OBG Management

A new contraceptive method should ideally provide improved access or a higher quality and safety option. Although unintended pregnancy rates in the United States are decreasing, significant disparities across race and socioeconomic status remain,¹ and these disparities actually doubled from 1994 to 2011 even though the overall unintended pregnancy rate decreased.^1-3 Specifically, people of color, those with lower income, and people with lower education levels had higher rates of unintended pregnancies than did White people with higher education and income, suggesting disparate access to contraception services.¹ Thus, as new contraceptive methods are introduced, we must assess if they have the potential to address this disparity as well as continue to provide higher quality and safer options.

In this Update, we critically review the phase 3 data on efficacy and safety for 3 new methods that were introduced to the US market over the past year to evaluate their impact on the current contraceptive landscape.

The first method, newly approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is a combined oral contraceptive (OC) that contains a novel endogenous estrogen, estetrol, or E4 (Nextstellis). E4 is a natural estrogen produced in the fetal liver that has lower potency and a longer half-life than estradiol. Nextstellis is a monophasic 24/4 OC pill that contains E4 14.2 mg and drospirenone 3 mg in each of the 24 hormone-containing pills. Most combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in the United States today contain synthetically made ethinyl estradiol (EE) due to its high potency and oral bioavailability. Outside of the reproductive system, EE upregulates the production of hepatic proteins and alters procoagulant and anticoagulant factors, which results in an overall increase in venous thromboembolic (VTE) risk among CHC users.²

After widespread use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) started in the 1960s, data emerged regarding increased VTE risk.³ Subsequent research discovered that the type of estrogen used in CHCs directly correlates with the thrombosis risk due to the hepatic upregulation with both first- and second-pass metabolism. Although this risk was reduced as the EE dose decreased below 50 µg and concurrent VTE risk factors were contraindicated, CHC users still faced a 2-fold increase in VTE risk compared with nonusers.^4,5 EE in contraceptive formulations increases VTE risk, likely related to upregulation of procoagulant factors and decreasing anticoagulant proteins.² By contrast, a phase 2 trial of Nextstellis demonstrated more neutral effects of E4/drospirenone on hemostatic parameters compared with EE/levonorgestrel or EE/drospirenone.⁶ Furthermore, E4/drospirenone exhibited lower increases in hepatic proteins, such as angiotensinogen, triglycerides, and sex-hormone binding globulin.⁷ These findings together suggest that this novel CHC pill has a more favorable cardiovascular adverse effect profile compared with currently available CHCs.

The second contraceptive method is a new transdermal patch that contains EE and levonorgestrel (Twirla); this is in contrast to the available EE/norelgestromin contraceptive patch (Xulane). Transdermal contraceptive patches can offer some users easier adherence as compared with a daily OC.⁸ Until this past year, the only transdermal contraceptive available in the United States was Xulane, which contains a daily dose of EE 35 µg and norelgestromin 150 µg. Norelgestromin is eventually metabolized to levonorgestrel derivatives.⁹ Twirla is administered in the same manner as Xulane and contains a daily hormone exposure equivalent to a COC containing EE 30 µg and levonorgestrel 120 µg. Similar to EE/norelgestromin, the EE/levonorgestrel patch also is contraindicated in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m²) due to decreased efficacy and increased risk for VTE. Additionally, phase 3 data demonstrated decreasing efficacy of Twirla in overweight users (BMI ≥25–30 kg/m²), perhaps further limiting the population that may benefit from this contraceptive method.¹⁰ These issues with efficacy and weight likely are related to the fact that levonorgestrel distribution is weight dependent, with evidence of lower plasma levels in obese individuals.^11-13

The third new method is a prescription vaginal contraceptive gel with lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate (Phexxi) designed to prevent pregnancy by maintaining an acidic vaginal environment that is inhospitable to sperm. For many decades, vaginal contraceptives, including vaginal spermicidal gels, provided easy access to a nonhormonal and flexible method of moderately effective contraception for many users. Phexxi is a prescription vaginal pH regulator administered as a gel and active for 1 hour after application. All previous vaginal gels sold in the United States are applied similarly, are available over the counter, and include nonoxynol-9, which is a surfactant that damages sperm cell membranes. Recent data from a phase 3 trial demonstrated similar contraceptive effectiveness of Phexxi when compared with available nonoxynol-9 alternatives.¹⁴

Continue to: New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE...

New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE

Creinin MD, Westhoff CL, Bouchard C, et al. Estetrol-drospirenone combination oral contraceptive: North American phase 3 efficacy and safety results. Contraception. 2021;104:222-228.

The COC E4/drospirenone was evaluated in 2 parallel multinational studies. Here, we review the North American data that are more relevant for the US population; the European-Russian data also are published.¹⁵

Study examined 1 year’s use of E4/drospirenone

The US–Canadian trial conducted by Creinin and colleagues enrolled 1,864 participants aged 16 to 50 years to evaluate contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, and adverse events with 1-year use (13 cycles) of E4/drospirenone. The primary efficacy group included 1,524 women aged 16 to 35. This study enrolled healthy, heterosexually active participants with a BMI ≤35 kg/m² and regular menses from 70 sites in the United States and 7 sites in Canada. The dropout rate was 45%, comparable to that in other contraceptive studies. Participants used E4/drospirenone cyclically, taking 1 hormone-containing pill daily for 24 days followed by 4 days of placebo pills.

Contraceptive efficacious, no VTE observed

The researchers reported efficacy as a Pearl Index (PI) of 2.65 pregnancies per 100 woman-years in participants aged 16 to 35 and an overall 13-cycle life-table pregnancy rate of 2.06%. The PI did not differ among nonobese and obese participants in multivariable analysis. Most users experienced scheduled withdrawal bleeding; only 13% to 18% reported absence of scheduled bleeding. Unscheduled bleeding was typically spotting (55.2%), and this decreased with treatment duration from 30% in cycle 1 to 15% to 20% in cycle 5 and on.

Overall, 28.9% of participants reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs), which most commonly were headache (5.0%), metrorrhagia (4.6%), and nausea (3.8%). Investigators reported a minimal change in mean (SD) BMI of 0.4 (1.7) kg/m² from baseline after 1 year of E4/drospirenone use, and only 0.5% of participants discontinued use due to weight gain. The most common reasons for AE-related treatment discontinuation included metrorrhagia (0.9%), menorrhagia (0.8%), and vaginal hemorrhage (0.5%). Importantly, no cases of VTE occurred in this study of estetrol despite 23% of participants being obese, a known risk factor for VTE.

Continue to: Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women...

Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women

Nelson AL, Kaunitz AM, Kroll R; SECURE Investigators. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol transdermal delivery system: phase 3 clinical trial results. Contraception. 2021;103:137-143.

To assess the contraceptive efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the transdermal patch Twirla (EE/levonorgestrel) over 1 year of treatment (13 cycles), Nelson and colleagues conducted an open-label, multicenter, US-based phase 3 trial of participants aged 18 years and older with regular cycles. There were no restrictions based on BMI. On average, the study population was overweight, with a mean BMI of 28.3 kg/m² , and 35% of the population was considered obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²).

Study design

A total of 2,032 participants enrolled in the study, with separate populations defined for specific analysis on safety, contraceptive efficacy, and cycle control. The primary efficacy group included 1,736 participants. Fifty-one percent discontinued the study, most commonly due to “women’s decision” (15%) and lost to follow-up (11%). Users received bleeding diaries and returned periodically throughout the study for evaluation for efficacy, adherence, and adverse events.

Efficacy associated with BMI

The study results demonstrated an overall PI of 5.8 pregnancies per 100 woman-years for users aged younger than 35. TABLE 2 demonstrates the overall trend of efficacy in relation to BMI.^10,15-19 Participants with a higher BMI were found to have a higher PI, revealing lower contraceptive efficacy in more overweight and obese patients. The overall cumulative pregnancy rate over 13 cycles was 5.3%

Participants reported decreasing frequency of bleeding/spotting days over the treatment duration of 13 cycles, from a mean (SD) of 6.2 (4.5) days in cycle 1 to 4.9 (3.5) days in cycle 13. Unscheduled bleeding episodes remained high throughout the study period. Initially, 60% of users reported 1 or more days of unscheduled bleeding in cycle 1, and 42% still reported unscheduled bleeding in cycle 13. In light of this, only 45 participants (2.2%) discontinued the study due to bleeding issues, suggesting perhaps that the bleeding was light. Overall, users experienced acceptable wearability of the patch, and the rate of detachment decreased over the study period from 9.9% in cycle 1 to 2.4% in cycle 13. There were also low rates (0.5%) of moderate to severe irritation. Itching at the adhesion site decreased slightly from 13.1% in cycle 2 to 9.6% in cycle 13.

In general, 27.2% of patch users experienced a study-related AE, most reported as mild to moderate. Nausea (4.1%) and headaches (3.6%) were the most common hormone-related AE. Importantly, 4 obese users experienced 5 VTEs (deep vein thrombosis, n = 2; pulmonary embolism, n = 3) between cycle 5 and 13. Three of these users had additional VTE risk factors, such as air travel and a family history of clots. No users who were of normal weight or overweight experienced VTE.

Continue to: Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option...

Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option

Thomas MA, Chappell BT, Maximos B, et al. A novel vaginal pH regulator: results from the phase 3 AMPOWER contraception clinical trial. Contracept X. 2020;2:100031.

In an open-label phase 3 study, Thomas and colleagues enrolled 1,384 participants aged 18 to 35 with regular cycles at 112 sites in the United States to assess the contraceptive efficacy, safety, and acceptability of Phexxi vaginal gel (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) over 7 cycles (6 months). Participants were required to have at least 3 episodes of heterosexual vaginal intercourse per cycle and return throughout the treatment duration for study visits. Fifty-three percent of participants did not complete the study, most frequently due to loss to follow-up (18.1%) and participant withdrawal (12.3%). Most participants were White (69%) and had an average (SD) age of 27.7 (4.5) years.

Efficacy and AE rates

The investigators reported a cumulative pregnancy rate of 13.7% over 7 cycles (6 months). In this study, 45.2% of women experienced 1 AE, and most were noted to be mild (23.9%) to moderate (18.7%). The most reported AE was vulvovaginal burning (20.0%), followed by vulvovaginal pruritus (11.2%), urinary tract infection (5.7%), and vulvovaginal pain (3.8%). Less than 2% of participants discontinued the study due to an AE. Burning and itching decreased with time and with decreased frequency of use. When used twice per day compared with once per day, burning rates decreased from 4.6% to 2.1%, and itching rates decreased from 1.0% to 0.7%. Serious AEs were uncommon, occurring in 1.3% of users; only 1, cystitis, was noted to be “probably” related to the treatment. ●

A new contraceptive method should ideally provide improved access or a higher quality and safety option. Although unintended pregnancy rates in the United States are decreasing, significant disparities across race and socioeconomic status remain,¹ and these disparities actually doubled from 1994 to 2011 even though the overall unintended pregnancy rate decreased.^1-3 Specifically, people of color, those with lower income, and people with lower education levels had higher rates of unintended pregnancies than did White people with higher education and income, suggesting disparate access to contraception services.¹ Thus, as new contraceptive methods are introduced, we must assess if they have the potential to address this disparity as well as continue to provide higher quality and safer options.

In this Update, we critically review the phase 3 data on efficacy and safety for 3 new methods that were introduced to the US market over the past year to evaluate their impact on the current contraceptive landscape.

The first method, newly approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is a combined oral contraceptive (OC) that contains a novel endogenous estrogen, estetrol, or E4 (Nextstellis). E4 is a natural estrogen produced in the fetal liver that has lower potency and a longer half-life than estradiol. Nextstellis is a monophasic 24/4 OC pill that contains E4 14.2 mg and drospirenone 3 mg in each of the 24 hormone-containing pills. Most combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in the United States today contain synthetically made ethinyl estradiol (EE) due to its high potency and oral bioavailability. Outside of the reproductive system, EE upregulates the production of hepatic proteins and alters procoagulant and anticoagulant factors, which results in an overall increase in venous thromboembolic (VTE) risk among CHC users.²

After widespread use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) started in the 1960s, data emerged regarding increased VTE risk.³ Subsequent research discovered that the type of estrogen used in CHCs directly correlates with the thrombosis risk due to the hepatic upregulation with both first- and second-pass metabolism. Although this risk was reduced as the EE dose decreased below 50 µg and concurrent VTE risk factors were contraindicated, CHC users still faced a 2-fold increase in VTE risk compared with nonusers.^4,5 EE in contraceptive formulations increases VTE risk, likely related to upregulation of procoagulant factors and decreasing anticoagulant proteins.² By contrast, a phase 2 trial of Nextstellis demonstrated more neutral effects of E4/drospirenone on hemostatic parameters compared with EE/levonorgestrel or EE/drospirenone.⁶ Furthermore, E4/drospirenone exhibited lower increases in hepatic proteins, such as angiotensinogen, triglycerides, and sex-hormone binding globulin.⁷ These findings together suggest that this novel CHC pill has a more favorable cardiovascular adverse effect profile compared with currently available CHCs.

The second contraceptive method is a new transdermal patch that contains EE and levonorgestrel (Twirla); this is in contrast to the available EE/norelgestromin contraceptive patch (Xulane). Transdermal contraceptive patches can offer some users easier adherence as compared with a daily OC.⁸ Until this past year, the only transdermal contraceptive available in the United States was Xulane, which contains a daily dose of EE 35 µg and norelgestromin 150 µg. Norelgestromin is eventually metabolized to levonorgestrel derivatives.⁹ Twirla is administered in the same manner as Xulane and contains a daily hormone exposure equivalent to a COC containing EE 30 µg and levonorgestrel 120 µg. Similar to EE/norelgestromin, the EE/levonorgestrel patch also is contraindicated in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m²) due to decreased efficacy and increased risk for VTE. Additionally, phase 3 data demonstrated decreasing efficacy of Twirla in overweight users (BMI ≥25–30 kg/m²), perhaps further limiting the population that may benefit from this contraceptive method.¹⁰ These issues with efficacy and weight likely are related to the fact that levonorgestrel distribution is weight dependent, with evidence of lower plasma levels in obese individuals.^11-13

The third new method is a prescription vaginal contraceptive gel with lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate (Phexxi) designed to prevent pregnancy by maintaining an acidic vaginal environment that is inhospitable to sperm. For many decades, vaginal contraceptives, including vaginal spermicidal gels, provided easy access to a nonhormonal and flexible method of moderately effective contraception for many users. Phexxi is a prescription vaginal pH regulator administered as a gel and active for 1 hour after application. All previous vaginal gels sold in the United States are applied similarly, are available over the counter, and include nonoxynol-9, which is a surfactant that damages sperm cell membranes. Recent data from a phase 3 trial demonstrated similar contraceptive effectiveness of Phexxi when compared with available nonoxynol-9 alternatives.¹⁴

Continue to: New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE...

New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE

Creinin MD, Westhoff CL, Bouchard C, et al. Estetrol-drospirenone combination oral contraceptive: North American phase 3 efficacy and safety results. Contraception. 2021;104:222-228.

