OBG Management

Yland JJ, Bresnick KA, Hatch EE, et al. Pregravid contraceptive use and fecundability: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2020;371:m3966.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Most US women aged 15 to 49 currently use contraception, with long-acting reversible contraception (LARC)—IUDs and the contraceptive implant—increasing in popularity over the last decade.¹ Oral contraceptive pills, male condoms, and LARC are the most common reversible methods used.¹ While the efficacy and safety of contraception have been established, few studies have examined the effect of recent contraceptive use on fertility.

Fecundability is the probability of pregnancy during a single menstrual cycle for a couple engaging in regular intercourse and not using contraception.² Small studies have found short-term reductions in fecundability after discontinuing combined oral contraceptives and larger reductions after stopping injectable contraceptives, with no long-term differences among methods.^3,4

Data are limited regarding the effects of other forms of contraception on fecundability, particularly LARC methods. A recent study was designed to evaluate the association between the last contraceptive method used and subsequent fecundability.²

Details of the study

Yland and colleagues pooled data from 3 prospective cohort studies of 17,954 women planning pregnancies in Denmark, Canada, and the United States. Participants reported the contraceptive method used most recently before trying to conceive. They completed questionnaires every 2 months for 12 months or until they reported a pregnancy. Women were excluded if they tried to conceive for more than 6 menstrual cycles at study entry.

The authors calculated the fecundability ratio—the average probability of conception per cycle for a specific contraceptive method compared with a reference method—using proportional probability models adjusted for potential confounders. They also calculated pregnancy attempt time using participant-reported menstrual cycle length and date of last menstrual period during follow-up questionnaires.

Continue to: Injectable contraceptives associated with longest delayed fertility return...

After adjusting for personal factors, medical history, lifestyle characteristics, and indicators of underlying fertility, the authors found that injectable contraceptive use was associated with decreased fecundability compared with barrier method use (fecundability ratio [FR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–0.89). Hormonal IUD use was associated with slight increases in fecundability compared with barrier method use (FR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.07–1.22) and copper IUD use (FR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05–1.33). All other contraceptive methods were not significantly different from barrier methods.

LARC method use was associated with the shortest delay in return of normal fertility (2 cycles), followed by oral and ring contraceptives (3 cycles) and patch (4 cycles). Women using injectable contraceptives experienced the longest delay (5–8 menstrual cycles). Lifetime duration of contraceptive use did not impact fecundability in the North American cohort.

Study strengths and limitations

This large, prospective study contributes useful information about fecundability after stopping contraceptive methods. It confirms earlier studies’ findings that showed decreased fecundability after stopping injectable contraceptives. Study participants’ most recent method used was similar to overall US method distribution.¹

Study limitations include online recruitment of self-selecting participants, which introduces selection bias. The study population was overwhelmingly white (92%) and highly educated (70% with college degrees), quite different from the US population. These findings may therefore have limited generalizability. Additionally, injectable contraceptive users had higher body mass index and were more likely to smoke and have diabetes, infertility, or irregular menstrual cycles. IUD users were more likely to be parous and have a history of unplanned pregnancy, indicating possible higher baseline fertility. Even after adjusting, possible unmeasured factors could impact study results. ●

Yland JJ, Bresnick KA, Hatch EE, et al. Pregravid contraceptive use and fecundability: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2020;371:m3966.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Most US women aged 15 to 49 currently use contraception, with long-acting reversible contraception (LARC)—IUDs and the contraceptive implant—increasing in popularity over the last decade.¹ Oral contraceptive pills, male condoms, and LARC are the most common reversible methods used.¹ While the efficacy and safety of contraception have been established, few studies have examined the effect of recent contraceptive use on fertility.

Fecundability is the probability of pregnancy during a single menstrual cycle for a couple engaging in regular intercourse and not using contraception.² Small studies have found short-term reductions in fecundability after discontinuing combined oral contraceptives and larger reductions after stopping injectable contraceptives, with no long-term differences among methods.^3,4

Data are limited regarding the effects of other forms of contraception on fecundability, particularly LARC methods. A recent study was designed to evaluate the association between the last contraceptive method used and subsequent fecundability.²

Details of the study

Yland and colleagues pooled data from 3 prospective cohort studies of 17,954 women planning pregnancies in Denmark, Canada, and the United States. Participants reported the contraceptive method used most recently before trying to conceive. They completed questionnaires every 2 months for 12 months or until they reported a pregnancy. Women were excluded if they tried to conceive for more than 6 menstrual cycles at study entry.

The authors calculated the fecundability ratio—the average probability of conception per cycle for a specific contraceptive method compared with a reference method—using proportional probability models adjusted for potential confounders. They also calculated pregnancy attempt time using participant-reported menstrual cycle length and date of last menstrual period during follow-up questionnaires.

Continue to: Injectable contraceptives associated with longest delayed fertility return...

After adjusting for personal factors, medical history, lifestyle characteristics, and indicators of underlying fertility, the authors found that injectable contraceptive use was associated with decreased fecundability compared with barrier method use (fecundability ratio [FR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–0.89). Hormonal IUD use was associated with slight increases in fecundability compared with barrier method use (FR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.07–1.22) and copper IUD use (FR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05–1.33). All other contraceptive methods were not significantly different from barrier methods.

LARC method use was associated with the shortest delay in return of normal fertility (2 cycles), followed by oral and ring contraceptives (3 cycles) and patch (4 cycles). Women using injectable contraceptives experienced the longest delay (5–8 menstrual cycles). Lifetime duration of contraceptive use did not impact fecundability in the North American cohort.

Study strengths and limitations

This large, prospective study contributes useful information about fecundability after stopping contraceptive methods. It confirms earlier studies’ findings that showed decreased fecundability after stopping injectable contraceptives. Study participants’ most recent method used was similar to overall US method distribution.¹

Study limitations include online recruitment of self-selecting participants, which introduces selection bias. The study population was overwhelmingly white (92%) and highly educated (70% with college degrees), quite different from the US population. These findings may therefore have limited generalizability. Additionally, injectable contraceptive users had higher body mass index and were more likely to smoke and have diabetes, infertility, or irregular menstrual cycles. IUD users were more likely to be parous and have a history of unplanned pregnancy, indicating possible higher baseline fertility. Even after adjusting, possible unmeasured factors could impact study results. ●

Yland JJ, Bresnick KA, Hatch EE, et al. Pregravid contraceptive use and fecundability: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2020;371:m3966.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Most US women aged 15 to 49 currently use contraception, with long-acting reversible contraception (LARC)—IUDs and the contraceptive implant—increasing in popularity over the last decade.¹ Oral contraceptive pills, male condoms, and LARC are the most common reversible methods used.¹ While the efficacy and safety of contraception have been established, few studies have examined the effect of recent contraceptive use on fertility.

Fecundability is the probability of pregnancy during a single menstrual cycle for a couple engaging in regular intercourse and not using contraception.² Small studies have found short-term reductions in fecundability after discontinuing combined oral contraceptives and larger reductions after stopping injectable contraceptives, with no long-term differences among methods.^3,4

Data are limited regarding the effects of other forms of contraception on fecundability, particularly LARC methods. A recent study was designed to evaluate the association between the last contraceptive method used and subsequent fecundability.²

Details of the study

Yland and colleagues pooled data from 3 prospective cohort studies of 17,954 women planning pregnancies in Denmark, Canada, and the United States. Participants reported the contraceptive method used most recently before trying to conceive. They completed questionnaires every 2 months for 12 months or until they reported a pregnancy. Women were excluded if they tried to conceive for more than 6 menstrual cycles at study entry.

The authors calculated the fecundability ratio—the average probability of conception per cycle for a specific contraceptive method compared with a reference method—using proportional probability models adjusted for potential confounders. They also calculated pregnancy attempt time using participant-reported menstrual cycle length and date of last menstrual period during follow-up questionnaires.

Continue to: Injectable contraceptives associated with longest delayed fertility return...

After adjusting for personal factors, medical history, lifestyle characteristics, and indicators of underlying fertility, the authors found that injectable contraceptive use was associated with decreased fecundability compared with barrier method use (fecundability ratio [FR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–0.89). Hormonal IUD use was associated with slight increases in fecundability compared with barrier method use (FR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.07–1.22) and copper IUD use (FR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05–1.33). All other contraceptive methods were not significantly different from barrier methods.

LARC method use was associated with the shortest delay in return of normal fertility (2 cycles), followed by oral and ring contraceptives (3 cycles) and patch (4 cycles). Women using injectable contraceptives experienced the longest delay (5–8 menstrual cycles). Lifetime duration of contraceptive use did not impact fecundability in the North American cohort.

Study strengths and limitations

This large, prospective study contributes useful information about fecundability after stopping contraceptive methods. It confirms earlier studies’ findings that showed decreased fecundability after stopping injectable contraceptives. Study participants’ most recent method used was similar to overall US method distribution.¹

Study limitations include online recruitment of self-selecting participants, which introduces selection bias. The study population was overwhelmingly white (92%) and highly educated (70% with college degrees), quite different from the US population. These findings may therefore have limited generalizability. Additionally, injectable contraceptive users had higher body mass index and were more likely to smoke and have diabetes, infertility, or irregular menstrual cycles. IUD users were more likely to be parous and have a history of unplanned pregnancy, indicating possible higher baseline fertility. Even after adjusting, possible unmeasured factors could impact study results. ●

Oxytocin is the hormone most commonly administered to women on labor and delivery. It is used for induction of labor, augmentation of labor, and to reduce the risk of postpartum hemorrhage. Licensed independent prescribers, including physicians and nurse midwives, order oxytocin, and licensed professional nurses execute the order by administering the hormone. Optimal management of oxytocin infusion requires effective interprofessional communication and collaboration. During labor it is common for disagreements to arise between the professionals ordering and the professionals administering oxytocin. The disagreements are usually caused by differing perspectives on the appropriate oxytocin dose. Standardized protocols and checklists reduce practice variation and improve patient safety.

Oxytocin hormone

Oxytocin is a cyclic nonapeptide synthesized in the hypothalamus and secreted into the circulation from axonal terminals in the posterior pituitary. In the myometrium, oxytocin activates a membrane G protein-coupled receptor, increasing phospholipase C and intracellular calcium. Following several intracellular chemical cascades, oxytocin stimulation results in myosin and actin filaments sliding over each other initiating shortening of the smooth muscle cell. Myometrial smooth muscle cells are connected by gap junctions, facilitating the coordinated contraction of the uterus.¹

Oxytocin pulse frequency and uterine oxytocin receptor concentration both increase during pregnancy and labor, facilitating the birth process. Oxytocin pulse frequency increases from 2.4 pulses per hour before labor to 13.4 pulses per hour in the second stage.² In addition, uterine oxytocin receptor concentration increases 12-fold from the early second trimester of pregnancy to term.³

Oxytocin has a half-life of approximately 10 to 15 minutes. Many pharmacologists believe that for a given dose of a drug, it takes 4 to 5 half-lives for a stabilized circulating concentration to be achieved. Therefore, during an oxytocin infusion, when the dose is increased it may take 40 to 50 minutes to achieve a new higher, stabile circulating concentration.⁴

Low-dose vs high-dose oxytocin protocols

Oxytocin is often used in a premixed solution of 30 units of oxytocin in 500 mL of lactated Ringer’s solution. With this mixture, an infusion of 1 mL/hour results in the administration of 1 mU of oxytocin per minute (1 mU/min). There is no national consensus on an optimal oxytocin infusion regimen for induction or augmentation of labor. A commonly used low-dose regimen is an initial dose of 1 to 2 mU/min, with a dose increase of 1 to 2 mU/min every 30 to 40 minutes until regular uterine contractions occur every 2 to 3 minutes.⁵ An example of a high-dose oxytocin regimen is an initial dose of 6 mU/min with an increase of 3 to 6 mU/min every 30 to 40 minutes (induction of labor).⁶

A randomized trial reported that, compared with a low-dose oxytocin regimen, a high-dose regimen increased the risk of tachysystole without a significant change in cesarean birth rate.⁷ A Cochrane review concluded that, compared with low-dose regimens, high-dose oxytocin regimens were more likely to be associated with tachysystole.⁸ Based on these reports, I would suggest avoiding the use of a high-dose oxytocin regimen. Experts have reported that an oxytocin dose of approximately 6 mU/min achieves a circulating oxytocin concentration similar to that observed in normal spontaneous labor.⁹

Continue to: Maximum dose of oxytocin infusion...

Maximum dose of oxytocin infusion

There is no national consensus on the maximum safe dose of oxytocin for induction or augmentation of labor. Many labor and delivery units have a protocol where the maximum dose of oxytocin is 20 mU/min for women in the following clinical situations: previous vaginal delivery, prior cesarean delivery, multiple gestation, and nulliparous women in the second stage of labor. A maximum oxytocin dose of 30 mU/min may be appropriate for nulliparous women in the first stage of labor. Some units permit an oxytocin dose of 40 mU/min. Many labor nurses are concerned that an oxytocin dose that high may be associated with an increased frequency of adverse effects.

Management of the oxytocin dose when tachysystole is diagnosed

Tachysystole is defined as more than 5 uterine contractions in 10 minutes averaged over 30 minutes.^5,6 Because uterine contractions cause a reduction in oxygen delivery to the fetus, tachysystole, prolonged uterine contractions, and sustained elevated intrauterine pressure can result in fetal hypoxia and an abnormal fetal heart rate (FHR) pattern. If tachysystole is detected and the FHR pattern is Category 1, the oxytocin dose should be reduced. If tachysystole is detected and the FHR pattern is a concerning Category 2 or Category 3 pattern, the oxytocin infusion should be discontinued until the concerning FHR pattern resolves. If tachysystole is diagnosed, changing the maternal position (ensuring a lateral maternal position) and administering an intravenous bolus of 500 mL of lactated Ringer’s solution may help resolve an abnormal FHR. Terbutaline 0.25 mg, administered by subcutaneous injection, may be given to reduce myometrial contractility. Following resolution of an episode of tachysystole with a concerning FHR tracing, the oxytocin infusion can be restarted at a dose less than the dose that was associated with the tachysystole.

Inadvertent excess oxytocin administration

Oxytocin only should be administered using a computerized medication infusion pump with the oxytocin line piggybacked into a main infusion line.⁵ Occasionally, an excessively large bolus of oxytocin is administered inadvertently because the oxytocin line was mistakenly thought to be the main line or because of an infusion pump failure. These situations usually result in a tetanic contraction that will need to be treated by the immediate discontinuation of the oxytocin infusion, a fluid bolus, and one or more doses of terbutaline.

Reduction in oxytocin dose as labor progresses

Many investigators have reported that once rapid cervical dilation is occurring, or in the second stage of labor, the dose of exogenous oxytocin often can be reduced without stalling the progress of labor. Dilation of the vagina and pelvic floor, which occurs late in the process of labor, is a powerful stimulus for the release of oxytocin from the posterior pituitary.^10,11 The marked increase in endogenous secretion of oxytocin during the second stage of labor may be the reason that the exogenous oxytocin infusion can be reduced or discontinued.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, discontinuation of oxytocin after 5 cm of cervical dilation was associated with a reduced rate of uterine tachysystole and no increase in cesarean delivery.¹² A Cochrane evidence-based review also concluded that once rapid cervical dilation is occurring, the dose of oxytocin can be reduced with a decrease in the rate of tachysystole with an abnormal FHR and without an increase in the rate of cesarean delivery.¹³

Continue to: Management of the oxytocin dose is a common cause of clinical disagreement...

Management of the oxytocin dose is a common cause of clinical disagreement

As noted in two recent research studies, experienced independent professional labor nurses often feel pressured by obstetricians to increase the dose of oxytocin. One nurse reported that physicians “like the pit pushed and you’d better push it and go, go, go, otherwise they’ll be…really mad if it is not going.” Many obstetricians favor working with a labor nurse who will actively manage labor by aggressively increasing the oxytocin dose. One obstetrician reported, “When I hear I’ve got a nurse who will go up on the pit, I know it’s going to be a good day.”¹⁴

Obstetricians and labor nurses with a good relationship can openly discuss differing perspectives and find a compromise solution. However, if the relationship is not good, the conflict may not be resolved, and the labor nurse may use a passive-aggressive approach to the situation. As one nurse reported, “It actually depends on the doctor and his personality. I know that there were times when I had a doc who would throw a fit if I didn’t up the pitocin, so I would pacify him by agreeing to, but never would.”¹⁵

An oxytocin checklist may help to reduce conflict over the optimal management of oxytocin infusion and improve patient safety.¹⁶ Practice variation among nurses, obstetricians, and nurse midwives may contribute to difficulty in achieving a consensus on how to manage oxytocin. One approach to reducing practice variation is to use checklists to improve collaboration and uniformity on a clinical team. Clark and colleagues describe the beneficial effect of both a pre-oxytocin checklist and an oxytocin in-use checklist.¹⁶ Their in-use checklist, which is completed every 30 minutes by the labor nurse, recommended decreasing the dose of oxytocin unless the FHR is reassuring and no tachysystole has occurred. In one retrospective study, when compared against outcomes prior to the use of a checklist, the use of the checklist resulted in a lower maximum dose of oxytocin (11.4 vs 13.8 mU/min; P = .003), a greater 1-minute Apgar score at birth (7.9 vs 7.6; P = .048), and no increase in time to delivery (8.2 vs 8.5 hours) or cesarean delivery rate (13% vs 15%).¹⁶ When nurses and obstetricians collaborate using an oxytocin in-use checklist, both clinical variation and probability of conflict are reduced.

