg of a bivalent RSV prefusion F protein-based (RSVpreF) vaccine or placebo. They excluded patients with any recognized risk factor for an adverse pregnancy outcome, including preterm labor. The 2 primary efficacy endpoints were a medically-attended severe RSV–lower respiratory tract infection and any medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness in infants within 90, 120, 150, and 180 days after birth.

The efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe lower respiratory tract illness within 90 days of delivery was 81.8% (99.5% confidence interval [CI], 40.6–96.3). The efficacy within 180 days of delivery was 69.4% (97.58% CI, 44.3–84.1). These differences reached the study’s pre-established statistical criteria for success. The overall rate of lower respiratory tract infections was not significantly different. The frequencies of adverse effects in mothers and infants were similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. In particular, the frequency of preterm delivery in the vaccine group was 0.8%, compared with 0.6% in the placebo group (P = NS).

In previous reports to the FDA,⁴ the frequency rate of preterm delivery in RSV vaccine recipients was slightly increased in vaccine recipients compared with patients who received placebo. The difference among the groups was too small to infer a causal relationship; however, as a condition of vaccine approval, the FDA has required Pfizer to conduct a postmarketing study to be certain that administration of the vaccine does not increase the risk for preterm delivery.

Practical details

The new vaccine is a bivalent recombinant vaccine that elicits a robust antibody response against the F (fusion) protein of the virus. In addition to the F antigen, the vaccine contains the following buffer ingredients: tromethamine, sucrose, mannitol, polysorbate, and sodium chloride.⁸ There are no preservatives in the vaccine.

The vaccine should be administered in a single, 0.5 mL, intramuscular injection at 32 to 36 weeks of gestation. Patients who are allergic to any of the components of the vaccine should not be vaccinated. Patients with a mild upper respiratory tract infection may receive the vaccine. Administration should be delayed in patients who are moderately to severely ill. The vaccine may be administered at the same time as other vaccines, such as influenza or Tdap.

The most common side effects of the vaccine are local injection site reactions, such as pain, redness, or swelling. Some patients may experience mild systemic manifestations, including fatigue, fever, headache, nausea, diarrhea, arthralgias, and myalgias. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the approximate wholesale acquisition cost of the vaccine is $320 for 1 injection.

CASE Resolution

This patient is healthy and has no contraindication to the new RSV vaccine. According to the FDA, the optimal time for administration of the vaccine is 32 to 36 weeks of gestation. The patient should anticipate very few side effects following the vaccination, and the vaccine has approximately 80% efficacy in preventing severe lower respiratory tract infection in her neonate. ●

CASE Pregnant woman asks about the RSV vaccine

A 28-year-old primigravid woman at 30 weeks’ gestation inquires about the new vaccine to protect her newborn baby against respiratory syncytial virus infection (RSV). Her neighbor’s daughter recently was hospitalized for the treatment of RSV, and she is understandably concerned about her own newborn. The patient is healthy, and she has never had any serious respiratory infection. She is taking no medications other than prenatal vitamins.

What advice should you give her? 

If you decide to administer this vaccine, what is the appropriate timing of administration?

Are there any maternal or fetal safety concerns related to use of this vaccine in pregnancy?
 

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a member of the Paramyxoviridae family. It is an enveloped, single-stranded RNA virus that is 150-300 nm in size. The virus codes for 10 virus-specific proteins. The 2 most important are the G protein, which enables the virus to attach to host cells, and the F protein, which facilitates the entry of the virus into the host cell by fusing the host and viral membranes. Two distinct subtypes exist: A and B. There is genetic variation within each subtype and between subtypes. These subtle genetic variations create the potential for reinfections, and hence, research has focused on development of a vaccine that covers both subtypes.¹

RSV is the most common cause of acute lower respiratory tract infection in infants younger than 6 months of age. In these children, RSV is one of the most prominent causes of death, with mortality particularly marked in low- and middle-resource countries as well as in children who were born premature and/or who are immunocompromised. RSV has its greatest impact during winter epidemics in temperate climates and during the rainy seasons in tropical climates. The virus rarely is encountered in the summer.¹ Among young children, RSV primarily is transmitted via close contact with contaminated fingers or fomites and by self-inoculation of the conjunctiva or anterior nares. The incubation period of the infection is 4 to 6 days, and viral shedding may persist for 2 weeks or longer. Most patients gradually recover within 1 to 2 weeks.¹ Adults who contract RSV usually have symptoms suggestive of a common cold; however, in older adults or those who have comorbidities, serious and potentially life-threatening lower respiratory tract infections may develop.

Recently, there have been 2 main approaches to the prevention and treatment of RSV in infants. One has been the development of monoclonal antibodies such as motavizumab, palivizumab, and nirsevimab. The other has been the development of a vaccine that could be administered to pregnant women and which could provide protection for the neonate in the early months of life.^2,3

In late August 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the approval of a new bivalent RSV prefusion F vaccine (ABRYSVO, Pfizer) intended for administration to pregnant women.⁴ Of note, previous efforts to develop whole-virus vaccines either have been ineffective or have potentiated the disease in infants who became infected; development of an effective vaccine had eluded scientists and clinicians for nearly 50 years.² Thus, the new vaccine that targets the F protein of the virus represents a major and welcomed breakthrough.

This article reviews the 3 most recent investigations that preceded the ultimate approval of this vaccine and discusses specific logistical issues related to vaccine administration.

Continue to: First step toward vaccine approval...

First step toward vaccine approval

Madhi and colleagues⁵ were among the first to conduct a large well-designed study to evaluate the effectiveness of maternal vaccination in preventing neonatal infection in the first few months of life. The authors enrolled more than 4,500 healthy pregnant women at 28 to 36 weeks of gestation and assigned them to receive either a single intramuscular dose of an RSV fusion (F) protein vaccine or placebo in a ratio of 2:1. The primary end point was a “medically significant lower respiratory tract infection” within the first 90 days of life. The percentage of infants who met the primary end point was low in both groups: 1.5% in the vaccine group and 2.4% in the placebo group (efficacy 39.4%). The efficacy of the vaccine in preventing lower respiratory tract infection with severe hypoxemia was 48.3% and 44.4% in preventing hospitalization. Although there were differences between the 2 groups, they did not meet the prespecified success criterion for efficacy. Vaccine recipients had more local injection site reactions (40.7% vs 9.9%); however, there was no difference in the frequency of other adverse effects.

Intermediate step: Continued assessment of vaccine safety and immunogenicity

The next important step in the development of the RSV vaccine was a study by Simoes et al,⁶ who conducted a phase 2b trial to determine the safety and immunogenicity of the RSVpreF vaccine. The authors randomly assigned pregnant women at 24 to 36 weeks of gestation to receive either 120 or 240 µg of RSVpreF vaccine or placebo. The key endpoints were the following: maternal and infant safety; the maternal-to-infant transplacental transfer ratio; and the presence of RSV A, B, and combined A/B neutralizing antibody in maternal serum and umbilical cord blood at delivery. The authors conducted a planned interim analysis that included 327 mothers who received the vaccine. The incidence of adverse effects was similar in mothers and infants in the vaccine compared with the placebo group. None of the adverse effects were judged to be serious. The transplacental neutralizing antibody transfer ratios ranged from 1.4 to 2.1 across a range of gestational ages. The vaccine elicited meaningful neutralizing titers of antibody in maternal serum even up to 7 weeks after immunization. The levels of neutralizing antibodies in umbilical cord blood did not vary substantially with respect to gestational age. A post hoc analysis showed that the transferred antibodies prevented medically-attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illnesses in the infants.

Final step: Convincing proof of efficacy

The most recent of the 3 studies, and the one that had the greatest impact in convincing the FDA to approve the vaccine, was the report by Kampmann and colleagues.⁷ The authors conducted a phase 3 prospective, randomized, double-blind trial in 18 different countries over 4 RSV seasons: 2 in the northern hemisphere and 2 in the southern hemisphere. They enrolled healthy pregnant women with singleton gestations at 24 to 36 weeks of gestation and assigned them in a 1:1 ratio to a single intramuscular injection of 120 µg of a bivalent RSV prefusion F protein-based (RSVpreF) vaccine or placebo. They excluded patients with any recognized risk factor for an adverse pregnancy outcome, including preterm labor. The 2 primary efficacy endpoints were a medically-attended severe RSV–lower respiratory tract infection and any medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness in infants within 90, 120, 150, and 180 days after birth.

The efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe lower respiratory tract illness within 90 days of delivery was 81.8% (99.5% confidence interval [CI], 40.6–96.3). The efficacy within 180 days of delivery was 69.4% (97.58% CI, 44.3–84.1). These differences reached the study’s pre-established statistical criteria for success. The overall rate of lower respiratory tract infections was not significantly different. The frequencies of adverse effects in mothers and infants were similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. In particular, the frequency of preterm delivery in the vaccine group was 0.8%, compared with 0.6% in the placebo group (P = NS).

In previous reports to the FDA,⁴ the frequency rate of preterm delivery in RSV vaccine recipients was slightly increased in vaccine recipients compared with patients who received placebo. The difference among the groups was too small to infer a causal relationship; however, as a condition of vaccine approval, the FDA has required Pfizer to conduct a postmarketing study to be certain that administration of the vaccine does not increase the risk for preterm delivery.

Practical details

The new vaccine is a bivalent recombinant vaccine that elicits a robust antibody response against the F (fusion) protein of the virus. In addition to the F antigen, the vaccine contains the following buffer ingredients: tromethamine, sucrose, mannitol, polysorbate, and sodium chloride.⁸ There are no preservatives in the vaccine.

The vaccine should be administered in a single, 0.5 mL, intramuscular injection at 32 to 36 weeks of gestation. Patients who are allergic to any of the components of the vaccine should not be vaccinated. Patients with a mild upper respiratory tract infection may receive the vaccine. Administration should be delayed in patients who are moderately to severely ill. The vaccine may be administered at the same time as other vaccines, such as influenza or Tdap.

The most common side effects of the vaccine are local injection site reactions, such as pain, redness, or swelling. Some patients may experience mild systemic manifestations, including fatigue, fever, headache, nausea, diarrhea, arthralgias, and myalgias. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the approximate wholesale acquisition cost of the vaccine is $320 for 1 injection.

CASE Resolution

This patient is healthy and has no contraindication to the new RSV vaccine. According to the FDA, the optimal time for administration of the vaccine is 32 to 36 weeks of gestation. The patient should anticipate very few side effects following the vaccination, and the vaccine has approximately 80% efficacy in preventing severe lower respiratory tract infection in her neonate. ●

CASE Anomalous findings on fetal anatomic survey

A 27-year-old previously healthy primigravid woman is at 18 weeks’ gestation. She is a first-grade schoolteacher. On her fetal anatomic survey, the estimated fetal weight was in the eighth percentile. Echogenic bowel and a small amount of ascitic fluid were noted in the fetal abdomen. The lateral and third ventricles were mildly dilated, the head circumference was 2 standard deviations below normal, and the placenta was slightly thickened and edematous.