The COC E4/drospirenone was evaluated in 2 parallel multinational studies. Here, we review the North American data that are more relevant for the US population; the European-Russian data also are published.¹⁵

Study examined 1 year’s use of E4/drospirenone

The US–Canadian trial conducted by Creinin and colleagues enrolled 1,864 participants aged 16 to 50 years to evaluate contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, and adverse events with 1-year use (13 cycles) of E4/drospirenone. The primary efficacy group included 1,524 women aged 16 to 35. This study enrolled healthy, heterosexually active participants with a BMI ≤35 kg/m² and regular menses from 70 sites in the United States and 7 sites in Canada. The dropout rate was 45%, comparable to that in other contraceptive studies. Participants used E4/drospirenone cyclically, taking 1 hormone-containing pill daily for 24 days followed by 4 days of placebo pills.

Contraceptive efficacious, no VTE observed

The researchers reported efficacy as a Pearl Index (PI) of 2.65 pregnancies per 100 woman-years in participants aged 16 to 35 and an overall 13-cycle life-table pregnancy rate of 2.06%. The PI did not differ among nonobese and obese participants in multivariable analysis. Most users experienced scheduled withdrawal bleeding; only 13% to 18% reported absence of scheduled bleeding. Unscheduled bleeding was typically spotting (55.2%), and this decreased with treatment duration from 30% in cycle 1 to 15% to 20% in cycle 5 and on.

Overall, 28.9% of participants reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs), which most commonly were headache (5.0%), metrorrhagia (4.6%), and nausea (3.8%). Investigators reported a minimal change in mean (SD) BMI of 0.4 (1.7) kg/m² from baseline after 1 year of E4/drospirenone use, and only 0.5% of participants discontinued use due to weight gain. The most common reasons for AE-related treatment discontinuation included metrorrhagia (0.9%), menorrhagia (0.8%), and vaginal hemorrhage (0.5%). Importantly, no cases of VTE occurred in this study of estetrol despite 23% of participants being obese, a known risk factor for VTE.

Continue to: Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women...

Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women

Nelson AL, Kaunitz AM, Kroll R; SECURE Investigators. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol transdermal delivery system: phase 3 clinical trial results. Contraception. 2021;103:137-143.

To assess the contraceptive efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the transdermal patch Twirla (EE/levonorgestrel) over 1 year of treatment (13 cycles), Nelson and colleagues conducted an open-label, multicenter, US-based phase 3 trial of participants aged 18 years and older with regular cycles. There were no restrictions based on BMI. On average, the study population was overweight, with a mean BMI of 28.3 kg/m² , and 35% of the population was considered obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²).

Study design

A total of 2,032 participants enrolled in the study, with separate populations defined for specific analysis on safety, contraceptive efficacy, and cycle control. The primary efficacy group included 1,736 participants. Fifty-one percent discontinued the study, most commonly due to “women’s decision” (15%) and lost to follow-up (11%). Users received bleeding diaries and returned periodically throughout the study for evaluation for efficacy, adherence, and adverse events.

Efficacy associated with BMI

The study results demonstrated an overall PI of 5.8 pregnancies per 100 woman-years for users aged younger than 35. TABLE 2 demonstrates the overall trend of efficacy in relation to BMI.^10,15-19 Participants with a higher BMI were found to have a higher PI, revealing lower contraceptive efficacy in more overweight and obese patients. The overall cumulative pregnancy rate over 13 cycles was 5.3%

Participants reported decreasing frequency of bleeding/spotting days over the treatment duration of 13 cycles, from a mean (SD) of 6.2 (4.5) days in cycle 1 to 4.9 (3.5) days in cycle 13. Unscheduled bleeding episodes remained high throughout the study period. Initially, 60% of users reported 1 or more days of unscheduled bleeding in cycle 1, and 42% still reported unscheduled bleeding in cycle 13. In light of this, only 45 participants (2.2%) discontinued the study due to bleeding issues, suggesting perhaps that the bleeding was light. Overall, users experienced acceptable wearability of the patch, and the rate of detachment decreased over the study period from 9.9% in cycle 1 to 2.4% in cycle 13. There were also low rates (0.5%) of moderate to severe irritation. Itching at the adhesion site decreased slightly from 13.1% in cycle 2 to 9.6% in cycle 13.

In general, 27.2% of patch users experienced a study-related AE, most reported as mild to moderate. Nausea (4.1%) and headaches (3.6%) were the most common hormone-related AE. Importantly, 4 obese users experienced 5 VTEs (deep vein thrombosis, n = 2; pulmonary embolism, n = 3) between cycle 5 and 13. Three of these users had additional VTE risk factors, such as air travel and a family history of clots. No users who were of normal weight or overweight experienced VTE.

Continue to: Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option...

Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option

Thomas MA, Chappell BT, Maximos B, et al. A novel vaginal pH regulator: results from the phase 3 AMPOWER contraception clinical trial. Contracept X. 2020;2:100031.

In an open-label phase 3 study, Thomas and colleagues enrolled 1,384 participants aged 18 to 35 with regular cycles at 112 sites in the United States to assess the contraceptive efficacy, safety, and acceptability of Phexxi vaginal gel (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) over 7 cycles (6 months). Participants were required to have at least 3 episodes of heterosexual vaginal intercourse per cycle and return throughout the treatment duration for study visits. Fifty-three percent of participants did not complete the study, most frequently due to loss to follow-up (18.1%) and participant withdrawal (12.3%). Most participants were White (69%) and had an average (SD) age of 27.7 (4.5) years.

Efficacy and AE rates

The investigators reported a cumulative pregnancy rate of 13.7% over 7 cycles (6 months). In this study, 45.2% of women experienced 1 AE, and most were noted to be mild (23.9%) to moderate (18.7%). The most reported AE was vulvovaginal burning (20.0%), followed by vulvovaginal pruritus (11.2%), urinary tract infection (5.7%), and vulvovaginal pain (3.8%). Less than 2% of participants discontinued the study due to an AE. Burning and itching decreased with time and with decreased frequency of use. When used twice per day compared with once per day, burning rates decreased from 4.6% to 2.1%, and itching rates decreased from 1.0% to 0.7%. Serious AEs were uncommon, occurring in 1.3% of users; only 1, cystitis, was noted to be “probably” related to the treatment. ●

A new contraceptive method should ideally provide improved access or a higher quality and safety option. Although unintended pregnancy rates in the United States are decreasing, significant disparities across race and socioeconomic status remain,¹ and these disparities actually doubled from 1994 to 2011 even though the overall unintended pregnancy rate decreased.^1-3 Specifically, people of color, those with lower income, and people with lower education levels had higher rates of unintended pregnancies than did White people with higher education and income, suggesting disparate access to contraception services.¹ Thus, as new contraceptive methods are introduced, we must assess if they have the potential to address this disparity as well as continue to provide higher quality and safer options.

In this Update, we critically review the phase 3 data on efficacy and safety for 3 new methods that were introduced to the US market over the past year to evaluate their impact on the current contraceptive landscape.

The first method, newly approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is a combined oral contraceptive (OC) that contains a novel endogenous estrogen, estetrol, or E4 (Nextstellis). E4 is a natural estrogen produced in the fetal liver that has lower potency and a longer half-life than estradiol. Nextstellis is a monophasic 24/4 OC pill that contains E4 14.2 mg and drospirenone 3 mg in each of the 24 hormone-containing pills. Most combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in the United States today contain synthetically made ethinyl estradiol (EE) due to its high potency and oral bioavailability. Outside of the reproductive system, EE upregulates the production of hepatic proteins and alters procoagulant and anticoagulant factors, which results in an overall increase in venous thromboembolic (VTE) risk among CHC users.²

After widespread use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) started in the 1960s, data emerged regarding increased VTE risk.³ Subsequent research discovered that the type of estrogen used in CHCs directly correlates with the thrombosis risk due to the hepatic upregulation with both first- and second-pass metabolism. Although this risk was reduced as the EE dose decreased below 50 µg and concurrent VTE risk factors were contraindicated, CHC users still faced a 2-fold increase in VTE risk compared with nonusers.^4,5 EE in contraceptive formulations increases VTE risk, likely related to upregulation of procoagulant factors and decreasing anticoagulant proteins.² By contrast, a phase 2 trial of Nextstellis demonstrated more neutral effects of E4/drospirenone on hemostatic parameters compared with EE/levonorgestrel or EE/drospirenone.⁶ Furthermore, E4/drospirenone exhibited lower increases in hepatic proteins, such as angiotensinogen, triglycerides, and sex-hormone binding globulin.⁷ These findings together suggest that this novel CHC pill has a more favorable cardiovascular adverse effect profile compared with currently available CHCs.

The second contraceptive method is a new transdermal patch that contains EE and levonorgestrel (Twirla); this is in contrast to the available EE/norelgestromin contraceptive patch (Xulane). Transdermal contraceptive patches can offer some users easier adherence as compared with a daily OC.⁸ Until this past year, the only transdermal contraceptive available in the United States was Xulane, which contains a daily dose of EE 35 µg and norelgestromin 150 µg. Norelgestromin is eventually metabolized to levonorgestrel derivatives.⁹ Twirla is administered in the same manner as Xulane and contains a daily hormone exposure equivalent to a COC containing EE 30 µg and levonorgestrel 120 µg. Similar to EE/norelgestromin, the EE/levonorgestrel patch also is contraindicated in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m²) due to decreased efficacy and increased risk for VTE. Additionally, phase 3 data demonstrated decreasing efficacy of Twirla in overweight users (BMI ≥25–30 kg/m²), perhaps further limiting the population that may benefit from this contraceptive method.¹⁰ These issues with efficacy and weight likely are related to the fact that levonorgestrel distribution is weight dependent, with evidence of lower plasma levels in obese individuals.^11-13

The third new method is a prescription vaginal contraceptive gel with lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate (Phexxi) designed to prevent pregnancy by maintaining an acidic vaginal environment that is inhospitable to sperm. For many decades, vaginal contraceptives, including vaginal spermicidal gels, provided easy access to a nonhormonal and flexible method of moderately effective contraception for many users. Phexxi is a prescription vaginal pH regulator administered as a gel and active for 1 hour after application. All previous vaginal gels sold in the United States are applied similarly, are available over the counter, and include nonoxynol-9, which is a surfactant that damages sperm cell membranes. Recent data from a phase 3 trial demonstrated similar contraceptive effectiveness of Phexxi when compared with available nonoxynol-9 alternatives.¹⁴

Continue to: New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE...

New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE

Creinin MD, Westhoff CL, Bouchard C, et al. Estetrol-drospirenone combination oral contraceptive: North American phase 3 efficacy and safety results. Contraception. 2021;104:222-228.

The COC E4/drospirenone was evaluated in 2 parallel multinational studies. Here, we review the North American data that are more relevant for the US population; the European-Russian data also are published.¹⁵

Study examined 1 year’s use of E4/drospirenone

The US–Canadian trial conducted by Creinin and colleagues enrolled 1,864 participants aged 16 to 50 years to evaluate contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, and adverse events with 1-year use (13 cycles) of E4/drospirenone. The primary efficacy group included 1,524 women aged 16 to 35. This study enrolled healthy, heterosexually active participants with a BMI ≤35 kg/m² and regular menses from 70 sites in the United States and 7 sites in Canada. The dropout rate was 45%, comparable to that in other contraceptive studies. Participants used E4/drospirenone cyclically, taking 1 hormone-containing pill daily for 24 days followed by 4 days of placebo pills.

Contraceptive efficacious, no VTE observed

The researchers reported efficacy as a Pearl Index (PI) of 2.65 pregnancies per 100 woman-years in participants aged 16 to 35 and an overall 13-cycle life-table pregnancy rate of 2.06%. The PI did not differ among nonobese and obese participants in multivariable analysis. Most users experienced scheduled withdrawal bleeding; only 13% to 18% reported absence of scheduled bleeding. Unscheduled bleeding was typically spotting (55.2%), and this decreased with treatment duration from 30% in cycle 1 to 15% to 20% in cycle 5 and on.

Overall, 28.9% of participants reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs), which most commonly were headache (5.0%), metrorrhagia (4.6%), and nausea (3.8%). Investigators reported a minimal change in mean (SD) BMI of 0.4 (1.7) kg/m² from baseline after 1 year of E4/drospirenone use, and only 0.5% of participants discontinued use due to weight gain. The most common reasons for AE-related treatment discontinuation included metrorrhagia (0.9%), menorrhagia (0.8%), and vaginal hemorrhage (0.5%). Importantly, no cases of VTE occurred in this study of estetrol despite 23% of participants being obese, a known risk factor for VTE.

Continue to: Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women...

Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women

Nelson AL, Kaunitz AM, Kroll R; SECURE Investigators. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol transdermal delivery system: phase 3 clinical trial results. Contraception. 2021;103:137-143.

To assess the contraceptive efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the transdermal patch Twirla (EE/levonorgestrel) over 1 year of treatment (13 cycles), Nelson and colleagues conducted an open-label, multicenter, US-based phase 3 trial of participants aged 18 years and older with regular cycles. There were no restrictions based on BMI. On average, the study population was overweight, with a mean BMI of 28.3 kg/m² , and 35% of the population was considered obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²).

Study design

A total of 2,032 participants enrolled in the study, with separate populations defined for specific analysis on safety, contraceptive efficacy, and cycle control. The primary efficacy group included 1,736 participants. Fifty-one percent discontinued the study, most commonly due to “women’s decision” (15%) and lost to follow-up (11%). Users received bleeding diaries and returned periodically throughout the study for evaluation for efficacy, adherence, and adverse events.

Efficacy associated with BMI

The study results demonstrated an overall PI of 5.8 pregnancies per 100 woman-years for users aged younger than 35. TABLE 2 demonstrates the overall trend of efficacy in relation to BMI.^10,15-19 Participants with a higher BMI were found to have a higher PI, revealing lower contraceptive efficacy in more overweight and obese patients. The overall cumulative pregnancy rate over 13 cycles was 5.3%

Participants reported decreasing frequency of bleeding/spotting days over the treatment duration of 13 cycles, from a mean (SD) of 6.2 (4.5) days in cycle 1 to 4.9 (3.5) days in cycle 13. Unscheduled bleeding episodes remained high throughout the study period. Initially, 60% of users reported 1 or more days of unscheduled bleeding in cycle 1, and 42% still reported unscheduled bleeding in cycle 13. In light of this, only 45 participants (2.2%) discontinued the study due to bleeding issues, suggesting perhaps that the bleeding was light. Overall, users experienced acceptable wearability of the patch, and the rate of detachment decreased over the study period from 9.9% in cycle 1 to 2.4% in cycle 13. There were also low rates (0.5%) of moderate to severe irritation. Itching at the adhesion site decreased slightly from 13.1% in cycle 2 to 9.6% in cycle 13.

In general, 27.2% of patch users experienced a study-related AE, most reported as mild to moderate. Nausea (4.1%) and headaches (3.6%) were the most common hormone-related AE. Importantly, 4 obese users experienced 5 VTEs (deep vein thrombosis, n = 2; pulmonary embolism, n = 3) between cycle 5 and 13. Three of these users had additional VTE risk factors, such as air travel and a family history of clots. No users who were of normal weight or overweight experienced VTE.

