OBG Management

In the United States there is an epidemic of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, with 16% of pregnant people being diagnosed with preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, chronic hypertension, preeclampsia superimposed on chronic hypertension, HELLP, or eclampsia.¹ Preeclampsia with severe features increases the maternal risk for stroke, pulmonary edema, kidney injury, abruption, and fetal and maternal death. Preeclampsia also increases the fetal risk for growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and preterm birth.

Angiogenic factors and the pathophysiology of preeclampsia—From bench to bedside

The pathophysiology of preeclampsia is not fully characterized, but a leading theory is that placental ischemia causes increased placental production of anti-angiogenesis factors and a decrease in placental production of pro-angiogenesis factors.^2-4 Clinical studies support the theory that preeclampsia is associated with an increase in placental production of anti-angiogenesis factors, including soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and soluble endoglin, and a decrease in the placental production of pro-angiogenesis factors, including placental growth factor (PlGF).^5-15

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently approved an assay for the measurement of sFlt-1 (Brahms sFlt-1 Kryptor) and PlGF (Brahms sFlt-1 Kryptor) (Thermo Fisher Scientific; Waltham, Massachusetts).¹⁶ This editorial focuses on the current and evolving indications for the measurement of sFlt-1 and PlGF in obstetric practice.

FDA approval of a preeclampsia blood test

The FDA approval of the tests to measure sFlt-1 and PlGF is narrowly tailored and focused on using the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio to assess the risk of progression to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks among hospitalized patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy with a singleton pregnancy between 23 weeks 0 days (23w0d) and 34w6d gestation.¹⁶ The test is meant to be used in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical assessment. The FDA advises that the test results should not be used to diagnose preeclampsia, nor should they be used to determine the timing of delivery or timing of patient discharge.¹⁶ The sFlt-1 and PIGF measurements are both reported as pg/mL, and the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio has no units.

The FDA approval is based on clinical studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of the test in predicting the progression of a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks of testing. In one study, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was measured in 556 pregnant patients with a singleton pregnancy who were between 23w0d and 34w6d gestation and hospitalized with a hypertensivedisorder in pregnancy without severe features at study enrollment.¹⁵ Those patients receiving intravenous heparin were excluded because of the effect of heparin on sFlt-1 levels. Participants’ mean age was 31.7 years, and their mean gestational age was 30w3d. The patients’ mean body mass index (BMI) was 34.2 kg/m², with mean maximal blood pressure (BP) at enrollment of 159 mm Hg systolic and 95 mm Hg diastolic.

In this cohort, 31% of enrolled patients progressed to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks. At enrollment, the median sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was greater among the patients who progressed to preeclampsia with severe features than among those who did not have progression to preeclampsia with severe features (291 vs 7). An elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (determined to be a ratio ≥ 40) predicted that patients would progress to severe preeclampsiawith severe features—with positive and negative predictive values of 65% and 96%, respectively. Among the subgroup of patients with a history of chronic hypertension, an sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 had positive and negative predictive values of 59% and 94%, respectively. Focusing the analysis on patients who self-reported their race as Black, representing 30% of the cohort, the positive and negative predictive values for a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 were 66% and 99%, respectively.¹⁵

Receiver-operating curve analyses were used to compare the predictive performance of sFlt-1/PlGF measurement versus standard clinical factors and standard laboratory results, including systolic and diastolic BP; levels of aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and creatinine; and platelet count.¹⁵ The area under the curve for predicting progression to preeclampsia with severe features was much greater for the sFlt-1/PlGF test (0.92) than for systolic (0.67) and diastolic BP (0.70), AST level (0.66), ALT level (0.61), creatinine level (0.65), and platelet count (0.57).¹⁵ These results demonstrate that measuring sFlt-1/PlGF ratios is a much better way to predict the progression of preeclampsia to severe disease than measuring standard clinical and laboratory results.

Patients with a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 had higher rates of adverse maternal outcomes including severe hypertension, abruption, stroke, eclampsia, pulmonary edema, thrombocytopenia, low platelets, and/or coagulation disorder, than those patients with a ratio < 40, (16.1% vs 2.8%, respectively; relative risk [RR], 5.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8 to 12.2).¹⁵ Adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes (including fetal death, small for gestational age and early delivery due to progression of disease) were more common among patients with a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio of ≥ 40 (80% vs 26%; RR, 3.1; 95% CI, 2.5–3.8).¹⁵ Many other studies support the hypothesis that the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is predictive of adverse outcomes among patients with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy.^6-15

Applying the bottom-line study findings. Patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy and a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio < 40 have a low risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 96%. The remarkably high negative predictive value of a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio < 40 will help obstetricians generate a care plan that optimizes the use of limited health care resources. Conversely, about two-thirds of patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy and a sFlt-1/PlGF test ≥ 40 will progress to preeclampsia with severe features and may need to prepare for a preterm delivery.

Continue to: Clinical utility of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in obstetric triage...

Measurement of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio may help guide clinical care among patients referred to obstetric triage or admitted to the hospital for the evaluation of suspected preeclampsia. In one study, 402 patients with a singleton pregnancy referred to the hospital for evaluation of suspected preeclampsia, had a standard evaluation plus measurement of an sFlt-1/PlGF ratio.¹³ The clinicians caring for the patients did not have access to the sFlt-1/PlGF test results. In this cohort, 16% of the patients developed preeclampsia with severe features in the 2 weeks following the initial assessment in triage. In this cohort, a normal sFlt-1/PlGF ratio reliably predicted which patients were not going to develop preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 98%. Among the patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio, however, the positive predictive value of the test was 47% for developing preeclampsia with severe features within the 2 weeks following initial evaluation. Among patients < 34 weeks’ gestation, an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio had a positive predictive value of 65%, and a negative predictive value of 98%. Other studies also have reported that the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is of value for assessing the risk for progression to preeclampsia with severe features in patients being evaluated for suspected preeclampsia.^6,17,18

In obstetric triage, it is difficult to predict the clinical course of patients referred for the evaluation of suspected preeclampsia based on BP measurements or standard laboratory tests. The sFlt-1/PlGF test will help clinicians identify patients at low and high risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features.¹⁹ Patients with a normal sFlt-1/PlGF test are at low risk of developing preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks. Patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF test are at higher risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features and may warrant more intensive obstetric care. An enhanced care program might include:

• patient education
• remote monitoring of BP or hospitalization
• more frequent assessment of fetal well-being and growth
• administration of glucocorticoids to advance fetal maturity, if indicated by the gestational age.

Twin pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia

Twin pregnancy is associated with a high risk of developing preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction. For patients with a twin pregnancy and a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy, an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is associated with the need for delivery within 2 weeks and an increased rate of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. In a retrospective study involving 164 patients with twin pregnancy first evaluated for suspected preeclampsia at a median gestational age of 33w4d, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was positively correlated with progression of preeclampsia without severe features to severe features within 2 weeks.²⁰ In this cohort, at the initial evaluation for suspected preeclampsia, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was lower among patients who did not need delivery within 2 weeks compared with those who were delivered within 2 weeks, 24 versus 84 (P<.001). The mean sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was 99 among patients who needed delivery within 1 week following the initial evaluation for suspected preeclampsia. Among patients who delivered within 1 week of presentation, the reasons for delivery were the development of severe hypertension, severe dyspnea, placental abruption, rising levels of serum liver function enzymes, and/or onset of the HELLP syndrome.

An important finding in this study is that a normal sFlt-1/PlGF ratio predicted that the patient would not need delivery within 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 96%. Other studies also have reported that an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in twin pregnancies is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes and early delivery.^21-23 An adequately powered multicenter study of twin pregnancies is needed to identify the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio associated with the greatest combined negative and positive predictive values.