What is the most likely diagnosis?

What diagnostic tests are indicated?

What management options are available for this patient?
 

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most common of the perinatally transmitted infections, affecting 1% to 4% of all pregnancies. Although the virus typically causes either asymptomatic infection or only mild illness in immunocompetent individuals, it can cause life-threatening disease in immunocompromised persons and in the developing fetus. In this article, we review the virology and epidemiology of CMV infection and then focus on the key methods to diagnose infection in the mother and fetus. We conclude by considering measures that may be of at least modest value in treating CMV in pregnancy.

Virology of CMV infection

Cytomegalovirus is a double-stranded DNA virus in the Herpesviridae family. This ubiquitous virus is present in virtually all secretions and excretions of an infected host, including blood, urine, saliva, breast milk, genital secretions, and tissues and organs used for donation. Infection is transmitted through direct contact with any of the substances listed; contact with infected urine or saliva is the most common mode of transmission. Disease occurrence does not show seasonal variation.

After exposure, an incubation period of 28 to 60 days ensues, followed by development of viremia and clinical symptoms. In the majority of exposed individuals, CMV establishes a lifelong latent infection, and recurrent episodes of illness can occur as a result of reactivation of latent virus (also known as secondary infection) or, more rarely, infection with a new viral strain. In fact, most CMV illness episodes in pregnancy represent a reactivation of a previous infection rather than a new infection.

Following initial infection, both IgM (immunoglobulin M) and IgG (immunoglobulin G) antibodies develop rapidly and can be detected in blood within 1 to 2 weeks. IgM levels typically wane within 30 to 60 days, although persistence for several months is not unusual, and levels also can increase with viral reactivation (secondary infection). IgG antibodies typically persist for many years after a primary infection.

Intrauterine CMV infection occurs through hematogenous transplacental passage during maternal viremia. The risk of transmission and severity of fetal effects depend on whether or not the infection is primary or secondary in nature as well as the gestational age at fetal exposure.^1,2

Additionally, postnatal vertical transmission can occur through exposure to viral particles in genital secretions as well as breast milk. CMV acquired in the postnatal period rarely produces severe sequelae in a healthy term neonate, but it has been associated with an increased rate of complications in very low birth weight and premature newborns.³

Continue to: Who is at risk...

Who is at risk

Congenital CMV, which occurs in 2.1 to 7.7 per 10,000 live births in the United States, is both the most common congenital infection and the leading cause of nonhereditary congenital hearing loss in children.^4,5 The main reservoir of CMV in the United States is young children in day care settings, with approximately 50% of this population showing evidence of viral shedding in saliva.¹ Adult populations in North America have a high prevalence of CMV IgG antibodies indicative of prior infection, with rates reaching 50% to 80%. Among seronegative individuals aged 12 to 49, the rate of seroconversion is approximately 1 in 60 annually.⁶ Significant racial disparities have been noted in rates of seroprevalence and seroconversion, with higher rates of infection in non-Hispanic Black and Mexican American individuals.⁶ Overall, the rate of new CMV infection among pregnant women in the United States is 0.7% to 4%.⁷

Clinical manifestations

Manifestations of infection differ depending on whether or not infection is primary or recurrent (secondary) and whether or not the host is immunocompetent or has a compromised immune system. Unique manifestations develop in the fetus.

CMV infection in children and adults. Among individuals with a normal immune response, the typical course of CMV is either no symptoms or a mononucleosis-like illness. In symptomatic patients, the most common symptoms include malaise, fever, and night sweats, and the most common associated laboratory abnormalities are elevation in liver function tests and a decreased white blood cell count, with a predominance of lymphocytes.⁸

Immunocompromised individuals are at risk for significant morbidity and mortality resulting from CMV. Illness may be the result of reactivation of latent infection due to decreased immune function or may be acquired as a result of treatment such as transplantation of CMV-positive organs or tissues, including bone marrow. Virtually any organ system can be affected, with potential for permanent organ damage and death. Severe systemic infection also can occur.

CMV infection in the fetus and neonate. As noted previously, fetal infection develops as a result of transplacental passage coincident with maternal infection. The risk of CMV transmission to the fetus and the severity of fetal injury vary based on gestational age at fetal infection and whether or not maternal infection is primary or secondary.

In most studies, primary maternal infections are associated with higher rates of fetal infection and more severe fetal and neonatal disease manifestations.^2,7,9,10 Primary infections carry an overall 30% to 40% risk of transmission to the fetus.^7,11 The risk of fetal transmission is much lower with a recurrent infection and is usually less than 2%.¹¹ Due to their greater overall incidence, secondary infections account for the majority of cases of fetal and neonatal CMV disease.⁷ Importantly, although secondary infections generally have been regarded as having a lower risk and lower severity of fetal and neonatal disease, several recent studies have demonstrated rates of complications similar to, and even exceeding, those of primary infections.^12-15 The TABLE provides a summary of the risks of fetal transmission and symptomatic fetal infection based on trimester of pregnancy.^2,11,16-18

In the fetus, CMV may affect multiple organ systems. Among sonographic and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, central nervous system (CNS) anomalies are the most common.^19,20 These can include microcephaly, ventriculomegaly, and periventricular calcifications. The gastrointestinal system also is frequently affected, and findings include echogenic bowel, hepatosplenomegaly, and liver calcifications. Lastly, isolated effusions, placentomegaly, fetal growth restriction, and even frank hydrops can develop. More favorable neurologic outcomes have been demonstrated in infants with no prenatal brain imaging abnormalities.^20,21 However, the role of MRI in prenatal prognosis currently is not well defined.

FIGURE 1 illustrates selected sonographic findings associated with fetal CMV infection.

Continue to: Diagnosing CMV infection...

Diagnosing CMV infection

Maternal infection

If maternal CMV infection is suspected based on a symptomatic illness or an abnormal fetal ultrasound exam, the first diagnostic test should be an assessment of IgM and IgG serology. If the former test results are positive and the latter negative, the diagnosis of acute CMV infection is confirmed. A positive serum CMV DNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test adds additional assurance that the diagnosis is correct. Primary infection, as noted above, poses the greatest risk of serious injury to the fetus.¹

A frequent diagnostic dilemma arises when both the IgM and IgG antibody are positive. Remember that CMV IgM antibody can remain positive for 9 to 12 months after a primary infection and can reappear in the maternal serum in the face of a recurrent or reactivated infection. When confronted by both a positive IgM and positive IgG result, the clinician should then order IgG avidity testing. If the avidity is low to moderate, which reflects poor binding of antibody to the virus, the patient likely has an acute infection. If the avidity is high, which reflects enhanced binding of antibody to virus, the patient probably has a recurrent or reactivated infection; this scenario poses less danger to the developing fetus. The presence of CMV DNA in serum is also more consistent with acute infection, although viremia still can occur with recurrent infection. FIGURE 2 presents a suggested algorithm for the diagnosis of CMV in the pregnant patient.¹

If a diagnosis of maternal CMV infection is confirmed, liver function tests should be obtained to determine if CMV hepatitis is present. If the liver function tests are abnormal, a coagulation profile also should be performed to identify the mother who might be at risk for peripartum hemorrhage.

Fetal infection

The single best test for confirmation of congenital CMV infection is detection of viral DNA and quantitation of viral load in the amniotic fluid by PCR. If the amniocentesis is performed prior to 20 weeks’ gestation and is negative, the test should be repeated in approximately 4 weeks.^1,19,24

Detection of viral DNA indicates congenital infection. The ultimate task, however, is to determine if the infection has injured the fetus. Detailed ultrasound examination is the key to identifying fetal injury. As noted previously, the principal ultrasonographic findings that suggest congenital CMV infection include^{2,19,20,21,25}:

• hydropic placenta
• fetal growth restriction
• microcephaly (head circumference more than 3 standard deviations below the mean)
• periventricular calcifications
• enlarged liver
• echogenic bowel
• ascites
• fetal hydrops.

Management: Evidence on CMV hyperimmune globulin, valacyclovir

If the immunocompetent mother has clinical manifestations of infection, she should receive symptomatic treatment. She should be encouraged to rest as much as possible, stay well hydrated, and use acetaminophen (1,000 mg every 6 to 8 hours) as needed for malaise and fever.

However, if the mother is immunocompromised and has signs of serious complications, such as chorioretinitis, hepatitis, or pneumonia, more aggressive therapy is indicated. Drugs used in this setting include foscarnet and ganciclovir and are best prescribed in consultation with a medical infectious disease specialist.

At this time, no consistently effective therapy for congenital infection is available. Therefore, if a patient has primary CMV infection in the first half of pregnancy, particularly in the first trimester, she should be counseled that the risk of fetal infection is approximately 40% and that approximately 5% to 15% of infants will be severely affected at birth. Given this information, some patients may opt for pregnancy termination.

In 2005, a report from Nigro and colleagues stimulated great hope that CMV-specific hyperimmune globulin (CytoGam) might be of value for both treatment and prophylaxis for congenital infection.²⁶ These authors studied 157 women with confirmed primary CMV infection. One-hundred forty-eight women were asymptomatic and were identified by routine serologic screening, 8 had symptomatic infection, and 1 was identified because of abnormal fetal ultrasound findings. Forty-five women had CMV detected in amniotic fluid by PCR or culture more than 6 weeks before study enrollment. Thirty-one of these women were treated with intravenous hyperimmune globulin (200 U or 200 mg/kg maternal body weight); 14 declined treatment. Seven of the latter women had infants who were acutely symptomatic at the time of delivery; only 1 of the 31 treated women had an affected neonate (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.02; P<.001). In this same study, 84 women did not have a diagnostic amniocentesis because their infection occurred within 6 weeks of enrollment, their gestational age was less than 20 weeks, or they declined the procedure. Thirty-seven of these women received hyperimmune globulin (100 U or 100 mg/kg) every month until delivery, and 47 declined treatment. Six of the treated women delivered infected infants compared with 19 of the untreated women (adjusted OR, 0.32; P<.04).

Although these results were quite encouraging, several problems existed with the study’s design, as noted in an editorial that accompanied the study’s publication.²⁷ First, the study was not randomized or placebo controlled. Second, patients were not stratified based on the severity of fetal ultrasound abnormalities. Third, the dosing of hyperimmune globulin varied; 9 of the 31 patients in the treatment group received additional infusions of drug into either the amniotic fluid or fetal umbilical vein. Moreover, patients in the prophylaxis group actually received a higher cumulative dose of hyperimmune globulin than patients in the treatment group.

Two subsequent investigations that were better designed were unable to verify the effectiveness of hyperimmune globulin. In 2014, Revello and colleagues reported the results of a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study of 124 women at 5 to 26 weeks’ gestation with confirmed primary CMV infection.²⁸ The rate of congenital infection was 30% in the group treated with hyperimmune globulin and 44% in the placebo group (P=.13). There also was no significant difference in the concentration of serum CMV DNA in treated versus untreated mothers. Moreover, the number of adverse obstetric events (preterm delivery, fetal growth restriction, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, and postpartum preeclampsia) in the treatment group was higher than in the placebo group, 13% versus 2%.