Continue to: Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option...

Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option

Thomas MA, Chappell BT, Maximos B, et al. A novel vaginal pH regulator: results from the phase 3 AMPOWER contraception clinical trial. Contracept X. 2020;2:100031.

In an open-label phase 3 study, Thomas and colleagues enrolled 1,384 participants aged 18 to 35 with regular cycles at 112 sites in the United States to assess the contraceptive efficacy, safety, and acceptability of Phexxi vaginal gel (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) over 7 cycles (6 months). Participants were required to have at least 3 episodes of heterosexual vaginal intercourse per cycle and return throughout the treatment duration for study visits. Fifty-three percent of participants did not complete the study, most frequently due to loss to follow-up (18.1%) and participant withdrawal (12.3%). Most participants were White (69%) and had an average (SD) age of 27.7 (4.5) years.

Efficacy and AE rates

The investigators reported a cumulative pregnancy rate of 13.7% over 7 cycles (6 months). In this study, 45.2% of women experienced 1 AE, and most were noted to be mild (23.9%) to moderate (18.7%). The most reported AE was vulvovaginal burning (20.0%), followed by vulvovaginal pruritus (11.2%), urinary tract infection (5.7%), and vulvovaginal pain (3.8%). Less than 2% of participants discontinued the study due to an AE. Burning and itching decreased with time and with decreased frequency of use. When used twice per day compared with once per day, burning rates decreased from 4.6% to 2.1%, and itching rates decreased from 1.0% to 0.7%. Serious AEs were uncommon, occurring in 1.3% of users; only 1, cystitis, was noted to be “probably” related to the treatment. ●

Over the past decade, the use of technology with the focus on optimizing the consumer experience has exploded throughout numerous industries, including education, retail, and entertainment. Within health care, we would be naïve to ignore patient expectations for an optimized consumer experience within our offices. Thus, clinicians across all health care disciplines must remain cognizant of and work to optimize the patient experience in the ever-expanding world of health care.

Reengineering one’s practice will continue to be a work in progress. As medicine and technology continuously advance, clinicians must be able to adapt and implement changes. An excellent example of such adaptation is the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ We hope that the use of telemedicine remains an integral part of our armamentarium as we move forward.

In this article, we offer perspectives on using telemedicine, improving the patient experience, and implementing the use of social media in your practice. We look for a common denominator when provision of clinical care is the topic of discussion. Knowing the details of your medical practice and addressing its highlights as well as its concerns will benefit patients, staff, and health care providers. We hope that you glean some insights that you can apply in your practice.

Telemedicine: Part of the new normal

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines telehealth as a “technology-enhanced health care framework that includes services, such as virtual visits, remote patient monitoring and mobile health care.”² The American Telemedicine Association and the World Health Organization use the terms telemedicine and telehealth interchangeably.³ We live in a relatively new era since the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated that traditional face-to-face meeting(s) with patients be conducted virtually. The good news is that the outcomes with telehealth visits appear to be on par with those of traditional office visits.⁴

Telehealth allows clinicians to deliver medical evaluation and management plans right in a patient’s home and to receive appropriate reimbursement for doing so. This is a result of actions by Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services that removed restrictions related to telemedicine.⁵ The telemedicine approach provides a different perspective on provision of care (FIGURE 1).

While in many circumstances the indications for telemedicine are obvious, some remain less apparent. For example, patients may be more receptive to the use of telemedicine for counseling and education for family planning services and termination of pregnancy.⁶ Psychological counseling lends itself to a telemedicine approach to address levels of anxiety and depression, especially in the postpartum setting.

An initial telemedicine consultation often is complemented by subsequent patient examination when deemed necessary. Pelvic imaging often is ordered to address concerns expressed during the telemedicine visit. Teleradiology is an interesting aspect of telemedicine that is expanding. Telesonography, the use of ultrasonography, is extremely relevant to obstetrics and gynecology. Specifically, the development of self-operated endovaginal telemonitors and 3D as well as 4D imaging incorporates self-operated endovaginal telemonitoring. This technology remains a work in progress.⁷

Another aspect to telemedicine is telesurgery. Although an operative procedure cannot be performed virtually, pre- and postoperative counseling can be provided via telemedicine, offering tremendous convenience to patients.

Understanding the infrastructure of telemedicine and assuring security, adherence with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), state licensure, reimbursement, and medical malpractice aspects is well worth the effort.

Continue to: Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience...

Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience

Create a hospitable environment. One way to do this is by having your front desk staffer standing up to greet patients. The medical management literature has reported an interesting analogy.⁸ Picture going to a retailer whose job is to sell you the product you are interested in. Where is that person positioned? Standing at the counter, at eye level with you, doing his or her best to convince you to buy a particular product. Having your office front desk personnel standing is analogous to the “atmosphere (when approaching the front desk) that conveys clear energy and a clear tone or readiness,” all of which contribute to a more positive patient experience.⁸

A hospitable environment at the check-in desk sets the stage for the office visit. When a staffer is sitting at the front desk office entrance point, the concept conveyed to the patient is, “You can wait for us because you need us more than we need you.” Changing the staffer’s posture to a standing position conveys, “Welcome, we are glad to see you and address why you are here.”⁸

Conduct a flow analysis of your office procedures. It is clear that the front desk serves as an advertisement of what your practice has to offer. A friendly smile from the receptionist goes a long way. In addition, the total time from patient check-in to checkout should be monitored. Having this type of data aids staff evaluation and patient satisfaction.⁹

Examine your office’s aspects of what the business world calls throughput. In essence, problems related to throughput include that the clinician is chronically late or slow with patients or that inadequate time was allocated per patient visit or per procedure.

It is valuable to allocate staff resources ahead of time, including patient registration and insurance verification details. Staff records review and preparation for the clinician streamlines time with the patient. Having lab tests, other consultations, and so on readily available for the clinician is time well spent by the medical assistants. For procedures, preparation of equipment that is in good working order and having supplies appropriately stocked can help facilitate success and efficiency. Creation of an “electronic on-time board” displays if the clinician is running on time or not.⁹ These practical tips can result in better patient and staff satisfaction. In addition, periodic surveys help engage patients in the process. TABLE 2 provides sample survey questions to ask patients.¹⁰

Taking a careful look at your current office practices and reengineering them as needed is an investment that provides an excellent return.

Continue to: Develop a presence on social media...

Develop a presence on social media

Having a social media presence is becoming one of the most effective strategies for reaching an intended audience. In the United States, more than 70% of the public uses at least one social media platform.¹¹ It can be an effective and efficient tool for clinicians to grow their practice; distribute information about unique areas of the practice; and reach potential patients, referring physicians, and prospective faculty/trainees. Social media also is increasingly being used by clinicians to connect with other health care providers in their own specialty or other specialties. Digital communities have been created where ideas are shared and topics of interest are discussed. Clinicians can listen in on expert opinions, disseminate their research, and discuss practice management challenges or health advocacy. FIGURE 2 provides a snapshot of the social media landscape.

There is a wealth of options when it comes to social media platforms, including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube, and blogs (TABLE 3). Facebook has the largest user base of all social media platforms, with approximately 1.7 billion active monthly users; thus, its use creates an opportunity to reach a massive audience.^12,13 People use Facebook for both personal and professional reasons. The platform allows for sharing of photos, live videos, posted text, and comments. It can be used as a helpful resource to engage patients and disseminate accurate medical information. Importantly, remember that content posted should comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule and that information shared should come from a credible source.

Final thoughts

The practice of medicine has undeniably changed over the years and will continue to evolve. Understanding how to implement change to ensure that high-quality, efficient patient care is being delivered is paramount.

We have highlighted various aspects of practice management that you can use to overcome current obstacles and changing standards. The advent of telemedicine has provided easy access to clinicians. Consultation occurs in the comfort of the patient’s home, and the ability to provide local examination telecast to a clinician allows physicians and advanced practice practitioners to reach a wider range of patients. Social media has established an infrastructure for educating patients and providers while at the same time conveying educational tools to patients. This level of communication will continue to expand as time progresses.

Practitioners have a whole new cadre to add to their toolbox to provide patients with state-of-the-art communication and care. ●

Over the past decade, the use of technology with the focus on optimizing the consumer experience has exploded throughout numerous industries, including education, retail, and entertainment. Within health care, we would be naïve to ignore patient expectations for an optimized consumer experience within our offices. Thus, clinicians across all health care disciplines must remain cognizant of and work to optimize the patient experience in the ever-expanding world of health care.

Reengineering one’s practice will continue to be a work in progress. As medicine and technology continuously advance, clinicians must be able to adapt and implement changes. An excellent example of such adaptation is the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ We hope that the use of telemedicine remains an integral part of our armamentarium as we move forward.

In this article, we offer perspectives on using telemedicine, improving the patient experience, and implementing the use of social media in your practice. We look for a common denominator when provision of clinical care is the topic of discussion. Knowing the details of your medical practice and addressing its highlights as well as its concerns will benefit patients, staff, and health care providers. We hope that you glean some insights that you can apply in your practice.

Telemedicine: Part of the new normal

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines telehealth as a “technology-enhanced health care framework that includes services, such as virtual visits, remote patient monitoring and mobile health care.”² The American Telemedicine Association and the World Health Organization use the terms telemedicine and telehealth interchangeably.³ We live in a relatively new era since the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated that traditional face-to-face meeting(s) with patients be conducted virtually. The good news is that the outcomes with telehealth visits appear to be on par with those of traditional office visits.⁴

Telehealth allows clinicians to deliver medical evaluation and management plans right in a patient’s home and to receive appropriate reimbursement for doing so. This is a result of actions by Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services that removed restrictions related to telemedicine.⁵ The telemedicine approach provides a different perspective on provision of care (FIGURE 1).

While in many circumstances the indications for telemedicine are obvious, some remain less apparent. For example, patients may be more receptive to the use of telemedicine for counseling and education for family planning services and termination of pregnancy.⁶ Psychological counseling lends itself to a telemedicine approach to address levels of anxiety and depression, especially in the postpartum setting.

An initial telemedicine consultation often is complemented by subsequent patient examination when deemed necessary. Pelvic imaging often is ordered to address concerns expressed during the telemedicine visit. Teleradiology is an interesting aspect of telemedicine that is expanding. Telesonography, the use of ultrasonography, is extremely relevant to obstetrics and gynecology. Specifically, the development of self-operated endovaginal telemonitors and 3D as well as 4D imaging incorporates self-operated endovaginal telemonitoring. This technology remains a work in progress.⁷

Another aspect to telemedicine is telesurgery. Although an operative procedure cannot be performed virtually, pre- and postoperative counseling can be provided via telemedicine, offering tremendous convenience to patients.

Understanding the infrastructure of telemedicine and assuring security, adherence with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), state licensure, reimbursement, and medical malpractice aspects is well worth the effort.

Continue to: Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience...

Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience

Create a hospitable environment. One way to do this is by having your front desk staffer standing up to greet patients. The medical management literature has reported an interesting analogy.⁸ Picture going to a retailer whose job is to sell you the product you are interested in. Where is that person positioned? Standing at the counter, at eye level with you, doing his or her best to convince you to buy a particular product. Having your office front desk personnel standing is analogous to the “atmosphere (when approaching the front desk) that conveys clear energy and a clear tone or readiness,” all of which contribute to a more positive patient experience.⁸

A hospitable environment at the check-in desk sets the stage for the office visit. When a staffer is sitting at the front desk office entrance point, the concept conveyed to the patient is, “You can wait for us because you need us more than we need you.” Changing the staffer’s posture to a standing position conveys, “Welcome, we are glad to see you and address why you are here.”⁸

Conduct a flow analysis of your office procedures. It is clear that the front desk serves as an advertisement of what your practice has to offer. A friendly smile from the receptionist goes a long way. In addition, the total time from patient check-in to checkout should be monitored. Having this type of data aids staff evaluation and patient satisfaction.⁹

Examine your office’s aspects of what the business world calls throughput. In essence, problems related to throughput include that the clinician is chronically late or slow with patients or that inadequate time was allocated per patient visit or per procedure.

It is valuable to allocate staff resources ahead of time, including patient registration and insurance verification details. Staff records review and preparation for the clinician streamlines time with the patient. Having lab tests, other consultations, and so on readily available for the clinician is time well spent by the medical assistants. For procedures, preparation of equipment that is in good working order and having supplies appropriately stocked can help facilitate success and efficiency. Creation of an “electronic on-time board” displays if the clinician is running on time or not.⁹ These practical tips can result in better patient and staff satisfaction. In addition, periodic surveys help engage patients in the process. TABLE 2 provides sample survey questions to ask patients.¹⁰

Taking a careful look at your current office practices and reengineering them as needed is an investment that provides an excellent return.

Continue to: Develop a presence on social media...

Develop a presence on social media

Having a social media presence is becoming one of the most effective strategies for reaching an intended audience. In the United States, more than 70% of the public uses at least one social media platform.¹¹ It can be an effective and efficient tool for clinicians to grow their practice; distribute information about unique areas of the practice; and reach potential patients, referring physicians, and prospective faculty/trainees. Social media also is increasingly being used by clinicians to connect with other health care providers in their own specialty or other specialties. Digital communities have been created where ideas are shared and topics of interest are discussed. Clinicians can listen in on expert opinions, disseminate their research, and discuss practice management challenges or health advocacy. FIGURE 2 provides a snapshot of the social media landscape.

There is a wealth of options when it comes to social media platforms, including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube, and blogs (TABLE 3). Facebook has the largest user base of all social media platforms, with approximately 1.7 billion active monthly users; thus, its use creates an opportunity to reach a massive audience.^12,13 People use Facebook for both personal and professional reasons. The platform allows for sharing of photos, live videos, posted text, and comments. It can be used as a helpful resource to engage patients and disseminate accurate medical information. Importantly, remember that content posted should comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule and that information shared should come from a credible source.

Final thoughts

The practice of medicine has undeniably changed over the years and will continue to evolve. Understanding how to implement change to ensure that high-quality, efficient patient care is being delivered is paramount.

We have highlighted various aspects of practice management that you can use to overcome current obstacles and changing standards. The advent of telemedicine has provided easy access to clinicians. Consultation occurs in the comfort of the patient’s home, and the ability to provide local examination telecast to a clinician allows physicians and advanced practice practitioners to reach a wider range of patients. Social media has established an infrastructure for educating patients and providers while at the same time conveying educational tools to patients. This level of communication will continue to expand as time progresses.

Practitioners have a whole new cadre to add to their toolbox to provide patients with state-of-the-art communication and care. ●

Over the past decade, the use of technology with the focus on optimizing the consumer experience has exploded throughout numerous industries, including education, retail, and entertainment. Within health care, we would be naïve to ignore patient expectations for an optimized consumer experience within our offices. Thus, clinicians across all health care disciplines must remain cognizant of and work to optimize the patient experience in the ever-expanding world of health care.

Reengineering one’s practice will continue to be a work in progress. As medicine and technology continuously advance, clinicians must be able to adapt and implement changes. An excellent example of such adaptation is the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ We hope that the use of telemedicine remains an integral part of our armamentarium as we move forward.