Consider use of a checklist to reduce conflict

Oxytocin infusion for induction or augmentation of labor is one of the most common and most important interventions on labor and delivery units. Oxytocin infusion practices vary widely among labor and delivery units. In addition to the lack of a consensus national standard, within any one labor unit the perspectives of obstetricians and labor nurses regarding the management of oxytocin infusions often differ, leading to conflict. The use of an oxytocin in-use checklist may help to reduce variability and improve patient outcomes.¹⁷ ●

Oxytocin is the hormone most commonly administered to women on labor and delivery. It is used for induction of labor, augmentation of labor, and to reduce the risk of postpartum hemorrhage. Licensed independent prescribers, including physicians and nurse midwives, order oxytocin, and licensed professional nurses execute the order by administering the hormone. Optimal management of oxytocin infusion requires effective interprofessional communication and collaboration. During labor it is common for disagreements to arise between the professionals ordering and the professionals administering oxytocin. The disagreements are usually caused by differing perspectives on the appropriate oxytocin dose. Standardized protocols and checklists reduce practice variation and improve patient safety.

Oxytocin hormone

Oxytocin is a cyclic nonapeptide synthesized in the hypothalamus and secreted into the circulation from axonal terminals in the posterior pituitary. In the myometrium, oxytocin activates a membrane G protein-coupled receptor, increasing phospholipase C and intracellular calcium. Following several intracellular chemical cascades, oxytocin stimulation results in myosin and actin filaments sliding over each other initiating shortening of the smooth muscle cell. Myometrial smooth muscle cells are connected by gap junctions, facilitating the coordinated contraction of the uterus.¹

Oxytocin pulse frequency and uterine oxytocin receptor concentration both increase during pregnancy and labor, facilitating the birth process. Oxytocin pulse frequency increases from 2.4 pulses per hour before labor to 13.4 pulses per hour in the second stage.² In addition, uterine oxytocin receptor concentration increases 12-fold from the early second trimester of pregnancy to term.³

Oxytocin has a half-life of approximately 10 to 15 minutes. Many pharmacologists believe that for a given dose of a drug, it takes 4 to 5 half-lives for a stabilized circulating concentration to be achieved. Therefore, during an oxytocin infusion, when the dose is increased it may take 40 to 50 minutes to achieve a new higher, stabile circulating concentration.⁴

Low-dose vs high-dose oxytocin protocols

Oxytocin is often used in a premixed solution of 30 units of oxytocin in 500 mL of lactated Ringer’s solution. With this mixture, an infusion of 1 mL/hour results in the administration of 1 mU of oxytocin per minute (1 mU/min). There is no national consensus on an optimal oxytocin infusion regimen for induction or augmentation of labor. A commonly used low-dose regimen is an initial dose of 1 to 2 mU/min, with a dose increase of 1 to 2 mU/min every 30 to 40 minutes until regular uterine contractions occur every 2 to 3 minutes.⁵ An example of a high-dose oxytocin regimen is an initial dose of 6 mU/min with an increase of 3 to 6 mU/min every 30 to 40 minutes (induction of labor).⁶

A randomized trial reported that, compared with a low-dose oxytocin regimen, a high-dose regimen increased the risk of tachysystole without a significant change in cesarean birth rate.⁷ A Cochrane review concluded that, compared with low-dose regimens, high-dose oxytocin regimens were more likely to be associated with tachysystole.⁸ Based on these reports, I would suggest avoiding the use of a high-dose oxytocin regimen. Experts have reported that an oxytocin dose of approximately 6 mU/min achieves a circulating oxytocin concentration similar to that observed in normal spontaneous labor.⁹

Continue to: Maximum dose of oxytocin infusion...

Maximum dose of oxytocin infusion

There is no national consensus on the maximum safe dose of oxytocin for induction or augmentation of labor. Many labor and delivery units have a protocol where the maximum dose of oxytocin is 20 mU/min for women in the following clinical situations: previous vaginal delivery, prior cesarean delivery, multiple gestation, and nulliparous women in the second stage of labor. A maximum oxytocin dose of 30 mU/min may be appropriate for nulliparous women in the first stage of labor. Some units permit an oxytocin dose of 40 mU/min. Many labor nurses are concerned that an oxytocin dose that high may be associated with an increased frequency of adverse effects.

Management of the oxytocin dose when tachysystole is diagnosed

Tachysystole is defined as more than 5 uterine contractions in 10 minutes averaged over 30 minutes.^5,6 Because uterine contractions cause a reduction in oxygen delivery to the fetus, tachysystole, prolonged uterine contractions, and sustained elevated intrauterine pressure can result in fetal hypoxia and an abnormal fetal heart rate (FHR) pattern. If tachysystole is detected and the FHR pattern is Category 1, the oxytocin dose should be reduced. If tachysystole is detected and the FHR pattern is a concerning Category 2 or Category 3 pattern, the oxytocin infusion should be discontinued until the concerning FHR pattern resolves. If tachysystole is diagnosed, changing the maternal position (ensuring a lateral maternal position) and administering an intravenous bolus of 500 mL of lactated Ringer’s solution may help resolve an abnormal FHR. Terbutaline 0.25 mg, administered by subcutaneous injection, may be given to reduce myometrial contractility. Following resolution of an episode of tachysystole with a concerning FHR tracing, the oxytocin infusion can be restarted at a dose less than the dose that was associated with the tachysystole.

Inadvertent excess oxytocin administration

Oxytocin only should be administered using a computerized medication infusion pump with the oxytocin line piggybacked into a main infusion line.⁵ Occasionally, an excessively large bolus of oxytocin is administered inadvertently because the oxytocin line was mistakenly thought to be the main line or because of an infusion pump failure. These situations usually result in a tetanic contraction that will need to be treated by the immediate discontinuation of the oxytocin infusion, a fluid bolus, and one or more doses of terbutaline.

Reduction in oxytocin dose as labor progresses

Many investigators have reported that once rapid cervical dilation is occurring, or in the second stage of labor, the dose of exogenous oxytocin often can be reduced without stalling the progress of labor. Dilation of the vagina and pelvic floor, which occurs late in the process of labor, is a powerful stimulus for the release of oxytocin from the posterior pituitary.^10,11 The marked increase in endogenous secretion of oxytocin during the second stage of labor may be the reason that the exogenous oxytocin infusion can be reduced or discontinued.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, discontinuation of oxytocin after 5 cm of cervical dilation was associated with a reduced rate of uterine tachysystole and no increase in cesarean delivery.¹² A Cochrane evidence-based review also concluded that once rapid cervical dilation is occurring, the dose of oxytocin can be reduced with a decrease in the rate of tachysystole with an abnormal FHR and without an increase in the rate of cesarean delivery.¹³

Continue to: Management of the oxytocin dose is a common cause of clinical disagreement...

Management of the oxytocin dose is a common cause of clinical disagreement

As noted in two recent research studies, experienced independent professional labor nurses often feel pressured by obstetricians to increase the dose of oxytocin. One nurse reported that physicians “like the pit pushed and you’d better push it and go, go, go, otherwise they’ll be…really mad if it is not going.” Many obstetricians favor working with a labor nurse who will actively manage labor by aggressively increasing the oxytocin dose. One obstetrician reported, “When I hear I’ve got a nurse who will go up on the pit, I know it’s going to be a good day.”¹⁴

Obstetricians and labor nurses with a good relationship can openly discuss differing perspectives and find a compromise solution. However, if the relationship is not good, the conflict may not be resolved, and the labor nurse may use a passive-aggressive approach to the situation. As one nurse reported, “It actually depends on the doctor and his personality. I know that there were times when I had a doc who would throw a fit if I didn’t up the pitocin, so I would pacify him by agreeing to, but never would.”¹⁵

An oxytocin checklist may help to reduce conflict over the optimal management of oxytocin infusion and improve patient safety.¹⁶ Practice variation among nurses, obstetricians, and nurse midwives may contribute to difficulty in achieving a consensus on how to manage oxytocin. One approach to reducing practice variation is to use checklists to improve collaboration and uniformity on a clinical team. Clark and colleagues describe the beneficial effect of both a pre-oxytocin checklist and an oxytocin in-use checklist.¹⁶ Their in-use checklist, which is completed every 30 minutes by the labor nurse, recommended decreasing the dose of oxytocin unless the FHR is reassuring and no tachysystole has occurred. In one retrospective study, when compared against outcomes prior to the use of a checklist, the use of the checklist resulted in a lower maximum dose of oxytocin (11.4 vs 13.8 mU/min; P = .003), a greater 1-minute Apgar score at birth (7.9 vs 7.6; P = .048), and no increase in time to delivery (8.2 vs 8.5 hours) or cesarean delivery rate (13% vs 15%).¹⁶ When nurses and obstetricians collaborate using an oxytocin in-use checklist, both clinical variation and probability of conflict are reduced.

Consider use of a checklist to reduce conflict

Oxytocin infusion for induction or augmentation of labor is one of the most common and most important interventions on labor and delivery units. Oxytocin infusion practices vary widely among labor and delivery units. In addition to the lack of a consensus national standard, within any one labor unit the perspectives of obstetricians and labor nurses regarding the management of oxytocin infusions often differ, leading to conflict. The use of an oxytocin in-use checklist may help to reduce variability and improve patient outcomes.¹⁷ ●

Oxytocin is the hormone most commonly administered to women on labor and delivery. It is used for induction of labor, augmentation of labor, and to reduce the risk of postpartum hemorrhage. Licensed independent prescribers, including physicians and nurse midwives, order oxytocin, and licensed professional nurses execute the order by administering the hormone. Optimal management of oxytocin infusion requires effective interprofessional communication and collaboration. During labor it is common for disagreements to arise between the professionals ordering and the professionals administering oxytocin. The disagreements are usually caused by differing perspectives on the appropriate oxytocin dose. Standardized protocols and checklists reduce practice variation and improve patient safety.

Oxytocin hormone

Oxytocin is a cyclic nonapeptide synthesized in the hypothalamus and secreted into the circulation from axonal terminals in the posterior pituitary. In the myometrium, oxytocin activates a membrane G protein-coupled receptor, increasing phospholipase C and intracellular calcium. Following several intracellular chemical cascades, oxytocin stimulation results in myosin and actin filaments sliding over each other initiating shortening of the smooth muscle cell. Myometrial smooth muscle cells are connected by gap junctions, facilitating the coordinated contraction of the uterus.¹

Oxytocin pulse frequency and uterine oxytocin receptor concentration both increase during pregnancy and labor, facilitating the birth process. Oxytocin pulse frequency increases from 2.4 pulses per hour before labor to 13.4 pulses per hour in the second stage.² In addition, uterine oxytocin receptor concentration increases 12-fold from the early second trimester of pregnancy to term.³

Oxytocin has a half-life of approximately 10 to 15 minutes. Many pharmacologists believe that for a given dose of a drug, it takes 4 to 5 half-lives for a stabilized circulating concentration to be achieved. Therefore, during an oxytocin infusion, when the dose is increased it may take 40 to 50 minutes to achieve a new higher, stabile circulating concentration.⁴

Low-dose vs high-dose oxytocin protocols

Oxytocin is often used in a premixed solution of 30 units of oxytocin in 500 mL of lactated Ringer’s solution. With this mixture, an infusion of 1 mL/hour results in the administration of 1 mU of oxytocin per minute (1 mU/min). There is no national consensus on an optimal oxytocin infusion regimen for induction or augmentation of labor. A commonly used low-dose regimen is an initial dose of 1 to 2 mU/min, with a dose increase of 1 to 2 mU/min every 30 to 40 minutes until regular uterine contractions occur every 2 to 3 minutes.⁵ An example of a high-dose oxytocin regimen is an initial dose of 6 mU/min with an increase of 3 to 6 mU/min every 30 to 40 minutes (induction of labor).⁶

A randomized trial reported that, compared with a low-dose oxytocin regimen, a high-dose regimen increased the risk of tachysystole without a significant change in cesarean birth rate.⁷ A Cochrane review concluded that, compared with low-dose regimens, high-dose oxytocin regimens were more likely to be associated with tachysystole.⁸ Based on these reports, I would suggest avoiding the use of a high-dose oxytocin regimen. Experts have reported that an oxytocin dose of approximately 6 mU/min achieves a circulating oxytocin concentration similar to that observed in normal spontaneous labor.⁹

Continue to: Maximum dose of oxytocin infusion...

Maximum dose of oxytocin infusion

There is no national consensus on the maximum safe dose of oxytocin for induction or augmentation of labor. Many labor and delivery units have a protocol where the maximum dose of oxytocin is 20 mU/min for women in the following clinical situations: previous vaginal delivery, prior cesarean delivery, multiple gestation, and nulliparous women in the second stage of labor. A maximum oxytocin dose of 30 mU/min may be appropriate for nulliparous women in the first stage of labor. Some units permit an oxytocin dose of 40 mU/min. Many labor nurses are concerned that an oxytocin dose that high may be associated with an increased frequency of adverse effects.

Management of the oxytocin dose when tachysystole is diagnosed

Tachysystole is defined as more than 5 uterine contractions in 10 minutes averaged over 30 minutes.^5,6 Because uterine contractions cause a reduction in oxygen delivery to the fetus, tachysystole, prolonged uterine contractions, and sustained elevated intrauterine pressure can result in fetal hypoxia and an abnormal fetal heart rate (FHR) pattern. If tachysystole is detected and the FHR pattern is Category 1, the oxytocin dose should be reduced. If tachysystole is detected and the FHR pattern is a concerning Category 2 or Category 3 pattern, the oxytocin infusion should be discontinued until the concerning FHR pattern resolves. If tachysystole is diagnosed, changing the maternal position (ensuring a lateral maternal position) and administering an intravenous bolus of 500 mL of lactated Ringer’s solution may help resolve an abnormal FHR. Terbutaline 0.25 mg, administered by subcutaneous injection, may be given to reduce myometrial contractility. Following resolution of an episode of tachysystole with a concerning FHR tracing, the oxytocin infusion can be restarted at a dose less than the dose that was associated with the tachysystole.

Inadvertent excess oxytocin administration

Oxytocin only should be administered using a computerized medication infusion pump with the oxytocin line piggybacked into a main infusion line.⁵ Occasionally, an excessively large bolus of oxytocin is administered inadvertently because the oxytocin line was mistakenly thought to be the main line or because of an infusion pump failure. These situations usually result in a tetanic contraction that will need to be treated by the immediate discontinuation of the oxytocin infusion, a fluid bolus, and one or more doses of terbutaline.

Reduction in oxytocin dose as labor progresses

Many investigators have reported that once rapid cervical dilation is occurring, or in the second stage of labor, the dose of exogenous oxytocin often can be reduced without stalling the progress of labor. Dilation of the vagina and pelvic floor, which occurs late in the process of labor, is a powerful stimulus for the release of oxytocin from the posterior pituitary.^10,11 The marked increase in endogenous secretion of oxytocin during the second stage of labor may be the reason that the exogenous oxytocin infusion can be reduced or discontinued.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, discontinuation of oxytocin after 5 cm of cervical dilation was associated with a reduced rate of uterine tachysystole and no increase in cesarean delivery.¹² A Cochrane evidence-based review also concluded that once rapid cervical dilation is occurring, the dose of oxytocin can be reduced with a decrease in the rate of tachysystole with an abnormal FHR and without an increase in the rate of cesarean delivery.¹³

Continue to: Management of the oxytocin dose is a common cause of clinical disagreement...

Management of the oxytocin dose is a common cause of clinical disagreement

As noted in two recent research studies, experienced independent professional labor nurses often feel pressured by obstetricians to increase the dose of oxytocin. One nurse reported that physicians “like the pit pushed and you’d better push it and go, go, go, otherwise they’ll be…really mad if it is not going.” Many obstetricians favor working with a labor nurse who will actively manage labor by aggressively increasing the oxytocin dose. One obstetrician reported, “When I hear I’ve got a nurse who will go up on the pit, I know it’s going to be a good day.”¹⁴

Obstetricians and labor nurses with a good relationship can openly discuss differing perspectives and find a compromise solution. However, if the relationship is not good, the conflict may not be resolved, and the labor nurse may use a passive-aggressive approach to the situation. As one nurse reported, “It actually depends on the doctor and his personality. I know that there were times when I had a doc who would throw a fit if I didn’t up the pitocin, so I would pacify him by agreeing to, but never would.”¹⁵

An oxytocin checklist may help to reduce conflict over the optimal management of oxytocin infusion and improve patient safety.¹⁶ Practice variation among nurses, obstetricians, and nurse midwives may contribute to difficulty in achieving a consensus on how to manage oxytocin. One approach to reducing practice variation is to use checklists to improve collaboration and uniformity on a clinical team. Clark and colleagues describe the beneficial effect of both a pre-oxytocin checklist and an oxytocin in-use checklist.¹⁶ Their in-use checklist, which is completed every 30 minutes by the labor nurse, recommended decreasing the dose of oxytocin unless the FHR is reassuring and no tachysystole has occurred. In one retrospective study, when compared against outcomes prior to the use of a checklist, the use of the checklist resulted in a lower maximum dose of oxytocin (11.4 vs 13.8 mU/min; P = .003), a greater 1-minute Apgar score at birth (7.9 vs 7.6; P = .048), and no increase in time to delivery (8.2 vs 8.5 hours) or cesarean delivery rate (13% vs 15%).¹⁶ When nurses and obstetricians collaborate using an oxytocin in-use checklist, both clinical variation and probability of conflict are reduced.