In 2021, Hughes and colleagues published the results of a multicenter, double-blind trial in 399 women who had a diagnosis of primary CMV infection before 23 weeks’ gestation.²⁹ The primary outcome was defined as a composite of congenital CMV infection or fetal/neonatal death. An adverse primary outcome occurred in 22.7% of the patients who received hyperimmune globulin and 19.4% of those who received placebo (relative risk, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80–1.72; P=.42).
 

Continue to: Jacquemard and colleagues...

Jacquemard and colleagues then proposed a different approach.³⁰ In a small pilot study of 20 patients, these authors used high doses of oral valacylovir (2 g 4 times daily) and documented therapeutic drug concentrations and a decline in CMV viral load in fetal serum. Patients were not stratified by severity of fetal injury at onset of treatment, so the authors were unable to define which fetuses were most likely to benefit from treatment.

In a follow-up investigation, Leruez-Ville and colleagues reported another small series in which high-dose oral valacyclovir (8 g daily) was used for treatment.³¹ They excluded fetuses with severe brain anomalies and fetuses with no sonographic evidence of injury. The median gestational age at diagnosis was 26 weeks. Thirty-four of 43 treated fetuses were free of injury at birth. In addition, the viral load in the neonate’s serum decreased significantly after treatment, and the platelet count increased. The authors then compared these outcomes to a historical cohort and confirmed that treatment increased the proportion of asymptomatic neonates from 43% without treatment to 82% with treatment (P<.05 with no overlapping confidence intervals).

We conclude from these investigations that hyperimmune globulin is unlikely to be of value in treating congenital CMV infection, especially if the fetus already has sonographic findings of severe injury. High-dose oral valacyclovir also is unlikely to be of value in severely affected fetuses, particularly those with evidence of CNS injury. However, antiviral therapy may be of modest value in situations when the fetus is less severely injured.

Preventive measures

Since no definitive treatment is available for congenital CMV infection, our efforts as clinicians should focus on measures that may prevent transmission of infection to the pregnant patient. These measures include:

• Encouraging patients to use careful handwashing techniques when handling infant diapers and toys.
• Encouraging patients to adopt safe sexual practices if not already engaged in a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship.
• Using CMV-negative blood when transfusing a pregnant woman or a fetus.

At the present time, unfortunately, a readily available and highly effective therapy for prevention of CMV infection is not available.

CASE Congenital infection diagnosed

The ultrasound findings are most consistent with congenital CMV infection, especially given the patient’s work as an elementary schoolteacher. The diagnosis of maternal infection is best established by conventional serology (positive IgM, negative IgM) and detection of viral DNA in maternal blood by PCR testing. The diagnosis of congenital infection is best confirmed by documentation of viral DNA in the amniotic fluid by PCR testing. Given that this fetus already has evidence of moderate to severe injury, no treatment is likely to be effective in reversing the abnormal ultrasound findings. Pregnancy termination may be an option, depending upon the patient’s desires and the legal restrictions prevalent in the patient’s geographic area. ●

CASE Anomalous findings on fetal anatomic survey

A 27-year-old previously healthy primigravid woman is at 18 weeks’ gestation. She is a first-grade schoolteacher. On her fetal anatomic survey, the estimated fetal weight was in the eighth percentile. Echogenic bowel and a small amount of ascitic fluid were noted in the fetal abdomen. The lateral and third ventricles were mildly dilated, the head circumference was 2 standard deviations below normal, and the placenta was slightly thickened and edematous.

What is the most likely diagnosis?

What diagnostic tests are indicated?

What management options are available for this patient?
 

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most common of the perinatally transmitted infections, affecting 1% to 4% of all pregnancies. Although the virus typically causes either asymptomatic infection or only mild illness in immunocompetent individuals, it can cause life-threatening disease in immunocompromised persons and in the developing fetus. In this article, we review the virology and epidemiology of CMV infection and then focus on the key methods to diagnose infection in the mother and fetus. We conclude by considering measures that may be of at least modest value in treating CMV in pregnancy.

Virology of CMV infection

Cytomegalovirus is a double-stranded DNA virus in the Herpesviridae family. This ubiquitous virus is present in virtually all secretions and excretions of an infected host, including blood, urine, saliva, breast milk, genital secretions, and tissues and organs used for donation. Infection is transmitted through direct contact with any of the substances listed; contact with infected urine or saliva is the most common mode of transmission. Disease occurrence does not show seasonal variation.

After exposure, an incubation period of 28 to 60 days ensues, followed by development of viremia and clinical symptoms. In the majority of exposed individuals, CMV establishes a lifelong latent infection, and recurrent episodes of illness can occur as a result of reactivation of latent virus (also known as secondary infection) or, more rarely, infection with a new viral strain. In fact, most CMV illness episodes in pregnancy represent a reactivation of a previous infection rather than a new infection.

Following initial infection, both IgM (immunoglobulin M) and IgG (immunoglobulin G) antibodies develop rapidly and can be detected in blood within 1 to 2 weeks. IgM levels typically wane within 30 to 60 days, although persistence for several months is not unusual, and levels also can increase with viral reactivation (secondary infection). IgG antibodies typically persist for many years after a primary infection.

Intrauterine CMV infection occurs through hematogenous transplacental passage during maternal viremia. The risk of transmission and severity of fetal effects depend on whether or not the infection is primary or secondary in nature as well as the gestational age at fetal exposure.^1,2

Additionally, postnatal vertical transmission can occur through exposure to viral particles in genital secretions as well as breast milk. CMV acquired in the postnatal period rarely produces severe sequelae in a healthy term neonate, but it has been associated with an increased rate of complications in very low birth weight and premature newborns.³

Continue to: Who is at risk...

Who is at risk

Congenital CMV, which occurs in 2.1 to 7.7 per 10,000 live births in the United States, is both the most common congenital infection and the leading cause of nonhereditary congenital hearing loss in children.^4,5 The main reservoir of CMV in the United States is young children in day care settings, with approximately 50% of this population showing evidence of viral shedding in saliva.¹ Adult populations in North America have a high prevalence of CMV IgG antibodies indicative of prior infection, with rates reaching 50% to 80%. Among seronegative individuals aged 12 to 49, the rate of seroconversion is approximately 1 in 60 annually.⁶ Significant racial disparities have been noted in rates of seroprevalence and seroconversion, with higher rates of infection in non-Hispanic Black and Mexican American individuals.⁶ Overall, the rate of new CMV infection among pregnant women in the United States is 0.7% to 4%.⁷

Clinical manifestations

Manifestations of infection differ depending on whether or not infection is primary or recurrent (secondary) and whether or not the host is immunocompetent or has a compromised immune system. Unique manifestations develop in the fetus.

CMV infection in children and adults. Among individuals with a normal immune response, the typical course of CMV is either no symptoms or a mononucleosis-like illness. In symptomatic patients, the most common symptoms include malaise, fever, and night sweats, and the most common associated laboratory abnormalities are elevation in liver function tests and a decreased white blood cell count, with a predominance of lymphocytes.⁸

Immunocompromised individuals are at risk for significant morbidity and mortality resulting from CMV. Illness may be the result of reactivation of latent infection due to decreased immune function or may be acquired as a result of treatment such as transplantation of CMV-positive organs or tissues, including bone marrow. Virtually any organ system can be affected, with potential for permanent organ damage and death. Severe systemic infection also can occur.

CMV infection in the fetus and neonate. As noted previously, fetal infection develops as a result of transplacental passage coincident with maternal infection. The risk of CMV transmission to the fetus and the severity of fetal injury vary based on gestational age at fetal infection and whether or not maternal infection is primary or secondary.

In most studies, primary maternal infections are associated with higher rates of fetal infection and more severe fetal and neonatal disease manifestations.^2,7,9,10 Primary infections carry an overall 30% to 40% risk of transmission to the fetus.^7,11 The risk of fetal transmission is much lower with a recurrent infection and is usually less than 2%.¹¹ Due to their greater overall incidence, secondary infections account for the majority of cases of fetal and neonatal CMV disease.⁷ Importantly, although secondary infections generally have been regarded as having a lower risk and lower severity of fetal and neonatal disease, several recent studies have demonstrated rates of complications similar to, and even exceeding, those of primary infections.^12-15 The TABLE provides a summary of the risks of fetal transmission and symptomatic fetal infection based on trimester of pregnancy.^2,11,16-18

In the fetus, CMV may affect multiple organ systems. Among sonographic and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, central nervous system (CNS) anomalies are the most common.^19,20 These can include microcephaly, ventriculomegaly, and periventricular calcifications. The gastrointestinal system also is frequently affected, and findings include echogenic bowel, hepatosplenomegaly, and liver calcifications. Lastly, isolated effusions, placentomegaly, fetal growth restriction, and even frank hydrops can develop. More favorable neurologic outcomes have been demonstrated in infants with no prenatal brain imaging abnormalities.^20,21 However, the role of MRI in prenatal prognosis currently is not well defined.

FIGURE 1 illustrates selected sonographic findings associated with fetal CMV infection.

Continue to: Diagnosing CMV infection...

Diagnosing CMV infection

Maternal infection

If maternal CMV infection is suspected based on a symptomatic illness or an abnormal fetal ultrasound exam, the first diagnostic test should be an assessment of IgM and IgG serology. If the former test results are positive and the latter negative, the diagnosis of acute CMV infection is confirmed. A positive serum CMV DNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test adds additional assurance that the diagnosis is correct. Primary infection, as noted above, poses the greatest risk of serious injury to the fetus.¹

A frequent diagnostic dilemma arises when both the IgM and IgG antibody are positive. Remember that CMV IgM antibody can remain positive for 9 to 12 months after a primary infection and can reappear in the maternal serum in the face of a recurrent or reactivated infection. When confronted by both a positive IgM and positive IgG result, the clinician should then order IgG avidity testing. If the avidity is low to moderate, which reflects poor binding of antibody to the virus, the patient likely has an acute infection. If the avidity is high, which reflects enhanced binding of antibody to virus, the patient probably has a recurrent or reactivated infection; this scenario poses less danger to the developing fetus. The presence of CMV DNA in serum is also more consistent with acute infection, although viremia still can occur with recurrent infection. FIGURE 2 presents a suggested algorithm for the diagnosis of CMV in the pregnant patient.¹

If a diagnosis of maternal CMV infection is confirmed, liver function tests should be obtained to determine if CMV hepatitis is present. If the liver function tests are abnormal, a coagulation profile also should be performed to identify the mother who might be at risk for peripartum hemorrhage.