The sFlt-1/PlGF test is a welcome addition to OB care

FDA approval of laboratory tests to measure circulating levels of sFlt-1 and PlGF will advance obstetric practice by identifying patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy who are at low and high risk of developing preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks of the test. No laboratory test can replace the clinical judgment of obstetricians who are responsible for balancing the maternal and fetal risks that can occur in the management of a patient with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy. The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is highly dependable for identifying those patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy who will not progress to severe disease within 2 weeks. The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio also identifies those patients with preeclampsia who are most likely to have adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. The patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio may need more intensive antenatal care and consideration for transfer to a health system with a higher level of maternal and neonatal services. The sFlt-1/PlGF test is a welcome addition to obstetric care because it will improve the precision of our management of pregnant patients with hypertension. ●

rbarbieri@mdedge.com

In the United States there is an epidemic of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, with 16% of pregnant people being diagnosed with preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, chronic hypertension, preeclampsia superimposed on chronic hypertension, HELLP, or eclampsia.¹ Preeclampsia with severe features increases the maternal risk for stroke, pulmonary edema, kidney injury, abruption, and fetal and maternal death. Preeclampsia also increases the fetal risk for growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and preterm birth.

Angiogenic factors and the pathophysiology of preeclampsia—From bench to bedside

The pathophysiology of preeclampsia is not fully characterized, but a leading theory is that placental ischemia causes increased placental production of anti-angiogenesis factors and a decrease in placental production of pro-angiogenesis factors.^2-4 Clinical studies support the theory that preeclampsia is associated with an increase in placental production of anti-angiogenesis factors, including soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and soluble endoglin, and a decrease in the placental production of pro-angiogenesis factors, including placental growth factor (PlGF).^5-15

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently approved an assay for the measurement of sFlt-1 (Brahms sFlt-1 Kryptor) and PlGF (Brahms sFlt-1 Kryptor) (Thermo Fisher Scientific; Waltham, Massachusetts).¹⁶ This editorial focuses on the current and evolving indications for the measurement of sFlt-1 and PlGF in obstetric practice.

FDA approval of a preeclampsia blood test

The FDA approval of the tests to measure sFlt-1 and PlGF is narrowly tailored and focused on using the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio to assess the risk of progression to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks among hospitalized patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy with a singleton pregnancy between 23 weeks 0 days (23w0d) and 34w6d gestation.¹⁶ The test is meant to be used in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical assessment. The FDA advises that the test results should not be used to diagnose preeclampsia, nor should they be used to determine the timing of delivery or timing of patient discharge.¹⁶ The sFlt-1 and PIGF measurements are both reported as pg/mL, and the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio has no units.

The FDA approval is based on clinical studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of the test in predicting the progression of a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks of testing. In one study, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was measured in 556 pregnant patients with a singleton pregnancy who were between 23w0d and 34w6d gestation and hospitalized with a hypertensivedisorder in pregnancy without severe features at study enrollment.¹⁵ Those patients receiving intravenous heparin were excluded because of the effect of heparin on sFlt-1 levels. Participants’ mean age was 31.7 years, and their mean gestational age was 30w3d. The patients’ mean body mass index (BMI) was 34.2 kg/m², with mean maximal blood pressure (BP) at enrollment of 159 mm Hg systolic and 95 mm Hg diastolic.

In this cohort, 31% of enrolled patients progressed to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks. At enrollment, the median sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was greater among the patients who progressed to preeclampsia with severe features than among those who did not have progression to preeclampsia with severe features (291 vs 7). An elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (determined to be a ratio ≥ 40) predicted that patients would progress to severe preeclampsiawith severe features—with positive and negative predictive values of 65% and 96%, respectively. Among the subgroup of patients with a history of chronic hypertension, an sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 had positive and negative predictive values of 59% and 94%, respectively. Focusing the analysis on patients who self-reported their race as Black, representing 30% of the cohort, the positive and negative predictive values for a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 were 66% and 99%, respectively.¹⁵

Receiver-operating curve analyses were used to compare the predictive performance of sFlt-1/PlGF measurement versus standard clinical factors and standard laboratory results, including systolic and diastolic BP; levels of aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and creatinine; and platelet count.¹⁵ The area under the curve for predicting progression to preeclampsia with severe features was much greater for the sFlt-1/PlGF test (0.92) than for systolic (0.67) and diastolic BP (0.70), AST level (0.66), ALT level (0.61), creatinine level (0.65), and platelet count (0.57).¹⁵ These results demonstrate that measuring sFlt-1/PlGF ratios is a much better way to predict the progression of preeclampsia to severe disease than measuring standard clinical and laboratory results.

Patients with a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 had higher rates of adverse maternal outcomes including severe hypertension, abruption, stroke, eclampsia, pulmonary edema, thrombocytopenia, low platelets, and/or coagulation disorder, than those patients with a ratio < 40, (16.1% vs 2.8%, respectively; relative risk [RR], 5.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8 to 12.2).¹⁵ Adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes (including fetal death, small for gestational age and early delivery due to progression of disease) were more common among patients with a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio of ≥ 40 (80% vs 26%; RR, 3.1; 95% CI, 2.5–3.8).¹⁵ Many other studies support the hypothesis that the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is predictive of adverse outcomes among patients with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy.^6-15

Applying the bottom-line study findings. Patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy and a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio < 40 have a low risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 96%. The remarkably high negative predictive value of a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio < 40 will help obstetricians generate a care plan that optimizes the use of limited health care resources. Conversely, about two-thirds of patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy and a sFlt-1/PlGF test ≥ 40 will progress to preeclampsia with severe features and may need to prepare for a preterm delivery.

Continue to: Clinical utility of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in obstetric triage...

Measurement of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio may help guide clinical care among patients referred to obstetric triage or admitted to the hospital for the evaluation of suspected preeclampsia. In one study, 402 patients with a singleton pregnancy referred to the hospital for evaluation of suspected preeclampsia, had a standard evaluation plus measurement of an sFlt-1/PlGF ratio.¹³ The clinicians caring for the patients did not have access to the sFlt-1/PlGF test results. In this cohort, 16% of the patients developed preeclampsia with severe features in the 2 weeks following the initial assessment in triage. In this cohort, a normal sFlt-1/PlGF ratio reliably predicted which patients were not going to develop preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 98%. Among the patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio, however, the positive predictive value of the test was 47% for developing preeclampsia with severe features within the 2 weeks following initial evaluation. Among patients < 34 weeks’ gestation, an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio had a positive predictive value of 65%, and a negative predictive value of 98%. Other studies also have reported that the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is of value for assessing the risk for progression to preeclampsia with severe features in patients being evaluated for suspected preeclampsia.^6,17,18

In obstetric triage, it is difficult to predict the clinical course of patients referred for the evaluation of suspected preeclampsia based on BP measurements or standard laboratory tests. The sFlt-1/PlGF test will help clinicians identify patients at low and high risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features.¹⁹ Patients with a normal sFlt-1/PlGF test are at low risk of developing preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks. Patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF test are at higher risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features and may warrant more intensive obstetric care. An enhanced care program might include:

• patient education
• remote monitoring of BP or hospitalization
• more frequent assessment of fetal well-being and growth
• administration of glucocorticoids to advance fetal maturity, if indicated by the gestational age.

Twin pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia

Twin pregnancy is associated with a high risk of developing preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction. For patients with a twin pregnancy and a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy, an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is associated with the need for delivery within 2 weeks and an increased rate of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. In a retrospective study involving 164 patients with twin pregnancy first evaluated for suspected preeclampsia at a median gestational age of 33w4d, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was positively correlated with progression of preeclampsia without severe features to severe features within 2 weeks.²⁰ In this cohort, at the initial evaluation for suspected preeclampsia, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was lower among patients who did not need delivery within 2 weeks compared with those who were delivered within 2 weeks, 24 versus 84 (P<.001). The mean sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was 99 among patients who needed delivery within 1 week following the initial evaluation for suspected preeclampsia. Among patients who delivered within 1 week of presentation, the reasons for delivery were the development of severe hypertension, severe dyspnea, placental abruption, rising levels of serum liver function enzymes, and/or onset of the HELLP syndrome.