Consider use of a checklist to reduce conflict

Oxytocin infusion for induction or augmentation of labor is one of the most common and most important interventions on labor and delivery units. Oxytocin infusion practices vary widely among labor and delivery units. In addition to the lack of a consensus national standard, within any one labor unit the perspectives of obstetricians and labor nurses regarding the management of oxytocin infusions often differ, leading to conflict. The use of an oxytocin in-use checklist may help to reduce variability and improve patient outcomes.¹⁷ ●

Pregnant women, or women considering pregnancy, want to know—is pregnancy safe in the midst of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic? In this article, I tackle common questions facing reproductive-aged or pregnant women and their providers.

1. What are the risks of COVID-19 in pregnancy?

A large, national prospective cohort study of outpatient pregnant and recently postpartum women with the diagnosis of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 demonstrated that many affected women have mild illnesses, with typical symptoms including cough, sore throat, body aches, fever, and headache.¹ Although symptoms were most common within the first 3 weeks of presentation, approximately 25% of women had a protracted course of symptoms (8 or more weeks). As this cohort disproportionately enrolled outpatients, it is important to note that many women had mild illnesses, which is the most likely course of infection in otherwise healthy, young women.

Data on the impact of COVID-19 on rates of miscarriage and birth defects are limited, yet the published reports are reassuring, with no increased risks of miscarriage, and no clear signal for birth defects.²

In a prospective cohort study across 3 New York City institutions when universal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing was recommended upon admission for delivery, approximately 80% of women who were positive were asymptomatic.³ Maternal outcomes generally were reassuring, with no patients experiencing severe or critical illness. There were no differences in preterm delivery rates by SARS-CoV-2 status, but the rate of cesarean delivery was higher among women with COVID-19, for unclear reasons. Most notably, the rate of postpartum complications was 13% among women with COVID-19, versus 2.5% among women without COVID-19. These complications included readmission for worsening COVID-19, postpartum hypoxia, and postpartum fever.

A recent prospective cohort study from 1 institution in Texas similarly demonstrated favorable maternal outcomes with COVID-19, with 95% of women with asymptomatic or mild illness, and no differences in adverse pregnancy outcomes between COVID-19–positive and COVID-19–negative women, including cesarean delivery rate.⁴

Finally, certain characteristics increase the risk of COVID-19 among pregnant women and nonpregnant individuals alike. In a nationwide prospective cohort from the United Kingdom, medical comorbidities including obesity, diabetes (gestational or pregestational), hypertension, as well as Black or other minority ethnicities are associated with COVID-19.⁵ This is particularly notable given universal health insurance in the United Kingdom. Other data have also confirmed that women with comorbidities, women of Black or Hispanic ethnicity, and women with lower socioeconomic status, are at increased risk of COVID-19.^3,6,7

2. Is COVID-19 worse in pregnancy?

Given the well-documented risks of COVID-19 outside of pregnancy, is COVID-19 worse in a pregnant woman than in a nonpregnant woman? The most recent guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from November 2020 suggests that pregnant women are at increased risk for severe illness.⁸ However, it is important to understand the design of this study in order to appreciate its implications. Laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 in the United States is systematically reported to the CDC. Among women aged 15–44 years with such confirmation, data on pregnancy status were available for 35.5%, almost 90% of whom were symptomatic. Within this cohort of largely symptomatic pregnant women, risks of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, invasive ventilation, and use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were approximately 2 to 3 times higher for pregnant women than for nonpregnant women. The absolute risks, however, were low. The risk of ICU admission for symptomatic pregnant women was approximately 1%; the risk of invasive ventilation, 0.3%; and the risk of ECMO, 0.1%.

Moreover, the lack of uniform data capture on pregnancy status for all women ages 15–44 years may skew the population with known pregnancy status to be sicker and, thus, may bias the results toward increased risks. Nevertheless, there is consistency in several publications with different data sources, all of which suggest pregnancy is an independent risk factor for increased severity of COVID-19.^9-11 Additionally, women with medical comorbidities (such as pregestational or gestational diabetes or obesity) are more likely to have severe COVID-19.

Continue to: 3. What are newborn outcomes if COVID-19 is diagnosed during pregnancy?...

Two large cohorts of newborns, disproportionately term infants, from the first wave of the pandemic in New York City, have reassuring news. In one cohort of 101 infants born at 2 New York City institutions to SARS-CoV-2–positive mothers, 2 neonates were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 during the immediate postnatal period.¹² Neither infant demonstrated clinical COVID-19. In another cohort of 120 infants born at 3 other New York City institutions to SARS-CoV-2–positive mothers and tested systematically within 24 hours of life, 5–7 days of life, and 14 days of life, there were no neonates who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the initial time point. Among the 79 infants who had testing at 5–7 days of life and the 72 tested at 14 days of life, there were no infants positive for SARS-CoV-2.¹³ It is important to note that case reports and small case series have demonstrated some convincing evidence of vertical transmission. However, the overwhelming evidence suggests this risk is very low.

4. What is a reasonable outpatient setting–approach to managing COVID-19 in a pregnant woman?

Women should be counseled to quarantine for 10 to 14 days from symptom onset or, if asymptomatic, from positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Warning signs of worsening COVID-19 disease should be reviewed. Serial telemedicine follow-up for 10 to 14 days is recommended to ensure clinical stability and continued management as an outpatient. A home pulse oximeter is also recommended. Women should be advised to check their oxygen saturation daily and to call if oxygen saturation becomes less than 93%. Supportive care is recommended.

If delay in obstetric care may result in adverse pregnancy outcomes (for instance, postponing indicated fetal surveillance), obstetric care should be delivered, with appropriate personal protective equipment for health care workers and minimization of exposure of other pregnant women to the infected patient. Appointments should be scheduled at the end of the day.

During influenza season, women should receive empiric oseltamivir treatment (75 mg twice a day) per CDC guidelines for symptoms that may also be consistent with influenza, regardless of testing.

Prophylactic anticoagulation is not indicated for pregnant antepartum women who do not require inpatient care.

If inpatient care is required, management is individualized.

The approach to prenatal care after resolution of COVID-19 is not evidence-based. At my institution, all patients have a detailed mid-trimester anatomic evaluation, but if this is not routine, a detailed anatomic ultrasound (Current Procedural Terminology code 76811) may be considered. Additionally, for women with COVID-19 we perform one third-trimester growth ultrasound to screen for fetal growth restriction, on the basis of several placental studies demonstrating clots on the fetal or maternal side of the placenta.^3,14 Routine antenatal testing in the absence of growth restriction, or other comorbid conditions for which testing occurs, is not recommended.

Continue to: 5. What if asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 is diagnosed at the time of delivery?...

5. What if asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 is diagnosed at the time of delivery? What is reasonable management?

Asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 should not alter obstetric management, beyond appropriate use of personal protective equipment. Delayed cord clamping is also reasonable, if there are no other contraindications, as there is no documented harm associated with this practice among women with COVID-19.

Women with COVID-19 may be at higher risk for venous thromboembolic events in the postpartum period. At my institution, prophylactic postpartum anticoagulation is recommended for 2 weeks after vaginal delivery, and 6 weeks after cesarean delivery.

During the postpartum hospitalization, given reassuring data about vertical transmission and postnatal horizontal transmission risks, babies may room in with mothers in a single private room, if rooming-in is the current standard of care—as long as the mother and newborn do not require higher levels of care. Mothers should wear a mask and use hand hygiene when in contact with the baby. Skin-to-skin and breastfeeding or infant feeding of breast milk are appropriate practices to continue. There is no evidence to suggest that transmission of COVID-19 can occur via breastmilk; however, given the close contact inherent in breastfeeding, transmission through direct contact or maternal respiratory droplets is possible, and thus maternal use of masks and hand hygiene is recommended. When not feeding, the infant should be 6 feet away, and if possible, in an isolette.

6. When can individuals with COVID-19 discontinue transmission precautions or “home quarantine”?

For women with mildly symptomatic COVID-19 and without immunocompromise, home quarantine can be discontinued 10 days after onset of symptoms as long as there has been symptom improvement and no fever for at least 24 hours without the use of antipyretics. For immunocompetent women with incidentally diagnosed asymptomatic COVID-19, home quarantine can be discontinued 10 days after the positive test was obtained. Pregnancy in and of itself is not an immunocompromising condition.^15,16

For women with severe or critical COVID-19, who were hospitalized due to their clinical status, home quarantine can be discontinued when at least 10 days, and up to 20 days, after onset of symptoms and with symptom improvement and with no fever for at least 24 hours, without the use of antipyretics. Local hospital infection control experts may be able to guide the recommended practice for your site better, based on local information.^15,16

Repeating a PCR test to discontinue home quarantine is not recommended in most circumstances, as individuals may have prolonged shedding of noninfectious particles in their nasopharynx. Immunocompromise may be one exception to this general guidance, but consultation with local hospital infection control experts will help guide management.^15,16

7. Should women get pregnant during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Every pandemic has its own set of implications for the health of the mother, fetus, or both, and COVID-19 is no exception. While there are risks, described above, to mother and fetus, these risks are not so catastrophic as to strongly and directively recommend a patient not become pregnant.¹⁷ Moreover, the last several months of the pandemic have demonstrated that consistent mask usage, social distancing, and hand hygiene, are effective methods of preventing the acquisition of COVID-19. All of these risk-reducing strategies are available to pregnant women. Finally, accessing care during a pandemic in a hospital setting does not also pose a risk for acquisition of SARS-CoV-2.¹⁸

Continue to: 8. Is the COVID-19 vaccine safe for pregnant or postpartum/lactating women?...

8. Is the COVID-19 vaccine safe for pregnant or postpartum/lactating women?

On December 11, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNtech mRNA vaccine (BNT 162b2) against COVID-19, for individuals aged 16 and older as a 2-dose series given 21 days apart. Among the more than 40,000 individuals in the trial that led to this EUA, vaccine efficacy was 95%.¹⁹ Adverse effects included fatigue and headache most commonly, with 16% of vaccine recipients experiencing fever after the second dose. Follow-up regarding safety is planned for 2 years by the manufacturer, in addition to safety monitoring by pre-existing national systems.

On December 18, 2020, the FDA announced EUA for Moderna’s mRNA-based vaccine, mRNA-1273, in men and women aged 18 and older. This is a 2-dose series given 28 days apart. The vaccine efficacy has been reported at 94.5%, with the most common adverse effects being injection site pain, tiredness, headache, muscle pain, chills, joint pain, swollen lymph nodes in the same arm as the injection, nausea and vomiting, and fever.^20,21 The phase 3 trial is ongoing.

Despite the speed with which these effective vaccines were developed, it is important to note that all regulatory and safety steps mandated for the development of any vaccine were met for these two, as well as for other COVID-19 vaccinations that will similarly receive EUA from the FDA.

In the EUA for BNT 162b2, the specific language regarding pregnant and lactating women recommends that patients and providers have an individualized conversation about vaccination. In the data presented to the FDA for the Pfizer-BioNtech mRNA vaccine, a limited number of pregnant women received either the vaccine (12 women) or placebo (11 women), with no long-term follow-up data available to characterize either maternal or fetal benefits and risks. The mechanism of action of an mRNA vaccine is to induce the cytoplasmic machinery within cells to create the coronavirus spike protein, which then allows the body’s immune system to create antibodies against this protein and confer protection accordingly. While the above mechanism is not theorized to result in different outcomes or different efficacy, the safety for the pregnant woman and fetus are unknown. It is not believed that vaccination during lactation would cause any adverse outcomes to a neonate, and lactating women do not need to interrupt or discontinue breast milk production in order to receive the vaccine.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a Practice Advisory on December 13, 2020, regarding their recommendations.²² ACOG recommends that vaccines against COVID-19 not be withheld from pregnant or lactating women, if they might otherwise meet criteria for and have access to vaccination. Currently, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) stated that health care workers and long-term care facility residents represent priority groups to vaccinate in the initial phases of vaccination, given limitations in supply.²³ This recommendation is likely to be updated frequently as additional vaccines become available. Shared decision-making between patient and provider may help the patient to make the best decision for herself, but provider input is not required prior to a pregnant woman being vaccinated.

Additional animal data evaluating adverse effects on the reproductive system from developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies for both mRNA vaccines should be available in the coming weeks, which may aid in the counseling of reproductive-aged women.

Vaccine trials to specifically enroll pregnant women are set to begin in early 2021, and more data will certainly inform the conversation between patient and provider regarding risks and benefits.

Conclusions

While the absolute risks of COVID-19 to mothers, fetuses, and neonates is low, pregnancy is a risk factor for severe disease. Many pregnant women with COVID-19 can be safely followed as outpatients via telemedicine, and supportive care is recommended. Inpatient care should be individualized. Pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic should be not be absolutely discouraged; instead, a conversation about risk mitigation should be undertaken. The COVID-19 vaccine is available to pregnant and lactating women, and the decision to choose vaccination in pregnancy is in the purview of the patient, in consultation with her physician. ●

Pregnant women, or women considering pregnancy, want to know—is pregnancy safe in the midst of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic? In this article, I tackle common questions facing reproductive-aged or pregnant women and their providers.

1. What are the risks of COVID-19 in pregnancy?

A large, national prospective cohort study of outpatient pregnant and recently postpartum women with the diagnosis of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 demonstrated that many affected women have mild illnesses, with typical symptoms including cough, sore throat, body aches, fever, and headache.¹ Although symptoms were most common within the first 3 weeks of presentation, approximately 25% of women had a protracted course of symptoms (8 or more weeks). As this cohort disproportionately enrolled outpatients, it is important to note that many women had mild illnesses, which is the most likely course of infection in otherwise healthy, young women.

Data on the impact of COVID-19 on rates of miscarriage and birth defects are limited, yet the published reports are reassuring, with no increased risks of miscarriage, and no clear signal for birth defects.²

In a prospective cohort study across 3 New York City institutions when universal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing was recommended upon admission for delivery, approximately 80% of women who were positive were asymptomatic.³ Maternal outcomes generally were reassuring, with no patients experiencing severe or critical illness. There were no differences in preterm delivery rates by SARS-CoV-2 status, but the rate of cesarean delivery was higher among women with COVID-19, for unclear reasons. Most notably, the rate of postpartum complications was 13% among women with COVID-19, versus 2.5% among women without COVID-19. These complications included readmission for worsening COVID-19, postpartum hypoxia, and postpartum fever.

A recent prospective cohort study from 1 institution in Texas similarly demonstrated favorable maternal outcomes with COVID-19, with 95% of women with asymptomatic or mild illness, and no differences in adverse pregnancy outcomes between COVID-19–positive and COVID-19–negative women, including cesarean delivery rate.⁴

Finally, certain characteristics increase the risk of COVID-19 among pregnant women and nonpregnant individuals alike. In a nationwide prospective cohort from the United Kingdom, medical comorbidities including obesity, diabetes (gestational or pregestational), hypertension, as well as Black or other minority ethnicities are associated with COVID-19.⁵ This is particularly notable given universal health insurance in the United Kingdom. Other data have also confirmed that women with comorbidities, women of Black or Hispanic ethnicity, and women with lower socioeconomic status, are at increased risk of COVID-19.^3,6,7

2. Is COVID-19 worse in pregnancy?

Given the well-documented risks of COVID-19 outside of pregnancy, is COVID-19 worse in a pregnant woman than in a nonpregnant woman? The most recent guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from November 2020 suggests that pregnant women are at increased risk for severe illness.⁸ However, it is important to understand the design of this study in order to appreciate its implications. Laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 in the United States is systematically reported to the CDC. Among women aged 15–44 years with such confirmation, data on pregnancy status were available for 35.5%, almost 90% of whom were symptomatic. Within this cohort of largely symptomatic pregnant women, risks of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, invasive ventilation, and use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were approximately 2 to 3 times higher for pregnant women than for nonpregnant women. The absolute risks, however, were low. The risk of ICU admission for symptomatic pregnant women was approximately 1%; the risk of invasive ventilation, 0.3%; and the risk of ECMO, 0.1%.