Fetal infection

The single best test for confirmation of congenital CMV infection is detection of viral DNA and quantitation of viral load in the amniotic fluid by PCR. If the amniocentesis is performed prior to 20 weeks’ gestation and is negative, the test should be repeated in approximately 4 weeks.^1,19,24

Detection of viral DNA indicates congenital infection. The ultimate task, however, is to determine if the infection has injured the fetus. Detailed ultrasound examination is the key to identifying fetal injury. As noted previously, the principal ultrasonographic findings that suggest congenital CMV infection include^{2,19,20,21,25}:

• hydropic placenta
• fetal growth restriction
• microcephaly (head circumference more than 3 standard deviations below the mean)
• periventricular calcifications
• enlarged liver
• echogenic bowel
• ascites
• fetal hydrops.

Management: Evidence on CMV hyperimmune globulin, valacyclovir

If the immunocompetent mother has clinical manifestations of infection, she should receive symptomatic treatment. She should be encouraged to rest as much as possible, stay well hydrated, and use acetaminophen (1,000 mg every 6 to 8 hours) as needed for malaise and fever.

However, if the mother is immunocompromised and has signs of serious complications, such as chorioretinitis, hepatitis, or pneumonia, more aggressive therapy is indicated. Drugs used in this setting include foscarnet and ganciclovir and are best prescribed in consultation with a medical infectious disease specialist.

At this time, no consistently effective therapy for congenital infection is available. Therefore, if a patient has primary CMV infection in the first half of pregnancy, particularly in the first trimester, she should be counseled that the risk of fetal infection is approximately 40% and that approximately 5% to 15% of infants will be severely affected at birth. Given this information, some patients may opt for pregnancy termination.

In 2005, a report from Nigro and colleagues stimulated great hope that CMV-specific hyperimmune globulin (CytoGam) might be of value for both treatment and prophylaxis for congenital infection.²⁶ These authors studied 157 women with confirmed primary CMV infection. One-hundred forty-eight women were asymptomatic and were identified by routine serologic screening, 8 had symptomatic infection, and 1 was identified because of abnormal fetal ultrasound findings. Forty-five women had CMV detected in amniotic fluid by PCR or culture more than 6 weeks before study enrollment. Thirty-one of these women were treated with intravenous hyperimmune globulin (200 U or 200 mg/kg maternal body weight); 14 declined treatment. Seven of the latter women had infants who were acutely symptomatic at the time of delivery; only 1 of the 31 treated women had an affected neonate (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.02; P<.001). In this same study, 84 women did not have a diagnostic amniocentesis because their infection occurred within 6 weeks of enrollment, their gestational age was less than 20 weeks, or they declined the procedure. Thirty-seven of these women received hyperimmune globulin (100 U or 100 mg/kg) every month until delivery, and 47 declined treatment. Six of the treated women delivered infected infants compared with 19 of the untreated women (adjusted OR, 0.32; P<.04).

Although these results were quite encouraging, several problems existed with the study’s design, as noted in an editorial that accompanied the study’s publication.²⁷ First, the study was not randomized or placebo controlled. Second, patients were not stratified based on the severity of fetal ultrasound abnormalities. Third, the dosing of hyperimmune globulin varied; 9 of the 31 patients in the treatment group received additional infusions of drug into either the amniotic fluid or fetal umbilical vein. Moreover, patients in the prophylaxis group actually received a higher cumulative dose of hyperimmune globulin than patients in the treatment group.

Two subsequent investigations that were better designed were unable to verify the effectiveness of hyperimmune globulin. In 2014, Revello and colleagues reported the results of a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study of 124 women at 5 to 26 weeks’ gestation with confirmed primary CMV infection.²⁸ The rate of congenital infection was 30% in the group treated with hyperimmune globulin and 44% in the placebo group (P=.13). There also was no significant difference in the concentration of serum CMV DNA in treated versus untreated mothers. Moreover, the number of adverse obstetric events (preterm delivery, fetal growth restriction, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, and postpartum preeclampsia) in the treatment group was higher than in the placebo group, 13% versus 2%.

In 2021, Hughes and colleagues published the results of a multicenter, double-blind trial in 399 women who had a diagnosis of primary CMV infection before 23 weeks’ gestation.²⁹ The primary outcome was defined as a composite of congenital CMV infection or fetal/neonatal death. An adverse primary outcome occurred in 22.7% of the patients who received hyperimmune globulin and 19.4% of those who received placebo (relative risk, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80–1.72; P=.42).
 

Continue to: Jacquemard and colleagues...

Jacquemard and colleagues then proposed a different approach.³⁰ In a small pilot study of 20 patients, these authors used high doses of oral valacylovir (2 g 4 times daily) and documented therapeutic drug concentrations and a decline in CMV viral load in fetal serum. Patients were not stratified by severity of fetal injury at onset of treatment, so the authors were unable to define which fetuses were most likely to benefit from treatment.

In a follow-up investigation, Leruez-Ville and colleagues reported another small series in which high-dose oral valacyclovir (8 g daily) was used for treatment.³¹ They excluded fetuses with severe brain anomalies and fetuses with no sonographic evidence of injury. The median gestational age at diagnosis was 26 weeks. Thirty-four of 43 treated fetuses were free of injury at birth. In addition, the viral load in the neonate’s serum decreased significantly after treatment, and the platelet count increased. The authors then compared these outcomes to a historical cohort and confirmed that treatment increased the proportion of asymptomatic neonates from 43% without treatment to 82% with treatment (P<.05 with no overlapping confidence intervals).

We conclude from these investigations that hyperimmune globulin is unlikely to be of value in treating congenital CMV infection, especially if the fetus already has sonographic findings of severe injury. High-dose oral valacyclovir also is unlikely to be of value in severely affected fetuses, particularly those with evidence of CNS injury. However, antiviral therapy may be of modest value in situations when the fetus is less severely injured.

Preventive measures

Since no definitive treatment is available for congenital CMV infection, our efforts as clinicians should focus on measures that may prevent transmission of infection to the pregnant patient. These measures include:

• Encouraging patients to use careful handwashing techniques when handling infant diapers and toys.
• Encouraging patients to adopt safe sexual practices if not already engaged in a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship.
• Using CMV-negative blood when transfusing a pregnant woman or a fetus.

At the present time, unfortunately, a readily available and highly effective therapy for prevention of CMV infection is not available.

CASE Congenital infection diagnosed

The ultrasound findings are most consistent with congenital CMV infection, especially given the patient’s work as an elementary schoolteacher. The diagnosis of maternal infection is best established by conventional serology (positive IgM, negative IgM) and detection of viral DNA in maternal blood by PCR testing. The diagnosis of congenital infection is best confirmed by documentation of viral DNA in the amniotic fluid by PCR testing. Given that this fetus already has evidence of moderate to severe injury, no treatment is likely to be effective in reversing the abnormal ultrasound findings. Pregnancy termination may be an option, depending upon the patient’s desires and the legal restrictions prevalent in the patient’s geographic area. ●

CASE Anomalous findings on fetal anatomic survey

A 27-year-old previously healthy primigravid woman is at 18 weeks’ gestation. She is a first-grade schoolteacher. On her fetal anatomic survey, the estimated fetal weight was in the eighth percentile. Echogenic bowel and a small amount of ascitic fluid were noted in the fetal abdomen. The lateral and third ventricles were mildly dilated, the head circumference was 2 standard deviations below normal, and the placenta was slightly thickened and edematous.

What is the most likely diagnosis?

What diagnostic tests are indicated?

What management options are available for this patient?
 

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most common of the perinatally transmitted infections, affecting 1% to 4% of all pregnancies. Although the virus typically causes either asymptomatic infection or only mild illness in immunocompetent individuals, it can cause life-threatening disease in immunocompromised persons and in the developing fetus. In this article, we review the virology and epidemiology of CMV infection and then focus on the key methods to diagnose infection in the mother and fetus. We conclude by considering measures that may be of at least modest value in treating CMV in pregnancy.

Virology of CMV infection

Cytomegalovirus is a double-stranded DNA virus in the Herpesviridae family. This ubiquitous virus is present in virtually all secretions and excretions of an infected host, including blood, urine, saliva, breast milk, genital secretions, and tissues and organs used for donation. Infection is transmitted through direct contact with any of the substances listed; contact with infected urine or saliva is the most common mode of transmission. Disease occurrence does not show seasonal variation.

After exposure, an incubation period of 28 to 60 days ensues, followed by development of viremia and clinical symptoms. In the majority of exposed individuals, CMV establishes a lifelong latent infection, and recurrent episodes of illness can occur as a result of reactivation of latent virus (also known as secondary infection) or, more rarely, infection with a new viral strain. In fact, most CMV illness episodes in pregnancy represent a reactivation of a previous infection rather than a new infection.

Following initial infection, both IgM (immunoglobulin M) and IgG (immunoglobulin G) antibodies develop rapidly and can be detected in blood within 1 to 2 weeks. IgM levels typically wane within 30 to 60 days, although persistence for several months is not unusual, and levels also can increase with viral reactivation (secondary infection). IgG antibodies typically persist for many years after a primary infection.

Intrauterine CMV infection occurs through hematogenous transplacental passage during maternal viremia. The risk of transmission and severity of fetal effects depend on whether or not the infection is primary or secondary in nature as well as the gestational age at fetal exposure.^1,2

Additionally, postnatal vertical transmission can occur through exposure to viral particles in genital secretions as well as breast milk. CMV acquired in the postnatal period rarely produces severe sequelae in a healthy term neonate, but it has been associated with an increased rate of complications in very low birth weight and premature newborns.³

Continue to: Who is at risk...

Who is at risk

Congenital CMV, which occurs in 2.1 to 7.7 per 10,000 live births in the United States, is both the most common congenital infection and the leading cause of nonhereditary congenital hearing loss in children.^4,5 The main reservoir of CMV in the United States is young children in day care settings, with approximately 50% of this population showing evidence of viral shedding in saliva.¹ Adult populations in North America have a high prevalence of CMV IgG antibodies indicative of prior infection, with rates reaching 50% to 80%. Among seronegative individuals aged 12 to 49, the rate of seroconversion is approximately 1 in 60 annually.⁶ Significant racial disparities have been noted in rates of seroprevalence and seroconversion, with higher rates of infection in non-Hispanic Black and Mexican American individuals.⁶ Overall, the rate of new CMV infection among pregnant women in the United States is 0.7% to 4%.⁷

Clinical manifestations

Manifestations of infection differ depending on whether or not infection is primary or recurrent (secondary) and whether or not the host is immunocompetent or has a compromised immune system. Unique manifestations develop in the fetus.

CMV infection in children and adults. Among individuals with a normal immune response, the typical course of CMV is either no symptoms or a mononucleosis-like illness. In symptomatic patients, the most common symptoms include malaise, fever, and night sweats, and the most common associated laboratory abnormalities are elevation in liver function tests and a decreased white blood cell count, with a predominance of lymphocytes.⁸

Immunocompromised individuals are at risk for significant morbidity and mortality resulting from CMV. Illness may be the result of reactivation of latent infection due to decreased immune function or may be acquired as a result of treatment such as transplantation of CMV-positive organs or tissues, including bone marrow. Virtually any organ system can be affected, with potential for permanent organ damage and death. Severe systemic infection also can occur.