In this article, we offer perspectives on using telemedicine, improving the patient experience, and implementing the use of social media in your practice. We look for a common denominator when provision of clinical care is the topic of discussion. Knowing the details of your medical practice and addressing its highlights as well as its concerns will benefit patients, staff, and health care providers. We hope that you glean some insights that you can apply in your practice.

Telemedicine: Part of the new normal

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines telehealth as a “technology-enhanced health care framework that includes services, such as virtual visits, remote patient monitoring and mobile health care.”² The American Telemedicine Association and the World Health Organization use the terms telemedicine and telehealth interchangeably.³ We live in a relatively new era since the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated that traditional face-to-face meeting(s) with patients be conducted virtually. The good news is that the outcomes with telehealth visits appear to be on par with those of traditional office visits.⁴

Telehealth allows clinicians to deliver medical evaluation and management plans right in a patient’s home and to receive appropriate reimbursement for doing so. This is a result of actions by Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services that removed restrictions related to telemedicine.⁵ The telemedicine approach provides a different perspective on provision of care (FIGURE 1).

While in many circumstances the indications for telemedicine are obvious, some remain less apparent. For example, patients may be more receptive to the use of telemedicine for counseling and education for family planning services and termination of pregnancy.⁶ Psychological counseling lends itself to a telemedicine approach to address levels of anxiety and depression, especially in the postpartum setting.

An initial telemedicine consultation often is complemented by subsequent patient examination when deemed necessary. Pelvic imaging often is ordered to address concerns expressed during the telemedicine visit. Teleradiology is an interesting aspect of telemedicine that is expanding. Telesonography, the use of ultrasonography, is extremely relevant to obstetrics and gynecology. Specifically, the development of self-operated endovaginal telemonitors and 3D as well as 4D imaging incorporates self-operated endovaginal telemonitoring. This technology remains a work in progress.⁷

Another aspect to telemedicine is telesurgery. Although an operative procedure cannot be performed virtually, pre- and postoperative counseling can be provided via telemedicine, offering tremendous convenience to patients.

Understanding the infrastructure of telemedicine and assuring security, adherence with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), state licensure, reimbursement, and medical malpractice aspects is well worth the effort.

Continue to: Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience...

Reengineer your office to enhance the patient experience

Create a hospitable environment. One way to do this is by having your front desk staffer standing up to greet patients. The medical management literature has reported an interesting analogy.⁸ Picture going to a retailer whose job is to sell you the product you are interested in. Where is that person positioned? Standing at the counter, at eye level with you, doing his or her best to convince you to buy a particular product. Having your office front desk personnel standing is analogous to the “atmosphere (when approaching the front desk) that conveys clear energy and a clear tone or readiness,” all of which contribute to a more positive patient experience.⁸

A hospitable environment at the check-in desk sets the stage for the office visit. When a staffer is sitting at the front desk office entrance point, the concept conveyed to the patient is, “You can wait for us because you need us more than we need you.” Changing the staffer’s posture to a standing position conveys, “Welcome, we are glad to see you and address why you are here.”⁸

Conduct a flow analysis of your office procedures. It is clear that the front desk serves as an advertisement of what your practice has to offer. A friendly smile from the receptionist goes a long way. In addition, the total time from patient check-in to checkout should be monitored. Having this type of data aids staff evaluation and patient satisfaction.⁹

Examine your office’s aspects of what the business world calls throughput. In essence, problems related to throughput include that the clinician is chronically late or slow with patients or that inadequate time was allocated per patient visit or per procedure.

It is valuable to allocate staff resources ahead of time, including patient registration and insurance verification details. Staff records review and preparation for the clinician streamlines time with the patient. Having lab tests, other consultations, and so on readily available for the clinician is time well spent by the medical assistants. For procedures, preparation of equipment that is in good working order and having supplies appropriately stocked can help facilitate success and efficiency. Creation of an “electronic on-time board” displays if the clinician is running on time or not.⁹ These practical tips can result in better patient and staff satisfaction. In addition, periodic surveys help engage patients in the process. TABLE 2 provides sample survey questions to ask patients.¹⁰

Taking a careful look at your current office practices and reengineering them as needed is an investment that provides an excellent return.

Continue to: Develop a presence on social media...

Develop a presence on social media

Having a social media presence is becoming one of the most effective strategies for reaching an intended audience. In the United States, more than 70% of the public uses at least one social media platform.¹¹ It can be an effective and efficient tool for clinicians to grow their practice; distribute information about unique areas of the practice; and reach potential patients, referring physicians, and prospective faculty/trainees. Social media also is increasingly being used by clinicians to connect with other health care providers in their own specialty or other specialties. Digital communities have been created where ideas are shared and topics of interest are discussed. Clinicians can listen in on expert opinions, disseminate their research, and discuss practice management challenges or health advocacy. FIGURE 2 provides a snapshot of the social media landscape.

There is a wealth of options when it comes to social media platforms, including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube, and blogs (TABLE 3). Facebook has the largest user base of all social media platforms, with approximately 1.7 billion active monthly users; thus, its use creates an opportunity to reach a massive audience.^12,13 People use Facebook for both personal and professional reasons. The platform allows for sharing of photos, live videos, posted text, and comments. It can be used as a helpful resource to engage patients and disseminate accurate medical information. Importantly, remember that content posted should comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule and that information shared should come from a credible source.

Final thoughts

The practice of medicine has undeniably changed over the years and will continue to evolve. Understanding how to implement change to ensure that high-quality, efficient patient care is being delivered is paramount.

We have highlighted various aspects of practice management that you can use to overcome current obstacles and changing standards. The advent of telemedicine has provided easy access to clinicians. Consultation occurs in the comfort of the patient’s home, and the ability to provide local examination telecast to a clinician allows physicians and advanced practice practitioners to reach a wider range of patients. Social media has established an infrastructure for educating patients and providers while at the same time conveying educational tools to patients. This level of communication will continue to expand as time progresses.

Practitioners have a whole new cadre to add to their toolbox to provide patients with state-of-the-art communication and care. ●

Barnhart K, Hansen KR, Stephenson MD, et al; Reproductive Medicine Network. Effect of an active vs expectant management strategy on successful resolution of pregnancy among patients with a persisting pregnancy of unknown location: the ACT or NOT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;326:390-400.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Among patients with persistent PUL, it can be difficult to distinguish between ectopic pregnancy and an early nonviable intrauterine pregnancy.¹ If untreated, ectopic pregnancy can lead to serious morbidity and mortality.² Management options for persistent PUL include expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or diagnostic uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed. Data on the potential for these options to achieve pregnancy resolution is valuable for patients and clinicians choosing a treatment plan.

Details of the study

Barnhart and colleagues conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 225 women with persistent PUL (defined by transvaginal ultrasound imaging without a definitive intrauterine or extrauterine gestation and at least 2 consecutive human chorionic gonadotropin [hCG] values with less than a 15% rise per day). Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate if needed.

The primary outcome was pregnancy resolution without a change in management strategy. A secondary outcome was noninferiority of empirical methotrexate compared with uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution.

Results. The active management groups were significantly more likely to achieve pregnancy resolution without changing strategies than the expectant management group (51.5% vs 36.0%; difference, 15.4%). However, 39% of enrolled participants declined their randomized allocation and crossed over into a different management strategy.

Empirical methotrexate was found to be noninferior to uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution (54.9% vs 48.3%; difference, 6.6%).

Study strengths and limitations

Prior studies of hemodynamically stable patients with persistent PUL or stable tubal ectopic pregnancy and low initial hCG values (<2,000 IU/L) failed to demonstrate that active management with methotrexate or uterine evacuation leads to more successful or faster pregnancy resolution.^3-5 Barnhart and colleagues’ study results, however, found that active management with 2-dose empirical methotrexate or uterine evacuation was more likely to lead to pregnancy resolution without requiring a change in management plan than was expectant management. The authors performed both an intention-to-treat and an as-treated analysis to confirm results.

The 39% crossover rate between the treatment groups likely reflected both patient preference and clinical presentation, potentially biasing the results. The low overall rate of adverse events confirms the safety and acceptability of a patient-centered approach to persistent PUL management. ●

Barnhart K, Hansen KR, Stephenson MD, et al; Reproductive Medicine Network. Effect of an active vs expectant management strategy on successful resolution of pregnancy among patients with a persisting pregnancy of unknown location: the ACT or NOT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;326:390-400.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Among patients with persistent PUL, it can be difficult to distinguish between ectopic pregnancy and an early nonviable intrauterine pregnancy.¹ If untreated, ectopic pregnancy can lead to serious morbidity and mortality.² Management options for persistent PUL include expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or diagnostic uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed. Data on the potential for these options to achieve pregnancy resolution is valuable for patients and clinicians choosing a treatment plan.

Details of the study

Barnhart and colleagues conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 225 women with persistent PUL (defined by transvaginal ultrasound imaging without a definitive intrauterine or extrauterine gestation and at least 2 consecutive human chorionic gonadotropin [hCG] values with less than a 15% rise per day). Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate if needed.

The primary outcome was pregnancy resolution without a change in management strategy. A secondary outcome was noninferiority of empirical methotrexate compared with uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution.

Results. The active management groups were significantly more likely to achieve pregnancy resolution without changing strategies than the expectant management group (51.5% vs 36.0%; difference, 15.4%). However, 39% of enrolled participants declined their randomized allocation and crossed over into a different management strategy.

Empirical methotrexate was found to be noninferior to uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution (54.9% vs 48.3%; difference, 6.6%).

Study strengths and limitations

Prior studies of hemodynamically stable patients with persistent PUL or stable tubal ectopic pregnancy and low initial hCG values (<2,000 IU/L) failed to demonstrate that active management with methotrexate or uterine evacuation leads to more successful or faster pregnancy resolution.^3-5 Barnhart and colleagues’ study results, however, found that active management with 2-dose empirical methotrexate or uterine evacuation was more likely to lead to pregnancy resolution without requiring a change in management plan than was expectant management. The authors performed both an intention-to-treat and an as-treated analysis to confirm results.

The 39% crossover rate between the treatment groups likely reflected both patient preference and clinical presentation, potentially biasing the results. The low overall rate of adverse events confirms the safety and acceptability of a patient-centered approach to persistent PUL management. ●

Barnhart K, Hansen KR, Stephenson MD, et al; Reproductive Medicine Network. Effect of an active vs expectant management strategy on successful resolution of pregnancy among patients with a persisting pregnancy of unknown location: the ACT or NOT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;326:390-400.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Among patients with persistent PUL, it can be difficult to distinguish between ectopic pregnancy and an early nonviable intrauterine pregnancy.¹ If untreated, ectopic pregnancy can lead to serious morbidity and mortality.² Management options for persistent PUL include expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or diagnostic uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed. Data on the potential for these options to achieve pregnancy resolution is valuable for patients and clinicians choosing a treatment plan.

Details of the study

Barnhart and colleagues conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 225 women with persistent PUL (defined by transvaginal ultrasound imaging without a definitive intrauterine or extrauterine gestation and at least 2 consecutive human chorionic gonadotropin [hCG] values with less than a 15% rise per day). Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: expectant management, empirical methotrexate, or uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate if needed.

The primary outcome was pregnancy resolution without a change in management strategy. A secondary outcome was noninferiority of empirical methotrexate compared with uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution.

Results. The active management groups were significantly more likely to achieve pregnancy resolution without changing strategies than the expectant management group (51.5% vs 36.0%; difference, 15.4%). However, 39% of enrolled participants declined their randomized allocation and crossed over into a different management strategy.

Empirical methotrexate was found to be noninferior to uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate as needed in achieving pregnancy resolution (54.9% vs 48.3%; difference, 6.6%).

Study strengths and limitations

Prior studies of hemodynamically stable patients with persistent PUL or stable tubal ectopic pregnancy and low initial hCG values (<2,000 IU/L) failed to demonstrate that active management with methotrexate or uterine evacuation leads to more successful or faster pregnancy resolution.^3-5 Barnhart and colleagues’ study results, however, found that active management with 2-dose empirical methotrexate or uterine evacuation was more likely to lead to pregnancy resolution without requiring a change in management plan than was expectant management. The authors performed both an intention-to-treat and an as-treated analysis to confirm results.

The 39% crossover rate between the treatment groups likely reflected both patient preference and clinical presentation, potentially biasing the results. The low overall rate of adverse events confirms the safety and acceptability of a patient-centered approach to persistent PUL management. ●

Prior to 1980, medical record notes were generally hand-written, short, and to the point. Senior physicians often wrote their 3-line notes using a fountain pen in an elegant cursive. With the transition to electronic medical records, notes have become bloated with irrelevant information and frequently lack a focus on the critical clinical insights that optimize patient care. The use of smart phrases to pull vast amounts of raw data into the note is a major contributor to note bloat. The unrestrained use of the copy and paste functionality generates a sequence of cloned notes that grow in length as new information is added and little information from prior notes removed. With each subsequent clone the note often becomes less accurate, lengthier, and more difficult for a reader to understand. In one survey of 253 physicians who wrote electronic notes, 90% reported that they used the copy and paste function, with 71% reporting that use of this function caused inconsistencies within and among notes and increased the repetitive presentation of outdated information in the note.¹ Although the surveyed clinicians recognized that the copy and paste function caused problems, 80% reported that they planned to continue to use the copy and paste function.¹

The SOAP note

The problem-oriented SOAP note is written in the classic structure of subjective and objective information, followed by an assessment and plan.² The structure of the SOAP note emphasizes the logical and sequential collection of data followed by data analysis, resulting in a focused assessment and plan. When notes were hand-written and short, the entire SOAP note could be viewed on one page. Like a dashboard, the eye could quickly scan each key component of the note, facilitating the simultaneous integration of all 4 components of the note, facilitating understanding of the patient’s clinical situation. When the SOAP note structure is used to create a multipage electronic note, the result is a note that often confuses rather than enlightens the reader. A 5- to 10-page SOAP note is often useless for patient care but demonstrates the ability of computer-savvy clinicians to quickly generate a note thousands of words in length.

The APSO note, a response to note bloat

When a medical record note becomes a multipage document, clinicians should consider switching from the SOAP note structure to the APSO note, where the assessment and plan are at the top of the note, and the subjective and objective information is below the assessment and plan. The APSO format permits the reader to more quickly grasp the critical thinking of the author and facilitates a focus on key points relevant to the patient’s condition. The note can be written in the SOAP format, but then the assessment and plan are brought to the top of the note. In my clinical experience fewer than 10% of clinicians are using an APSO note structure. I believe that, with a multipage note, the APSO structure improves the experience of the reader and should be more widely utilized, especially by clinicians who are prone to crafting a bloated note. In a survey of more than 3,000 clinicians, approximately two-thirds of the respondents reported that, compared with SOAP notes, APSO notes were easier and faster to read, and APSO notes made it easier to follow the clinical reasoning of the author.³

Continue to: New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat...