Moreover, the lack of uniform data capture on pregnancy status for all women ages 15–44 years may skew the population with known pregnancy status to be sicker and, thus, may bias the results toward increased risks. Nevertheless, there is consistency in several publications with different data sources, all of which suggest pregnancy is an independent risk factor for increased severity of COVID-19.^9-11 Additionally, women with medical comorbidities (such as pregestational or gestational diabetes or obesity) are more likely to have severe COVID-19.

Continue to: 3. What are newborn outcomes if COVID-19 is diagnosed during pregnancy?...

Two large cohorts of newborns, disproportionately term infants, from the first wave of the pandemic in New York City, have reassuring news. In one cohort of 101 infants born at 2 New York City institutions to SARS-CoV-2–positive mothers, 2 neonates were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 during the immediate postnatal period.¹² Neither infant demonstrated clinical COVID-19. In another cohort of 120 infants born at 3 other New York City institutions to SARS-CoV-2–positive mothers and tested systematically within 24 hours of life, 5–7 days of life, and 14 days of life, there were no neonates who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the initial time point. Among the 79 infants who had testing at 5–7 days of life and the 72 tested at 14 days of life, there were no infants positive for SARS-CoV-2.¹³ It is important to note that case reports and small case series have demonstrated some convincing evidence of vertical transmission. However, the overwhelming evidence suggests this risk is very low.

4. What is a reasonable outpatient setting–approach to managing COVID-19 in a pregnant woman?

Women should be counseled to quarantine for 10 to 14 days from symptom onset or, if asymptomatic, from positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Warning signs of worsening COVID-19 disease should be reviewed. Serial telemedicine follow-up for 10 to 14 days is recommended to ensure clinical stability and continued management as an outpatient. A home pulse oximeter is also recommended. Women should be advised to check their oxygen saturation daily and to call if oxygen saturation becomes less than 93%. Supportive care is recommended.

If delay in obstetric care may result in adverse pregnancy outcomes (for instance, postponing indicated fetal surveillance), obstetric care should be delivered, with appropriate personal protective equipment for health care workers and minimization of exposure of other pregnant women to the infected patient. Appointments should be scheduled at the end of the day.

During influenza season, women should receive empiric oseltamivir treatment (75 mg twice a day) per CDC guidelines for symptoms that may also be consistent with influenza, regardless of testing.

Prophylactic anticoagulation is not indicated for pregnant antepartum women who do not require inpatient care.

If inpatient care is required, management is individualized.

The approach to prenatal care after resolution of COVID-19 is not evidence-based. At my institution, all patients have a detailed mid-trimester anatomic evaluation, but if this is not routine, a detailed anatomic ultrasound (Current Procedural Terminology code 76811) may be considered. Additionally, for women with COVID-19 we perform one third-trimester growth ultrasound to screen for fetal growth restriction, on the basis of several placental studies demonstrating clots on the fetal or maternal side of the placenta.^3,14 Routine antenatal testing in the absence of growth restriction, or other comorbid conditions for which testing occurs, is not recommended.

Continue to: 5. What if asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 is diagnosed at the time of delivery?...

5. What if asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 is diagnosed at the time of delivery? What is reasonable management?

Asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 should not alter obstetric management, beyond appropriate use of personal protective equipment. Delayed cord clamping is also reasonable, if there are no other contraindications, as there is no documented harm associated with this practice among women with COVID-19.

Women with COVID-19 may be at higher risk for venous thromboembolic events in the postpartum period. At my institution, prophylactic postpartum anticoagulation is recommended for 2 weeks after vaginal delivery, and 6 weeks after cesarean delivery.

During the postpartum hospitalization, given reassuring data about vertical transmission and postnatal horizontal transmission risks, babies may room in with mothers in a single private room, if rooming-in is the current standard of care—as long as the mother and newborn do not require higher levels of care. Mothers should wear a mask and use hand hygiene when in contact with the baby. Skin-to-skin and breastfeeding or infant feeding of breast milk are appropriate practices to continue. There is no evidence to suggest that transmission of COVID-19 can occur via breastmilk; however, given the close contact inherent in breastfeeding, transmission through direct contact or maternal respiratory droplets is possible, and thus maternal use of masks and hand hygiene is recommended. When not feeding, the infant should be 6 feet away, and if possible, in an isolette.

6. When can individuals with COVID-19 discontinue transmission precautions or “home quarantine”?

For women with mildly symptomatic COVID-19 and without immunocompromise, home quarantine can be discontinued 10 days after onset of symptoms as long as there has been symptom improvement and no fever for at least 24 hours without the use of antipyretics. For immunocompetent women with incidentally diagnosed asymptomatic COVID-19, home quarantine can be discontinued 10 days after the positive test was obtained. Pregnancy in and of itself is not an immunocompromising condition.^15,16

For women with severe or critical COVID-19, who were hospitalized due to their clinical status, home quarantine can be discontinued when at least 10 days, and up to 20 days, after onset of symptoms and with symptom improvement and with no fever for at least 24 hours, without the use of antipyretics. Local hospital infection control experts may be able to guide the recommended practice for your site better, based on local information.^15,16

Repeating a PCR test to discontinue home quarantine is not recommended in most circumstances, as individuals may have prolonged shedding of noninfectious particles in their nasopharynx. Immunocompromise may be one exception to this general guidance, but consultation with local hospital infection control experts will help guide management.^15,16

7. Should women get pregnant during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Every pandemic has its own set of implications for the health of the mother, fetus, or both, and COVID-19 is no exception. While there are risks, described above, to mother and fetus, these risks are not so catastrophic as to strongly and directively recommend a patient not become pregnant.¹⁷ Moreover, the last several months of the pandemic have demonstrated that consistent mask usage, social distancing, and hand hygiene, are effective methods of preventing the acquisition of COVID-19. All of these risk-reducing strategies are available to pregnant women. Finally, accessing care during a pandemic in a hospital setting does not also pose a risk for acquisition of SARS-CoV-2.¹⁸

Continue to: 8. Is the COVID-19 vaccine safe for pregnant or postpartum/lactating women?...

8. Is the COVID-19 vaccine safe for pregnant or postpartum/lactating women?

On December 11, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNtech mRNA vaccine (BNT 162b2) against COVID-19, for individuals aged 16 and older as a 2-dose series given 21 days apart. Among the more than 40,000 individuals in the trial that led to this EUA, vaccine efficacy was 95%.¹⁹ Adverse effects included fatigue and headache most commonly, with 16% of vaccine recipients experiencing fever after the second dose. Follow-up regarding safety is planned for 2 years by the manufacturer, in addition to safety monitoring by pre-existing national systems.

On December 18, 2020, the FDA announced EUA for Moderna’s mRNA-based vaccine, mRNA-1273, in men and women aged 18 and older. This is a 2-dose series given 28 days apart. The vaccine efficacy has been reported at 94.5%, with the most common adverse effects being injection site pain, tiredness, headache, muscle pain, chills, joint pain, swollen lymph nodes in the same arm as the injection, nausea and vomiting, and fever.^20,21 The phase 3 trial is ongoing.

Despite the speed with which these effective vaccines were developed, it is important to note that all regulatory and safety steps mandated for the development of any vaccine were met for these two, as well as for other COVID-19 vaccinations that will similarly receive EUA from the FDA.

In the EUA for BNT 162b2, the specific language regarding pregnant and lactating women recommends that patients and providers have an individualized conversation about vaccination. In the data presented to the FDA for the Pfizer-BioNtech mRNA vaccine, a limited number of pregnant women received either the vaccine (12 women) or placebo (11 women), with no long-term follow-up data available to characterize either maternal or fetal benefits and risks. The mechanism of action of an mRNA vaccine is to induce the cytoplasmic machinery within cells to create the coronavirus spike protein, which then allows the body’s immune system to create antibodies against this protein and confer protection accordingly. While the above mechanism is not theorized to result in different outcomes or different efficacy, the safety for the pregnant woman and fetus are unknown. It is not believed that vaccination during lactation would cause any adverse outcomes to a neonate, and lactating women do not need to interrupt or discontinue breast milk production in order to receive the vaccine.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a Practice Advisory on December 13, 2020, regarding their recommendations.²² ACOG recommends that vaccines against COVID-19 not be withheld from pregnant or lactating women, if they might otherwise meet criteria for and have access to vaccination. Currently, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) stated that health care workers and long-term care facility residents represent priority groups to vaccinate in the initial phases of vaccination, given limitations in supply.²³ This recommendation is likely to be updated frequently as additional vaccines become available. Shared decision-making between patient and provider may help the patient to make the best decision for herself, but provider input is not required prior to a pregnant woman being vaccinated.

Additional animal data evaluating adverse effects on the reproductive system from developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies for both mRNA vaccines should be available in the coming weeks, which may aid in the counseling of reproductive-aged women.

Vaccine trials to specifically enroll pregnant women are set to begin in early 2021, and more data will certainly inform the conversation between patient and provider regarding risks and benefits.

Conclusions

While the absolute risks of COVID-19 to mothers, fetuses, and neonates is low, pregnancy is a risk factor for severe disease. Many pregnant women with COVID-19 can be safely followed as outpatients via telemedicine, and supportive care is recommended. Inpatient care should be individualized. Pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic should be not be absolutely discouraged; instead, a conversation about risk mitigation should be undertaken. The COVID-19 vaccine is available to pregnant and lactating women, and the decision to choose vaccination in pregnancy is in the purview of the patient, in consultation with her physician. ●

Pregnant women, or women considering pregnancy, want to know—is pregnancy safe in the midst of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic? In this article, I tackle common questions facing reproductive-aged or pregnant women and their providers.

1. What are the risks of COVID-19 in pregnancy?

A large, national prospective cohort study of outpatient pregnant and recently postpartum women with the diagnosis of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 demonstrated that many affected women have mild illnesses, with typical symptoms including cough, sore throat, body aches, fever, and headache.¹ Although symptoms were most common within the first 3 weeks of presentation, approximately 25% of women had a protracted course of symptoms (8 or more weeks). As this cohort disproportionately enrolled outpatients, it is important to note that many women had mild illnesses, which is the most likely course of infection in otherwise healthy, young women.

Data on the impact of COVID-19 on rates of miscarriage and birth defects are limited, yet the published reports are reassuring, with no increased risks of miscarriage, and no clear signal for birth defects.²

In a prospective cohort study across 3 New York City institutions when universal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing was recommended upon admission for delivery, approximately 80% of women who were positive were asymptomatic.³ Maternal outcomes generally were reassuring, with no patients experiencing severe or critical illness. There were no differences in preterm delivery rates by SARS-CoV-2 status, but the rate of cesarean delivery was higher among women with COVID-19, for unclear reasons. Most notably, the rate of postpartum complications was 13% among women with COVID-19, versus 2.5% among women without COVID-19. These complications included readmission for worsening COVID-19, postpartum hypoxia, and postpartum fever.

A recent prospective cohort study from 1 institution in Texas similarly demonstrated favorable maternal outcomes with COVID-19, with 95% of women with asymptomatic or mild illness, and no differences in adverse pregnancy outcomes between COVID-19–positive and COVID-19–negative women, including cesarean delivery rate.⁴

Finally, certain characteristics increase the risk of COVID-19 among pregnant women and nonpregnant individuals alike. In a nationwide prospective cohort from the United Kingdom, medical comorbidities including obesity, diabetes (gestational or pregestational), hypertension, as well as Black or other minority ethnicities are associated with COVID-19.⁵ This is particularly notable given universal health insurance in the United Kingdom. Other data have also confirmed that women with comorbidities, women of Black or Hispanic ethnicity, and women with lower socioeconomic status, are at increased risk of COVID-19.^3,6,7

2. Is COVID-19 worse in pregnancy?

Given the well-documented risks of COVID-19 outside of pregnancy, is COVID-19 worse in a pregnant woman than in a nonpregnant woman? The most recent guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from November 2020 suggests that pregnant women are at increased risk for severe illness.⁸ However, it is important to understand the design of this study in order to appreciate its implications. Laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 in the United States is systematically reported to the CDC. Among women aged 15–44 years with such confirmation, data on pregnancy status were available for 35.5%, almost 90% of whom were symptomatic. Within this cohort of largely symptomatic pregnant women, risks of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, invasive ventilation, and use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were approximately 2 to 3 times higher for pregnant women than for nonpregnant women. The absolute risks, however, were low. The risk of ICU admission for symptomatic pregnant women was approximately 1%; the risk of invasive ventilation, 0.3%; and the risk of ECMO, 0.1%.

Moreover, the lack of uniform data capture on pregnancy status for all women ages 15–44 years may skew the population with known pregnancy status to be sicker and, thus, may bias the results toward increased risks. Nevertheless, there is consistency in several publications with different data sources, all of which suggest pregnancy is an independent risk factor for increased severity of COVID-19.^9-11 Additionally, women with medical comorbidities (such as pregestational or gestational diabetes or obesity) are more likely to have severe COVID-19.

Continue to: 3. What are newborn outcomes if COVID-19 is diagnosed during pregnancy?...

Two large cohorts of newborns, disproportionately term infants, from the first wave of the pandemic in New York City, have reassuring news. In one cohort of 101 infants born at 2 New York City institutions to SARS-CoV-2–positive mothers, 2 neonates were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 during the immediate postnatal period.¹² Neither infant demonstrated clinical COVID-19. In another cohort of 120 infants born at 3 other New York City institutions to SARS-CoV-2–positive mothers and tested systematically within 24 hours of life, 5–7 days of life, and 14 days of life, there were no neonates who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the initial time point. Among the 79 infants who had testing at 5–7 days of life and the 72 tested at 14 days of life, there were no infants positive for SARS-CoV-2.¹³ It is important to note that case reports and small case series have demonstrated some convincing evidence of vertical transmission. However, the overwhelming evidence suggests this risk is very low.

4. What is a reasonable outpatient setting–approach to managing COVID-19 in a pregnant woman?

Women should be counseled to quarantine for 10 to 14 days from symptom onset or, if asymptomatic, from positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Warning signs of worsening COVID-19 disease should be reviewed. Serial telemedicine follow-up for 10 to 14 days is recommended to ensure clinical stability and continued management as an outpatient. A home pulse oximeter is also recommended. Women should be advised to check their oxygen saturation daily and to call if oxygen saturation becomes less than 93%. Supportive care is recommended.

If delay in obstetric care may result in adverse pregnancy outcomes (for instance, postponing indicated fetal surveillance), obstetric care should be delivered, with appropriate personal protective equipment for health care workers and minimization of exposure of other pregnant women to the infected patient. Appointments should be scheduled at the end of the day.

During influenza season, women should receive empiric oseltamivir treatment (75 mg twice a day) per CDC guidelines for symptoms that may also be consistent with influenza, regardless of testing.

Prophylactic anticoagulation is not indicated for pregnant antepartum women who do not require inpatient care.

If inpatient care is required, management is individualized.

The approach to prenatal care after resolution of COVID-19 is not evidence-based. At my institution, all patients have a detailed mid-trimester anatomic evaluation, but if this is not routine, a detailed anatomic ultrasound (Current Procedural Terminology code 76811) may be considered. Additionally, for women with COVID-19 we perform one third-trimester growth ultrasound to screen for fetal growth restriction, on the basis of several placental studies demonstrating clots on the fetal or maternal side of the placenta.^3,14 Routine antenatal testing in the absence of growth restriction, or other comorbid conditions for which testing occurs, is not recommended.

Continue to: 5. What if asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 is diagnosed at the time of delivery?...

5. What if asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 is diagnosed at the time of delivery? What is reasonable management?

Asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 should not alter obstetric management, beyond appropriate use of personal protective equipment. Delayed cord clamping is also reasonable, if there are no other contraindications, as there is no documented harm associated with this practice among women with COVID-19.

Women with COVID-19 may be at higher risk for venous thromboembolic events in the postpartum period. At my institution, prophylactic postpartum anticoagulation is recommended for 2 weeks after vaginal delivery, and 6 weeks after cesarean delivery.

During the postpartum hospitalization, given reassuring data about vertical transmission and postnatal horizontal transmission risks, babies may room in with mothers in a single private room, if rooming-in is the current standard of care—as long as the mother and newborn do not require higher levels of care. Mothers should wear a mask and use hand hygiene when in contact with the baby. Skin-to-skin and breastfeeding or infant feeding of breast milk are appropriate practices to continue. There is no evidence to suggest that transmission of COVID-19 can occur via breastmilk; however, given the close contact inherent in breastfeeding, transmission through direct contact or maternal respiratory droplets is possible, and thus maternal use of masks and hand hygiene is recommended. When not feeding, the infant should be 6 feet away, and if possible, in an isolette.