CMV infection in the fetus and neonate. As noted previously, fetal infection develops as a result of transplacental passage coincident with maternal infection. The risk of CMV transmission to the fetus and the severity of fetal injury vary based on gestational age at fetal infection and whether or not maternal infection is primary or secondary.

In most studies, primary maternal infections are associated with higher rates of fetal infection and more severe fetal and neonatal disease manifestations.^2,7,9,10 Primary infections carry an overall 30% to 40% risk of transmission to the fetus.^7,11 The risk of fetal transmission is much lower with a recurrent infection and is usually less than 2%.¹¹ Due to their greater overall incidence, secondary infections account for the majority of cases of fetal and neonatal CMV disease.⁷ Importantly, although secondary infections generally have been regarded as having a lower risk and lower severity of fetal and neonatal disease, several recent studies have demonstrated rates of complications similar to, and even exceeding, those of primary infections.^12-15 The TABLE provides a summary of the risks of fetal transmission and symptomatic fetal infection based on trimester of pregnancy.^2,11,16-18

In the fetus, CMV may affect multiple organ systems. Among sonographic and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, central nervous system (CNS) anomalies are the most common.^19,20 These can include microcephaly, ventriculomegaly, and periventricular calcifications. The gastrointestinal system also is frequently affected, and findings include echogenic bowel, hepatosplenomegaly, and liver calcifications. Lastly, isolated effusions, placentomegaly, fetal growth restriction, and even frank hydrops can develop. More favorable neurologic outcomes have been demonstrated in infants with no prenatal brain imaging abnormalities.^20,21 However, the role of MRI in prenatal prognosis currently is not well defined.

FIGURE 1 illustrates selected sonographic findings associated with fetal CMV infection.

Continue to: Diagnosing CMV infection...

Diagnosing CMV infection

Maternal infection

If maternal CMV infection is suspected based on a symptomatic illness or an abnormal fetal ultrasound exam, the first diagnostic test should be an assessment of IgM and IgG serology. If the former test results are positive and the latter negative, the diagnosis of acute CMV infection is confirmed. A positive serum CMV DNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test adds additional assurance that the diagnosis is correct. Primary infection, as noted above, poses the greatest risk of serious injury to the fetus.¹

A frequent diagnostic dilemma arises when both the IgM and IgG antibody are positive. Remember that CMV IgM antibody can remain positive for 9 to 12 months after a primary infection and can reappear in the maternal serum in the face of a recurrent or reactivated infection. When confronted by both a positive IgM and positive IgG result, the clinician should then order IgG avidity testing. If the avidity is low to moderate, which reflects poor binding of antibody to the virus, the patient likely has an acute infection. If the avidity is high, which reflects enhanced binding of antibody to virus, the patient probably has a recurrent or reactivated infection; this scenario poses less danger to the developing fetus. The presence of CMV DNA in serum is also more consistent with acute infection, although viremia still can occur with recurrent infection. FIGURE 2 presents a suggested algorithm for the diagnosis of CMV in the pregnant patient.¹

If a diagnosis of maternal CMV infection is confirmed, liver function tests should be obtained to determine if CMV hepatitis is present. If the liver function tests are abnormal, a coagulation profile also should be performed to identify the mother who might be at risk for peripartum hemorrhage.

Fetal infection

The single best test for confirmation of congenital CMV infection is detection of viral DNA and quantitation of viral load in the amniotic fluid by PCR. If the amniocentesis is performed prior to 20 weeks’ gestation and is negative, the test should be repeated in approximately 4 weeks.^1,19,24

Detection of viral DNA indicates congenital infection. The ultimate task, however, is to determine if the infection has injured the fetus. Detailed ultrasound examination is the key to identifying fetal injury. As noted previously, the principal ultrasonographic findings that suggest congenital CMV infection include^{2,19,20,21,25}:

• hydropic placenta
• fetal growth restriction
• microcephaly (head circumference more than 3 standard deviations below the mean)
• periventricular calcifications
• enlarged liver
• echogenic bowel
• ascites
• fetal hydrops.

Management: Evidence on CMV hyperimmune globulin, valacyclovir

If the immunocompetent mother has clinical manifestations of infection, she should receive symptomatic treatment. She should be encouraged to rest as much as possible, stay well hydrated, and use acetaminophen (1,000 mg every 6 to 8 hours) as needed for malaise and fever.

However, if the mother is immunocompromised and has signs of serious complications, such as chorioretinitis, hepatitis, or pneumonia, more aggressive therapy is indicated. Drugs used in this setting include foscarnet and ganciclovir and are best prescribed in consultation with a medical infectious disease specialist.

At this time, no consistently effective therapy for congenital infection is available. Therefore, if a patient has primary CMV infection in the first half of pregnancy, particularly in the first trimester, she should be counseled that the risk of fetal infection is approximately 40% and that approximately 5% to 15% of infants will be severely affected at birth. Given this information, some patients may opt for pregnancy termination.

In 2005, a report from Nigro and colleagues stimulated great hope that CMV-specific hyperimmune globulin (CytoGam) might be of value for both treatment and prophylaxis for congenital infection.²⁶ These authors studied 157 women with confirmed primary CMV infection. One-hundred forty-eight women were asymptomatic and were identified by routine serologic screening, 8 had symptomatic infection, and 1 was identified because of abnormal fetal ultrasound findings. Forty-five women had CMV detected in amniotic fluid by PCR or culture more than 6 weeks before study enrollment. Thirty-one of these women were treated with intravenous hyperimmune globulin (200 U or 200 mg/kg maternal body weight); 14 declined treatment. Seven of the latter women had infants who were acutely symptomatic at the time of delivery; only 1 of the 31 treated women had an affected neonate (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.02; P<.001). In this same study, 84 women did not have a diagnostic amniocentesis because their infection occurred within 6 weeks of enrollment, their gestational age was less than 20 weeks, or they declined the procedure. Thirty-seven of these women received hyperimmune globulin (100 U or 100 mg/kg) every month until delivery, and 47 declined treatment. Six of the treated women delivered infected infants compared with 19 of the untreated women (adjusted OR, 0.32; P<.04).

Although these results were quite encouraging, several problems existed with the study’s design, as noted in an editorial that accompanied the study’s publication.²⁷ First, the study was not randomized or placebo controlled. Second, patients were not stratified based on the severity of fetal ultrasound abnormalities. Third, the dosing of hyperimmune globulin varied; 9 of the 31 patients in the treatment group received additional infusions of drug into either the amniotic fluid or fetal umbilical vein. Moreover, patients in the prophylaxis group actually received a higher cumulative dose of hyperimmune globulin than patients in the treatment group.

Two subsequent investigations that were better designed were unable to verify the effectiveness of hyperimmune globulin. In 2014, Revello and colleagues reported the results of a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study of 124 women at 5 to 26 weeks’ gestation with confirmed primary CMV infection.²⁸ The rate of congenital infection was 30% in the group treated with hyperimmune globulin and 44% in the placebo group (P=.13). There also was no significant difference in the concentration of serum CMV DNA in treated versus untreated mothers. Moreover, the number of adverse obstetric events (preterm delivery, fetal growth restriction, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, and postpartum preeclampsia) in the treatment group was higher than in the placebo group, 13% versus 2%.

In 2021, Hughes and colleagues published the results of a multicenter, double-blind trial in 399 women who had a diagnosis of primary CMV infection before 23 weeks’ gestation.²⁹ The primary outcome was defined as a composite of congenital CMV infection or fetal/neonatal death. An adverse primary outcome occurred in 22.7% of the patients who received hyperimmune globulin and 19.4% of those who received placebo (relative risk, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80–1.72; P=.42).
 

Continue to: Jacquemard and colleagues...

Jacquemard and colleagues then proposed a different approach.³⁰ In a small pilot study of 20 patients, these authors used high doses of oral valacylovir (2 g 4 times daily) and documented therapeutic drug concentrations and a decline in CMV viral load in fetal serum. Patients were not stratified by severity of fetal injury at onset of treatment, so the authors were unable to define which fetuses were most likely to benefit from treatment.

In a follow-up investigation, Leruez-Ville and colleagues reported another small series in which high-dose oral valacyclovir (8 g daily) was used for treatment.³¹ They excluded fetuses with severe brain anomalies and fetuses with no sonographic evidence of injury. The median gestational age at diagnosis was 26 weeks. Thirty-four of 43 treated fetuses were free of injury at birth. In addition, the viral load in the neonate’s serum decreased significantly after treatment, and the platelet count increased. The authors then compared these outcomes to a historical cohort and confirmed that treatment increased the proportion of asymptomatic neonates from 43% without treatment to 82% with treatment (P<.05 with no overlapping confidence intervals).

We conclude from these investigations that hyperimmune globulin is unlikely to be of value in treating congenital CMV infection, especially if the fetus already has sonographic findings of severe injury. High-dose oral valacyclovir also is unlikely to be of value in severely affected fetuses, particularly those with evidence of CNS injury. However, antiviral therapy may be of modest value in situations when the fetus is less severely injured.

Preventive measures

Since no definitive treatment is available for congenital CMV infection, our efforts as clinicians should focus on measures that may prevent transmission of infection to the pregnant patient. These measures include:

• Encouraging patients to use careful handwashing techniques when handling infant diapers and toys.
• Encouraging patients to adopt safe sexual practices if not already engaged in a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship.
• Using CMV-negative blood when transfusing a pregnant woman or a fetus.

At the present time, unfortunately, a readily available and highly effective therapy for prevention of CMV infection is not available.

CASE Congenital infection diagnosed

The ultrasound findings are most consistent with congenital CMV infection, especially given the patient’s work as an elementary schoolteacher. The diagnosis of maternal infection is best established by conventional serology (positive IgM, negative IgM) and detection of viral DNA in maternal blood by PCR testing. The diagnosis of congenital infection is best confirmed by documentation of viral DNA in the amniotic fluid by PCR testing. Given that this fetus already has evidence of moderate to severe injury, no treatment is likely to be effective in reversing the abnormal ultrasound findings. Pregnancy termination may be an option, depending upon the patient’s desires and the legal restrictions prevalent in the patient’s geographic area. ●

PHOTO:PEAKSTOCK/SHUTTERSTOCK

Richman IB, Long JB, Soulos PR, et al. Estimating breast cancer overdiagnosis after screening mammography among older women in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2023;176:1172-1180. doi:10.7326/M23-0133

EXPERT COMMENTARY

A screening test is performed to detect potential health disorders or diseases in people who do not have any symptoms of disease. The goal of screening is to detect the condition early enough to treat it most effectively, and ultimately to decrease morbidity and mortality related to the disease. Overdiagnosis refers to the finding of a cancer that would not have caused clinical problems during a person’s lifetime.