An important finding in this study is that a normal sFlt-1/PlGF ratio predicted that the patient would not need delivery within 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 96%. Other studies also have reported that an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in twin pregnancies is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes and early delivery.^21-23 An adequately powered multicenter study of twin pregnancies is needed to identify the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio associated with the greatest combined negative and positive predictive values.

The sFlt-1/PlGF test is a welcome addition to OB care

FDA approval of laboratory tests to measure circulating levels of sFlt-1 and PlGF will advance obstetric practice by identifying patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy who are at low and high risk of developing preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks of the test. No laboratory test can replace the clinical judgment of obstetricians who are responsible for balancing the maternal and fetal risks that can occur in the management of a patient with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy. The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is highly dependable for identifying those patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy who will not progress to severe disease within 2 weeks. The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio also identifies those patients with preeclampsia who are most likely to have adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. The patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio may need more intensive antenatal care and consideration for transfer to a health system with a higher level of maternal and neonatal services. The sFlt-1/PlGF test is a welcome addition to obstetric care because it will improve the precision of our management of pregnant patients with hypertension. ●

rbarbieri@mdedge.com

In the United States there is an epidemic of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, with 16% of pregnant people being diagnosed with preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, chronic hypertension, preeclampsia superimposed on chronic hypertension, HELLP, or eclampsia.¹ Preeclampsia with severe features increases the maternal risk for stroke, pulmonary edema, kidney injury, abruption, and fetal and maternal death. Preeclampsia also increases the fetal risk for growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and preterm birth.

Angiogenic factors and the pathophysiology of preeclampsia—From bench to bedside

The pathophysiology of preeclampsia is not fully characterized, but a leading theory is that placental ischemia causes increased placental production of anti-angiogenesis factors and a decrease in placental production of pro-angiogenesis factors.^2-4 Clinical studies support the theory that preeclampsia is associated with an increase in placental production of anti-angiogenesis factors, including soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and soluble endoglin, and a decrease in the placental production of pro-angiogenesis factors, including placental growth factor (PlGF).^5-15

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently approved an assay for the measurement of sFlt-1 (Brahms sFlt-1 Kryptor) and PlGF (Brahms sFlt-1 Kryptor) (Thermo Fisher Scientific; Waltham, Massachusetts).¹⁶ This editorial focuses on the current and evolving indications for the measurement of sFlt-1 and PlGF in obstetric practice.

FDA approval of a preeclampsia blood test

The FDA approval of the tests to measure sFlt-1 and PlGF is narrowly tailored and focused on using the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio to assess the risk of progression to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks among hospitalized patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy with a singleton pregnancy between 23 weeks 0 days (23w0d) and 34w6d gestation.¹⁶ The test is meant to be used in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical assessment. The FDA advises that the test results should not be used to diagnose preeclampsia, nor should they be used to determine the timing of delivery or timing of patient discharge.¹⁶ The sFlt-1 and PIGF measurements are both reported as pg/mL, and the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio has no units.

The FDA approval is based on clinical studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of the test in predicting the progression of a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks of testing. In one study, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was measured in 556 pregnant patients with a singleton pregnancy who were between 23w0d and 34w6d gestation and hospitalized with a hypertensivedisorder in pregnancy without severe features at study enrollment.¹⁵ Those patients receiving intravenous heparin were excluded because of the effect of heparin on sFlt-1 levels. Participants’ mean age was 31.7 years, and their mean gestational age was 30w3d. The patients’ mean body mass index (BMI) was 34.2 kg/m², with mean maximal blood pressure (BP) at enrollment of 159 mm Hg systolic and 95 mm Hg diastolic.

In this cohort, 31% of enrolled patients progressed to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks. At enrollment, the median sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was greater among the patients who progressed to preeclampsia with severe features than among those who did not have progression to preeclampsia with severe features (291 vs 7). An elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (determined to be a ratio ≥ 40) predicted that patients would progress to severe preeclampsiawith severe features—with positive and negative predictive values of 65% and 96%, respectively. Among the subgroup of patients with a history of chronic hypertension, an sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 had positive and negative predictive values of 59% and 94%, respectively. Focusing the analysis on patients who self-reported their race as Black, representing 30% of the cohort, the positive and negative predictive values for a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 were 66% and 99%, respectively.¹⁵

Receiver-operating curve analyses were used to compare the predictive performance of sFlt-1/PlGF measurement versus standard clinical factors and standard laboratory results, including systolic and diastolic BP; levels of aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and creatinine; and platelet count.¹⁵ The area under the curve for predicting progression to preeclampsia with severe features was much greater for the sFlt-1/PlGF test (0.92) than for systolic (0.67) and diastolic BP (0.70), AST level (0.66), ALT level (0.61), creatinine level (0.65), and platelet count (0.57).¹⁵ These results demonstrate that measuring sFlt-1/PlGF ratios is a much better way to predict the progression of preeclampsia to severe disease than measuring standard clinical and laboratory results.

Patients with a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 had higher rates of adverse maternal outcomes including severe hypertension, abruption, stroke, eclampsia, pulmonary edema, thrombocytopenia, low platelets, and/or coagulation disorder, than those patients with a ratio < 40, (16.1% vs 2.8%, respectively; relative risk [RR], 5.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8 to 12.2).¹⁵ Adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes (including fetal death, small for gestational age and early delivery due to progression of disease) were more common among patients with a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio of ≥ 40 (80% vs 26%; RR, 3.1; 95% CI, 2.5–3.8).¹⁵ Many other studies support the hypothesis that the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is predictive of adverse outcomes among patients with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy.^6-15

Applying the bottom-line study findings. Patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy and a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio < 40 have a low risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 96%. The remarkably high negative predictive value of a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio < 40 will help obstetricians generate a care plan that optimizes the use of limited health care resources. Conversely, about two-thirds of patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy and a sFlt-1/PlGF test ≥ 40 will progress to preeclampsia with severe features and may need to prepare for a preterm delivery.

Continue to: Clinical utility of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in obstetric triage...

Measurement of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio may help guide clinical care among patients referred to obstetric triage or admitted to the hospital for the evaluation of suspected preeclampsia. In one study, 402 patients with a singleton pregnancy referred to the hospital for evaluation of suspected preeclampsia, had a standard evaluation plus measurement of an sFlt-1/PlGF ratio.¹³ The clinicians caring for the patients did not have access to the sFlt-1/PlGF test results. In this cohort, 16% of the patients developed preeclampsia with severe features in the 2 weeks following the initial assessment in triage. In this cohort, a normal sFlt-1/PlGF ratio reliably predicted which patients were not going to develop preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 98%. Among the patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio, however, the positive predictive value of the test was 47% for developing preeclampsia with severe features within the 2 weeks following initial evaluation. Among patients < 34 weeks’ gestation, an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio had a positive predictive value of 65%, and a negative predictive value of 98%. Other studies also have reported that the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is of value for assessing the risk for progression to preeclampsia with severe features in patients being evaluated for suspected preeclampsia.^6,17,18

In obstetric triage, it is difficult to predict the clinical course of patients referred for the evaluation of suspected preeclampsia based on BP measurements or standard laboratory tests. The sFlt-1/PlGF test will help clinicians identify patients at low and high risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features.¹⁹ Patients with a normal sFlt-1/PlGF test are at low risk of developing preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks. Patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF test are at higher risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features and may warrant more intensive obstetric care. An enhanced care program might include:

• patient education
• remote monitoring of BP or hospitalization
• more frequent assessment of fetal well-being and growth
• administration of glucocorticoids to advance fetal maturity, if indicated by the gestational age.