6. When can individuals with COVID-19 discontinue transmission precautions or “home quarantine”?

For women with mildly symptomatic COVID-19 and without immunocompromise, home quarantine can be discontinued 10 days after onset of symptoms as long as there has been symptom improvement and no fever for at least 24 hours without the use of antipyretics. For immunocompetent women with incidentally diagnosed asymptomatic COVID-19, home quarantine can be discontinued 10 days after the positive test was obtained. Pregnancy in and of itself is not an immunocompromising condition.^15,16

For women with severe or critical COVID-19, who were hospitalized due to their clinical status, home quarantine can be discontinued when at least 10 days, and up to 20 days, after onset of symptoms and with symptom improvement and with no fever for at least 24 hours, without the use of antipyretics. Local hospital infection control experts may be able to guide the recommended practice for your site better, based on local information.^15,16

Repeating a PCR test to discontinue home quarantine is not recommended in most circumstances, as individuals may have prolonged shedding of noninfectious particles in their nasopharynx. Immunocompromise may be one exception to this general guidance, but consultation with local hospital infection control experts will help guide management.^15,16

7. Should women get pregnant during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Every pandemic has its own set of implications for the health of the mother, fetus, or both, and COVID-19 is no exception. While there are risks, described above, to mother and fetus, these risks are not so catastrophic as to strongly and directively recommend a patient not become pregnant.¹⁷ Moreover, the last several months of the pandemic have demonstrated that consistent mask usage, social distancing, and hand hygiene, are effective methods of preventing the acquisition of COVID-19. All of these risk-reducing strategies are available to pregnant women. Finally, accessing care during a pandemic in a hospital setting does not also pose a risk for acquisition of SARS-CoV-2.¹⁸

Continue to: 8. Is the COVID-19 vaccine safe for pregnant or postpartum/lactating women?...

8. Is the COVID-19 vaccine safe for pregnant or postpartum/lactating women?

On December 11, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNtech mRNA vaccine (BNT 162b2) against COVID-19, for individuals aged 16 and older as a 2-dose series given 21 days apart. Among the more than 40,000 individuals in the trial that led to this EUA, vaccine efficacy was 95%.¹⁹ Adverse effects included fatigue and headache most commonly, with 16% of vaccine recipients experiencing fever after the second dose. Follow-up regarding safety is planned for 2 years by the manufacturer, in addition to safety monitoring by pre-existing national systems.

On December 18, 2020, the FDA announced EUA for Moderna’s mRNA-based vaccine, mRNA-1273, in men and women aged 18 and older. This is a 2-dose series given 28 days apart. The vaccine efficacy has been reported at 94.5%, with the most common adverse effects being injection site pain, tiredness, headache, muscle pain, chills, joint pain, swollen lymph nodes in the same arm as the injection, nausea and vomiting, and fever.^20,21 The phase 3 trial is ongoing.

Despite the speed with which these effective vaccines were developed, it is important to note that all regulatory and safety steps mandated for the development of any vaccine were met for these two, as well as for other COVID-19 vaccinations that will similarly receive EUA from the FDA.

In the EUA for BNT 162b2, the specific language regarding pregnant and lactating women recommends that patients and providers have an individualized conversation about vaccination. In the data presented to the FDA for the Pfizer-BioNtech mRNA vaccine, a limited number of pregnant women received either the vaccine (12 women) or placebo (11 women), with no long-term follow-up data available to characterize either maternal or fetal benefits and risks. The mechanism of action of an mRNA vaccine is to induce the cytoplasmic machinery within cells to create the coronavirus spike protein, which then allows the body’s immune system to create antibodies against this protein and confer protection accordingly. While the above mechanism is not theorized to result in different outcomes or different efficacy, the safety for the pregnant woman and fetus are unknown. It is not believed that vaccination during lactation would cause any adverse outcomes to a neonate, and lactating women do not need to interrupt or discontinue breast milk production in order to receive the vaccine.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a Practice Advisory on December 13, 2020, regarding their recommendations.²² ACOG recommends that vaccines against COVID-19 not be withheld from pregnant or lactating women, if they might otherwise meet criteria for and have access to vaccination. Currently, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) stated that health care workers and long-term care facility residents represent priority groups to vaccinate in the initial phases of vaccination, given limitations in supply.²³ This recommendation is likely to be updated frequently as additional vaccines become available. Shared decision-making between patient and provider may help the patient to make the best decision for herself, but provider input is not required prior to a pregnant woman being vaccinated.

Additional animal data evaluating adverse effects on the reproductive system from developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies for both mRNA vaccines should be available in the coming weeks, which may aid in the counseling of reproductive-aged women.

Vaccine trials to specifically enroll pregnant women are set to begin in early 2021, and more data will certainly inform the conversation between patient and provider regarding risks and benefits.

Conclusions

While the absolute risks of COVID-19 to mothers, fetuses, and neonates is low, pregnancy is a risk factor for severe disease. Many pregnant women with COVID-19 can be safely followed as outpatients via telemedicine, and supportive care is recommended. Inpatient care should be individualized. Pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic should be not be absolutely discouraged; instead, a conversation about risk mitigation should be undertaken. The COVID-19 vaccine is available to pregnant and lactating women, and the decision to choose vaccination in pregnancy is in the purview of the patient, in consultation with her physician. ●

In the “You asked, Dr. Jen Gunter answered” series in The New York Times, Dr. Gunter writes that “pelvic floor exercises (also known as Kegel exercises) can be very helpful for urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence.” She continues to say that “pelvic floor exercises can be hard to master correctly, so it is important to make sure [one has] the correct technique. Many women can learn to do them after reading instructions like the ones found at the National Association for Continence, but some women may need their technique checked by their doctor, or help from a specialized pelvic floor physical therapist.”¹

Similarly, Sudol and colleagues write that “guidelines from multiple medical societies emphasize the importance of patient education, behavioral therapy, and/or exercise regimens in the initial treatment and management of women with pelvic floor disorders. However, even with well-established recommendations, engaging patients and maintaining adherence to treatment plans and unmonitored programs at home are often difficult.”² To help patients, those authors identified and evaluated patient-centered apps on topics in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery.²

Two apps that assist patients in Kegel exercises are presented here. The Squeezy app includes guided pelvic floor muscle exercises with reminders, and the Kegel Nation app has a biofeedback feature.

The TABLE details the features of the 2 apps based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).³

I hope clinicians find these apps helpful to their patients with pelvic floor disorders.

In the “You asked, Dr. Jen Gunter answered” series in The New York Times, Dr. Gunter writes that “pelvic floor exercises (also known as Kegel exercises) can be very helpful for urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence.” She continues to say that “pelvic floor exercises can be hard to master correctly, so it is important to make sure [one has] the correct technique. Many women can learn to do them after reading instructions like the ones found at the National Association for Continence, but some women may need their technique checked by their doctor, or help from a specialized pelvic floor physical therapist.”¹

Similarly, Sudol and colleagues write that “guidelines from multiple medical societies emphasize the importance of patient education, behavioral therapy, and/or exercise regimens in the initial treatment and management of women with pelvic floor disorders. However, even with well-established recommendations, engaging patients and maintaining adherence to treatment plans and unmonitored programs at home are often difficult.”² To help patients, those authors identified and evaluated patient-centered apps on topics in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery.²

Two apps that assist patients in Kegel exercises are presented here. The Squeezy app includes guided pelvic floor muscle exercises with reminders, and the Kegel Nation app has a biofeedback feature.

The TABLE details the features of the 2 apps based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).³

I hope clinicians find these apps helpful to their patients with pelvic floor disorders.

In the “You asked, Dr. Jen Gunter answered” series in The New York Times, Dr. Gunter writes that “pelvic floor exercises (also known as Kegel exercises) can be very helpful for urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence.” She continues to say that “pelvic floor exercises can be hard to master correctly, so it is important to make sure [one has] the correct technique. Many women can learn to do them after reading instructions like the ones found at the National Association for Continence, but some women may need their technique checked by their doctor, or help from a specialized pelvic floor physical therapist.”¹

Similarly, Sudol and colleagues write that “guidelines from multiple medical societies emphasize the importance of patient education, behavioral therapy, and/or exercise regimens in the initial treatment and management of women with pelvic floor disorders. However, even with well-established recommendations, engaging patients and maintaining adherence to treatment plans and unmonitored programs at home are often difficult.”² To help patients, those authors identified and evaluated patient-centered apps on topics in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery.²

Two apps that assist patients in Kegel exercises are presented here. The Squeezy app includes guided pelvic floor muscle exercises with reminders, and the Kegel Nation app has a biofeedback feature.

The TABLE details the features of the 2 apps based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).³

I hope clinicians find these apps helpful to their patients with pelvic floor disorders.

Increasingly, bone health and fragility fracture prevention is one of the most important aspects of healthy aging that we, as women’s health care providers (HCPs), must be sure is part of our thought process in caring for women at midlife and beyond. Virtually all ObGyn HCPs are aware of breast health, both in terms of the clinical breast exam and imaging surveillance. The 5-year relative survival rate for “localized breast cancer” is 99%.¹ Most recent data on hip fracture, however, indicate that it is associated with a mortality in the first year of 21%!² We need to be sure that our patients understand this.

Previously, this column provided an update on osteoporosis. In 2016, I asked to change the focus to “Update on bone health” to highlight that simply relying on dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) testing of bone mass with arbitrary cutoffs for osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal bone mass is not adequate for improving overall bone health. The addition of the FRAX fracture risk assessment tool, now widely employed, as well as the trabecular bone score (TBS), not widely employed, helps to refine the assessment of patients’ risk status. Further, issues such as sarcopenia, adequate dietary calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and fall prevention (improving balance, use of nonskid rugs in the bathroom, avoiding black ice when present, having nothing to slip on between the bed and the bathroom in the middle of the night, and so on) also are essential elements of “bone health.”

Finally, I cannot stress enough the importance of developing a good relationship with whatever facility one uses for DXA testing in order to maximize use of the reports and potential limitations. In addition, we should identify a metabolic bone specialist for referral of unusual cases or patients who require medications unlikely to be prescribed by us as ObGyns, and develop some familiarity with therapies that may be utilized.

Osteosarcopenia greatly enhances fall and fracture risk

Sepúlveda-Loyola W, Phu S, Bani Hassan E, et al. The joint occurrence of osteoporosis and sarcopenia (osteosarcopenia): definitions and characteristics. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21:220-225.

Tokeshi S, Eguchi Y, Suzuki M, et al. Relationship between skeletal muscle mass, bone mineral density, and trabecular bone score in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Asian Spine J. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.31616/asj.2020.0045.

Kirk B, Zanker J, Duque G. Osteosarcopenia: epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment—facts and numbers. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2020;11:609-618.

The topic of sarcopenia as defined by the concurrent presence of low muscle mass, physical performance, and strength has been discussed previously in this Update series.³ Now, osteosarcopenia, defined as the concomitant presence of osteoporosis or osteopenia combined with sarcopenia, seems to be an extremely important gauge of fracture risk, especially now as the population’s longevity has increased dramatically. This new syndrome is associated with higher disability and rates of fracture and falls in older people compared with either entity (the bone component or the sarcopenia component) alone.^4,5 In fact, in the 2016 ICD-10-CM, sarcopenia was finally recognized as a disease entity.

Severe sarcopenia is known to increase the risk for falls.⁶ Furthermore, evidence is increasing of cross talk between muscle and bone.⁴ The diagnostic criteria of osteopenia and osteoporosis are well established; however, absolute criteria for sarcopenia lack an international consensus.

Continue to: Assess for osteopenia/osteoporosis plus sarcopenia to determine those at greatest fracture risk...

Assess for osteopenia/osteoporosis plus sarcopenia to determine those at greatest fracture risk

Sepúlveda-Loyola and colleagues performed a cross-sectional analysis of 253 participants, of which 77% were women, average age 78, who presented for a “falls and fractures” risk assessment. T-scores were measured by DXA. In addition, the investigators measured components of sarcopenia, including physical performance (evaluated by hand grip strength, gait speed, timed up and go test, and 5-time sit to stand test) and dynamic and static balance. Falls in the previous year were self-reported, with 42% of participants having fallen once and 54%, more than once.

Results. Participants with osteosarcopenia had a statistically significant increased rate of falls of approximately threefold and an increased rate of fractures that was approximately fourfold when compared with osteopenia or osteoporosis alone.

Another important finding was that, despite the links between osteoporosis, fracture, and poor clinical outcomes, the investigators did not find differences in fracture rates in the osteopenic compared with the osteoporotic classifications. Their findings corroborated those of other studies that reported discrepancies in fractures and bone mineral density (BMD), with osteopenic older adults experiencing fracture rates similar to and in some cases greater than those diagnosed with osteoporosis.⁷

Thus, it appears that the use of T-scores that combine osteopenic and osteoporotic criteria into the osteosarcopenic category may be sufficient to capture individuals at the greatest risk of fracture.

Skeletal muscle mass plays a role in vertebral compression fractures

Tokeshi and colleagues conducted retrospective observational study to investigate the relationships between skeletal muscle mass, BMD, and TBS in individuals with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.

They evaluated 142 patients with an average age of 75; of these, 30% had radiographically diagnosed vertebral compression fractures (average age, 79) and 70% had no vertebral compression fractures (average age, 70). Body composition was measured using whole-body DXA; appendicular skeletal muscle mass index was determined as the sum of upper and lower extremities’ lean mass (kg/height in m² ). TBS was measured using the patented algorithm software on DXA scans for the lumbar vertebrae.

Results. The investigators found that the vertebral compression fracture group was statistically significantly older, had lower femur BMD, and had decreased leg muscle mass. The TBS was not identified as a risk factor.

Certain lifestyle factors add to risk of osteosarcopenia

In an editorial, Kirk and colleagues summarized the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of osteosarcopenia. They concluded that this syndrome can be expected to grow in age-related and disease-related states as a consequence of immunosenescence coinciding with an increase in sedentary lifestyle, obesity, and fat infiltration of muscle and bone.

Increasingly, clinicians should screen for osteosarcopenia via imaging methods (DXA) to quantitate bone mass (as is currently done) and, increasingly, quantify muscle mass. In addition, assessment of muscle strength, easily done by testing grip strength, as well as functional capacity (gait speed), will become increasingly important.

Finally, the authors call for a more comprehensive geriatric assessment that includes medical history and risk factors as well as treatment (including osteoporosis drugs, where indicated), and progressive resistance and balance exercises. Nutritional recommendations, in terms of protein, vitamin D, and calcium, also are necessary. They anticipate that diagnosis and treatment of osteosarcopenia will become part of routine health care in the future.

Continue to: The denosumab discontinuation dilemma...

The denosumab discontinuation dilemma

Lyu H, Yoshida K, Zhao SS, et al. Delayed denosumab injections and fracture risk among patients with osteoporosis: a population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:516-526.

Tripto-Shkolnik L, Fund N, Rouach V, et al. Fracture incidence after denosumab discontinuation: real-world data from a large healthcare provider. Bone. 2020;130:115150.

Denosumab, marketed under the brand name Prolia, is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks the binding of RANK ligand and inhibits development and activity of osteoclast, thus decreasing bone resorption and increasing BMD. In the original pivotal clinical trial of denosumab, almost 7,900 women between the ages of 60 and 90 (average age, 73) with osteoporotic T-scores were enrolled.⁸ The women were randomly assigned to receive 60 mg of denosumab subcutaneously every 6 months or placebo for a total of 3 years. In that trial, the denosumabtreated group, relative to the placebo group, showed a statistically significant decrease in radiographic vertebral fracture, hip fracture, and nonvertebral fracture. 

An open-label extension study looked at denosumab use for a total of 10 years.⁹ That study found that denosumab treatment for up to 10 years was associated with low rates of adverse events, low fracture incidence compared with that observed during the original trial, and continued increases in BMD without plateau. Thus, denosumab appeared to be an extremely safe and effective agent for treating postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Denosumab cessation leads to rebound vertebral fractures

As opposed to bisphosphonates, denosumab does not incorporate into bone matrix, and bone turnover is not suppressed after cessation of its use. Reports have implied that denosumab discontinuation may lead to an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures.¹⁰ One theory is that unlike atypical femoral fractures that seem to emerge from failure of microdamage repair in cortical bone with long-term antiresorptive treatment, denosumab rebound–associated vertebral fractures seem to originate from the synergy of rapid bone resorption and accelerated microdamage accumulation in trabecular bone triggered by the discontinuation of this highly potent reversible agent.¹¹

Post hoc analysis of the denosumab placebo-controlled trial and its extension reported that the vertebral fracture rate increased after denosumab discontinuation to the level observed in untreated patients.¹² Further, a majority of participants who did sustain vertebral fracture after discontinuing denosumab had multiple vertebral fractures, with the risk being greatest in participants who had a prior vertebral facture. This caused those authors to suggest that patients who discontinued denosumab should rapidly transition to an alternative antiresorptive treatment.

Effect of dose delays, discontinuation on vertebral fracture rate

Lyu and colleagues recently described their population-based cohort study of the United Kingdom’s Health Improvement Network primary care database between 2010 and 2019. They found that delayed administration of a subsequent denosumab dose by more than 16 weeks was associated with an increased risk for vertebral fracture compared with on-time dosing. They noted, however, that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that fracture risk at any other anatomic sites is increased with such a delay.