Current guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer vary considerably, including recommendations for what age to initiate screening, the cadence of screening (annual or biannual), the use of ancillary screening for people with dense breasts, and importantly the upper age limit for which screening is advised. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends continuing screening to age 74. The American Cancer Society suggests ongoing screening if life expectancy is estimated at more than 10 years, and the American College of Physicians recommends stopping screening at age 75, or younger if life expectancy is less than 10 years. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that women at average risk of breast cancer should continue screening mammography until at least age 75.

Overdiagnosis is a difficult concept for clinicians to understand let alone explain to our patients. Recently, Richman and colleagues published the results of their study aimed at estimating overdiagnosis associated with breast cancer screening among older women.¹ As Dr. Otis Brawley, former Chief Medical and Scientific Officer of the American Cancer Society and current Distinguished Professor of Oncology and Epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, states in the editorial that accompanies the study by Richman and colleagues, “Some tumors are not destined to grow, spread, and kill due to their genomics or their microenvironment. A second type of overdiagnosis involves small tumors that do have the potential to grow but will not grow fast enough to bother the patient within their natural lifetime.”²

Although screening mammography in older women results in frequent false positives that require additional imaging as well as biopsies, we have become more aware of the potential of overdiagnosis as an important downside of screening mammography in an elderly population.

Continue to: Details of the study...

Details of the study

Using the SEER registry to identify breast cancers linked to a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries, Richman and colleagues (funded by the National Cancer Institute and based at Yale University) conducted a retrospectivecohort study to estimate the likelihood of overdiagnosis associated with screening mammography among older women over 15 years of follow-up. Specifically, they assessed the difference in cumulative incidence of in situ and invasive breast cancer among women aged 70 years and older without a history of breast cancer when screened in 2002. During the subsequent 3 years, participants either continued screening (screened group) or did not (unscreened group). Women were followed through 2017.

Among almost 55,000 women followed, 88% were White, 6% were Black, and 3% were Hispanic. Mean follow-up was 13.7 years among women aged 70 to 74 years at baseline. For those aged 75 to 84 at baseline, mean follow-up was 10 years, and for those aged 85 years and older, mean follow-up was 5.7 years.

Estimated rates of overdiagnosis. Overall, among women aged 70 to 74 at baseline who were eventually diagnosed with breast cancer, the investigators estimated that 31% of these cancers were overdiagnosed. The corresponding percentage of breast cancers estimated to represent overdiagnosis climbed to 47% for those aged 75 to 84 years at baseline and to 54% for those aged 85 years and older at baseline.

The investigators assessed the impact of greater screening among women with a first-degree relative with a diagnosis of breast cancer and determined that this did not explain their results. With respect to cancer stage, the investigators noted that overdiagnosis was more prevalent among in situ and localized invasive cancers compared with those with regional or distant spread. Of note, the incidence of cancer with regional or distant spread was neither higher nor lower among those who were screened. Finally, the investigators did not observe significant differences in breast cancer–specific mortality by screening status.

The proportion of cancers that were overdiagnosed was particularly high among women with in situ as well as those with localized invasive disease. The investigators pointed out that as many as 90% of women aged 80 and older diagnosed with localized cancer undergo surgery, and almost two-thirds of those older than 70 years have radiation therapy for early-stage disease. In addition to the burdens associated with these treatments for overdiagnosed cancers in older women, simply being diagnosed with breast cancer profoundly affects the health and well-being of women, resulting in anxiety and substantial reductions in quality of life.

The authors also noted that some studies suggest that, among breast cancers diagnosed with screening, chemotherapy is less likely to be employed among older women, a screening benefit that must be weighed against the high likelihood of overdiagnosis. However, this benefit is unlikely to be meaningful for the majority of patients in this study who presented with in situ or early invasive lesions since chemotherapy often is not recommended for such women.

Study strengths and limitations

If screening mammography is effective, the incidence of advanced-stage tumors and breast cancer–specific mortality should be reduced in screened populations. Accordingly, in this large, long-term study using reliable sources of data, the findings that the incidence of advanced-stage disease as well as breast cancer–specific mortality were similar in the screened and unscreened cohorts provides powerful evidence that screening mammography is not effective in older women.³

As the authors pointed out, their findings regarding a high prevalence of overdiagnosis associated with screening mammography in older women are consistent with findings of other studies, some of which used different methodology.

The authors acknowledged that some women in their Medicare cohort who initially continued screening likely stopped screening subsequently, while some who initially did not continue screening might have been screened subsequently. They went on to indicate that if patients were completely adherent with subsequent screening (or not getting screened) the likelihood that cancers among screened women were overdiagnosed would be even higher.

Lead-time bias occurs when screening finds a cancer earlier than that cancer would have been diagnosed because of symptoms. This study followed the cohorts over a long timeframe to reduce the possibility that lead time was inappropriately identified as overdiagnosis. They also observed that, among women aged 85 and older, most cohort members had died by the end of study follow-up; accordingly, lead time is not likely to have explained their findings.

Limitations. The authors acknowledged that miscoding the mammogram type (screening vs diagnostic) could result in higher estimates of overdiagnosis. In their most conservative sensitivity analysis, the overdiagnosis rates could be as low as 15% for women aged 70 to 74, 36% for those aged 75 to 84, and 44% for people aged 85 and older.

Because this was an observational cohort study, unmeasured differences in breast cancer risk and underlying health factors may have been confounders. Specifically, people with severe life-threatening conditions that limited their expected life span may have chosen not to undergo regular screening. Although the authors did attempt to adjust for these factors, there may have been unrecognized confounders. This study was designed to estimate overdiagnosis, and therefore the specific benefits and harms of screening could not be addressed based on the data collected. ●

PHOTO:PEAKSTOCK/SHUTTERSTOCK

Richman IB, Long JB, Soulos PR, et al. Estimating breast cancer overdiagnosis after screening mammography among older women in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2023;176:1172-1180. doi:10.7326/M23-0133

EXPERT COMMENTARY

A screening test is performed to detect potential health disorders or diseases in people who do not have any symptoms of disease. The goal of screening is to detect the condition early enough to treat it most effectively, and ultimately to decrease morbidity and mortality related to the disease. Overdiagnosis refers to the finding of a cancer that would not have caused clinical problems during a person’s lifetime.

Current guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer vary considerably, including recommendations for what age to initiate screening, the cadence of screening (annual or biannual), the use of ancillary screening for people with dense breasts, and importantly the upper age limit for which screening is advised. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends continuing screening to age 74. The American Cancer Society suggests ongoing screening if life expectancy is estimated at more than 10 years, and the American College of Physicians recommends stopping screening at age 75, or younger if life expectancy is less than 10 years. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that women at average risk of breast cancer should continue screening mammography until at least age 75.

Overdiagnosis is a difficult concept for clinicians to understand let alone explain to our patients. Recently, Richman and colleagues published the results of their study aimed at estimating overdiagnosis associated with breast cancer screening among older women.¹ As Dr. Otis Brawley, former Chief Medical and Scientific Officer of the American Cancer Society and current Distinguished Professor of Oncology and Epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, states in the editorial that accompanies the study by Richman and colleagues, “Some tumors are not destined to grow, spread, and kill due to their genomics or their microenvironment. A second type of overdiagnosis involves small tumors that do have the potential to grow but will not grow fast enough to bother the patient within their natural lifetime.”²

Although screening mammography in older women results in frequent false positives that require additional imaging as well as biopsies, we have become more aware of the potential of overdiagnosis as an important downside of screening mammography in an elderly population.

Continue to: Details of the study...

Details of the study

Using the SEER registry to identify breast cancers linked to a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries, Richman and colleagues (funded by the National Cancer Institute and based at Yale University) conducted a retrospectivecohort study to estimate the likelihood of overdiagnosis associated with screening mammography among older women over 15 years of follow-up. Specifically, they assessed the difference in cumulative incidence of in situ and invasive breast cancer among women aged 70 years and older without a history of breast cancer when screened in 2002. During the subsequent 3 years, participants either continued screening (screened group) or did not (unscreened group). Women were followed through 2017.

Among almost 55,000 women followed, 88% were White, 6% were Black, and 3% were Hispanic. Mean follow-up was 13.7 years among women aged 70 to 74 years at baseline. For those aged 75 to 84 at baseline, mean follow-up was 10 years, and for those aged 85 years and older, mean follow-up was 5.7 years.

Estimated rates of overdiagnosis. Overall, among women aged 70 to 74 at baseline who were eventually diagnosed with breast cancer, the investigators estimated that 31% of these cancers were overdiagnosed. The corresponding percentage of breast cancers estimated to represent overdiagnosis climbed to 47% for those aged 75 to 84 years at baseline and to 54% for those aged 85 years and older at baseline.

The investigators assessed the impact of greater screening among women with a first-degree relative with a diagnosis of breast cancer and determined that this did not explain their results. With respect to cancer stage, the investigators noted that overdiagnosis was more prevalent among in situ and localized invasive cancers compared with those with regional or distant spread. Of note, the incidence of cancer with regional or distant spread was neither higher nor lower among those who were screened. Finally, the investigators did not observe significant differences in breast cancer–specific mortality by screening status.

The proportion of cancers that were overdiagnosed was particularly high among women with in situ as well as those with localized invasive disease. The investigators pointed out that as many as 90% of women aged 80 and older diagnosed with localized cancer undergo surgery, and almost two-thirds of those older than 70 years have radiation therapy for early-stage disease. In addition to the burdens associated with these treatments for overdiagnosed cancers in older women, simply being diagnosed with breast cancer profoundly affects the health and well-being of women, resulting in anxiety and substantial reductions in quality of life.

The authors also noted that some studies suggest that, among breast cancers diagnosed with screening, chemotherapy is less likely to be employed among older women, a screening benefit that must be weighed against the high likelihood of overdiagnosis. However, this benefit is unlikely to be meaningful for the majority of patients in this study who presented with in situ or early invasive lesions since chemotherapy often is not recommended for such women.

Study strengths and limitations

If screening mammography is effective, the incidence of advanced-stage tumors and breast cancer–specific mortality should be reduced in screened populations. Accordingly, in this large, long-term study using reliable sources of data, the findings that the incidence of advanced-stage disease as well as breast cancer–specific mortality were similar in the screened and unscreened cohorts provides powerful evidence that screening mammography is not effective in older women.³

As the authors pointed out, their findings regarding a high prevalence of overdiagnosis associated with screening mammography in older women are consistent with findings of other studies, some of which used different methodology.

The authors acknowledged that some women in their Medicare cohort who initially continued screening likely stopped screening subsequently, while some who initially did not continue screening might have been screened subsequently. They went on to indicate that if patients were completely adherent with subsequent screening (or not getting screened) the likelihood that cancers among screened women were overdiagnosed would be even higher.

Lead-time bias occurs when screening finds a cancer earlier than that cancer would have been diagnosed because of symptoms. This study followed the cohorts over a long timeframe to reduce the possibility that lead time was inappropriately identified as overdiagnosis. They also observed that, among women aged 85 and older, most cohort members had died by the end of study follow-up; accordingly, lead time is not likely to have explained their findings.