Twin pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia

Twin pregnancy is associated with a high risk of developing preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction. For patients with a twin pregnancy and a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy, an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is associated with the need for delivery within 2 weeks and an increased rate of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. In a retrospective study involving 164 patients with twin pregnancy first evaluated for suspected preeclampsia at a median gestational age of 33w4d, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was positively correlated with progression of preeclampsia without severe features to severe features within 2 weeks.²⁰ In this cohort, at the initial evaluation for suspected preeclampsia, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was lower among patients who did not need delivery within 2 weeks compared with those who were delivered within 2 weeks, 24 versus 84 (P<.001). The mean sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was 99 among patients who needed delivery within 1 week following the initial evaluation for suspected preeclampsia. Among patients who delivered within 1 week of presentation, the reasons for delivery were the development of severe hypertension, severe dyspnea, placental abruption, rising levels of serum liver function enzymes, and/or onset of the HELLP syndrome.

An important finding in this study is that a normal sFlt-1/PlGF ratio predicted that the patient would not need delivery within 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 96%. Other studies also have reported that an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in twin pregnancies is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes and early delivery.^21-23 An adequately powered multicenter study of twin pregnancies is needed to identify the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio associated with the greatest combined negative and positive predictive values.

The sFlt-1/PlGF test is a welcome addition to OB care

FDA approval of laboratory tests to measure circulating levels of sFlt-1 and PlGF will advance obstetric practice by identifying patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy who are at low and high risk of developing preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks of the test. No laboratory test can replace the clinical judgment of obstetricians who are responsible for balancing the maternal and fetal risks that can occur in the management of a patient with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy. The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is highly dependable for identifying those patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy who will not progress to severe disease within 2 weeks. The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio also identifies those patients with preeclampsia who are most likely to have adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. The patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio may need more intensive antenatal care and consideration for transfer to a health system with a higher level of maternal and neonatal services. The sFlt-1/PlGF test is a welcome addition to obstetric care because it will improve the precision of our management of pregnant patients with hypertension. ●

rbarbieri@mdedge.com

Individuals spend close to half of their lives preventing, or planning for, pregnancy. As such, contraception plays a major role in patient-provider interactions. Contraception counseling and management is a common scenario encountered in the general gynecologist’s practice. Luckily, we have 2 evidence-based guidelines developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that support the provision of contraceptive care:

1. US Medical Eligibility for Contraceptive Use (US-MEC),¹ which provides guidance on which patients can safely use a method
2. US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (US-SPR),² which provides method-specific guidance on how to use a method (including how to: initiate or start a method; manage adherence issues, such as a missed pill, etc; and manage common issues like breakthrough bleeding). 

Both of these guidelines are updated routinely and are publicly available online or for free, through smartphone applications.

While most contraceptive care is straightforward, there are circumstances that require additional consideration. In the concluding part of this series on contraceptive conundrums, we review 2 clinical cases, existing evidence to guide management decisions, and our recommendations.

CASE 1 Patient presents with hard-to-remove implant

A 44-year-old patient (G2P2) with a new diagnosis of estrogen and progesterone-receptor–positive breast cancer is undergoing her evaluation with her oncologist who recommends removal of her contraceptive implant, which has been in place for 2 years. She presents to your office for removal; however, the device is no longer palpable.

What are your next steps?

Conundrum 1. Should you attempt to remove it?

No, never attempt implant removal if you cannot palpate or localize it. Localization of the implant needs to occur prior to any attempt. However, we recommend checking the contra-lateral arm before sending the patient to obtain imaging, especially if you have no formal documentation regarding in which arm the implant was placed. The next step is identifying what type of implant the patient likely has so you can correctly interpret imaging studies.

Conundrum 2. What type of subdermal contraceptive device is it likely to be?

Currently, the only subdermal contraceptive device available for placement in the United States is the 68-mg etonogestrel implant, marketed with the brand name Nexplanon. This device was initially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2001 and measures 4 cm in length by 2 mm in diameter. It is placed in the medial upper arm, about 8 cm proximal to the medial epicondyle and 3 cm posterior to the sulcus between the biceps and triceps muscles. (The implant should no longer be placed over the bicipital groove.) The implant is impregnated with 15 mg of barium sulfate, making it radiopaque and able to be seen on imaging modalities such as ultrasonography (10–18 mHz high frequency transducer) and x-ray (arm anteroposterior and lateral) for localization in cases in which the device becomes nonpalpable.³

Clinicians also may encounter devices which are no longer marketed in the United States, or which are only available in other countries, and thus should be aware of the appearance and imaging characteristics. It is important to let your imaging team know these characteristics as well:

• From 2006–2010, a 68-mg etonogestrel implant marketed under the name Implanon was available in the United States.⁴ It has the same dimensions and general placement recommendations as the Nexplanon etonogestrel device but is not able to be seen via imaging.
• A 2-arm, 75-mg levonorgestrel (LNG) device known as Jadelle (or, Norplant II; FIGURE 1) received FDA approval in 1996 and is currently only available overseas.⁵ It is also placed in the upper, inner arm in a V-shape using a single incision, and has dimensions similar to the etonogestrel implants.
• From 1990– 2002, the 6-rod device known as Norplant was available in the United States. Each rod measured 3.4 cm in length and contained 36 mg of LNG (FIGURE 2).

ILLUSTRATION: MARY ELLEN NIATAS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Continue to: How do you approach removal of a deep contraceptive implant?...

How do you approach removal of a deep contraceptive implant?

Clinicians who are not trained in deep or difficult implant removal should refer patients to a trained provider (eg, a complex family planning subspecialist), or if not available, partner with a health care practitioner that has expertise in the anatomy of the upper arm (eg, vascular surgery, orthopedics, or interventional radiology). A resource for finding a nearby trained provider is the Organon Information Center (1-877-467-5266). However, when these services are not readily available, consider the following 3-step approach to complex implant removal.

1. Be familiar with the anatomy of the upper arm (FIGURE 3). Nonpalpable implants may be close to or under the biceps or triceps fascia or be near critically important and fragile structures like the neurovascular bundle of the upper arm. Prior to attempting a difficult implant removal, ensure that you are well acquainted with critical structures in the upper arm. 
2. Locate the device. Prior to attempting removal, localize the device using either x-ray or ultrasonography, depending on local availability. Ultrasound offers the advantage of mapping the location in 3 dimensions, with the ability to map the device with skin markings immediately prior to removal. Typically, a highfrequency transducer (15- or 18-MHz) is used, such as for breast imaging, either in a clinician’s office or in coordination with radiology. If device removal is attempted the same day, the proximal, midportion, and distal aspects of the device should be marked with a skin pen, and it should be noted what position the arm is in when the device is marked (eg, arm flexed at elbow and externally rotated so that the wrist is parallel to the ear). 

ILLUSTRATION: MARY ELLEN NIATAS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Rarely, if a device is not seen in the expected extremity, imaging of the contralateral arm or a chest x-ray can be undertaken to rule out mis-documented laterality or a migrated device. Lastly, if no device is seen, and the patient has no memory of device removal, you can obtain the patient’s etonogestrel levels. (Resource: Merck National Service Center, 1-877-888-4231.)

Removal procedure. For nonpalpable implants, strong consideration should be given to performing the procedure with ultrasonography guidance. Rarely, fluoroscopic guidance may be useful for orientation in challenging cases, which may require coordination with other services, such as interventional radiology.

Cleaning and anesthetizing the site is similar to routine removal of a palpable implant. A 2- to 3-mm skin incision is made, either at the distal end of the implant (if one end is amenable to traditional pop-out technique) or over the midportion of the device (if a clinician has experience using the “U” technique).⁶ The incision should be parallel to the long axis of the implant and not perpendicular, to facilitate extension of the incision if needed during the procedure. Straight or curved hemostat clamps can then be used for blunt dissection of the subcutaneous tissues and to grasp the end of the device. Experienced clinicians may have access to a modified vasectomy clamp (with a 2.2-mm aperture) to grasp around the device in the midportion (the “U” technique). Blunt and careful sharp dissection may be needed to free the implant from the surrounding fibrin sheath or if under the muscle fascia. At the conclusion, the device should be measured to ensure that it was completely removed (4 cm).