In a similar study, Tripto-Shkolnik and colleagues examined an Israeli database of 2.3 million members in a state-mandated health organization. They identified osteoporotic patients with at least 2 denosumab prescription dispenses and defined treatment discontinuation as a refill gap of 3 months or more. Fractures were identified by an osteoporosis registry, including fractures that occurred within 1 year from discontinuation in denosumab discontinuers as well as from the second year of treatment forward for persistent users. They identified 1,500 denosumab discontinuers (average age, 72) and 1,610 persistent users (average age also 72). At baseline, the groups were comparable in fracture history, smoking, and bone density.

In the discontinuation group, 0.8% had multiple vertebral fractures versus 0.1% in the persistent users (P = .006); the overall rate of fractures per 100 patient-years of follow-up was 3 times higher in the discontinuation group than in the persistent user group, and the rate of vertebral fractures was almost 5 times higher in the discontinuation group.

Continue to: Atypical femur fracture risk and bisphosphonate use...

Atypical femur fracture risk and bisphosphonate use

Black DM, Geiger EJ, Eastell R, et al. Atypical femur fracture risk versus fragility fracture prevention with bisphosphonates. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:743-753.

Since their introduction in the 1990s, bisphosphonates have been the mainstay of osteoporosis treatment. This category of medications inhibits osteoclast-mediated resorption and remodeling of bone. Various large, randomized, controlled trials have established the efficacy of bisphosphonates to increase BMD and decrease the risk of hip and vertebral fracture by as much as 40% to 70%.¹³

However, case reports of unusual fragility fractures in the subtrochanteric region and along the femoral diaphysis in patients treated with bisphosphonates started to appear approximately 15 years ago.¹⁴ Since then, concerns and publicity about these atypical fractures have led to substantial declines in bisphosphonate use clinically.

Bisphosphonate preventive benefits versus atypical fracture risk

Black and colleagues reviewed data on women 50 years and older who were enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente health care system in California. The total cohort included slightly more than 1 million women, of which almost 200,000 (17.9%) used bisphosphonates at any point from 2007–2017.

A total of 277 atypical femur fractures occurred. Among bisphosphonate users, there were 1.74 fractures per 10,000 patient-years. Overall, there were almost 59 fractures per 10,000 person-years. The incidence of atypical fractures was highest in women between the ages of 75 and 84 years, and the incidence diminished after age 85. Rates of atypical fractures increased as the duration of bisphosphonate use increased. In addition, rates of atypical fractures decreased with time since bisphosphonate discontinuation.

The rate of atypical fractures in women who had never received bisphosphonate therapy was 0.1 per 10,000 person-years. The number of fractures prevented for each fracture type far outweighed bisphosphonate-associated atypical fractures at all time points along the 10 years of study. In White women, for instance, at 3 years there were 541 clinical fractures prevented and 149 hip fractures prevented, while 2 bisphosphonate-associated atypical fractures occurred, all per 10,000 women.

Interestingly, in the Asian population at the same time point, 330 clinical fractures were prevented and 91 hip fractures were prevented, but 8 atypical fractures of the femur occurred, per 10,000 women. The authors further referenced an earlier Kaiser study that showed that 49% of 142 atypical femur fractures occurred in Asian patients who comprised only 10% of the study population.¹⁵

The authors concluded that the risk of atypical femur fracture increases with longer duration of bisphosphate use and rapidly decreases after bisphosphate discontinuation. Asian women have a higher risk than White women. With bisphosphonate treatment, the absolute risk of atypical femur fracture is very low compared with the reduction in the risk of hip and other fractures.

Continue to: Romosozumab increases BMD gains and improves T-scores...

Romosozumab increases BMD gains and improves T-scores

Cosman F, Lewiecki EM, Ebeling PR, et al. T-score as an indicator of fracture risk during treatment with romosozumab or alendronate in the ARCH trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2020;35:1333-1342

Romosozumab (Evenity) is a monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits sclerostin, thus having the dual effect of increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption.¹⁶ It is administered for 1 year as monthly doses of 210 mg subcutaneously. Previous studies have shown that romosozumab produces large increases in lumbar spine and total hip BMD,¹⁷ reduces the risk of new vertebral and clinical fractures compared with placebo,¹⁶ and reduces the risk of vertebral, clinical, nonvertebral, and hip fractures compared with alendronate over a median treatment period of 33 months (the ARCH study).¹⁸

According to the package insert, romosozumab is indicated “for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture, defined as a history of osteoporotic fracture, or multiple risk factors for fracture; or patients who have failed or are intolerant to other available osteoporosis therapy.”

Should T-score be a therapeutic target?

Cosman and colleagues performed a post hoc analysis of the ARCH trial specifically to evaluate mean BMD and corresponding mean T-score changes (and the relationships between T-scores) after 1 year of romosozumab or alendronate therapy and subsequent fracture incidence. The study is quite detailed with much numerical data and statistical analysis.

Basically, the ARCH trial randomly assigned patients with osteoporosis to receive either monthly subcutaneous romosozumab 210 mg or weekly oral alendronate 70 mg for 12 months. After the double-blind portion of the trial, all patients received open label weekly oral alendronate 70 mg through the end of study (24 months), although they were still blinded to the initial treatment assignment. In addition, patients received daily calcium and vitamin D supplements.

The data analysis found that 1 year of romosozumab led to larger BMD gains than alendronate therapy. Also, the T-score achieved with either therapy was directly related to subsequent fracture risk. The authors thus proposed that these data support the use of the T-score as a therapeutic target for patients with osteoporosis.

It is important to note that in the original ARCH study, the participants’ average age was 71 years and approximately one-third were older than 75. The average T-score was -2.7 at both the lumbar spine and femoral neck. Approximately 20% of patients had a pre-existing vertebral fracture, and approximately 20% had a previous nonvertebral fracture.

The authors of the current study, furthermore, found that mean BMD gains after 1 year of romosozumab treatment were more than twice those seen with alendronate at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine. These BMD changes resulted in a larger proportion of patients who achieved T-scores above the osteoporosis level at each of the skeletal sites after 1 year of therapy. Fewer fractures occurred during the second year and the entire open label period among patients who had received romosozumab first compared with those who received alendronate.●

Increasingly, bone health and fragility fracture prevention is one of the most important aspects of healthy aging that we, as women’s health care providers (HCPs), must be sure is part of our thought process in caring for women at midlife and beyond. Virtually all ObGyn HCPs are aware of breast health, both in terms of the clinical breast exam and imaging surveillance. The 5-year relative survival rate for “localized breast cancer” is 99%.¹ Most recent data on hip fracture, however, indicate that it is associated with a mortality in the first year of 21%!² We need to be sure that our patients understand this.

Previously, this column provided an update on osteoporosis. In 2016, I asked to change the focus to “Update on bone health” to highlight that simply relying on dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) testing of bone mass with arbitrary cutoffs for osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal bone mass is not adequate for improving overall bone health. The addition of the FRAX fracture risk assessment tool, now widely employed, as well as the trabecular bone score (TBS), not widely employed, helps to refine the assessment of patients’ risk status. Further, issues such as sarcopenia, adequate dietary calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and fall prevention (improving balance, use of nonskid rugs in the bathroom, avoiding black ice when present, having nothing to slip on between the bed and the bathroom in the middle of the night, and so on) also are essential elements of “bone health.”

Finally, I cannot stress enough the importance of developing a good relationship with whatever facility one uses for DXA testing in order to maximize use of the reports and potential limitations. In addition, we should identify a metabolic bone specialist for referral of unusual cases or patients who require medications unlikely to be prescribed by us as ObGyns, and develop some familiarity with therapies that may be utilized.

Osteosarcopenia greatly enhances fall and fracture risk

Sepúlveda-Loyola W, Phu S, Bani Hassan E, et al. The joint occurrence of osteoporosis and sarcopenia (osteosarcopenia): definitions and characteristics. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21:220-225.

Tokeshi S, Eguchi Y, Suzuki M, et al. Relationship between skeletal muscle mass, bone mineral density, and trabecular bone score in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Asian Spine J. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.31616/asj.2020.0045.

Kirk B, Zanker J, Duque G. Osteosarcopenia: epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment—facts and numbers. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2020;11:609-618.

The topic of sarcopenia as defined by the concurrent presence of low muscle mass, physical performance, and strength has been discussed previously in this Update series.³ Now, osteosarcopenia, defined as the concomitant presence of osteoporosis or osteopenia combined with sarcopenia, seems to be an extremely important gauge of fracture risk, especially now as the population’s longevity has increased dramatically. This new syndrome is associated with higher disability and rates of fracture and falls in older people compared with either entity (the bone component or the sarcopenia component) alone.^4,5 In fact, in the 2016 ICD-10-CM, sarcopenia was finally recognized as a disease entity.

Severe sarcopenia is known to increase the risk for falls.⁶ Furthermore, evidence is increasing of cross talk between muscle and bone.⁴ The diagnostic criteria of osteopenia and osteoporosis are well established; however, absolute criteria for sarcopenia lack an international consensus.

Continue to: Assess for osteopenia/osteoporosis plus sarcopenia to determine those at greatest fracture risk...

Assess for osteopenia/osteoporosis plus sarcopenia to determine those at greatest fracture risk

Sepúlveda-Loyola and colleagues performed a cross-sectional analysis of 253 participants, of which 77% were women, average age 78, who presented for a “falls and fractures” risk assessment. T-scores were measured by DXA. In addition, the investigators measured components of sarcopenia, including physical performance (evaluated by hand grip strength, gait speed, timed up and go test, and 5-time sit to stand test) and dynamic and static balance. Falls in the previous year were self-reported, with 42% of participants having fallen once and 54%, more than once.

Results. Participants with osteosarcopenia had a statistically significant increased rate of falls of approximately threefold and an increased rate of fractures that was approximately fourfold when compared with osteopenia or osteoporosis alone.

Another important finding was that, despite the links between osteoporosis, fracture, and poor clinical outcomes, the investigators did not find differences in fracture rates in the osteopenic compared with the osteoporotic classifications. Their findings corroborated those of other studies that reported discrepancies in fractures and bone mineral density (BMD), with osteopenic older adults experiencing fracture rates similar to and in some cases greater than those diagnosed with osteoporosis.⁷

Thus, it appears that the use of T-scores that combine osteopenic and osteoporotic criteria into the osteosarcopenic category may be sufficient to capture individuals at the greatest risk of fracture.

Skeletal muscle mass plays a role in vertebral compression fractures

Tokeshi and colleagues conducted retrospective observational study to investigate the relationships between skeletal muscle mass, BMD, and TBS in individuals with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.

They evaluated 142 patients with an average age of 75; of these, 30% had radiographically diagnosed vertebral compression fractures (average age, 79) and 70% had no vertebral compression fractures (average age, 70). Body composition was measured using whole-body DXA; appendicular skeletal muscle mass index was determined as the sum of upper and lower extremities’ lean mass (kg/height in m² ). TBS was measured using the patented algorithm software on DXA scans for the lumbar vertebrae.

Results. The investigators found that the vertebral compression fracture group was statistically significantly older, had lower femur BMD, and had decreased leg muscle mass. The TBS was not identified as a risk factor.

Certain lifestyle factors add to risk of osteosarcopenia

In an editorial, Kirk and colleagues summarized the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of osteosarcopenia. They concluded that this syndrome can be expected to grow in age-related and disease-related states as a consequence of immunosenescence coinciding with an increase in sedentary lifestyle, obesity, and fat infiltration of muscle and bone.

Increasingly, clinicians should screen for osteosarcopenia via imaging methods (DXA) to quantitate bone mass (as is currently done) and, increasingly, quantify muscle mass. In addition, assessment of muscle strength, easily done by testing grip strength, as well as functional capacity (gait speed), will become increasingly important.

Finally, the authors call for a more comprehensive geriatric assessment that includes medical history and risk factors as well as treatment (including osteoporosis drugs, where indicated), and progressive resistance and balance exercises. Nutritional recommendations, in terms of protein, vitamin D, and calcium, also are necessary. They anticipate that diagnosis and treatment of osteosarcopenia will become part of routine health care in the future.

Continue to: The denosumab discontinuation dilemma...

The denosumab discontinuation dilemma

Lyu H, Yoshida K, Zhao SS, et al. Delayed denosumab injections and fracture risk among patients with osteoporosis: a population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:516-526.

Tripto-Shkolnik L, Fund N, Rouach V, et al. Fracture incidence after denosumab discontinuation: real-world data from a large healthcare provider. Bone. 2020;130:115150.

Denosumab, marketed under the brand name Prolia, is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks the binding of RANK ligand and inhibits development and activity of osteoclast, thus decreasing bone resorption and increasing BMD. In the original pivotal clinical trial of denosumab, almost 7,900 women between the ages of 60 and 90 (average age, 73) with osteoporotic T-scores were enrolled.⁸ The women were randomly assigned to receive 60 mg of denosumab subcutaneously every 6 months or placebo for a total of 3 years. In that trial, the denosumabtreated group, relative to the placebo group, showed a statistically significant decrease in radiographic vertebral fracture, hip fracture, and nonvertebral fracture. 

An open-label extension study looked at denosumab use for a total of 10 years.⁹ That study found that denosumab treatment for up to 10 years was associated with low rates of adverse events, low fracture incidence compared with that observed during the original trial, and continued increases in BMD without plateau. Thus, denosumab appeared to be an extremely safe and effective agent for treating postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Denosumab cessation leads to rebound vertebral fractures

As opposed to bisphosphonates, denosumab does not incorporate into bone matrix, and bone turnover is not suppressed after cessation of its use. Reports have implied that denosumab discontinuation may lead to an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures.¹⁰ One theory is that unlike atypical femoral fractures that seem to emerge from failure of microdamage repair in cortical bone with long-term antiresorptive treatment, denosumab rebound–associated vertebral fractures seem to originate from the synergy of rapid bone resorption and accelerated microdamage accumulation in trabecular bone triggered by the discontinuation of this highly potent reversible agent.¹¹

Post hoc analysis of the denosumab placebo-controlled trial and its extension reported that the vertebral fracture rate increased after denosumab discontinuation to the level observed in untreated patients.¹² Further, a majority of participants who did sustain vertebral fracture after discontinuing denosumab had multiple vertebral fractures, with the risk being greatest in participants who had a prior vertebral facture. This caused those authors to suggest that patients who discontinued denosumab should rapidly transition to an alternative antiresorptive treatment.

Effect of dose delays, discontinuation on vertebral fracture rate

Lyu and colleagues recently described their population-based cohort study of the United Kingdom’s Health Improvement Network primary care database between 2010 and 2019. They found that delayed administration of a subsequent denosumab dose by more than 16 weeks was associated with an increased risk for vertebral fracture compared with on-time dosing. They noted, however, that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that fracture risk at any other anatomic sites is increased with such a delay.

In a similar study, Tripto-Shkolnik and colleagues examined an Israeli database of 2.3 million members in a state-mandated health organization. They identified osteoporotic patients with at least 2 denosumab prescription dispenses and defined treatment discontinuation as a refill gap of 3 months or more. Fractures were identified by an osteoporosis registry, including fractures that occurred within 1 year from discontinuation in denosumab discontinuers as well as from the second year of treatment forward for persistent users. They identified 1,500 denosumab discontinuers (average age, 72) and 1,610 persistent users (average age also 72). At baseline, the groups were comparable in fracture history, smoking, and bone density.

In the discontinuation group, 0.8% had multiple vertebral fractures versus 0.1% in the persistent users (P = .006); the overall rate of fractures per 100 patient-years of follow-up was 3 times higher in the discontinuation group than in the persistent user group, and the rate of vertebral fractures was almost 5 times higher in the discontinuation group.

Continue to: Atypical femur fracture risk and bisphosphonate use...

Atypical femur fracture risk and bisphosphonate use

Black DM, Geiger EJ, Eastell R, et al. Atypical femur fracture risk versus fragility fracture prevention with bisphosphonates. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:743-753.

Since their introduction in the 1990s, bisphosphonates have been the mainstay of osteoporosis treatment. This category of medications inhibits osteoclast-mediated resorption and remodeling of bone. Various large, randomized, controlled trials have established the efficacy of bisphosphonates to increase BMD and decrease the risk of hip and vertebral fracture by as much as 40% to 70%.¹³

However, case reports of unusual fragility fractures in the subtrochanteric region and along the femoral diaphysis in patients treated with bisphosphonates started to appear approximately 15 years ago.¹⁴ Since then, concerns and publicity about these atypical fractures have led to substantial declines in bisphosphonate use clinically.

Bisphosphonate preventive benefits versus atypical fracture risk

Black and colleagues reviewed data on women 50 years and older who were enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente health care system in California. The total cohort included slightly more than 1 million women, of which almost 200,000 (17.9%) used bisphosphonates at any point from 2007–2017.

A total of 277 atypical femur fractures occurred. Among bisphosphonate users, there were 1.74 fractures per 10,000 patient-years. Overall, there were almost 59 fractures per 10,000 person-years. The incidence of atypical fractures was highest in women between the ages of 75 and 84 years, and the incidence diminished after age 85. Rates of atypical fractures increased as the duration of bisphosphonate use increased. In addition, rates of atypical fractures decreased with time since bisphosphonate discontinuation.