Limitations. The authors acknowledged that miscoding the mammogram type (screening vs diagnostic) could result in higher estimates of overdiagnosis. In their most conservative sensitivity analysis, the overdiagnosis rates could be as low as 15% for women aged 70 to 74, 36% for those aged 75 to 84, and 44% for people aged 85 and older.

Because this was an observational cohort study, unmeasured differences in breast cancer risk and underlying health factors may have been confounders. Specifically, people with severe life-threatening conditions that limited their expected life span may have chosen not to undergo regular screening. Although the authors did attempt to adjust for these factors, there may have been unrecognized confounders. This study was designed to estimate overdiagnosis, and therefore the specific benefits and harms of screening could not be addressed based on the data collected. ●

PHOTO:PEAKSTOCK/SHUTTERSTOCK

Richman IB, Long JB, Soulos PR, et al. Estimating breast cancer overdiagnosis after screening mammography among older women in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2023;176:1172-1180. doi:10.7326/M23-0133

EXPERT COMMENTARY

A screening test is performed to detect potential health disorders or diseases in people who do not have any symptoms of disease. The goal of screening is to detect the condition early enough to treat it most effectively, and ultimately to decrease morbidity and mortality related to the disease. Overdiagnosis refers to the finding of a cancer that would not have caused clinical problems during a person’s lifetime.

Current guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer vary considerably, including recommendations for what age to initiate screening, the cadence of screening (annual or biannual), the use of ancillary screening for people with dense breasts, and importantly the upper age limit for which screening is advised. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends continuing screening to age 74. The American Cancer Society suggests ongoing screening if life expectancy is estimated at more than 10 years, and the American College of Physicians recommends stopping screening at age 75, or younger if life expectancy is less than 10 years. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that women at average risk of breast cancer should continue screening mammography until at least age 75.

Overdiagnosis is a difficult concept for clinicians to understand let alone explain to our patients. Recently, Richman and colleagues published the results of their study aimed at estimating overdiagnosis associated with breast cancer screening among older women.¹ As Dr. Otis Brawley, former Chief Medical and Scientific Officer of the American Cancer Society and current Distinguished Professor of Oncology and Epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, states in the editorial that accompanies the study by Richman and colleagues, “Some tumors are not destined to grow, spread, and kill due to their genomics or their microenvironment. A second type of overdiagnosis involves small tumors that do have the potential to grow but will not grow fast enough to bother the patient within their natural lifetime.”²

Although screening mammography in older women results in frequent false positives that require additional imaging as well as biopsies, we have become more aware of the potential of overdiagnosis as an important downside of screening mammography in an elderly population.

Continue to: Details of the study...

Details of the study

Using the SEER registry to identify breast cancers linked to a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries, Richman and colleagues (funded by the National Cancer Institute and based at Yale University) conducted a retrospectivecohort study to estimate the likelihood of overdiagnosis associated with screening mammography among older women over 15 years of follow-up. Specifically, they assessed the difference in cumulative incidence of in situ and invasive breast cancer among women aged 70 years and older without a history of breast cancer when screened in 2002. During the subsequent 3 years, participants either continued screening (screened group) or did not (unscreened group). Women were followed through 2017.

Among almost 55,000 women followed, 88% were White, 6% were Black, and 3% were Hispanic. Mean follow-up was 13.7 years among women aged 70 to 74 years at baseline. For those aged 75 to 84 at baseline, mean follow-up was 10 years, and for those aged 85 years and older, mean follow-up was 5.7 years.

Estimated rates of overdiagnosis. Overall, among women aged 70 to 74 at baseline who were eventually diagnosed with breast cancer, the investigators estimated that 31% of these cancers were overdiagnosed. The corresponding percentage of breast cancers estimated to represent overdiagnosis climbed to 47% for those aged 75 to 84 years at baseline and to 54% for those aged 85 years and older at baseline.

The investigators assessed the impact of greater screening among women with a first-degree relative with a diagnosis of breast cancer and determined that this did not explain their results. With respect to cancer stage, the investigators noted that overdiagnosis was more prevalent among in situ and localized invasive cancers compared with those with regional or distant spread. Of note, the incidence of cancer with regional or distant spread was neither higher nor lower among those who were screened. Finally, the investigators did not observe significant differences in breast cancer–specific mortality by screening status.

The proportion of cancers that were overdiagnosed was particularly high among women with in situ as well as those with localized invasive disease. The investigators pointed out that as many as 90% of women aged 80 and older diagnosed with localized cancer undergo surgery, and almost two-thirds of those older than 70 years have radiation therapy for early-stage disease. In addition to the burdens associated with these treatments for overdiagnosed cancers in older women, simply being diagnosed with breast cancer profoundly affects the health and well-being of women, resulting in anxiety and substantial reductions in quality of life.

The authors also noted that some studies suggest that, among breast cancers diagnosed with screening, chemotherapy is less likely to be employed among older women, a screening benefit that must be weighed against the high likelihood of overdiagnosis. However, this benefit is unlikely to be meaningful for the majority of patients in this study who presented with in situ or early invasive lesions since chemotherapy often is not recommended for such women.

Study strengths and limitations

If screening mammography is effective, the incidence of advanced-stage tumors and breast cancer–specific mortality should be reduced in screened populations. Accordingly, in this large, long-term study using reliable sources of data, the findings that the incidence of advanced-stage disease as well as breast cancer–specific mortality were similar in the screened and unscreened cohorts provides powerful evidence that screening mammography is not effective in older women.³

As the authors pointed out, their findings regarding a high prevalence of overdiagnosis associated with screening mammography in older women are consistent with findings of other studies, some of which used different methodology.

The authors acknowledged that some women in their Medicare cohort who initially continued screening likely stopped screening subsequently, while some who initially did not continue screening might have been screened subsequently. They went on to indicate that if patients were completely adherent with subsequent screening (or not getting screened) the likelihood that cancers among screened women were overdiagnosed would be even higher.

Lead-time bias occurs when screening finds a cancer earlier than that cancer would have been diagnosed because of symptoms. This study followed the cohorts over a long timeframe to reduce the possibility that lead time was inappropriately identified as overdiagnosis. They also observed that, among women aged 85 and older, most cohort members had died by the end of study follow-up; accordingly, lead time is not likely to have explained their findings.

Limitations. The authors acknowledged that miscoding the mammogram type (screening vs diagnostic) could result in higher estimates of overdiagnosis. In their most conservative sensitivity analysis, the overdiagnosis rates could be as low as 15% for women aged 70 to 74, 36% for those aged 75 to 84, and 44% for people aged 85 and older.

Because this was an observational cohort study, unmeasured differences in breast cancer risk and underlying health factors may have been confounders. Specifically, people with severe life-threatening conditions that limited their expected life span may have chosen not to undergo regular screening. Although the authors did attempt to adjust for these factors, there may have been unrecognized confounders. This study was designed to estimate overdiagnosis, and therefore the specific benefits and harms of screening could not be addressed based on the data collected. ●

COMMENTARY

The safety of vaginal estrogen in breast cancer survivors

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

LATEST NEWS

Older women who get mammograms risk overdiagnosis

M. Alexander Otto, PA, MMS

TOPLINE:

Women who continue breast cancer screening after age 70 face a considerable risk for overdiagnosis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Overdiagnosis – the risk of detecting and treating cancers that would never have caused issues in a person’s lifetime – is increasingly recognized as a harm of breast cancer screening; however, the scope of the problem among older women remains uncertain.
• To get an idea, investigators linked Medicare claims data with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data for 54,635 women 70 years or older to compare the incidence of breast cancer and breast cancer–specific death among women who continued screening mammography with those who did not.
• The women all had undergone recent screening mammograms and had no history of breast cancer at study entry. Those who had a subsequent mammogram within 3 years were classified as undergoing continued screening while those who did not were classified as not undergoing continued screening.
• Overdiagnosis was defined as the difference in cumulative incidence of breast cancer between screened and unscreened women divided by the cumulative incidence among screened women.
• Results were adjusted for potential confounders, including age, race, and ethnicity.

Continue to: TAKEAWAY...

TAKEAWAY:

• Over 80% of women 70-84 years old and more than 60% of women 85 years or older continued screening.
• Among women 70-74 years old, the adjusted cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 6.1 cases per 100 screened women vs. 4.2 cases per 100 unscreened women; for women aged 75-84 years old, the cumulative incidence was 4.9 per 100 screened women vs. 2.6 per 100 unscreened women, and for women 85 years and older, the cumulative incidence was 2.8 vs. 1.3 per 100, respectively.
• Estimates of overdiagnosis ranged from 31% of breast cancer cases among screened women in the 70-74 age group to 54% of cases in the 85 and older group.
• The researchers found no statistically significant reduction in breast cancer–specific death associated with screening in any age or life-expectancy group. Overdiagnosis appeared to be driven by in situ and localized invasive breast cancer, not advanced breast cancer.

IN PRACTICE:

The proportion of older women who continue to receive screening mammograms and may experience breast cancer overdiagnosis is “considerable” and “increases with advancing age and with decreasing life expectancy,” the authors conclude. Given potential benefits and harms of screening in this population, “patient preferences, including risk tolerance, comfort with uncertainty, and willingness to undergo treatment, are important for informing screening decisions.”

SOURCE: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M23-0133

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/latest-news

CONFERENCE COVERAGE

Offering HPV vaccine at age 9 linked to greater series completion

Tara Haelle

BALTIMORE—Receiving the first dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine at age 9, rather than bundling it with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines, appears to increase the likelihood that children will complete the HPV vaccine series, according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.

“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.

Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.

However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/conference-coverage ●

COMMENTARY

The safety of vaginal estrogen in breast cancer survivors

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

LATEST NEWS

Older women who get mammograms risk overdiagnosis

M. Alexander Otto, PA, MMS

TOPLINE:

Women who continue breast cancer screening after age 70 face a considerable risk for overdiagnosis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Overdiagnosis – the risk of detecting and treating cancers that would never have caused issues in a person’s lifetime – is increasingly recognized as a harm of breast cancer screening; however, the scope of the problem among older women remains uncertain.
• To get an idea, investigators linked Medicare claims data with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data for 54,635 women 70 years or older to compare the incidence of breast cancer and breast cancer–specific death among women who continued screening mammography with those who did not.
• The women all had undergone recent screening mammograms and had no history of breast cancer at study entry. Those who had a subsequent mammogram within 3 years were classified as undergoing continued screening while those who did not were classified as not undergoing continued screening.
• Overdiagnosis was defined as the difference in cumulative incidence of breast cancer between screened and unscreened women divided by the cumulative incidence among screened women.
• Results were adjusted for potential confounders, including age, race, and ethnicity.

Continue to: TAKEAWAY...