New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat

Previous evaluation and management federal billing guidelines emphasized documentation of a myriad of clinically irrelevant details contributing to note bloat. The new federal evaluation and management billing guidelines pivot the focus of the note to the quality and complexity of medical decision making as demonstrated in the assessment and plan.⁴ Prioritizing the assessment and plan as the key feature of the medical record note should help reduce the length of notes. The American College of Physicians recently recommended deleting the complete review of systems and prior histories from most notes unless relevant to medical decision making and the assessment and plan.⁵

The open note

The open note mandate was contained in federal regulations developed to implement the 21st Century Cures Act, which required patients to have access to the information in their medical record. In order to comply with the regulation, health systems are sending most notes and test results to the patient through the health system’s patient gateway. The open note process entered my practice through a stealthy progression, from an initial step of permitting a clinician to easily share their note with a patient to a top-down edict that all notes, except some notes that have a high risk of causing patient harm, must be sent immediately to the patient. Obviously, an open note supports “transparency,” but I am unaware of high quality evidence that open notes improve the health of a population or reduce morbidity or mortality from health problems.

The federal mandate that clinicians share their notes or risk fiscal penalties is coercive and undermines the independence of health professionals. Open notes may have many benefits, including:

• improving a patient’s comprehension and sense of control over their health issues
• increasing patient trust in their health system
• increasing the number of questions patients ask their clinician.⁶

Open notes may also cause unintended adverse emotional trauma to patients, especially when the note communicates “bad news.” In one study of 100 oncology patients, approximately 25% of respondents reported that reading clinical notes was emotionally difficult, and they sometimes regretted having read the note.⁶ One patient reported, “I think MyChart is great but in this whole cancer thing MyChart has not been a good thing.” Another patient reported, “Reading serious stuff like that is just too taxing for me to be honest with you.”⁶ An additional finding of the study was that patients reported their notes were written with too much medical jargon and repetition of information.

Open laboratory, pathology, and imaging data—Helpful or harmful?

A component of the open note mandate is that laboratory, pathology, and imaging data must be shared timely with patients. Some health systems incorporate a 3-day pause prior to sharing such data, in order to provide the clinical team with time to communicate with the patient before the test results are shared. Some health systems, including my health system, have engineered the open note data-sharing system to immediately share the results of most completed laboratory, pathology, and imaging studies with the patient. Immediate sharing of data may result in the patient first learning that they have a serious, life-threatening health problem, such as cancer, from their patient portal rather than from a clinician. As an example, a patient may first learn that they have metastatic cancer from a CT scan that was ordered for a benign indication.

Another example is that a patient may first learn that they have an HIV infection from their patient portal. This can be a shocking and emotionally damaging experience for the patient. For many test results, it would be best if a clinician were able to communicate the result to the patient, providing support and context to the meaning of the result, rather than sending sensitive, life-altering information directly from the laboratory or imaging department to the patient. Leaders in medical education have spent decades teaching clinicians how to communicate “bad news” in a sensitive, supportive, and effective manner. The open sharing of laboratory, pathology, and imaging data short-circuits the superior process of relying on a highly capable clinician to communicate bad news.

Continue to: Crafting the open medical record note...

Building on the advice that “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade,” I have begun to pivot the purpose of my medical notes from a product useful to myself and other clinicians to a product whose primary purpose is to be helpful for the patient. The open note can facilitate building a trusting relationship with the patient. My notes are becoming a series of written conversations with the patient, emphasizing compassion and empathy. I am increasing significantly the amount of educational information in the note to help the patient understand their situation. In addition, I am replacing traditional medical terms with verbiage more appropriate in the context of a conversation with the patient, reducing the use of medical jargon. For example, I have stopped using “chief complaint” and replaced it with “health issues.” I am diligently avoiding the use of medical terms that have negative connotations, including “obese,” “psychosomatic,” “alcoholic,” and “drug addiction.” I include encouragement and positive comments in many of my notes. For example, “Ms. X is successfully managing her health issues and experiencing improved health. It is a pleasure collaborating with her on achieving optimal health.”

Can we bring sanity back to medical note writing?

The primary role of a clinician is to spend as much time as possible listening to patients, understanding their needs, and helping them achieve optimal health. There are many benefits to an electronic medical record, including legibility, accessibility, interoperability, and efficiency. However, in current practice “note bloat” undermines the potential of the electronic medical record and makes many notes ineffective to the process of advancing the patient’s health. We are competent and highly trained clinicians. We can craft notes that are simple, specific, story-driven, compassionate, and empathetic. If we return to the ABCs of note writing, focusing on accuracy, brevity, and clarity, we will make note writing and reading more rewarding and improve patient care. ●

Prior to 1980, medical record notes were generally hand-written, short, and to the point. Senior physicians often wrote their 3-line notes using a fountain pen in an elegant cursive. With the transition to electronic medical records, notes have become bloated with irrelevant information and frequently lack a focus on the critical clinical insights that optimize patient care. The use of smart phrases to pull vast amounts of raw data into the note is a major contributor to note bloat. The unrestrained use of the copy and paste functionality generates a sequence of cloned notes that grow in length as new information is added and little information from prior notes removed. With each subsequent clone the note often becomes less accurate, lengthier, and more difficult for a reader to understand. In one survey of 253 physicians who wrote electronic notes, 90% reported that they used the copy and paste function, with 71% reporting that use of this function caused inconsistencies within and among notes and increased the repetitive presentation of outdated information in the note.¹ Although the surveyed clinicians recognized that the copy and paste function caused problems, 80% reported that they planned to continue to use the copy and paste function.¹

The SOAP note

The problem-oriented SOAP note is written in the classic structure of subjective and objective information, followed by an assessment and plan.² The structure of the SOAP note emphasizes the logical and sequential collection of data followed by data analysis, resulting in a focused assessment and plan. When notes were hand-written and short, the entire SOAP note could be viewed on one page. Like a dashboard, the eye could quickly scan each key component of the note, facilitating the simultaneous integration of all 4 components of the note, facilitating understanding of the patient’s clinical situation. When the SOAP note structure is used to create a multipage electronic note, the result is a note that often confuses rather than enlightens the reader. A 5- to 10-page SOAP note is often useless for patient care but demonstrates the ability of computer-savvy clinicians to quickly generate a note thousands of words in length.

The APSO note, a response to note bloat

When a medical record note becomes a multipage document, clinicians should consider switching from the SOAP note structure to the APSO note, where the assessment and plan are at the top of the note, and the subjective and objective information is below the assessment and plan. The APSO format permits the reader to more quickly grasp the critical thinking of the author and facilitates a focus on key points relevant to the patient’s condition. The note can be written in the SOAP format, but then the assessment and plan are brought to the top of the note. In my clinical experience fewer than 10% of clinicians are using an APSO note structure. I believe that, with a multipage note, the APSO structure improves the experience of the reader and should be more widely utilized, especially by clinicians who are prone to crafting a bloated note. In a survey of more than 3,000 clinicians, approximately two-thirds of the respondents reported that, compared with SOAP notes, APSO notes were easier and faster to read, and APSO notes made it easier to follow the clinical reasoning of the author.³

Continue to: New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat...

New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat

Previous evaluation and management federal billing guidelines emphasized documentation of a myriad of clinically irrelevant details contributing to note bloat. The new federal evaluation and management billing guidelines pivot the focus of the note to the quality and complexity of medical decision making as demonstrated in the assessment and plan.⁴ Prioritizing the assessment and plan as the key feature of the medical record note should help reduce the length of notes. The American College of Physicians recently recommended deleting the complete review of systems and prior histories from most notes unless relevant to medical decision making and the assessment and plan.⁵

The open note

The open note mandate was contained in federal regulations developed to implement the 21st Century Cures Act, which required patients to have access to the information in their medical record. In order to comply with the regulation, health systems are sending most notes and test results to the patient through the health system’s patient gateway. The open note process entered my practice through a stealthy progression, from an initial step of permitting a clinician to easily share their note with a patient to a top-down edict that all notes, except some notes that have a high risk of causing patient harm, must be sent immediately to the patient. Obviously, an open note supports “transparency,” but I am unaware of high quality evidence that open notes improve the health of a population or reduce morbidity or mortality from health problems.

The federal mandate that clinicians share their notes or risk fiscal penalties is coercive and undermines the independence of health professionals. Open notes may have many benefits, including:

• improving a patient’s comprehension and sense of control over their health issues
• increasing patient trust in their health system
• increasing the number of questions patients ask their clinician.⁶

Open notes may also cause unintended adverse emotional trauma to patients, especially when the note communicates “bad news.” In one study of 100 oncology patients, approximately 25% of respondents reported that reading clinical notes was emotionally difficult, and they sometimes regretted having read the note.⁶ One patient reported, “I think MyChart is great but in this whole cancer thing MyChart has not been a good thing.” Another patient reported, “Reading serious stuff like that is just too taxing for me to be honest with you.”⁶ An additional finding of the study was that patients reported their notes were written with too much medical jargon and repetition of information.

Open laboratory, pathology, and imaging data—Helpful or harmful?

A component of the open note mandate is that laboratory, pathology, and imaging data must be shared timely with patients. Some health systems incorporate a 3-day pause prior to sharing such data, in order to provide the clinical team with time to communicate with the patient before the test results are shared. Some health systems, including my health system, have engineered the open note data-sharing system to immediately share the results of most completed laboratory, pathology, and imaging studies with the patient. Immediate sharing of data may result in the patient first learning that they have a serious, life-threatening health problem, such as cancer, from their patient portal rather than from a clinician. As an example, a patient may first learn that they have metastatic cancer from a CT scan that was ordered for a benign indication.

Another example is that a patient may first learn that they have an HIV infection from their patient portal. This can be a shocking and emotionally damaging experience for the patient. For many test results, it would be best if a clinician were able to communicate the result to the patient, providing support and context to the meaning of the result, rather than sending sensitive, life-altering information directly from the laboratory or imaging department to the patient. Leaders in medical education have spent decades teaching clinicians how to communicate “bad news” in a sensitive, supportive, and effective manner. The open sharing of laboratory, pathology, and imaging data short-circuits the superior process of relying on a highly capable clinician to communicate bad news.

Continue to: Crafting the open medical record note...

Building on the advice that “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade,” I have begun to pivot the purpose of my medical notes from a product useful to myself and other clinicians to a product whose primary purpose is to be helpful for the patient. The open note can facilitate building a trusting relationship with the patient. My notes are becoming a series of written conversations with the patient, emphasizing compassion and empathy. I am increasing significantly the amount of educational information in the note to help the patient understand their situation. In addition, I am replacing traditional medical terms with verbiage more appropriate in the context of a conversation with the patient, reducing the use of medical jargon. For example, I have stopped using “chief complaint” and replaced it with “health issues.” I am diligently avoiding the use of medical terms that have negative connotations, including “obese,” “psychosomatic,” “alcoholic,” and “drug addiction.” I include encouragement and positive comments in many of my notes. For example, “Ms. X is successfully managing her health issues and experiencing improved health. It is a pleasure collaborating with her on achieving optimal health.”

Can we bring sanity back to medical note writing?

The primary role of a clinician is to spend as much time as possible listening to patients, understanding their needs, and helping them achieve optimal health. There are many benefits to an electronic medical record, including legibility, accessibility, interoperability, and efficiency. However, in current practice “note bloat” undermines the potential of the electronic medical record and makes many notes ineffective to the process of advancing the patient’s health. We are competent and highly trained clinicians. We can craft notes that are simple, specific, story-driven, compassionate, and empathetic. If we return to the ABCs of note writing, focusing on accuracy, brevity, and clarity, we will make note writing and reading more rewarding and improve patient care. ●

Prior to 1980, medical record notes were generally hand-written, short, and to the point. Senior physicians often wrote their 3-line notes using a fountain pen in an elegant cursive. With the transition to electronic medical records, notes have become bloated with irrelevant information and frequently lack a focus on the critical clinical insights that optimize patient care. The use of smart phrases to pull vast amounts of raw data into the note is a major contributor to note bloat. The unrestrained use of the copy and paste functionality generates a sequence of cloned notes that grow in length as new information is added and little information from prior notes removed. With each subsequent clone the note often becomes less accurate, lengthier, and more difficult for a reader to understand. In one survey of 253 physicians who wrote electronic notes, 90% reported that they used the copy and paste function, with 71% reporting that use of this function caused inconsistencies within and among notes and increased the repetitive presentation of outdated information in the note.¹ Although the surveyed clinicians recognized that the copy and paste function caused problems, 80% reported that they planned to continue to use the copy and paste function.¹

The SOAP note

The problem-oriented SOAP note is written in the classic structure of subjective and objective information, followed by an assessment and plan.² The structure of the SOAP note emphasizes the logical and sequential collection of data followed by data analysis, resulting in a focused assessment and plan. When notes were hand-written and short, the entire SOAP note could be viewed on one page. Like a dashboard, the eye could quickly scan each key component of the note, facilitating the simultaneous integration of all 4 components of the note, facilitating understanding of the patient’s clinical situation. When the SOAP note structure is used to create a multipage electronic note, the result is a note that often confuses rather than enlightens the reader. A 5- to 10-page SOAP note is often useless for patient care but demonstrates the ability of computer-savvy clinicians to quickly generate a note thousands of words in length.

The APSO note, a response to note bloat

When a medical record note becomes a multipage document, clinicians should consider switching from the SOAP note structure to the APSO note, where the assessment and plan are at the top of the note, and the subjective and objective information is below the assessment and plan. The APSO format permits the reader to more quickly grasp the critical thinking of the author and facilitates a focus on key points relevant to the patient’s condition. The note can be written in the SOAP format, but then the assessment and plan are brought to the top of the note. In my clinical experience fewer than 10% of clinicians are using an APSO note structure. I believe that, with a multipage note, the APSO structure improves the experience of the reader and should be more widely utilized, especially by clinicians who are prone to crafting a bloated note. In a survey of more than 3,000 clinicians, approximately two-thirds of the respondents reported that, compared with SOAP notes, APSO notes were easier and faster to read, and APSO notes made it easier to follow the clinical reasoning of the author.³

Continue to: New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat...

New evaluation and management billing guidelines—An opportunity to reduce note bloat

Previous evaluation and management federal billing guidelines emphasized documentation of a myriad of clinically irrelevant details contributing to note bloat. The new federal evaluation and management billing guidelines pivot the focus of the note to the quality and complexity of medical decision making as demonstrated in the assessment and plan.⁴ Prioritizing the assessment and plan as the key feature of the medical record note should help reduce the length of notes. The American College of Physicians recently recommended deleting the complete review of systems and prior histories from most notes unless relevant to medical decision making and the assessment and plan.⁵

The open note

The open note mandate was contained in federal regulations developed to implement the 21st Century Cures Act, which required patients to have access to the information in their medical record. In order to comply with the regulation, health systems are sending most notes and test results to the patient through the health system’s patient gateway. The open note process entered my practice through a stealthy progression, from an initial step of permitting a clinician to easily share their note with a patient to a top-down edict that all notes, except some notes that have a high risk of causing patient harm, must be sent immediately to the patient. Obviously, an open note supports “transparency,” but I am unaware of high quality evidence that open notes improve the health of a population or reduce morbidity or mortality from health problems.