The rate of atypical fractures in women who had never received bisphosphonate therapy was 0.1 per 10,000 person-years. The number of fractures prevented for each fracture type far outweighed bisphosphonate-associated atypical fractures at all time points along the 10 years of study. In White women, for instance, at 3 years there were 541 clinical fractures prevented and 149 hip fractures prevented, while 2 bisphosphonate-associated atypical fractures occurred, all per 10,000 women.

Interestingly, in the Asian population at the same time point, 330 clinical fractures were prevented and 91 hip fractures were prevented, but 8 atypical fractures of the femur occurred, per 10,000 women. The authors further referenced an earlier Kaiser study that showed that 49% of 142 atypical femur fractures occurred in Asian patients who comprised only 10% of the study population.¹⁵

The authors concluded that the risk of atypical femur fracture increases with longer duration of bisphosphate use and rapidly decreases after bisphosphate discontinuation. Asian women have a higher risk than White women. With bisphosphonate treatment, the absolute risk of atypical femur fracture is very low compared with the reduction in the risk of hip and other fractures.

Continue to: Romosozumab increases BMD gains and improves T-scores...

Romosozumab increases BMD gains and improves T-scores

Cosman F, Lewiecki EM, Ebeling PR, et al. T-score as an indicator of fracture risk during treatment with romosozumab or alendronate in the ARCH trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2020;35:1333-1342

Romosozumab (Evenity) is a monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits sclerostin, thus having the dual effect of increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption.¹⁶ It is administered for 1 year as monthly doses of 210 mg subcutaneously. Previous studies have shown that romosozumab produces large increases in lumbar spine and total hip BMD,¹⁷ reduces the risk of new vertebral and clinical fractures compared with placebo,¹⁶ and reduces the risk of vertebral, clinical, nonvertebral, and hip fractures compared with alendronate over a median treatment period of 33 months (the ARCH study).¹⁸

According to the package insert, romosozumab is indicated “for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture, defined as a history of osteoporotic fracture, or multiple risk factors for fracture; or patients who have failed or are intolerant to other available osteoporosis therapy.”

Should T-score be a therapeutic target?

Cosman and colleagues performed a post hoc analysis of the ARCH trial specifically to evaluate mean BMD and corresponding mean T-score changes (and the relationships between T-scores) after 1 year of romosozumab or alendronate therapy and subsequent fracture incidence. The study is quite detailed with much numerical data and statistical analysis.

Basically, the ARCH trial randomly assigned patients with osteoporosis to receive either monthly subcutaneous romosozumab 210 mg or weekly oral alendronate 70 mg for 12 months. After the double-blind portion of the trial, all patients received open label weekly oral alendronate 70 mg through the end of study (24 months), although they were still blinded to the initial treatment assignment. In addition, patients received daily calcium and vitamin D supplements.

The data analysis found that 1 year of romosozumab led to larger BMD gains than alendronate therapy. Also, the T-score achieved with either therapy was directly related to subsequent fracture risk. The authors thus proposed that these data support the use of the T-score as a therapeutic target for patients with osteoporosis.

It is important to note that in the original ARCH study, the participants’ average age was 71 years and approximately one-third were older than 75. The average T-score was -2.7 at both the lumbar spine and femoral neck. Approximately 20% of patients had a pre-existing vertebral fracture, and approximately 20% had a previous nonvertebral fracture.

The authors of the current study, furthermore, found that mean BMD gains after 1 year of romosozumab treatment were more than twice those seen with alendronate at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine. These BMD changes resulted in a larger proportion of patients who achieved T-scores above the osteoporosis level at each of the skeletal sites after 1 year of therapy. Fewer fractures occurred during the second year and the entire open label period among patients who had received romosozumab first compared with those who received alendronate.●

Increasingly, bone health and fragility fracture prevention is one of the most important aspects of healthy aging that we, as women’s health care providers (HCPs), must be sure is part of our thought process in caring for women at midlife and beyond. Virtually all ObGyn HCPs are aware of breast health, both in terms of the clinical breast exam and imaging surveillance. The 5-year relative survival rate for “localized breast cancer” is 99%.¹ Most recent data on hip fracture, however, indicate that it is associated with a mortality in the first year of 21%!² We need to be sure that our patients understand this.

Previously, this column provided an update on osteoporosis. In 2016, I asked to change the focus to “Update on bone health” to highlight that simply relying on dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) testing of bone mass with arbitrary cutoffs for osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal bone mass is not adequate for improving overall bone health. The addition of the FRAX fracture risk assessment tool, now widely employed, as well as the trabecular bone score (TBS), not widely employed, helps to refine the assessment of patients’ risk status. Further, issues such as sarcopenia, adequate dietary calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and fall prevention (improving balance, use of nonskid rugs in the bathroom, avoiding black ice when present, having nothing to slip on between the bed and the bathroom in the middle of the night, and so on) also are essential elements of “bone health.”

Finally, I cannot stress enough the importance of developing a good relationship with whatever facility one uses for DXA testing in order to maximize use of the reports and potential limitations. In addition, we should identify a metabolic bone specialist for referral of unusual cases or patients who require medications unlikely to be prescribed by us as ObGyns, and develop some familiarity with therapies that may be utilized.

Osteosarcopenia greatly enhances fall and fracture risk

Sepúlveda-Loyola W, Phu S, Bani Hassan E, et al. The joint occurrence of osteoporosis and sarcopenia (osteosarcopenia): definitions and characteristics. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21:220-225.

Tokeshi S, Eguchi Y, Suzuki M, et al. Relationship between skeletal muscle mass, bone mineral density, and trabecular bone score in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Asian Spine J. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.31616/asj.2020.0045.

Kirk B, Zanker J, Duque G. Osteosarcopenia: epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment—facts and numbers. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2020;11:609-618.

The topic of sarcopenia as defined by the concurrent presence of low muscle mass, physical performance, and strength has been discussed previously in this Update series.³ Now, osteosarcopenia, defined as the concomitant presence of osteoporosis or osteopenia combined with sarcopenia, seems to be an extremely important gauge of fracture risk, especially now as the population’s longevity has increased dramatically. This new syndrome is associated with higher disability and rates of fracture and falls in older people compared with either entity (the bone component or the sarcopenia component) alone.^4,5 In fact, in the 2016 ICD-10-CM, sarcopenia was finally recognized as a disease entity.

Severe sarcopenia is known to increase the risk for falls.⁶ Furthermore, evidence is increasing of cross talk between muscle and bone.⁴ The diagnostic criteria of osteopenia and osteoporosis are well established; however, absolute criteria for sarcopenia lack an international consensus.

Continue to: Assess for osteopenia/osteoporosis plus sarcopenia to determine those at greatest fracture risk...

Assess for osteopenia/osteoporosis plus sarcopenia to determine those at greatest fracture risk

Sepúlveda-Loyola and colleagues performed a cross-sectional analysis of 253 participants, of which 77% were women, average age 78, who presented for a “falls and fractures” risk assessment. T-scores were measured by DXA. In addition, the investigators measured components of sarcopenia, including physical performance (evaluated by hand grip strength, gait speed, timed up and go test, and 5-time sit to stand test) and dynamic and static balance. Falls in the previous year were self-reported, with 42% of participants having fallen once and 54%, more than once.

Results. Participants with osteosarcopenia had a statistically significant increased rate of falls of approximately threefold and an increased rate of fractures that was approximately fourfold when compared with osteopenia or osteoporosis alone.

Another important finding was that, despite the links between osteoporosis, fracture, and poor clinical outcomes, the investigators did not find differences in fracture rates in the osteopenic compared with the osteoporotic classifications. Their findings corroborated those of other studies that reported discrepancies in fractures and bone mineral density (BMD), with osteopenic older adults experiencing fracture rates similar to and in some cases greater than those diagnosed with osteoporosis.⁷

Thus, it appears that the use of T-scores that combine osteopenic and osteoporotic criteria into the osteosarcopenic category may be sufficient to capture individuals at the greatest risk of fracture.

Skeletal muscle mass plays a role in vertebral compression fractures

Tokeshi and colleagues conducted retrospective observational study to investigate the relationships between skeletal muscle mass, BMD, and TBS in individuals with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.

They evaluated 142 patients with an average age of 75; of these, 30% had radiographically diagnosed vertebral compression fractures (average age, 79) and 70% had no vertebral compression fractures (average age, 70). Body composition was measured using whole-body DXA; appendicular skeletal muscle mass index was determined as the sum of upper and lower extremities’ lean mass (kg/height in m² ). TBS was measured using the patented algorithm software on DXA scans for the lumbar vertebrae.

Results. The investigators found that the vertebral compression fracture group was statistically significantly older, had lower femur BMD, and had decreased leg muscle mass. The TBS was not identified as a risk factor.

Certain lifestyle factors add to risk of osteosarcopenia

In an editorial, Kirk and colleagues summarized the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of osteosarcopenia. They concluded that this syndrome can be expected to grow in age-related and disease-related states as a consequence of immunosenescence coinciding with an increase in sedentary lifestyle, obesity, and fat infiltration of muscle and bone.

Increasingly, clinicians should screen for osteosarcopenia via imaging methods (DXA) to quantitate bone mass (as is currently done) and, increasingly, quantify muscle mass. In addition, assessment of muscle strength, easily done by testing grip strength, as well as functional capacity (gait speed), will become increasingly important.

Finally, the authors call for a more comprehensive geriatric assessment that includes medical history and risk factors as well as treatment (including osteoporosis drugs, where indicated), and progressive resistance and balance exercises. Nutritional recommendations, in terms of protein, vitamin D, and calcium, also are necessary. They anticipate that diagnosis and treatment of osteosarcopenia will become part of routine health care in the future.

Continue to: The denosumab discontinuation dilemma...

The denosumab discontinuation dilemma

Lyu H, Yoshida K, Zhao SS, et al. Delayed denosumab injections and fracture risk among patients with osteoporosis: a population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:516-526.

Tripto-Shkolnik L, Fund N, Rouach V, et al. Fracture incidence after denosumab discontinuation: real-world data from a large healthcare provider. Bone. 2020;130:115150.

Denosumab, marketed under the brand name Prolia, is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks the binding of RANK ligand and inhibits development and activity of osteoclast, thus decreasing bone resorption and increasing BMD. In the original pivotal clinical trial of denosumab, almost 7,900 women between the ages of 60 and 90 (average age, 73) with osteoporotic T-scores were enrolled.⁸ The women were randomly assigned to receive 60 mg of denosumab subcutaneously every 6 months or placebo for a total of 3 years. In that trial, the denosumabtreated group, relative to the placebo group, showed a statistically significant decrease in radiographic vertebral fracture, hip fracture, and nonvertebral fracture. 

An open-label extension study looked at denosumab use for a total of 10 years.⁹ That study found that denosumab treatment for up to 10 years was associated with low rates of adverse events, low fracture incidence compared with that observed during the original trial, and continued increases in BMD without plateau. Thus, denosumab appeared to be an extremely safe and effective agent for treating postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Denosumab cessation leads to rebound vertebral fractures

As opposed to bisphosphonates, denosumab does not incorporate into bone matrix, and bone turnover is not suppressed after cessation of its use. Reports have implied that denosumab discontinuation may lead to an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures.¹⁰ One theory is that unlike atypical femoral fractures that seem to emerge from failure of microdamage repair in cortical bone with long-term antiresorptive treatment, denosumab rebound–associated vertebral fractures seem to originate from the synergy of rapid bone resorption and accelerated microdamage accumulation in trabecular bone triggered by the discontinuation of this highly potent reversible agent.¹¹

Post hoc analysis of the denosumab placebo-controlled trial and its extension reported that the vertebral fracture rate increased after denosumab discontinuation to the level observed in untreated patients.¹² Further, a majority of participants who did sustain vertebral fracture after discontinuing denosumab had multiple vertebral fractures, with the risk being greatest in participants who had a prior vertebral facture. This caused those authors to suggest that patients who discontinued denosumab should rapidly transition to an alternative antiresorptive treatment.

Effect of dose delays, discontinuation on vertebral fracture rate

Lyu and colleagues recently described their population-based cohort study of the United Kingdom’s Health Improvement Network primary care database between 2010 and 2019. They found that delayed administration of a subsequent denosumab dose by more than 16 weeks was associated with an increased risk for vertebral fracture compared with on-time dosing. They noted, however, that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that fracture risk at any other anatomic sites is increased with such a delay.

In a similar study, Tripto-Shkolnik and colleagues examined an Israeli database of 2.3 million members in a state-mandated health organization. They identified osteoporotic patients with at least 2 denosumab prescription dispenses and defined treatment discontinuation as a refill gap of 3 months or more. Fractures were identified by an osteoporosis registry, including fractures that occurred within 1 year from discontinuation in denosumab discontinuers as well as from the second year of treatment forward for persistent users. They identified 1,500 denosumab discontinuers (average age, 72) and 1,610 persistent users (average age also 72). At baseline, the groups were comparable in fracture history, smoking, and bone density.

In the discontinuation group, 0.8% had multiple vertebral fractures versus 0.1% in the persistent users (P = .006); the overall rate of fractures per 100 patient-years of follow-up was 3 times higher in the discontinuation group than in the persistent user group, and the rate of vertebral fractures was almost 5 times higher in the discontinuation group.

Continue to: Atypical femur fracture risk and bisphosphonate use...

Atypical femur fracture risk and bisphosphonate use

Black DM, Geiger EJ, Eastell R, et al. Atypical femur fracture risk versus fragility fracture prevention with bisphosphonates. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:743-753.

Since their introduction in the 1990s, bisphosphonates have been the mainstay of osteoporosis treatment. This category of medications inhibits osteoclast-mediated resorption and remodeling of bone. Various large, randomized, controlled trials have established the efficacy of bisphosphonates to increase BMD and decrease the risk of hip and vertebral fracture by as much as 40% to 70%.¹³

However, case reports of unusual fragility fractures in the subtrochanteric region and along the femoral diaphysis in patients treated with bisphosphonates started to appear approximately 15 years ago.¹⁴ Since then, concerns and publicity about these atypical fractures have led to substantial declines in bisphosphonate use clinically.

Bisphosphonate preventive benefits versus atypical fracture risk

Black and colleagues reviewed data on women 50 years and older who were enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente health care system in California. The total cohort included slightly more than 1 million women, of which almost 200,000 (17.9%) used bisphosphonates at any point from 2007–2017.

A total of 277 atypical femur fractures occurred. Among bisphosphonate users, there were 1.74 fractures per 10,000 patient-years. Overall, there were almost 59 fractures per 10,000 person-years. The incidence of atypical fractures was highest in women between the ages of 75 and 84 years, and the incidence diminished after age 85. Rates of atypical fractures increased as the duration of bisphosphonate use increased. In addition, rates of atypical fractures decreased with time since bisphosphonate discontinuation.

The rate of atypical fractures in women who had never received bisphosphonate therapy was 0.1 per 10,000 person-years. The number of fractures prevented for each fracture type far outweighed bisphosphonate-associated atypical fractures at all time points along the 10 years of study. In White women, for instance, at 3 years there were 541 clinical fractures prevented and 149 hip fractures prevented, while 2 bisphosphonate-associated atypical fractures occurred, all per 10,000 women.

Interestingly, in the Asian population at the same time point, 330 clinical fractures were prevented and 91 hip fractures were prevented, but 8 atypical fractures of the femur occurred, per 10,000 women. The authors further referenced an earlier Kaiser study that showed that 49% of 142 atypical femur fractures occurred in Asian patients who comprised only 10% of the study population.¹⁵

The authors concluded that the risk of atypical femur fracture increases with longer duration of bisphosphate use and rapidly decreases after bisphosphate discontinuation. Asian women have a higher risk than White women. With bisphosphonate treatment, the absolute risk of atypical femur fracture is very low compared with the reduction in the risk of hip and other fractures.

Continue to: Romosozumab increases BMD gains and improves T-scores...

Romosozumab increases BMD gains and improves T-scores

Cosman F, Lewiecki EM, Ebeling PR, et al. T-score as an indicator of fracture risk during treatment with romosozumab or alendronate in the ARCH trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2020;35:1333-1342

Romosozumab (Evenity) is a monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits sclerostin, thus having the dual effect of increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption.¹⁶ It is administered for 1 year as monthly doses of 210 mg subcutaneously. Previous studies have shown that romosozumab produces large increases in lumbar spine and total hip BMD,¹⁷ reduces the risk of new vertebral and clinical fractures compared with placebo,¹⁶ and reduces the risk of vertebral, clinical, nonvertebral, and hip fractures compared with alendronate over a median treatment period of 33 months (the ARCH study).¹⁸

According to the package insert, romosozumab is indicated “for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture, defined as a history of osteoporotic fracture, or multiple risk factors for fracture; or patients who have failed or are intolerant to other available osteoporosis therapy.”

Should T-score be a therapeutic target?