Indications for referral. Typically, referral to a complex family planning specialist or vascular surgeon is required for cases that involve dissection of the muscular fascia or where dissection would be in close proximity to critical neurologic or vascular structures.

CASE 1 Conclusion

Ultrasonography of the patient’s extremity demonstrated a 4-cm radiopaque implant in the deep subcutaneous tissues of the upper arm, above the fascia and overlying the triceps muscle. The patient was counseled on the risks, benefits, and alternatives to an ultrasound-guided removal, and she desired to move forward with a procedure under sedation. She was able to schedule this concurrently with her chest port placement with interventional radiology. The device was again mapped using high frequency ultrasound. Her arm was then prepped, anesthetized, and a 3-mm linear incision was made over the most superficial portion, the distal 1/3 of the length of the device. The subcutaneous tissues were dissected using a curved Hemostat, and the implant was grasped with the modified vasectomy clamp. Blunt and sharp dissection were then used to free the device from the surrounding capsule of scar tissue, and the device was removed intact.

CASE 2 Patient enquires about immediate IUD insertion

A 28-year-old patient (G1P0) arrives at your clinic for a contraceptive consultation. They report a condom break during intercourse 4 days ago. Prior to that they used condoms consistently with each act of intercourse. They have used combined hormonal contraceptive pills in the past but had difficulty remembering to take them consistently. The patient and their partner have been mutually monogamous for 6 months and have no plans for pregnancy. Last menstrual period was 12 days ago. Their cycles are regular but heavy and painful. They are interested in using a hormonal IUD for contraception and would love to get it today.

Continue to: Is same-day IUD an option?...

Yes. This patient needs EC given the recent condom break, but they are still eligible for having an IUD placed today if their pregnancy test is negative and after counseling of the potential risks and benefits. According to the US-SPR it is reasonable to insert an IUD at any time during the cycle as long as you are reasonably certain the patient is not pregnant.⁷

Options for EC are:

• 1.5-mg oral LNG pill
• 30-mg oral UPA pill
• copper IUD (cu-IUD).

If they are interested in the cu-IUD for long-term contraception, by having a cu-IUD placed they can get both their needs met—EC and an ongoing method of contraception. Any patient receiving EC, whether a pill or an IUD, should be counseled to repeat a home urine pregnancy test in 2 to 4 weeks.

Given the favorable non–contraceptive benefits associated with 52-mg LNG-IUDs, many clinicians and patients have advocated for additional evidence regarding the use of hormonal IUDs alone for EC.

What is the evidence concerning LNG-IUD placement as EC?

The 52-mg LNG-IUD has not been mechanistically proven to work as an EC, but growing evidence exists showing that it is safe for same-day or “quick start” placement even in a population seeking EC—if their pregnancy test result is negative at the time of presentation.

Turok and colleagues performed a noninferiority trial comparing 1-month pregnancy rates after placement of either an LNG-IUD or a cu-IUD for EC.⁸ This study concluded that the LNG-IUD (which resulted in 1 pregnancy in 317 users; pregnancy rate, 0.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01–1.70) is noninferior to cu-IUD (0 pregnancies in 321 users; pregnancy rate, 0%; 95% CI, 0.0–1.1) for EC. Although encouraging, only a small percentage of the study population seeking EC who received an IUD were actually at high risk of pregnancy (eg, they were not mid-cycle or were recently using contraception), which is why it is difficult to determine if the LNG-IUD actually works mechanistically as an EC. More likely, the LNG-IUD helps prevent pregnancy due to its ongoing contraceptive effect.⁹ Ongoing acts of intercourse post–oral EC initiation without starting a method of contraception is one of the main reasons for EC failure, which is why starting a method immediately is so effective at preventing pregnancy.¹⁰

A systematic review conducted by Ramanadhan and colleagues concluded that Turok’s 2021 trial is the only relevant study specific to 52-mg LNG-IUD use as EC, but they also mention that its results are limited in the strength of its conclusions due to biases in randomization, including¹¹:

• the study groups were not balanced in that there was a 10% difference in reported use of contraception at last intercourse, which means that the LNG-IUD group had a lower baseline risk of pregnancy
• and a rare primary outcome (ie, pregnancy, which requires a larger sample size to know if the method works as an EC).

The review authors concluded that more studies are needed to further validate the effectiveness of using the 52-mg LNG-IUD as EC. Thus, for those at highest risk of pregnancy from recent unprotected sex and desiring a 52-mg IUD, it is probably best to continue combining oral EC with a 52-mg LNG-IUD and utilizing the LNG-IUD only as EC on a limited, case-by-case basis.

What we recommend

For anyone with a negative pregnancy test on the day of presentation, the studies mentioned further support the practice of same-day placement of a 52-mg LNG-IUD. However, those seeking EC who are at highest risk for an unplanned pregnancy (ie, the unprotected sex was mid-cycle), we recommend co-administering the LNG-IUD with oral LNG for EC.

CASE 2 Conclusion

After a conversation with the patient about all contraceptive options, through shared decision making the patient decided to take 1.5 mg of oral LNG and have a 52-mg LNG-IUD placed in the office today. They do not wish to be pregnant at this time and would choose termination if they became pregnant. They understood their pregnancy risk and opted to plan a urine pregnancy test at home in 2 weeks with a clear understanding that they should return to clinic immediately if the test is positive. ●

Individuals spend close to half of their lives preventing, or planning for, pregnancy. As such, contraception plays a major role in patient-provider interactions. Contraception counseling and management is a common scenario encountered in the general gynecologist’s practice. Luckily, we have 2 evidence-based guidelines developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that support the provision of contraceptive care:

1. US Medical Eligibility for Contraceptive Use (US-MEC),¹ which provides guidance on which patients can safely use a method
2. US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (US-SPR),² which provides method-specific guidance on how to use a method (including how to: initiate or start a method; manage adherence issues, such as a missed pill, etc; and manage common issues like breakthrough bleeding). 

Both of these guidelines are updated routinely and are publicly available online or for free, through smartphone applications.

While most contraceptive care is straightforward, there are circumstances that require additional consideration. In the concluding part of this series on contraceptive conundrums, we review 2 clinical cases, existing evidence to guide management decisions, and our recommendations.

CASE 1 Patient presents with hard-to-remove implant

A 44-year-old patient (G2P2) with a new diagnosis of estrogen and progesterone-receptor–positive breast cancer is undergoing her evaluation with her oncologist who recommends removal of her contraceptive implant, which has been in place for 2 years. She presents to your office for removal; however, the device is no longer palpable.

What are your next steps?

Conundrum 1. Should you attempt to remove it?

No, never attempt implant removal if you cannot palpate or localize it. Localization of the implant needs to occur prior to any attempt. However, we recommend checking the contra-lateral arm before sending the patient to obtain imaging, especially if you have no formal documentation regarding in which arm the implant was placed. The next step is identifying what type of implant the patient likely has so you can correctly interpret imaging studies.

Conundrum 2. What type of subdermal contraceptive device is it likely to be?

Currently, the only subdermal contraceptive device available for placement in the United States is the 68-mg etonogestrel implant, marketed with the brand name Nexplanon. This device was initially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2001 and measures 4 cm in length by 2 mm in diameter. It is placed in the medial upper arm, about 8 cm proximal to the medial epicondyle and 3 cm posterior to the sulcus between the biceps and triceps muscles. (The implant should no longer be placed over the bicipital groove.) The implant is impregnated with 15 mg of barium sulfate, making it radiopaque and able to be seen on imaging modalities such as ultrasonography (10–18 mHz high frequency transducer) and x-ray (arm anteroposterior and lateral) for localization in cases in which the device becomes nonpalpable.³

Clinicians also may encounter devices which are no longer marketed in the United States, or which are only available in other countries, and thus should be aware of the appearance and imaging characteristics. It is important to let your imaging team know these characteristics as well:

• From 2006–2010, a 68-mg etonogestrel implant marketed under the name Implanon was available in the United States.⁴ It has the same dimensions and general placement recommendations as the Nexplanon etonogestrel device but is not able to be seen via imaging.
• A 2-arm, 75-mg levonorgestrel (LNG) device known as Jadelle (or, Norplant II; FIGURE 1) received FDA approval in 1996 and is currently only available overseas.⁵ It is also placed in the upper, inner arm in a V-shape using a single incision, and has dimensions similar to the etonogestrel implants.
• From 1990– 2002, the 6-rod device known as Norplant was available in the United States. Each rod measured 3.4 cm in length and contained 36 mg of LNG (FIGURE 2).