TAKEAWAY:

• Over 80% of women 70-84 years old and more than 60% of women 85 years or older continued screening.
• Among women 70-74 years old, the adjusted cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 6.1 cases per 100 screened women vs. 4.2 cases per 100 unscreened women; for women aged 75-84 years old, the cumulative incidence was 4.9 per 100 screened women vs. 2.6 per 100 unscreened women, and for women 85 years and older, the cumulative incidence was 2.8 vs. 1.3 per 100, respectively.
• Estimates of overdiagnosis ranged from 31% of breast cancer cases among screened women in the 70-74 age group to 54% of cases in the 85 and older group.
• The researchers found no statistically significant reduction in breast cancer–specific death associated with screening in any age or life-expectancy group. Overdiagnosis appeared to be driven by in situ and localized invasive breast cancer, not advanced breast cancer.

IN PRACTICE:

The proportion of older women who continue to receive screening mammograms and may experience breast cancer overdiagnosis is “considerable” and “increases with advancing age and with decreasing life expectancy,” the authors conclude. Given potential benefits and harms of screening in this population, “patient preferences, including risk tolerance, comfort with uncertainty, and willingness to undergo treatment, are important for informing screening decisions.”

SOURCE: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M23-0133

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/latest-news

CONFERENCE COVERAGE

Offering HPV vaccine at age 9 linked to greater series completion

Tara Haelle

BALTIMORE—Receiving the first dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine at age 9, rather than bundling it with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines, appears to increase the likelihood that children will complete the HPV vaccine series, according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.

“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.

Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.

However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/conference-coverage ●

COMMENTARY

The safety of vaginal estrogen in breast cancer survivors

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

LATEST NEWS

Older women who get mammograms risk overdiagnosis

M. Alexander Otto, PA, MMS

TOPLINE:

Women who continue breast cancer screening after age 70 face a considerable risk for overdiagnosis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Overdiagnosis – the risk of detecting and treating cancers that would never have caused issues in a person’s lifetime – is increasingly recognized as a harm of breast cancer screening; however, the scope of the problem among older women remains uncertain.
• To get an idea, investigators linked Medicare claims data with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data for 54,635 women 70 years or older to compare the incidence of breast cancer and breast cancer–specific death among women who continued screening mammography with those who did not.
• The women all had undergone recent screening mammograms and had no history of breast cancer at study entry. Those who had a subsequent mammogram within 3 years were classified as undergoing continued screening while those who did not were classified as not undergoing continued screening.
• Overdiagnosis was defined as the difference in cumulative incidence of breast cancer between screened and unscreened women divided by the cumulative incidence among screened women.
• Results were adjusted for potential confounders, including age, race, and ethnicity.

Continue to: TAKEAWAY...

TAKEAWAY:

• Over 80% of women 70-84 years old and more than 60% of women 85 years or older continued screening.
• Among women 70-74 years old, the adjusted cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 6.1 cases per 100 screened women vs. 4.2 cases per 100 unscreened women; for women aged 75-84 years old, the cumulative incidence was 4.9 per 100 screened women vs. 2.6 per 100 unscreened women, and for women 85 years and older, the cumulative incidence was 2.8 vs. 1.3 per 100, respectively.
• Estimates of overdiagnosis ranged from 31% of breast cancer cases among screened women in the 70-74 age group to 54% of cases in the 85 and older group.
• The researchers found no statistically significant reduction in breast cancer–specific death associated with screening in any age or life-expectancy group. Overdiagnosis appeared to be driven by in situ and localized invasive breast cancer, not advanced breast cancer.

IN PRACTICE:

The proportion of older women who continue to receive screening mammograms and may experience breast cancer overdiagnosis is “considerable” and “increases with advancing age and with decreasing life expectancy,” the authors conclude. Given potential benefits and harms of screening in this population, “patient preferences, including risk tolerance, comfort with uncertainty, and willingness to undergo treatment, are important for informing screening decisions.”

SOURCE: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M23-0133

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/latest-news

CONFERENCE COVERAGE

Offering HPV vaccine at age 9 linked to greater series completion

Tara Haelle

BALTIMORE—Receiving the first dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine at age 9, rather than bundling it with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines, appears to increase the likelihood that children will complete the HPV vaccine series, according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.

“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.

Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.

However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/conference-coverage ●

CASE The TeamBirth experience: Making a difference

“At a community hospital in Washington where we had implemented TeamBirth (a labor and delivery shared decision making model), a patient, her partner, a labor and delivery nurse, and myself (an ObGyn) were making a plan for the patient’s induction of labor admission. I asked the patient, a 29-year-old (G2P1001), how we could improve her care in relation to her first birth. Her answer was simple: I want to be treated with respect. Her partner went on to describe their past experience in which the provider was inappropriately texting while in between the patient’s knees during delivery. Our team had the opportunity to undo some of the trauma from her first birth. That’s what I like about TeamBirth. It gives every patient the opportunity, regardless of their background, to define safety and participate in their care experience.”

–Angela Chien, MD, Obstetrician and Quality Improvement leader, Washington

Unfortunately, disrespect and mistreatment are far from an anomaly in the obstetrics setting. In a systematic review of respectful maternity care, the World Health Organization delineated 7 dimensions of maternal mistreatment: physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal abuse, stigma and discrimination, failure to meet professional standards of care, poor rapport between women and providers, and poor conditions and constraints presented by the health system.¹ In 2019, the Giving Voice to Mothers study showed that 17% of birthing people in the United States reported experiencing 1 or more types of maternal mistreatment.² Rates of mistreatment were disproportionately greater in populations of color, hospital-based births, and among those with social, economic, or health challenges.² It is well known that Black and African American and American Indian and Alaska Native populations experience the rare events of severe maternal morbidity and mortality more frequently than their White counterparts; the disproportionate burden of mistreatment is lesser known and far more common.

Overlooking the longitudinal harm of a negative birth experience has cascading impact. While an empowering perinatal experience can foster preventive screening and management of chronic disease, a poor experience conversely can seed mistrust at an individual, generational, and community level.

The patient quality enterprise is beginning to shift attention toward maternal experience with the development of PREMs (patient-reported experience measures), PROMs (patient-reported outcome measures), and novel validated scales that assess autonomy and trust.³ Development of a maternal Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey on childbirth is forthcoming.⁴ Of course, continuing to prioritize physical safety through initiatives on blood pressure monitoring and severe maternal morbidity and mortality remains paramount. Yet emotional and psychological safety also must be recognized as essential pillars of patient safety. Transgressions related to autonomy and dignity, as well as racism, sexism, classicism, and ableism, should be treated as “adverse and never events.”⁵

How the TeamBirth model works

Shared decision making (SDM) is cited in medical pedagogy as the solution to respectfullyrecognizing social context, integrating subjective experience, and honoring patient autonomy.⁶ The onus has always been on individual clinicians to exercise SDM. A new practice model, TeamBirth, embeds SDM into the culture and workflow. It offers a behavioral framework to mitigate implicit bias and operationalizes SDM tools, such that every patient is an empowered participant in their care.

TeamBirth was created through Ariadne Labs’ Delivery Decisions Initiative, a research and social impact program that designs, tests, and scales transformative, systems-level solutions that promote quality, equity, and dignity in childbirth. By the end of 2023, TeamBirth will be implemented in more than 100 hospitals across the United States, cumulatively touching over 200,000 lives. (For more information on the TeamBirth model, view the “Why TeamBirth” video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoVrSaGk7gc.)

The tenets of TeamBirth are enacted through a patient-facing, shared whiteboard or dry-erase planning board in the labor room (FIGURE 1). Research has demonstrated how dry-erase boards in clinical settings can support safety and dignity in care, especially to improve patient-provider communication, teamwork, and patient satisfaction.^7,8 The planning board is initially filled out by a clinical team member and is updated during team “huddles” throughout labor.

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTINS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Continue to: Patient response to TeamBirth is positive...

Patients and providers alike have endorsed TeamBirth. In initial pilot testing across 4 sites, 99% of all patients surveyed “definitely” or “somewhat” had the role they wanted in making decisions about their labor.⁹

In partnership with the Oklahoma Perinatal Quality Improvement Collaborative (OPQIC), the impact of TeamBirth was assessed in a statewide patient cohort (n = 3,121) using the validated Mothers Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale created by the Birth Place Lab at the University of British Columbia. The percentage of patients who scored in the highest MADM quartile was 31.3% higher for patients who indicated participation in a huddle during labor compared with those who did not participate in a huddle. This trend held across all racial and ethnic groups: For example, 93% of non-Hispanic Black/African American patients who had a TeamBirth huddle reported high autonomy, a nearly 20 percentage point increase from those without a huddle (FIGURE 2). Similarly, a higher percentage of agreement was observed across all 7 items in the MADM scale for patients who reported a TeamBirth huddle (FIGURE 3). TeamBirth’s effect has been observed across surveys and multiple validated metrics.

Continue to: Patient testimonials...

Patient testimonials

The following testimonials were obtained from a TeamBirth survey that patients in participating Massachusetts hospitals completed in the postpartum unit prior to discharge.

According to one patient, “TeamBirth is great, feels like all obstacles are covered by multiple people with many talents, expertise. Feels like mom is part of the process, much different than my delivery 2 years ago when I felt like things were decided for me/I was ‘told’ what we were doing and questioned if I felt uneasy about it…. We felt safe and like all things were covered no matter what may happen.”

Another patient, also at a Massachusetts hospital, offered these comments about TeamBirth: “The entire staff was very genuine and my experience the best it could be. They deserve updated whiteboards in every room. I found them to be very useful.”

The clinician perspective

To be certain, clinician workflow must be a consideration for any practice change. The feasibility, acceptability, and safety of the TeamBirth model to clinicians was validated through a study at 4 community hospitals across the United States in which TeamBirth had been implemented in the 8 months prior.⁹

The clinician response rate was an impressive 78%. Ninety percent of clinicians, including physicians, midwives, and nurses, indicated that they would “definitely” (68%) or “probably” (22%) recommend TeamBirth for use in other labor and delivery units. None of the clinicians surveyed (n = 375) reported that TeamBirth negatively impacted care delivery.⁹

Obstetricians also provided qualitative commentary, noting that, while at times huddling infringed on efficiency, it also enhanced staff fulfillment. An obstetrician at a Massachusetts hospital observed, “Overall I think [TeamBirth is] helpful in slowing us down a little bit to really make sure that we’re providing the human part of the care, like the communication, and not just the medical care. And I think most providers value the human part and the communication. You know, we all think most providers value good communication with the patients, but when you’re in the middle of running around doing a bunch of stuff, you don’t always remember to prioritize it. And I think that at the end of the day…when you know you’ve communicated well with your patients, you end up feeling better about what you’re doing.”

As with most cross-sectional survey studies, selection bias remains an important caveat; patients and providers may decide to complete or not complete voluntary surveys based on particularly positive or negative experiences.

Metrics aside, obstetricians have an ethical duty to provide dignified and safe care, both physically and psychologically. Collectively, as a specialty, we share the responsibility to mitigate maternal mistreatment. As individuals, we can prevent perpetuation of birth trauma and foster healing and empowerment, one patient at a time, by employing tenets of TeamBirth.