The federal mandate that clinicians share their notes or risk fiscal penalties is coercive and undermines the independence of health professionals. Open notes may have many benefits, including:

• improving a patient’s comprehension and sense of control over their health issues
• increasing patient trust in their health system
• increasing the number of questions patients ask their clinician.⁶

Open notes may also cause unintended adverse emotional trauma to patients, especially when the note communicates “bad news.” In one study of 100 oncology patients, approximately 25% of respondents reported that reading clinical notes was emotionally difficult, and they sometimes regretted having read the note.⁶ One patient reported, “I think MyChart is great but in this whole cancer thing MyChart has not been a good thing.” Another patient reported, “Reading serious stuff like that is just too taxing for me to be honest with you.”⁶ An additional finding of the study was that patients reported their notes were written with too much medical jargon and repetition of information.

Open laboratory, pathology, and imaging data—Helpful or harmful?

A component of the open note mandate is that laboratory, pathology, and imaging data must be shared timely with patients. Some health systems incorporate a 3-day pause prior to sharing such data, in order to provide the clinical team with time to communicate with the patient before the test results are shared. Some health systems, including my health system, have engineered the open note data-sharing system to immediately share the results of most completed laboratory, pathology, and imaging studies with the patient. Immediate sharing of data may result in the patient first learning that they have a serious, life-threatening health problem, such as cancer, from their patient portal rather than from a clinician. As an example, a patient may first learn that they have metastatic cancer from a CT scan that was ordered for a benign indication.

Another example is that a patient may first learn that they have an HIV infection from their patient portal. This can be a shocking and emotionally damaging experience for the patient. For many test results, it would be best if a clinician were able to communicate the result to the patient, providing support and context to the meaning of the result, rather than sending sensitive, life-altering information directly from the laboratory or imaging department to the patient. Leaders in medical education have spent decades teaching clinicians how to communicate “bad news” in a sensitive, supportive, and effective manner. The open sharing of laboratory, pathology, and imaging data short-circuits the superior process of relying on a highly capable clinician to communicate bad news.

Continue to: Crafting the open medical record note...

Building on the advice that “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade,” I have begun to pivot the purpose of my medical notes from a product useful to myself and other clinicians to a product whose primary purpose is to be helpful for the patient. The open note can facilitate building a trusting relationship with the patient. My notes are becoming a series of written conversations with the patient, emphasizing compassion and empathy. I am increasing significantly the amount of educational information in the note to help the patient understand their situation. In addition, I am replacing traditional medical terms with verbiage more appropriate in the context of a conversation with the patient, reducing the use of medical jargon. For example, I have stopped using “chief complaint” and replaced it with “health issues.” I am diligently avoiding the use of medical terms that have negative connotations, including “obese,” “psychosomatic,” “alcoholic,” and “drug addiction.” I include encouragement and positive comments in many of my notes. For example, “Ms. X is successfully managing her health issues and experiencing improved health. It is a pleasure collaborating with her on achieving optimal health.”

Can we bring sanity back to medical note writing?

The primary role of a clinician is to spend as much time as possible listening to patients, understanding their needs, and helping them achieve optimal health. There are many benefits to an electronic medical record, including legibility, accessibility, interoperability, and efficiency. However, in current practice “note bloat” undermines the potential of the electronic medical record and makes many notes ineffective to the process of advancing the patient’s health. We are competent and highly trained clinicians. We can craft notes that are simple, specific, story-driven, compassionate, and empathetic. If we return to the ABCs of note writing, focusing on accuracy, brevity, and clarity, we will make note writing and reading more rewarding and improve patient care. ●

CASE 1st prenatal appointment for young, pregnant migrant

A 21-year-old primigravid woman at 12 weeks’ gestation recently immigrated to the United States from an impoverished rural area of Southeast Asia. On the first prenatal appointment, she is noted to have no evidence of immunity to rubella, measles, or varicella. Her hepatitis B surface antigen and hepatitis C antibody tests are negative. She also has negative test results for gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV infection. Her pap test is negative.

• What vaccinations should this patient receive during her pregnancy?
• What additional vaccinations are indicated postpartum?

Preventive vaccinations: What to know

As ObGyns, we serve as the primary care physician for many women throughout their early and middle decades of life. Accordingly, we have an obligation to be well informed about preventive health services such as vaccinations. The purpose of this article is to review the principal vaccines with which ObGyns should be familiar. I will discuss the vaccines in alphabetical order and then focus on the indications and timing for each vaccine and the relative cost of each immunization. Key points are summarized in the TABLE.

COVID-19 vaccine

In the latter part of 2020 and early part of 2021, three COVID-19 vaccines received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for individuals 16 years of age and older (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 18 years of age and older (Moderna and Johnson & Johnson).¹ The cost of their administration is borne by the federal government. Two of the vaccines are mRNA agents—Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech. Both are administered in a 2-dose series, separated by 4 and 3 weeks, respectively. The efficacy of these vaccines in preventing serious or critical illness approaches 95%. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has now been fully FDA approved for administration to individuals older than age 16, with EUA for those down to age 12. Full approval of the Moderna vaccine will not be far behind. Because of some evidence suggesting waning immunity over time and because of growing concerns about the increased transmissibility of the delta variant of the virus, the FDA has been strongly considering a recommendation for a third (booster) dose of each of these vaccines, administered 8 months after the second dose for all eligible Americans. On September 17, 2021, the FDA advisory committee recommended a booster for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people older than age 65 and for those over the age of 16 at high risk for severe COVID-19. Several days later, full FDA approval was granted for this recommendation. Subsequently, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) included health care workers and pregnant women in the group for whom the booster is recommended.

The third vaccine formulation is the Johnson & Johnson DNA vaccine, which is prepared with a human adenovirus vector. This vaccine is administered in a single intramuscular dose and has a reported efficacy of 66% to 85%, though it may approach 95% in preventing critical illness. The FDA is expected to announce decisions about booster doses for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines in the coming weeks.

Although initial trials of the COVID-19vaccines excluded pregnant and lactating women, the vaccines are safe in pregnancy or postpartum. In fact the vaccines do not contain either a killed or attenuated viral particle that is capable of transmitting infection. Therefore, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine now support routine immunization during pregnancy.

A recent report by Shimabukuro and colleagues² demonstrated that the risk of vaccine-related complications in pregnant women receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines was no different than in nonpregnant patients and that there was no evidence of teratogenic effects. The trial included more than 35,000 pregnant women; 2.3% were vaccinated in the periconception period, 28.6% in the first trimester, 43.3% in the second trimester, and 25.7% in the third trimester. Given this, and in light of isolated reports of unusual thromboembolic complications associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, I strongly recommend use of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in our prenatal and postpartum patients.

Continue to: Hepatitis A vaccine...

The hepatitis A vaccine is an inactivated vaccine and is safe for use in pregnancy. It is available in two monovalent preparations—Havrix (GlaxoSmithKline) and Vaqta (Merck & Co.) and is administered in a 2-dose intramuscular injection at time zero and 6 to 12 months later.³ The vaccine is also available in a bivalent form with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine—Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline). When administered in this form, the vaccine should be given at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccine is $66 to $119, depending upon whether the provider uses a multi-dose or a single-dose vial. The cost of Twinrix is $149.

The hepatitis A vaccine is indicated for select pregnant and nonpregnant patients:

• international travelers
• intravenous drug users
• those with occupational exposure (eg, individuals who work in a primate laboratory)
• residents and staff in chronic care facilities
• individuals with chronic liver disease
• individuals with clotting factor disorders
• residents in endemic areas.

Hepatitis B vaccine

The hepatitis B vaccine is a recombinant vaccine that contains an inactivated portion of the hepatitis B surface antigen. It was originally produced in two monovalent formulations: Engerix B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax-HB (Merck & Co.). These original formulations are given in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. Recently, a new and more potent formulation was introduced into clinical practice. Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies Co.) is also a recombinant vaccine that contains a boosting adjuvant. It is programed to be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and 1 month.^4-6

The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccines varies from $60 to $173, depending upon use of a multi-dose vial versus a single-use vial. The cost of Heplisav-B varies from $146 to $173, depending upon use of a prefilled syringe versus a single-dose vial.

Although the hepatitis B vaccine should be part of the childhood immunization series, it also should be administered to any pregnant woman who has not been vaccinated previously or who does not already have evidence of immunity as a result of natural infection.

Continue to: Herpes zoster vaccine...

Herpes zoster infection (shingles) can be a particularly disabling condition in older patients and results from reactivation of a latent varicella-zoster infection. Shingles can cause extremely painful skin lesions, threaten the patient’s vision, and result in long-lasting postherpetic neuralgia. Both cellular and hormonal immunity are essential to protect against recurrent infection.

The original herpes zoster vaccine (Zoster Vaccine Live; ZVL, Zostavax) is no longer produced in the United States because it is not as effective as the newer vaccine—Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (Shingrix, GlaxoSmithKline).^7,8 The antigen in the new vaccine is a component of the surface glycoprotein E, and it is combined with an adjuvant to enhance immunoreactivity. The vaccine is given intramuscularly in two doses at time zero and again at 2 to 6 months and is indicated for all individuals >50 years, including those who may have had an episode of shingles. This newer vaccine is 97% effective in patients >50 years and 90% effective in patients >70. The wholesale cost of each injection is about $160.

Human papillomavirus vaccine

The HPV vaccine (Gardasil-9, Merck & Co.) is a recombinant 9-valent vaccine directed against the human papillomavirus. It induces immunity to serotypes 6 and 11 (which cause 90% of genital warts), 16 and 18 (which cause 80% of genital cancers), and 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 (viral strains that are responsible for both genital and oropharyngeal cancers). The vaccine is administered intramuscularly in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1-2 months, and 6 months. The principal target groups for the vaccine are males and females, ages 9 to 45 years. Ideally, children of both sexes should receive this vaccine prior to the onset of sexual activity. The wholesale cost of each vaccine injection is approximately $222.⁹

Influenza vaccine

The inactivated, intramuscular flu vaccine is recommended for anyone over age 2, including pregnant women. Although pregnant women are not more likely to acquire flu compared with those who are not pregnant, if they do become infected, they are likely to become more seriously ill, with higher mortality. Accordingly, all pregnant women should receive, in any trimester, the inactivated flu vaccine beginning in the late summer and early fall of each year and extending through March of the next year.^10,11

Multiple formulations of the inactivated vaccine are marketed, all targeting two strains of influenza A and two strains of influenza B. The components of the vaccine vary each year as scientists try to match the new vaccine with the most highly prevalent strains in the previous flu season. The vaccine should be administered in a single intramuscular dose. The cost varies from approximately $20 to $70.

The intranasal influenza vaccine is a live virus vaccine that is intended primarily for children and should not be administered in pregnancy. In addition, there is a higher dose of the inactivated quadrivalent vaccine that is available for administration to patients over age 65. This higher dose is more likely to cause adverse effects and is not indicated in pregnancy.

Continue to: Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)...

Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)

The MMR is a standard component of the childhood vaccination series. The trivalent preparation is a live, attenuated vaccine that is typically given subcutaneously in a 2-dose series. The first dose is administered at age 12-15 months, and the second dose at age 4-6 years. The vaccine is highly immunogenic, with vaccine-induced immunity usually life-long. In some patients, however, immunity wanes over time. Accordingly, all pregnant women should be screened for immunity to rubella since, of the 3, this infection poses the greatest risk to the fetus. Women who do not have evidence of immunity should be advised to avoid contact with children who may have a viral exanthem. They should then receive a booster dose of the vaccine immediately postpartum and should practice secure contraception for 1 month. The vaccine cost is approximately $60.

Pneumococcal vaccine

The inactivated pneumococcal vaccine is produced in two forms, both of which are safe for administration in pregnancy.¹² The original vaccine, introduced in 1983, was PPSV23 (Pneumovax 23, Merck & Co), a 23-serovalent vaccine that was intended primarily for adults. This vaccine is administered in a single subcutaneous or intramuscular dose. The newest vaccine, introduced in 2010, is PCV13 (Prevnar 13, Pfizer Inc), a 13-serovalent vaccine. It was intended primarily for children, in whom it is administered in a 4-dose series beginning at 6 to 8 weeks of age. The cost of the former is approximately $98 to $120; the cost of the latter is $228.

Vaccination against pneumococcal infection is routinely indicated for those older than the age of 65 and for the following at-risk patients, including those who are pregnant¹¹:

• individuals who have had a splenectomy or who have a medical illness that produces functional asplenia (eg, sickle cell anemia)
• individuals with chronic cardiac, pulmonic, hepatic, or renal disease
• individuals with immunosuppressive conditions such as HIV infection or a disseminated malignancy
• individuals who have a cochlear implant
• individuals who have a chronic leak of cerebrospinal fluid.

The recommendations for timing of these 2 vaccines in adults can initially appear confusing. Put most simply, if a high-risk patient first receives the PCV13 vaccine, she should receive the PPSV23 vaccine in about 8 weeks. The PPSV23 vaccine should be repeated in 5 years. If an at-risk patient initially receives the PPSV23 vaccine, the PCV13 vaccine should be given 1 year later.¹²

Tdap vaccine

The Tdap vaccine contains tetanus toxoid, reduced diptheria toxoid, and an acellular component of the pertussis bacterium. Although it has long been part of the childhood vaccinations series, immunity to each component, particularly pertussis, tends to wane over time.

Pertussis poses a serious risk to the health of the pregnant woman and the newborn infant. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), CDC, and the ACOG now advise administration of a booster dose of this vaccine in the early third trimester of each pregnancy.^13-15 The vaccine should be administered as a single intramuscular injection. The approximate cost of the vaccine is $64 to $71, depending upon whether the provider uses a single-dose vial or a single-dose prefilled syringe. In nonpregnant patients, the ACIP currently recommends administration of a booster dose of the vaccine every 10 years, primarily to provide durable protection against tetanus.

Continue to: Varicella vaccine...

Varicella vaccine

The varicella vaccine is also one of the main components of the childhood immunization series. This live virus vaccine can be administered subcutaneously as a monovalent agent or as a quadrivalent agent in association with the MMR vaccine.

Pregnant women who do not have a well-documented history of natural infection should be tested for IgG antibody to the varicella-zoster virus at the time of their first prenatal appointment. Interestingly, approximately 70% of patients with an uncertain history actually have immunity when tested. If the patient lacks immunity, she should be vaccinated immediately postpartum.^16,17 The vaccine should be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and then 4 to 8 weeks later. Patients should adhere to secure contraception from the time of the first dose until 1 month after the second dose. The cost of each dose of the vaccine is approximately $145.

Adverse effects of vaccination

All vaccines have many of the same side effects. The most common is simply a reaction at the site of injection, characterized by pain, increased warmth, erythema, swelling, and tenderness. Other common side effects include systemic manifestations, such as low-grade fever, nausea and vomiting, malaise, fatigue, headache, lymphadenopathy, myalgias, and arthralgias. Some vaccines, notably varicella, herpes zoster, measles, and rubella may cause a disseminated rash. Most of these minor side effects are easily managed by rest, hydration, and administration of an analgesic such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen. More serious side effects include rare complications such as anaphylaxis, Bell palsy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and venous thromboembolism (Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine). Any of the vaccines discussed above should not be given, or given only with extreme caution, to an individual who has experienced any of these reactions with a previous vaccine.