ILLUSTRATION: MARY ELLEN NIATAS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Continue to: How do you approach removal of a deep contraceptive implant?...

How do you approach removal of a deep contraceptive implant?

Clinicians who are not trained in deep or difficult implant removal should refer patients to a trained provider (eg, a complex family planning subspecialist), or if not available, partner with a health care practitioner that has expertise in the anatomy of the upper arm (eg, vascular surgery, orthopedics, or interventional radiology). A resource for finding a nearby trained provider is the Organon Information Center (1-877-467-5266). However, when these services are not readily available, consider the following 3-step approach to complex implant removal.

1. Be familiar with the anatomy of the upper arm (FIGURE 3). Nonpalpable implants may be close to or under the biceps or triceps fascia or be near critically important and fragile structures like the neurovascular bundle of the upper arm. Prior to attempting a difficult implant removal, ensure that you are well acquainted with critical structures in the upper arm. 
2. Locate the device. Prior to attempting removal, localize the device using either x-ray or ultrasonography, depending on local availability. Ultrasound offers the advantage of mapping the location in 3 dimensions, with the ability to map the device with skin markings immediately prior to removal. Typically, a highfrequency transducer (15- or 18-MHz) is used, such as for breast imaging, either in a clinician’s office or in coordination with radiology. If device removal is attempted the same day, the proximal, midportion, and distal aspects of the device should be marked with a skin pen, and it should be noted what position the arm is in when the device is marked (eg, arm flexed at elbow and externally rotated so that the wrist is parallel to the ear). 

ILLUSTRATION: MARY ELLEN NIATAS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Rarely, if a device is not seen in the expected extremity, imaging of the contralateral arm or a chest x-ray can be undertaken to rule out mis-documented laterality or a migrated device. Lastly, if no device is seen, and the patient has no memory of device removal, you can obtain the patient’s etonogestrel levels. (Resource: Merck National Service Center, 1-877-888-4231.)

Removal procedure. For nonpalpable implants, strong consideration should be given to performing the procedure with ultrasonography guidance. Rarely, fluoroscopic guidance may be useful for orientation in challenging cases, which may require coordination with other services, such as interventional radiology.

Cleaning and anesthetizing the site is similar to routine removal of a palpable implant. A 2- to 3-mm skin incision is made, either at the distal end of the implant (if one end is amenable to traditional pop-out technique) or over the midportion of the device (if a clinician has experience using the “U” technique).⁶ The incision should be parallel to the long axis of the implant and not perpendicular, to facilitate extension of the incision if needed during the procedure. Straight or curved hemostat clamps can then be used for blunt dissection of the subcutaneous tissues and to grasp the end of the device. Experienced clinicians may have access to a modified vasectomy clamp (with a 2.2-mm aperture) to grasp around the device in the midportion (the “U” technique). Blunt and careful sharp dissection may be needed to free the implant from the surrounding fibrin sheath or if under the muscle fascia. At the conclusion, the device should be measured to ensure that it was completely removed (4 cm).

Indications for referral. Typically, referral to a complex family planning specialist or vascular surgeon is required for cases that involve dissection of the muscular fascia or where dissection would be in close proximity to critical neurologic or vascular structures.

CASE 1 Conclusion

Ultrasonography of the patient’s extremity demonstrated a 4-cm radiopaque implant in the deep subcutaneous tissues of the upper arm, above the fascia and overlying the triceps muscle. The patient was counseled on the risks, benefits, and alternatives to an ultrasound-guided removal, and she desired to move forward with a procedure under sedation. She was able to schedule this concurrently with her chest port placement with interventional radiology. The device was again mapped using high frequency ultrasound. Her arm was then prepped, anesthetized, and a 3-mm linear incision was made over the most superficial portion, the distal 1/3 of the length of the device. The subcutaneous tissues were dissected using a curved Hemostat, and the implant was grasped with the modified vasectomy clamp. Blunt and sharp dissection were then used to free the device from the surrounding capsule of scar tissue, and the device was removed intact.

CASE 2 Patient enquires about immediate IUD insertion

A 28-year-old patient (G1P0) arrives at your clinic for a contraceptive consultation. They report a condom break during intercourse 4 days ago. Prior to that they used condoms consistently with each act of intercourse. They have used combined hormonal contraceptive pills in the past but had difficulty remembering to take them consistently. The patient and their partner have been mutually monogamous for 6 months and have no plans for pregnancy. Last menstrual period was 12 days ago. Their cycles are regular but heavy and painful. They are interested in using a hormonal IUD for contraception and would love to get it today.

Continue to: Is same-day IUD an option?...

Yes. This patient needs EC given the recent condom break, but they are still eligible for having an IUD placed today if their pregnancy test is negative and after counseling of the potential risks and benefits. According to the US-SPR it is reasonable to insert an IUD at any time during the cycle as long as you are reasonably certain the patient is not pregnant.⁷

Options for EC are:

• 1.5-mg oral LNG pill
• 30-mg oral UPA pill
• copper IUD (cu-IUD).

If they are interested in the cu-IUD for long-term contraception, by having a cu-IUD placed they can get both their needs met—EC and an ongoing method of contraception. Any patient receiving EC, whether a pill or an IUD, should be counseled to repeat a home urine pregnancy test in 2 to 4 weeks.

Given the favorable non–contraceptive benefits associated with 52-mg LNG-IUDs, many clinicians and patients have advocated for additional evidence regarding the use of hormonal IUDs alone for EC.

What is the evidence concerning LNG-IUD placement as EC?

The 52-mg LNG-IUD has not been mechanistically proven to work as an EC, but growing evidence exists showing that it is safe for same-day or “quick start” placement even in a population seeking EC—if their pregnancy test result is negative at the time of presentation.

Turok and colleagues performed a noninferiority trial comparing 1-month pregnancy rates after placement of either an LNG-IUD or a cu-IUD for EC.⁸ This study concluded that the LNG-IUD (which resulted in 1 pregnancy in 317 users; pregnancy rate, 0.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01–1.70) is noninferior to cu-IUD (0 pregnancies in 321 users; pregnancy rate, 0%; 95% CI, 0.0–1.1) for EC. Although encouraging, only a small percentage of the study population seeking EC who received an IUD were actually at high risk of pregnancy (eg, they were not mid-cycle or were recently using contraception), which is why it is difficult to determine if the LNG-IUD actually works mechanistically as an EC. More likely, the LNG-IUD helps prevent pregnancy due to its ongoing contraceptive effect.⁹ Ongoing acts of intercourse post–oral EC initiation without starting a method of contraception is one of the main reasons for EC failure, which is why starting a method immediately is so effective at preventing pregnancy.¹⁰

A systematic review conducted by Ramanadhan and colleagues concluded that Turok’s 2021 trial is the only relevant study specific to 52-mg LNG-IUD use as EC, but they also mention that its results are limited in the strength of its conclusions due to biases in randomization, including¹¹:

• the study groups were not balanced in that there was a 10% difference in reported use of contraception at last intercourse, which means that the LNG-IUD group had a lower baseline risk of pregnancy
• and a rare primary outcome (ie, pregnancy, which requires a larger sample size to know if the method works as an EC).

The review authors concluded that more studies are needed to further validate the effectiveness of using the 52-mg LNG-IUD as EC. Thus, for those at highest risk of pregnancy from recent unprotected sex and desiring a 52-mg IUD, it is probably best to continue combining oral EC with a 52-mg LNG-IUD and utilizing the LNG-IUD only as EC on a limited, case-by-case basis.