Cosman and colleagues performed a post hoc analysis of the ARCH trial specifically to evaluate mean BMD and corresponding mean T-score changes (and the relationships between T-scores) after 1 year of romosozumab or alendronate therapy and subsequent fracture incidence. The study is quite detailed with much numerical data and statistical analysis.

Basically, the ARCH trial randomly assigned patients with osteoporosis to receive either monthly subcutaneous romosozumab 210 mg or weekly oral alendronate 70 mg for 12 months. After the double-blind portion of the trial, all patients received open label weekly oral alendronate 70 mg through the end of study (24 months), although they were still blinded to the initial treatment assignment. In addition, patients received daily calcium and vitamin D supplements.

The data analysis found that 1 year of romosozumab led to larger BMD gains than alendronate therapy. Also, the T-score achieved with either therapy was directly related to subsequent fracture risk. The authors thus proposed that these data support the use of the T-score as a therapeutic target for patients with osteoporosis.

It is important to note that in the original ARCH study, the participants’ average age was 71 years and approximately one-third were older than 75. The average T-score was -2.7 at both the lumbar spine and femoral neck. Approximately 20% of patients had a pre-existing vertebral fracture, and approximately 20% had a previous nonvertebral fracture.

The authors of the current study, furthermore, found that mean BMD gains after 1 year of romosozumab treatment were more than twice those seen with alendronate at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine. These BMD changes resulted in a larger proportion of patients who achieved T-scores above the osteoporosis level at each of the skeletal sites after 1 year of therapy. Fewer fractures occurred during the second year and the entire open label period among patients who had received romosozumab first compared with those who received alendronate.●

OBG Management takes the issues of systemic and structural racism incredibly seriously--not just by talking about it but by trying to highlight areas in medicine, particularly in obstetrics and gynecology, that are barriers to progress. In this new series for OBG Management, Board Member Barbara Levy, MD, faces the issues head-on, beginning with this peer-to-peer interview with Pierre Johnson, MD, ObGyn in Chicago, Illinois. Watch for future installments in upcoming issues of OBG Management.

Finding inspiration among life’s challenges

Barbara Levy, MD: I am fortunate to have met Pierre serendipitously at a training that we were both attending and was impressed by Dr. Johnson’s life story, his passion and commitment, and his dedication—not only to his personal career but also to raising up other young men of color by trying to break down barriers that face them. His life story highlights those areas of systemic and structural problems that all of us together need to address if we are going to make any progress.

Pierre Johnson, MD: Thank you, Barbara. A little about myself: I am a board-certified ObGyn, and I specialize in minimally invasive surgery. I was born on the South side of Chicago, experiencing gang violence, drugs, and substandard, underserved schools. Long story short, I had a very rough upbringing. I had a single mom and several different issues at home. I am the oldest of 5 siblings, and life was tough.

But I knew that I wanted to do something different with my life. I saw that there was a need in my community as far as health care was concerned, in particular women’s health and childbirth. I knew early on that I wanted to be an ObGyn, and the reason had a lot to do with The Cosby Show. It was the only example of a positive, successful Black man that I saw. No one graduated from college in my family. There weren’t any models of young Black excellence around me. Saying that I wanted to be a doctor planted a seed. I was 9 when my mom became pregnant with my first sibling, and it was fascinating to me. The physiology of pregnancy, and eventually childbirth, was extremely fascinating to me; it set me off on my journey to be an ObGyn.

As I got older, things didn’t get any easier. I went to high school in one of the toughest areas on the South side of Chicago. Gang violence, and violence in and of itself, were all around me, but I was able to stay focused. I went on to Xavier University in Louisiana.

Dr. Levy: There are some important things that I learned from your book and from talking to you at our first meeting. Your mom’s ObGyn, when she was pregnant with your next youngest sibling, was also a Black ObGyn. He took some time to take you under wing?

Dr. Johnson: He did. My mom’s ObGyn was a Black man. Other than The Cosby Show, that’s the only time I saw something like that. When I spoke to him, he really took the time to answer my questions and show me that he was like me; he wasn’t just a far-off mythical person, or something that I could not obtain.

Continue to: Seeing is believing when it comes to success...

Seeing is believing when it comes to success

Dr. Levy: Do you think it was important to have a role model who wasn’t a sports star?

Dr. Johnson: If you can’t see it, you can’t achieve it. He took his time to really talk to me, and it’s the little things for kids that go a long way in their life experience. I still have a relationship with him to this day. How he handled me as a kid made me realize that this is something that I could do. That was extremely important for me.

Dr. Levy: One of the structural things I think we need to point out is that the ability to see yourself as someone successful is critical. When we see 1,000 images a day and they are all White, and they are all so different from where we are that it gets incorporated into our sense of being. I think that’s really difficult for those of us of with privilege to understand what that privilege is.

Dr. Johnson: Absolutely, and I’ll even go further. In residency, 2 White females were my classmates, and both of their parents were doctors. They had grandparents who were doctors. My mom was addicted to drugs; my father was not around. They had been talking medicine since they were 5. You have to make things equitable, but in medicine it’s really not equitable. In medicine, what we don’t realize is that there is an importance for all aspects of someone’s upbringing and environment, and it’s not just what they can regurgitate on a standardized test. If a patient can’t relate to you and tell you what is wrong with them, how can you adequately treat them?

Dr. Levy: Even if they are trying to tell me, but I can’t hear it because I don’t have the language and I don’t have the background. There are really good data to show, in fact, that Black male physicians do a better job at engaging Black men to manage their hypertension.¹ When we look at the inequities in birth outcomes for women of color, indigenous women and Black women, there’s evidence that providers who come from a similar background do a better job.

Dr. Johnson: There was the study of Black infants that just came out about them dying at a 3-time higher rate in non-Black physicians’ hands.² These things need to be recognized. They need to be discussed, and they need to be identified as issues and then, realistically, we need to start talking about solutions, not get offended by what actual statistics are saying.

Foundational inequities in education

Dr. Levy: To address some of the barriers that you faced: I know that you went to a high school that was not geared toward pushing students into professional careers. Your colleagues, however, had educations that prepared them for the standardized tests and other things that they would face academically.

Dr. Johnson: People think I am kidding when I say it, but when I went into college, I didn’t know what a periodic table was. I saw it, but I had no idea what these things meant. I didn’t have any sciences or any AP classes in high school. I did well, but grades are smoke and mirrors. The true test of medicine comes with testing. From the MCATs to the boards, every step of the way there is a standardized test.

Knowledge is something that you can obtain, but test taking is a cultivated skill that happens from a very early age. Trying to teach an adult or someone in their late teens a skill that they should have learned as a kid is difficult. For me, I did not have that, so I had to program myself. I had to learn how to fundamentally take tests as an adult, where most people understand how to do that going into college and professional school.

Dr. Levy: I was impressed with your resilience. I think all of us as human beings, if we fail a test, we take it personally and think it’s about our lack of knowledge. One of the insights that you came to was that failure on those things was not that you didn’t study hard enough. In fact, you probably studied 4 times harder than most other people. You had the knowledge. Being able to get that knowledge into a standardized structured test score was the huge challenge for you.

Dr. Johnson: That’s it. I can remember taking the MCAT, and if you looked at the step 1 book, I could regurgitate to you everything on that page. However, it’s not a test about do you know it or not. It’s an understanding of the English language and how to break things down to make things fit into particular scenarios.

Continue to: A college experience focused on growth and exposure...

Dr. Levy: I was impressed by the distinction between your experience at Xavier University where there was a lot of support and guidance and help in your premed program, and what happened to you when you hit medical school.

Dr. Johnson: Xavier University in Louisiana is the number 1 institution in the country for getting minorities into professional school. They understand that they have kids that are brilliant but underprepared, and just have not had the background to actually tackle some of these tough curriculums. I always had good grades in school. But by not being challenged, I didn’t know what I didn’t really know. So now that I was seeing biology, chemistry for the first time, and trying to tackle it; there’s a failure point. I didn’t know how to take tests, and I didn’t know how to study properly. The harder I tried, the worse things got for me.

Xavier has seen that story a multitude of times. If I went to a bigger or predominantly White university, a counselor would have told me, “Well, medicine’s maybe not for you. You can’t handle a premed curriculum.” Instead, I said, “Listen, I’m studying. I’m doing all of these things, and I’m not hacking it.” And they broke it down: “Let’s get you into study groups with kids that have had these type of AP classes before. We’ll have you watch how they study,” and everything started to click. That facilitation of how to adjust to this curriculum was a godsend. It’s the only reason I’m here. I am a prime example of being brilliant enough to be able to do it, but needing the infrastructure and a system set up.

Dr. Levy: There’s a great book by Carol Dweck called Mindset that talks about education of young kids and putting them into silos so early in life; the brilliant kids go into the AP courses and the rest are labeled as inadequate. It’s assumed in a fixed mindset based on their heredity and IQ, and not based on the fact that they have not been exposed to the right things.

Xavier was growing you into the man who could, in fact, do all of those things. I think that is one of the systemic and structural issues that we have—that fixed mindset that frames a kid who is not succeeding as therefore unable to succeed, as opposed to framing that child as not having the correct tools.

New tribulations of medical school

Dr. Johnson: Absolutely. I think what Xavier did for me is to at least let me understand what I needed to do, how to comprehend and retain information, which I never had been exposed to before. Those years were very important to establishing a foundation. When going to medical school, it was like, “There’s no more excuses. What could be the problem now?” Well, now let’s talk about taking tests—a whole different skill. Xavier focused on getting me to understand how to structure my thought process and knowledge base. In medical school I had to apply those skills (because if you can’t apply them, there’s no fit).

My second through fourth year of medical school, I was the only African-American kid in my class. I was spending 20-hour days sometimes just studying, trying to overcompensate by knowing as much as I possibly could and thinking that would propel me from the test-taking standpoint. Even though I didn’t have a lot of classmates in medical school that looked like me, I did have mentors that looked similarly, who really saw potential in me. Dr. Frederick Horvath, a nephrologist in Peoria said, “What are you doing? I want you to get out of these books, and let’s go out to lunch.”

He ended up buying me some instrumental books, really talked to me, listening to my background and understanding how driven I was as a person. He took me under his wing for the rest of medical school and said, “This is how you navigate through these spaces. Yes, you need to have a fund of knowledge to be able to take these tests, but you need to start understanding how to apply it to these questions.” I’m forever grateful to Dr. Horvath for doing that because it was a point in time where I was lost and struggling.

Continue to: Hitting a stride but facing racism head-on...

Dr. Levy: You talk about the systemic and pervasive racism that was on the wards when you hit them in fourth year. If you don’t mind sharing just a little bit of that, it would help people reading this to have a better understanding of the kinds of barriers that are out there.

Dr. Johnson: Even when I talk about it today, it bothers me.

I went to medical school in Peoria, Illinois, not far from the home of the Ku Klux Klan. At that time, once you got out of Chicago it was a very brutal place, with systemic racism throughout. I was a young Black kid going through a process that not many young Black kids from the South side of Chicago go through, and you had people who had never seen anyone like me. When I was going through my clinical rotations, I knew what I was up against. I was dressed “to the T” every day, arriving early, leaving late, trying to answer questions. I would look at the evaluations, and they would be disparaging. I would look at my counterparts, how their evaluations were, and how people would respond to them, and it would be completely different.

Surgery was the part of ObGyn that I really grew to love more than anything, even more than obstetrics. When general surgery came, I wanted to take it very seriously and learn as much as I possibly could. From the beginning, I knew there was a problem because the chief resident, an older White man, wouldn’t look me in the eye or talk to me. He would make disparaging remarks. The thing that stuck out in my mind the most was when I was in the operating room transporting patients, just like a medical student did, and he came up behind me and said, “You know, Pierre, this is where a small mind and a strong back come into play.” For me, it took me to a place where I had to corral my emotions and thoughts because I just wanted to lash out and just tell him how racist and horrible that was for him to say that to me. I explained this to the powers that be, the director of the department, and they basically blew it off to the side.

When it came down to the end of the evaluation period, I passed with flying colors. But they gave me an incomplete because of that chief resident and his remarks on my evaluations. He had 3 pages of report about me as a person and as a student. He said that he had difficulty in expressing his opinions about me because of possible cultural biases that he may have had. He put “cultural biases” in an evaluation, and they looked at that and said that was enough for me to have to remediate my time. I was required to do an extra month in Pontiac, Illinois, which is even more rural than Peoria, because of a racist person that did not give me a fair opportunity because I was Black.

Like everything else in life, it was a learning experience. It’s why I fight so hard today. It’s why I’m so passionate about equity, not only in medicine but also in all aspects of society. It shows why we have police brutality and Black men dying in the streets. It shows how this happens because there are cultural and implicit biases that play out in every part of life, and we are not honest about it. Until we are honest about it and until we say that this is happening and there is something that needs to be done to address it, it’s going to continue to happen. That is my fight.

Exposing the unspoken power struggle

Dr. Levy: I couldn’t agree more. Attributing things like that to the individual, where you talk about a White man in power and a power structure that didn’t literally physically beat you but did beat you into submission. You talk about how to succeed in medical school, and how you had to suck it up and submit to something that was incredibly unfair. You understood, you were old enough, mature enough, to understand that if you fought back, you were going to lose. The only opportunity you had was to submit to that inequity and push forward.

Dr. Johnson: When I did try to fight, the chair of the department told me that either I accept the consequences or I would not graduate from medical school and be forced to do another year. That struck a chord with me. I think that happens a lot in our society, and it needs to be exposed.

Past experiences reflected in today’s society

Dr. Levy: Can you talk about what you faced in your ObGyn residency in terms of the systemic pushback, people not taking your orders, people questioning you. I know that I have heard that a great deal, and I experienced that myself as a woman.

Dr. Johnson: We look at the things that are happening now, everything from George Floyd’s murder to Colin Kaepernick taking a knee. These things are 10 years past when I first started residency. The year before I started residency, there was a noose hanging on the capitol lawn of Springfield, Illinois’ capital city. There’s systemic racism and hatred there. When I first started on the wards of my first year of ObGyn, again, I was the very first Black resident of my program’s history. Nobody could relate to me.

I went from a year-long general surgery internship at Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC, to ObGyn residency. In the first 2 months, there were complaints of, “He’s not answering his pages. He’s not being prompt.” I went to my program director and said, “Listen, I have never had one complaint like this. There’s a problem here. And there’s a problem when I’m on the floor: When trying to give orders to nurses, they’re not taking them. I had to tell a couple of nurses, ‘I’m Dr. Johnson. Don’t call me by my first name, especially not in front of patients.’”

My director was just not hearing me, because the entire scenario was something they had never been exposed to. Systemic racism is real, and unless you experience it, it’s very difficult to accept that it is happening. But biases happen when you are not cognizant. People are used to things a certain way. Things play out in the media that make your mind think a certain way, and you don’t even realize it. You may not even want to be that way.

Continue to: Unconscious bias is a barrier to ensuring equity...

Dr. Levy: One very important point you just made is that we as the system need to be able to recognize those unconscious things, the language that we use, the disparaging remarks, the things that put people down, as well as the things that keep people out of promotion.

There are some interesting data about both race and gender and the language that we use when we write recommendations for people, that we do things unconsciously. The big message to all of us at the end is to open our minds to where those things can occur. For myself, professionally, I keep a list of words that I use when I write recommendations. I measure myself to ensure that I am using the same language for men and women, for Black and White. I think we need to overcome the system and the structure to create real equity—not equality but equity.

It begins with being real about the issues

Dr. Johnson: It’s a bigger problem than the existence of bias and racism. I think these are systemic issues that have been cultivated over centuries that have never been addressed. The true issue is that we deny that these are problems and refuse to talk about it because it makes us uncomfortable. To truly make things more equitable, we have to push our levels of comfort to be able to talk about things in a healthy manner, be open and transparent, and to start to understand how we are thinking about certain things. When you can see it, you can start to implement changes and start to change mentalities and thought processes.

For me, people say, “You don’t look like a doctor.” I get that all the time—because I have tattoos and earrings. I wear my hair in a mohawk. The image of what success looks like has been manifested through our media and culture, and it has imprinted on our minds as to how things are supposed to be. If someone doesn’t fit those molds, we start to shun them out, or we start to exhibit biases against those things. What I am trying to do is change that thought process of what a successful or a professional person looks like. It doesn’t have a look. It is not a White or Black thing. It’s an intellect, a mindset, a way of living. You have to treat every person as an individual and take all the biases out of it and understand where they are coming from and what they have to offer to the profession.

Dr. Levy: I personally was so impressed by you when I met you. I was impressed by the tattoos and the earrings, and my initial response to them was exactly that biased, “Oh, who is this person?” I checked that at the door, listened to you, and was really impressed at your surgical skill, your knowledge, your background. I am really grateful that you have been willing to spend the time to share that with everyone.

Dr. Johnson: Thank you for this discussion.

To watch the full interview between Drs. Levy and Johnson, visit: https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/article/228507/facing-systemic-racism-health-care-inequities-medical-education. ●