Barriers to vaccination

Although the vaccines reviewed above are highly effective in preventing serious illness in recipients, the medical profession’s “report card” in ensuring adherence with vaccine protocols is not optimal. In fact, it probably merits a grade no higher than C+, with vaccination rates in the range of 50% to 70%.

One of the major barriers to vaccination is lack of detailed information about vaccine efficacy and safety on the part of both provider and patient. Another is the problem of misinformation (eg, the persistent belief on the part of some individuals that vaccines may cause a serious problem, such as autism).^18,19 Another important barrier to widespread vaccination is the logistical problem associated with proper scheduling of multidose regimens (such as those for hepatitis A and B, varicella, and COVID-19). A final barrier, and in my own university-based practice, the most important obstacle is the expense of vaccination. Most, but not all, private insurance companies provide coverage for vaccines approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Preventive Services Task Force. However, public insurance agencies often provide disappointingly inconsistent coverage for essential vaccines.

By keeping well informed about the most recent public health recommendations for vaccinations for adults and by leading important initiatives within our own practices, we should be able to overcome the first 3 barriers listed above. For example, Morgan and colleagues²⁰ recently achieved a 97% success rate with Tdap administration in pregnancy by placing a best-practice alert in the patients’ electronic medical records. Surmounting the final barrier will require intense effort on the part of individual practitioners and professional organizations to advocate for coverage for essential vaccinations for our patients.

CASE Resolved

This patient was raised in an area of the world where her family did not have easy access to medical care. Accordingly, she did not receive the usual childhood vaccines, such as measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, hepatitis B, and almost certainly, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap), and the HPV vaccine. The MMR vaccine and the varicella vaccine are live virus vaccines and should not be given during pregnancy. However, these vaccines should be administered postpartum, and the patient should be instructed to practice secure contraception for a minimum of 1 month following vaccination. She also should be offered the HPV vaccine postpartum. During pregnancy, she definitely should receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the 3-dose hepatitis B vaccine series, the influenza vaccine, and Tdap. If her present living conditions place her at risk for hepatitis A, she also should be vaccinated against this illness. ●

CASE 1st prenatal appointment for young, pregnant migrant

A 21-year-old primigravid woman at 12 weeks’ gestation recently immigrated to the United States from an impoverished rural area of Southeast Asia. On the first prenatal appointment, she is noted to have no evidence of immunity to rubella, measles, or varicella. Her hepatitis B surface antigen and hepatitis C antibody tests are negative. She also has negative test results for gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV infection. Her pap test is negative.

• What vaccinations should this patient receive during her pregnancy?
• What additional vaccinations are indicated postpartum?

Preventive vaccinations: What to know

As ObGyns, we serve as the primary care physician for many women throughout their early and middle decades of life. Accordingly, we have an obligation to be well informed about preventive health services such as vaccinations. The purpose of this article is to review the principal vaccines with which ObGyns should be familiar. I will discuss the vaccines in alphabetical order and then focus on the indications and timing for each vaccine and the relative cost of each immunization. Key points are summarized in the TABLE.

COVID-19 vaccine

In the latter part of 2020 and early part of 2021, three COVID-19 vaccines received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for individuals 16 years of age and older (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 18 years of age and older (Moderna and Johnson & Johnson).¹ The cost of their administration is borne by the federal government. Two of the vaccines are mRNA agents—Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech. Both are administered in a 2-dose series, separated by 4 and 3 weeks, respectively. The efficacy of these vaccines in preventing serious or critical illness approaches 95%. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has now been fully FDA approved for administration to individuals older than age 16, with EUA for those down to age 12. Full approval of the Moderna vaccine will not be far behind. Because of some evidence suggesting waning immunity over time and because of growing concerns about the increased transmissibility of the delta variant of the virus, the FDA has been strongly considering a recommendation for a third (booster) dose of each of these vaccines, administered 8 months after the second dose for all eligible Americans. On September 17, 2021, the FDA advisory committee recommended a booster for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people older than age 65 and for those over the age of 16 at high risk for severe COVID-19. Several days later, full FDA approval was granted for this recommendation. Subsequently, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) included health care workers and pregnant women in the group for whom the booster is recommended.

The third vaccine formulation is the Johnson & Johnson DNA vaccine, which is prepared with a human adenovirus vector. This vaccine is administered in a single intramuscular dose and has a reported efficacy of 66% to 85%, though it may approach 95% in preventing critical illness. The FDA is expected to announce decisions about booster doses for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines in the coming weeks.

Although initial trials of the COVID-19vaccines excluded pregnant and lactating women, the vaccines are safe in pregnancy or postpartum. In fact the vaccines do not contain either a killed or attenuated viral particle that is capable of transmitting infection. Therefore, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine now support routine immunization during pregnancy.

A recent report by Shimabukuro and colleagues² demonstrated that the risk of vaccine-related complications in pregnant women receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines was no different than in nonpregnant patients and that there was no evidence of teratogenic effects. The trial included more than 35,000 pregnant women; 2.3% were vaccinated in the periconception period, 28.6% in the first trimester, 43.3% in the second trimester, and 25.7% in the third trimester. Given this, and in light of isolated reports of unusual thromboembolic complications associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, I strongly recommend use of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in our prenatal and postpartum patients.

Continue to: Hepatitis A vaccine...

The hepatitis A vaccine is an inactivated vaccine and is safe for use in pregnancy. It is available in two monovalent preparations—Havrix (GlaxoSmithKline) and Vaqta (Merck & Co.) and is administered in a 2-dose intramuscular injection at time zero and 6 to 12 months later.³ The vaccine is also available in a bivalent form with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine—Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline). When administered in this form, the vaccine should be given at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccine is $66 to $119, depending upon whether the provider uses a multi-dose or a single-dose vial. The cost of Twinrix is $149.

The hepatitis A vaccine is indicated for select pregnant and nonpregnant patients:

• international travelers
• intravenous drug users
• those with occupational exposure (eg, individuals who work in a primate laboratory)
• residents and staff in chronic care facilities
• individuals with chronic liver disease
• individuals with clotting factor disorders
• residents in endemic areas.

Hepatitis B vaccine

The hepatitis B vaccine is a recombinant vaccine that contains an inactivated portion of the hepatitis B surface antigen. It was originally produced in two monovalent formulations: Engerix B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax-HB (Merck & Co.). These original formulations are given in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. Recently, a new and more potent formulation was introduced into clinical practice. Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies Co.) is also a recombinant vaccine that contains a boosting adjuvant. It is programed to be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and 1 month.^4-6

The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccines varies from $60 to $173, depending upon use of a multi-dose vial versus a single-use vial. The cost of Heplisav-B varies from $146 to $173, depending upon use of a prefilled syringe versus a single-dose vial.

Although the hepatitis B vaccine should be part of the childhood immunization series, it also should be administered to any pregnant woman who has not been vaccinated previously or who does not already have evidence of immunity as a result of natural infection.

Continue to: Herpes zoster vaccine...

Herpes zoster infection (shingles) can be a particularly disabling condition in older patients and results from reactivation of a latent varicella-zoster infection. Shingles can cause extremely painful skin lesions, threaten the patient’s vision, and result in long-lasting postherpetic neuralgia. Both cellular and hormonal immunity are essential to protect against recurrent infection.

The original herpes zoster vaccine (Zoster Vaccine Live; ZVL, Zostavax) is no longer produced in the United States because it is not as effective as the newer vaccine—Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (Shingrix, GlaxoSmithKline).^7,8 The antigen in the new vaccine is a component of the surface glycoprotein E, and it is combined with an adjuvant to enhance immunoreactivity. The vaccine is given intramuscularly in two doses at time zero and again at 2 to 6 months and is indicated for all individuals >50 years, including those who may have had an episode of shingles. This newer vaccine is 97% effective in patients >50 years and 90% effective in patients >70. The wholesale cost of each injection is about $160.

Human papillomavirus vaccine

The HPV vaccine (Gardasil-9, Merck & Co.) is a recombinant 9-valent vaccine directed against the human papillomavirus. It induces immunity to serotypes 6 and 11 (which cause 90% of genital warts), 16 and 18 (which cause 80% of genital cancers), and 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 (viral strains that are responsible for both genital and oropharyngeal cancers). The vaccine is administered intramuscularly in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1-2 months, and 6 months. The principal target groups for the vaccine are males and females, ages 9 to 45 years. Ideally, children of both sexes should receive this vaccine prior to the onset of sexual activity. The wholesale cost of each vaccine injection is approximately $222.⁹

Influenza vaccine

The inactivated, intramuscular flu vaccine is recommended for anyone over age 2, including pregnant women. Although pregnant women are not more likely to acquire flu compared with those who are not pregnant, if they do become infected, they are likely to become more seriously ill, with higher mortality. Accordingly, all pregnant women should receive, in any trimester, the inactivated flu vaccine beginning in the late summer and early fall of each year and extending through March of the next year.^10,11

Multiple formulations of the inactivated vaccine are marketed, all targeting two strains of influenza A and two strains of influenza B. The components of the vaccine vary each year as scientists try to match the new vaccine with the most highly prevalent strains in the previous flu season. The vaccine should be administered in a single intramuscular dose. The cost varies from approximately $20 to $70.

The intranasal influenza vaccine is a live virus vaccine that is intended primarily for children and should not be administered in pregnancy. In addition, there is a higher dose of the inactivated quadrivalent vaccine that is available for administration to patients over age 65. This higher dose is more likely to cause adverse effects and is not indicated in pregnancy.

Continue to: Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)...

Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)

The MMR is a standard component of the childhood vaccination series. The trivalent preparation is a live, attenuated vaccine that is typically given subcutaneously in a 2-dose series. The first dose is administered at age 12-15 months, and the second dose at age 4-6 years. The vaccine is highly immunogenic, with vaccine-induced immunity usually life-long. In some patients, however, immunity wanes over time. Accordingly, all pregnant women should be screened for immunity to rubella since, of the 3, this infection poses the greatest risk to the fetus. Women who do not have evidence of immunity should be advised to avoid contact with children who may have a viral exanthem. They should then receive a booster dose of the vaccine immediately postpartum and should practice secure contraception for 1 month. The vaccine cost is approximately $60.

Pneumococcal vaccine

The inactivated pneumococcal vaccine is produced in two forms, both of which are safe for administration in pregnancy.¹² The original vaccine, introduced in 1983, was PPSV23 (Pneumovax 23, Merck & Co), a 23-serovalent vaccine that was intended primarily for adults. This vaccine is administered in a single subcutaneous or intramuscular dose. The newest vaccine, introduced in 2010, is PCV13 (Prevnar 13, Pfizer Inc), a 13-serovalent vaccine. It was intended primarily for children, in whom it is administered in a 4-dose series beginning at 6 to 8 weeks of age. The cost of the former is approximately $98 to $120; the cost of the latter is $228.

Vaccination against pneumococcal infection is routinely indicated for those older than the age of 65 and for the following at-risk patients, including those who are pregnant¹¹:

• individuals who have had a splenectomy or who have a medical illness that produces functional asplenia (eg, sickle cell anemia)
• individuals with chronic cardiac, pulmonic, hepatic, or renal disease
• individuals with immunosuppressive conditions such as HIV infection or a disseminated malignancy
• individuals who have a cochlear implant
• individuals who have a chronic leak of cerebrospinal fluid.

The recommendations for timing of these 2 vaccines in adults can initially appear confusing. Put most simply, if a high-risk patient first receives the PCV13 vaccine, she should receive the PPSV23 vaccine in about 8 weeks. The PPSV23 vaccine should be repeated in 5 years. If an at-risk patient initially receives the PPSV23 vaccine, the PCV13 vaccine should be given 1 year later.¹²

Tdap vaccine

The Tdap vaccine contains tetanus toxoid, reduced diptheria toxoid, and an acellular component of the pertussis bacterium. Although it has long been part of the childhood vaccinations series, immunity to each component, particularly pertussis, tends to wane over time.

Pertussis poses a serious risk to the health of the pregnant woman and the newborn infant. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), CDC, and the ACOG now advise administration of a booster dose of this vaccine in the early third trimester of each pregnancy.^13-15 The vaccine should be administered as a single intramuscular injection. The approximate cost of the vaccine is $64 to $71, depending upon whether the provider uses a single-dose vial or a single-dose prefilled syringe. In nonpregnant patients, the ACIP currently recommends administration of a booster dose of the vaccine every 10 years, primarily to provide durable protection against tetanus.

Continue to: Varicella vaccine...

Varicella vaccine

The varicella vaccine is also one of the main components of the childhood immunization series. This live virus vaccine can be administered subcutaneously as a monovalent agent or as a quadrivalent agent in association with the MMR vaccine.

Pregnant women who do not have a well-documented history of natural infection should be tested for IgG antibody to the varicella-zoster virus at the time of their first prenatal appointment. Interestingly, approximately 70% of patients with an uncertain history actually have immunity when tested. If the patient lacks immunity, she should be vaccinated immediately postpartum.^16,17 The vaccine should be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and then 4 to 8 weeks later. Patients should adhere to secure contraception from the time of the first dose until 1 month after the second dose. The cost of each dose of the vaccine is approximately $145.

Adverse effects of vaccination

All vaccines have many of the same side effects. The most common is simply a reaction at the site of injection, characterized by pain, increased warmth, erythema, swelling, and tenderness. Other common side effects include systemic manifestations, such as low-grade fever, nausea and vomiting, malaise, fatigue, headache, lymphadenopathy, myalgias, and arthralgias. Some vaccines, notably varicella, herpes zoster, measles, and rubella may cause a disseminated rash. Most of these minor side effects are easily managed by rest, hydration, and administration of an analgesic such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen. More serious side effects include rare complications such as anaphylaxis, Bell palsy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and venous thromboembolism (Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine). Any of the vaccines discussed above should not be given, or given only with extreme caution, to an individual who has experienced any of these reactions with a previous vaccine.

Barriers to vaccination

Although the vaccines reviewed above are highly effective in preventing serious illness in recipients, the medical profession’s “report card” in ensuring adherence with vaccine protocols is not optimal. In fact, it probably merits a grade no higher than C+, with vaccination rates in the range of 50% to 70%.

One of the major barriers to vaccination is lack of detailed information about vaccine efficacy and safety on the part of both provider and patient. Another is the problem of misinformation (eg, the persistent belief on the part of some individuals that vaccines may cause a serious problem, such as autism).^18,19 Another important barrier to widespread vaccination is the logistical problem associated with proper scheduling of multidose regimens (such as those for hepatitis A and B, varicella, and COVID-19). A final barrier, and in my own university-based practice, the most important obstacle is the expense of vaccination. Most, but not all, private insurance companies provide coverage for vaccines approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Preventive Services Task Force. However, public insurance agencies often provide disappointingly inconsistent coverage for essential vaccines.