What we recommend

For anyone with a negative pregnancy test on the day of presentation, the studies mentioned further support the practice of same-day placement of a 52-mg LNG-IUD. However, those seeking EC who are at highest risk for an unplanned pregnancy (ie, the unprotected sex was mid-cycle), we recommend co-administering the LNG-IUD with oral LNG for EC.

CASE 2 Conclusion

After a conversation with the patient about all contraceptive options, through shared decision making the patient decided to take 1.5 mg of oral LNG and have a 52-mg LNG-IUD placed in the office today. They do not wish to be pregnant at this time and would choose termination if they became pregnant. They understood their pregnancy risk and opted to plan a urine pregnancy test at home in 2 weeks with a clear understanding that they should return to clinic immediately if the test is positive. ●

Individuals spend close to half of their lives preventing, or planning for, pregnancy. As such, contraception plays a major role in patient-provider interactions. Contraception counseling and management is a common scenario encountered in the general gynecologist’s practice. Luckily, we have 2 evidence-based guidelines developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that support the provision of contraceptive care:

1. US Medical Eligibility for Contraceptive Use (US-MEC),¹ which provides guidance on which patients can safely use a method
2. US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (US-SPR),² which provides method-specific guidance on how to use a method (including how to: initiate or start a method; manage adherence issues, such as a missed pill, etc; and manage common issues like breakthrough bleeding). 

Both of these guidelines are updated routinely and are publicly available online or for free, through smartphone applications.

While most contraceptive care is straightforward, there are circumstances that require additional consideration. In the concluding part of this series on contraceptive conundrums, we review 2 clinical cases, existing evidence to guide management decisions, and our recommendations.

CASE 1 Patient presents with hard-to-remove implant

A 44-year-old patient (G2P2) with a new diagnosis of estrogen and progesterone-receptor–positive breast cancer is undergoing her evaluation with her oncologist who recommends removal of her contraceptive implant, which has been in place for 2 years. She presents to your office for removal; however, the device is no longer palpable.

What are your next steps?

Conundrum 1. Should you attempt to remove it?

No, never attempt implant removal if you cannot palpate or localize it. Localization of the implant needs to occur prior to any attempt. However, we recommend checking the contra-lateral arm before sending the patient to obtain imaging, especially if you have no formal documentation regarding in which arm the implant was placed. The next step is identifying what type of implant the patient likely has so you can correctly interpret imaging studies.

Conundrum 2. What type of subdermal contraceptive device is it likely to be?

Currently, the only subdermal contraceptive device available for placement in the United States is the 68-mg etonogestrel implant, marketed with the brand name Nexplanon. This device was initially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2001 and measures 4 cm in length by 2 mm in diameter. It is placed in the medial upper arm, about 8 cm proximal to the medial epicondyle and 3 cm posterior to the sulcus between the biceps and triceps muscles. (The implant should no longer be placed over the bicipital groove.) The implant is impregnated with 15 mg of barium sulfate, making it radiopaque and able to be seen on imaging modalities such as ultrasonography (10–18 mHz high frequency transducer) and x-ray (arm anteroposterior and lateral) for localization in cases in which the device becomes nonpalpable.³

Clinicians also may encounter devices which are no longer marketed in the United States, or which are only available in other countries, and thus should be aware of the appearance and imaging characteristics. It is important to let your imaging team know these characteristics as well:

• From 2006–2010, a 68-mg etonogestrel implant marketed under the name Implanon was available in the United States.⁴ It has the same dimensions and general placement recommendations as the Nexplanon etonogestrel device but is not able to be seen via imaging.
• A 2-arm, 75-mg levonorgestrel (LNG) device known as Jadelle (or, Norplant II; FIGURE 1) received FDA approval in 1996 and is currently only available overseas.⁵ It is also placed in the upper, inner arm in a V-shape using a single incision, and has dimensions similar to the etonogestrel implants.
• From 1990– 2002, the 6-rod device known as Norplant was available in the United States. Each rod measured 3.4 cm in length and contained 36 mg of LNG (FIGURE 2).

ILLUSTRATION: MARY ELLEN NIATAS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Continue to: How do you approach removal of a deep contraceptive implant?...

How do you approach removal of a deep contraceptive implant?

Clinicians who are not trained in deep or difficult implant removal should refer patients to a trained provider (eg, a complex family planning subspecialist), or if not available, partner with a health care practitioner that has expertise in the anatomy of the upper arm (eg, vascular surgery, orthopedics, or interventional radiology). A resource for finding a nearby trained provider is the Organon Information Center (1-877-467-5266). However, when these services are not readily available, consider the following 3-step approach to complex implant removal.

1. Be familiar with the anatomy of the upper arm (FIGURE 3). Nonpalpable implants may be close to or under the biceps or triceps fascia or be near critically important and fragile structures like the neurovascular bundle of the upper arm. Prior to attempting a difficult implant removal, ensure that you are well acquainted with critical structures in the upper arm. 
2. Locate the device. Prior to attempting removal, localize the device using either x-ray or ultrasonography, depending on local availability. Ultrasound offers the advantage of mapping the location in 3 dimensions, with the ability to map the device with skin markings immediately prior to removal. Typically, a highfrequency transducer (15- or 18-MHz) is used, such as for breast imaging, either in a clinician’s office or in coordination with radiology. If device removal is attempted the same day, the proximal, midportion, and distal aspects of the device should be marked with a skin pen, and it should be noted what position the arm is in when the device is marked (eg, arm flexed at elbow and externally rotated so that the wrist is parallel to the ear). 

ILLUSTRATION: MARY ELLEN NIATAS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Rarely, if a device is not seen in the expected extremity, imaging of the contralateral arm or a chest x-ray can be undertaken to rule out mis-documented laterality or a migrated device. Lastly, if no device is seen, and the patient has no memory of device removal, you can obtain the patient’s etonogestrel levels. (Resource: Merck National Service Center, 1-877-888-4231.)

Removal procedure. For nonpalpable implants, strong consideration should be given to performing the procedure with ultrasonography guidance. Rarely, fluoroscopic guidance may be useful for orientation in challenging cases, which may require coordination with other services, such as interventional radiology.

Cleaning and anesthetizing the site is similar to routine removal of a palpable implant. A 2- to 3-mm skin incision is made, either at the distal end of the implant (if one end is amenable to traditional pop-out technique) or over the midportion of the device (if a clinician has experience using the “U” technique).⁶ The incision should be parallel to the long axis of the implant and not perpendicular, to facilitate extension of the incision if needed during the procedure. Straight or curved hemostat clamps can then be used for blunt dissection of the subcutaneous tissues and to grasp the end of the device. Experienced clinicians may have access to a modified vasectomy clamp (with a 2.2-mm aperture) to grasp around the device in the midportion (the “U” technique). Blunt and careful sharp dissection may be needed to free the implant from the surrounding fibrin sheath or if under the muscle fascia. At the conclusion, the device should be measured to ensure that it was completely removed (4 cm).

Indications for referral. Typically, referral to a complex family planning specialist or vascular surgeon is required for cases that involve dissection of the muscular fascia or where dissection would be in close proximity to critical neurologic or vascular structures.

CASE 1 Conclusion

Ultrasonography of the patient’s extremity demonstrated a 4-cm radiopaque implant in the deep subcutaneous tissues of the upper arm, above the fascia and overlying the triceps muscle. The patient was counseled on the risks, benefits, and alternatives to an ultrasound-guided removal, and she desired to move forward with a procedure under sedation. She was able to schedule this concurrently with her chest port placement with interventional radiology. The device was again mapped using high frequency ultrasound. Her arm was then prepped, anesthetized, and a 3-mm linear incision was made over the most superficial portion, the distal 1/3 of the length of the device. The subcutaneous tissues were dissected using a curved Hemostat, and the implant was grasped with the modified vasectomy clamp. Blunt and sharp dissection were then used to free the device from the surrounding capsule of scar tissue, and the device was removed intact.