By keeping well informed about the most recent public health recommendations for vaccinations for adults and by leading important initiatives within our own practices, we should be able to overcome the first 3 barriers listed above. For example, Morgan and colleagues²⁰ recently achieved a 97% success rate with Tdap administration in pregnancy by placing a best-practice alert in the patients’ electronic medical records. Surmounting the final barrier will require intense effort on the part of individual practitioners and professional organizations to advocate for coverage for essential vaccinations for our patients.

CASE Resolved

This patient was raised in an area of the world where her family did not have easy access to medical care. Accordingly, she did not receive the usual childhood vaccines, such as measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, hepatitis B, and almost certainly, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap), and the HPV vaccine. The MMR vaccine and the varicella vaccine are live virus vaccines and should not be given during pregnancy. However, these vaccines should be administered postpartum, and the patient should be instructed to practice secure contraception for a minimum of 1 month following vaccination. She also should be offered the HPV vaccine postpartum. During pregnancy, she definitely should receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the 3-dose hepatitis B vaccine series, the influenza vaccine, and Tdap. If her present living conditions place her at risk for hepatitis A, she also should be vaccinated against this illness. ●

CASE 1st prenatal appointment for young, pregnant migrant

A 21-year-old primigravid woman at 12 weeks’ gestation recently immigrated to the United States from an impoverished rural area of Southeast Asia. On the first prenatal appointment, she is noted to have no evidence of immunity to rubella, measles, or varicella. Her hepatitis B surface antigen and hepatitis C antibody tests are negative. She also has negative test results for gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV infection. Her pap test is negative.

• What vaccinations should this patient receive during her pregnancy?
• What additional vaccinations are indicated postpartum?

Preventive vaccinations: What to know

As ObGyns, we serve as the primary care physician for many women throughout their early and middle decades of life. Accordingly, we have an obligation to be well informed about preventive health services such as vaccinations. The purpose of this article is to review the principal vaccines with which ObGyns should be familiar. I will discuss the vaccines in alphabetical order and then focus on the indications and timing for each vaccine and the relative cost of each immunization. Key points are summarized in the TABLE.

COVID-19 vaccine

In the latter part of 2020 and early part of 2021, three COVID-19 vaccines received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for individuals 16 years of age and older (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 18 years of age and older (Moderna and Johnson & Johnson).¹ The cost of their administration is borne by the federal government. Two of the vaccines are mRNA agents—Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech. Both are administered in a 2-dose series, separated by 4 and 3 weeks, respectively. The efficacy of these vaccines in preventing serious or critical illness approaches 95%. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has now been fully FDA approved for administration to individuals older than age 16, with EUA for those down to age 12. Full approval of the Moderna vaccine will not be far behind. Because of some evidence suggesting waning immunity over time and because of growing concerns about the increased transmissibility of the delta variant of the virus, the FDA has been strongly considering a recommendation for a third (booster) dose of each of these vaccines, administered 8 months after the second dose for all eligible Americans. On September 17, 2021, the FDA advisory committee recommended a booster for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people older than age 65 and for those over the age of 16 at high risk for severe COVID-19. Several days later, full FDA approval was granted for this recommendation. Subsequently, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) included health care workers and pregnant women in the group for whom the booster is recommended.

The third vaccine formulation is the Johnson & Johnson DNA vaccine, which is prepared with a human adenovirus vector. This vaccine is administered in a single intramuscular dose and has a reported efficacy of 66% to 85%, though it may approach 95% in preventing critical illness. The FDA is expected to announce decisions about booster doses for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines in the coming weeks.

Although initial trials of the COVID-19vaccines excluded pregnant and lactating women, the vaccines are safe in pregnancy or postpartum. In fact the vaccines do not contain either a killed or attenuated viral particle that is capable of transmitting infection. Therefore, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine now support routine immunization during pregnancy.

A recent report by Shimabukuro and colleagues² demonstrated that the risk of vaccine-related complications in pregnant women receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines was no different than in nonpregnant patients and that there was no evidence of teratogenic effects. The trial included more than 35,000 pregnant women; 2.3% were vaccinated in the periconception period, 28.6% in the first trimester, 43.3% in the second trimester, and 25.7% in the third trimester. Given this, and in light of isolated reports of unusual thromboembolic complications associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, I strongly recommend use of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in our prenatal and postpartum patients.

Continue to: Hepatitis A vaccine...

The hepatitis A vaccine is an inactivated vaccine and is safe for use in pregnancy. It is available in two monovalent preparations—Havrix (GlaxoSmithKline) and Vaqta (Merck & Co.) and is administered in a 2-dose intramuscular injection at time zero and 6 to 12 months later.³ The vaccine is also available in a bivalent form with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine—Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline). When administered in this form, the vaccine should be given at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccine is $66 to $119, depending upon whether the provider uses a multi-dose or a single-dose vial. The cost of Twinrix is $149.

The hepatitis A vaccine is indicated for select pregnant and nonpregnant patients:

• international travelers
• intravenous drug users
• those with occupational exposure (eg, individuals who work in a primate laboratory)
• residents and staff in chronic care facilities
• individuals with chronic liver disease
• individuals with clotting factor disorders
• residents in endemic areas.

Hepatitis B vaccine

The hepatitis B vaccine is a recombinant vaccine that contains an inactivated portion of the hepatitis B surface antigen. It was originally produced in two monovalent formulations: Engerix B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax-HB (Merck & Co.). These original formulations are given in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1 month, and 6 months. Recently, a new and more potent formulation was introduced into clinical practice. Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies Co.) is also a recombinant vaccine that contains a boosting adjuvant. It is programed to be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and 1 month.^4-6

The wholesale cost of the monovalent vaccines varies from $60 to $173, depending upon use of a multi-dose vial versus a single-use vial. The cost of Heplisav-B varies from $146 to $173, depending upon use of a prefilled syringe versus a single-dose vial.

Although the hepatitis B vaccine should be part of the childhood immunization series, it also should be administered to any pregnant woman who has not been vaccinated previously or who does not already have evidence of immunity as a result of natural infection.

Continue to: Herpes zoster vaccine...

Herpes zoster infection (shingles) can be a particularly disabling condition in older patients and results from reactivation of a latent varicella-zoster infection. Shingles can cause extremely painful skin lesions, threaten the patient’s vision, and result in long-lasting postherpetic neuralgia. Both cellular and hormonal immunity are essential to protect against recurrent infection.

The original herpes zoster vaccine (Zoster Vaccine Live; ZVL, Zostavax) is no longer produced in the United States because it is not as effective as the newer vaccine—Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (Shingrix, GlaxoSmithKline).^7,8 The antigen in the new vaccine is a component of the surface glycoprotein E, and it is combined with an adjuvant to enhance immunoreactivity. The vaccine is given intramuscularly in two doses at time zero and again at 2 to 6 months and is indicated for all individuals >50 years, including those who may have had an episode of shingles. This newer vaccine is 97% effective in patients >50 years and 90% effective in patients >70. The wholesale cost of each injection is about $160.

Human papillomavirus vaccine

The HPV vaccine (Gardasil-9, Merck & Co.) is a recombinant 9-valent vaccine directed against the human papillomavirus. It induces immunity to serotypes 6 and 11 (which cause 90% of genital warts), 16 and 18 (which cause 80% of genital cancers), and 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 (viral strains that are responsible for both genital and oropharyngeal cancers). The vaccine is administered intramuscularly in a 3-dose series at time zero, 1-2 months, and 6 months. The principal target groups for the vaccine are males and females, ages 9 to 45 years. Ideally, children of both sexes should receive this vaccine prior to the onset of sexual activity. The wholesale cost of each vaccine injection is approximately $222.⁹

Influenza vaccine

The inactivated, intramuscular flu vaccine is recommended for anyone over age 2, including pregnant women. Although pregnant women are not more likely to acquire flu compared with those who are not pregnant, if they do become infected, they are likely to become more seriously ill, with higher mortality. Accordingly, all pregnant women should receive, in any trimester, the inactivated flu vaccine beginning in the late summer and early fall of each year and extending through March of the next year.^10,11

Multiple formulations of the inactivated vaccine are marketed, all targeting two strains of influenza A and two strains of influenza B. The components of the vaccine vary each year as scientists try to match the new vaccine with the most highly prevalent strains in the previous flu season. The vaccine should be administered in a single intramuscular dose. The cost varies from approximately $20 to $70.

The intranasal influenza vaccine is a live virus vaccine that is intended primarily for children and should not be administered in pregnancy. In addition, there is a higher dose of the inactivated quadrivalent vaccine that is available for administration to patients over age 65. This higher dose is more likely to cause adverse effects and is not indicated in pregnancy.

Continue to: Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)...

Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR)

The MMR is a standard component of the childhood vaccination series. The trivalent preparation is a live, attenuated vaccine that is typically given subcutaneously in a 2-dose series. The first dose is administered at age 12-15 months, and the second dose at age 4-6 years. The vaccine is highly immunogenic, with vaccine-induced immunity usually life-long. In some patients, however, immunity wanes over time. Accordingly, all pregnant women should be screened for immunity to rubella since, of the 3, this infection poses the greatest risk to the fetus. Women who do not have evidence of immunity should be advised to avoid contact with children who may have a viral exanthem. They should then receive a booster dose of the vaccine immediately postpartum and should practice secure contraception for 1 month. The vaccine cost is approximately $60.

Pneumococcal vaccine

The inactivated pneumococcal vaccine is produced in two forms, both of which are safe for administration in pregnancy.¹² The original vaccine, introduced in 1983, was PPSV23 (Pneumovax 23, Merck & Co), a 23-serovalent vaccine that was intended primarily for adults. This vaccine is administered in a single subcutaneous or intramuscular dose. The newest vaccine, introduced in 2010, is PCV13 (Prevnar 13, Pfizer Inc), a 13-serovalent vaccine. It was intended primarily for children, in whom it is administered in a 4-dose series beginning at 6 to 8 weeks of age. The cost of the former is approximately $98 to $120; the cost of the latter is $228.

Vaccination against pneumococcal infection is routinely indicated for those older than the age of 65 and for the following at-risk patients, including those who are pregnant¹¹:

• individuals who have had a splenectomy or who have a medical illness that produces functional asplenia (eg, sickle cell anemia)
• individuals with chronic cardiac, pulmonic, hepatic, or renal disease
• individuals with immunosuppressive conditions such as HIV infection or a disseminated malignancy
• individuals who have a cochlear implant
• individuals who have a chronic leak of cerebrospinal fluid.

The recommendations for timing of these 2 vaccines in adults can initially appear confusing. Put most simply, if a high-risk patient first receives the PCV13 vaccine, she should receive the PPSV23 vaccine in about 8 weeks. The PPSV23 vaccine should be repeated in 5 years. If an at-risk patient initially receives the PPSV23 vaccine, the PCV13 vaccine should be given 1 year later.¹²

Tdap vaccine

The Tdap vaccine contains tetanus toxoid, reduced diptheria toxoid, and an acellular component of the pertussis bacterium. Although it has long been part of the childhood vaccinations series, immunity to each component, particularly pertussis, tends to wane over time.

Pertussis poses a serious risk to the health of the pregnant woman and the newborn infant. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), CDC, and the ACOG now advise administration of a booster dose of this vaccine in the early third trimester of each pregnancy.^13-15 The vaccine should be administered as a single intramuscular injection. The approximate cost of the vaccine is $64 to $71, depending upon whether the provider uses a single-dose vial or a single-dose prefilled syringe. In nonpregnant patients, the ACIP currently recommends administration of a booster dose of the vaccine every 10 years, primarily to provide durable protection against tetanus.

Continue to: Varicella vaccine...

Varicella vaccine

The varicella vaccine is also one of the main components of the childhood immunization series. This live virus vaccine can be administered subcutaneously as a monovalent agent or as a quadrivalent agent in association with the MMR vaccine.

Pregnant women who do not have a well-documented history of natural infection should be tested for IgG antibody to the varicella-zoster virus at the time of their first prenatal appointment. Interestingly, approximately 70% of patients with an uncertain history actually have immunity when tested. If the patient lacks immunity, she should be vaccinated immediately postpartum.^16,17 The vaccine should be administered in a 2-dose series at time zero and then 4 to 8 weeks later. Patients should adhere to secure contraception from the time of the first dose until 1 month after the second dose. The cost of each dose of the vaccine is approximately $145.

Adverse effects of vaccination

All vaccines have many of the same side effects. The most common is simply a reaction at the site of injection, characterized by pain, increased warmth, erythema, swelling, and tenderness. Other common side effects include systemic manifestations, such as low-grade fever, nausea and vomiting, malaise, fatigue, headache, lymphadenopathy, myalgias, and arthralgias. Some vaccines, notably varicella, herpes zoster, measles, and rubella may cause a disseminated rash. Most of these minor side effects are easily managed by rest, hydration, and administration of an analgesic such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen. More serious side effects include rare complications such as anaphylaxis, Bell palsy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and venous thromboembolism (Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine). Any of the vaccines discussed above should not be given, or given only with extreme caution, to an individual who has experienced any of these reactions with a previous vaccine.

Barriers to vaccination

Although the vaccines reviewed above are highly effective in preventing serious illness in recipients, the medical profession’s “report card” in ensuring adherence with vaccine protocols is not optimal. In fact, it probably merits a grade no higher than C+, with vaccination rates in the range of 50% to 70%.

One of the major barriers to vaccination is lack of detailed information about vaccine efficacy and safety on the part of both provider and patient. Another is the problem of misinformation (eg, the persistent belief on the part of some individuals that vaccines may cause a serious problem, such as autism).^18,19 Another important barrier to widespread vaccination is the logistical problem associated with proper scheduling of multidose regimens (such as those for hepatitis A and B, varicella, and COVID-19). A final barrier, and in my own university-based practice, the most important obstacle is the expense of vaccination. Most, but not all, private insurance companies provide coverage for vaccines approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Preventive Services Task Force. However, public insurance agencies often provide disappointingly inconsistent coverage for essential vaccines.

By keeping well informed about the most recent public health recommendations for vaccinations for adults and by leading important initiatives within our own practices, we should be able to overcome the first 3 barriers listed above. For example, Morgan and colleagues²⁰ recently achieved a 97% success rate with Tdap administration in pregnancy by placing a best-practice alert in the patients’ electronic medical records. Surmounting the final barrier will require intense effort on the part of individual practitioners and professional organizations to advocate for coverage for essential vaccinations for our patients.

CASE Resolved

This patient was raised in an area of the world where her family did not have easy access to medical care. Accordingly, she did not receive the usual childhood vaccines, such as measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, hepatitis B, and almost certainly, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap), and the HPV vaccine. The MMR vaccine and the varicella vaccine are live virus vaccines and should not be given during pregnancy. However, these vaccines should be administered postpartum, and the patient should be instructed to practice secure contraception for a minimum of 1 month following vaccination. She also should be offered the HPV vaccine postpartum. During pregnancy, she definitely should receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the 3-dose hepatitis B vaccine series, the influenza vaccine, and Tdap. If her present living conditions place her at risk for hepatitis A, she also should be vaccinated against this illness. ●