CASE 2 Patient enquires about immediate IUD insertion

A 28-year-old patient (G1P0) arrives at your clinic for a contraceptive consultation. They report a condom break during intercourse 4 days ago. Prior to that they used condoms consistently with each act of intercourse. They have used combined hormonal contraceptive pills in the past but had difficulty remembering to take them consistently. The patient and their partner have been mutually monogamous for 6 months and have no plans for pregnancy. Last menstrual period was 12 days ago. Their cycles are regular but heavy and painful. They are interested in using a hormonal IUD for contraception and would love to get it today.

Continue to: Is same-day IUD an option?...

Yes. This patient needs EC given the recent condom break, but they are still eligible for having an IUD placed today if their pregnancy test is negative and after counseling of the potential risks and benefits. According to the US-SPR it is reasonable to insert an IUD at any time during the cycle as long as you are reasonably certain the patient is not pregnant.⁷

Options for EC are:

• 1.5-mg oral LNG pill
• 30-mg oral UPA pill
• copper IUD (cu-IUD).

If they are interested in the cu-IUD for long-term contraception, by having a cu-IUD placed they can get both their needs met—EC and an ongoing method of contraception. Any patient receiving EC, whether a pill or an IUD, should be counseled to repeat a home urine pregnancy test in 2 to 4 weeks.

Given the favorable non–contraceptive benefits associated with 52-mg LNG-IUDs, many clinicians and patients have advocated for additional evidence regarding the use of hormonal IUDs alone for EC.

What is the evidence concerning LNG-IUD placement as EC?

The 52-mg LNG-IUD has not been mechanistically proven to work as an EC, but growing evidence exists showing that it is safe for same-day or “quick start” placement even in a population seeking EC—if their pregnancy test result is negative at the time of presentation.

Turok and colleagues performed a noninferiority trial comparing 1-month pregnancy rates after placement of either an LNG-IUD or a cu-IUD for EC.⁸ This study concluded that the LNG-IUD (which resulted in 1 pregnancy in 317 users; pregnancy rate, 0.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01–1.70) is noninferior to cu-IUD (0 pregnancies in 321 users; pregnancy rate, 0%; 95% CI, 0.0–1.1) for EC. Although encouraging, only a small percentage of the study population seeking EC who received an IUD were actually at high risk of pregnancy (eg, they were not mid-cycle or were recently using contraception), which is why it is difficult to determine if the LNG-IUD actually works mechanistically as an EC. More likely, the LNG-IUD helps prevent pregnancy due to its ongoing contraceptive effect.⁹ Ongoing acts of intercourse post–oral EC initiation without starting a method of contraception is one of the main reasons for EC failure, which is why starting a method immediately is so effective at preventing pregnancy.¹⁰

A systematic review conducted by Ramanadhan and colleagues concluded that Turok’s 2021 trial is the only relevant study specific to 52-mg LNG-IUD use as EC, but they also mention that its results are limited in the strength of its conclusions due to biases in randomization, including¹¹:

• the study groups were not balanced in that there was a 10% difference in reported use of contraception at last intercourse, which means that the LNG-IUD group had a lower baseline risk of pregnancy
• and a rare primary outcome (ie, pregnancy, which requires a larger sample size to know if the method works as an EC).

The review authors concluded that more studies are needed to further validate the effectiveness of using the 52-mg LNG-IUD as EC. Thus, for those at highest risk of pregnancy from recent unprotected sex and desiring a 52-mg IUD, it is probably best to continue combining oral EC with a 52-mg LNG-IUD and utilizing the LNG-IUD only as EC on a limited, case-by-case basis.

What we recommend

For anyone with a negative pregnancy test on the day of presentation, the studies mentioned further support the practice of same-day placement of a 52-mg LNG-IUD. However, those seeking EC who are at highest risk for an unplanned pregnancy (ie, the unprotected sex was mid-cycle), we recommend co-administering the LNG-IUD with oral LNG for EC.

CASE 2 Conclusion

After a conversation with the patient about all contraceptive options, through shared decision making the patient decided to take 1.5 mg of oral LNG and have a 52-mg LNG-IUD placed in the office today. They do not wish to be pregnant at this time and would choose termination if they became pregnant. They understood their pregnancy risk and opted to plan a urine pregnancy test at home in 2 weeks with a clear understanding that they should return to clinic immediately if the test is positive. ●

In the first 2 years of medical school, the most common reasons for unsuccessful performance are a deficiency in cognitive knowledge, inefficient time management, and poor study skills. Thereafter, however, the principal reasons for poor performance in training or practice are personality issues and/or unprofessional behavior.

In this article, I review the attributes expected of a physician and the factors that undermine professionalism. I then offer suggestions for smoothing the pathway for personal and professional success. I crafted these suggestions with the “help” of some unlikely medical philosophers. (Note: Some variations of the cited quotations may exist.) I have tempered their guidance with my own personal experiences as a spouse, parent, and grandparent and my professional experiences over almost 50 years, during which I served as a career military officer, student clerkship director, residency program director, fellowship program director, and associate dean for student affairs. I readily acknowledge that, as major league baseball player Yogi Berra reputedly said, “I made too many wrong mistakes,” and that bad experiences are a tough way to ultimately learn good judgment. I hope these suggestions will help you avoid many of my “wrong mistakes.”

High expectations for the medical professional

“To whom much is given, much shall be required.”

—Luke 12:48

Medicine is a higher calling. It is not the usual type of business, and our patients certainly are not just customers or clients. In the unique moment of personal contact, we are asked to put the interest and well-being of our patient above all else. Our patients rightly have high expectations for what type of person their physician should be. The personal strengths expected of a physician include:

• humility
• honesty—personal and fiscal
• integrity
• strong moral compass
• fairness
• responsible
• diligent
• accountable
• insightful
• wise
• technically competent
• perseverant
• sympathetic
• empathetic
• inspiring.

To exhibit all these characteristics consistently is a herculean task and one that is impossible to fulfill. Many factors conspire to undermine our ability to steadfastly be all that we can be. Among these factors are:

• time constraints
• financial pressures
• physical illness
• emotional illness
• the explosion of information technology and scientific knowledge
• bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Therefore, we need to acknowledge with the philosopher Voltaire that “Perfect is the enemy of good.” We need to set our performance bar at excellence, not perfection. If we expect perfection of ourselves, we are destined to be consistently disappointed.

What follows is a series of well-intentioned and good-natured suggestions for keeping ourselves on an even keel, personally and professionally, and maintaining our compass setting on true north.

Continue to: Practical suggestions...

Practical suggestions

“It may not be that the race always goes to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that is the way to bet.”

—Damon Runyon, journalist

The message is to study hard, work hard, practice our technical skills, and stay on top of our game. We must commit ourselves to a lifetime of learning.

“Chance favors the prepared mind.”

—Louis Pasteur, scientist

One of the best examples of this adage is Alexander Fleming’s “chance” discovery of the bactericidal effect of a mold growing on a culture plate in his laboratory. This observation led to the development of penicillin, an amazing antibiotic that, over the course of the past century, has saved the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of patients. We need to sustain our scientific curiosity throughout our careers and always remain open to new discoveries. Moreover, we need to maintain our capacity for awe and wonder as we consider the exquisite beauty of the scientific world.

“I have a dream.”

—Martin Luther King Jr, civil rights leader

Like Reverend King, we must aspire to a world where civility, peace, and social justice prevail, a world where we embrace diversity and inclusiveness and eschew prejudice, mean-spiritedness, and narrow-mindedness. We must acknowledge that some truths and moral principles are absolute, not relative.

“Once you learn to quit, it becomes a habit.”

—Vince Lombardi, professional football coach

Our lesson: Never quit. We must be fiercely determined to do the right thing, even in troubled and confusing times.

“A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”

—Winston Churchill, British prime minister

Until proven wrong, always think the best of everyone. The bright side is far superior to the dark side. We must strive to consistently have a positive attitude and to be part of the solution to a problem, not the problem itself.

“It’s all such a delicate balance.”

—From “It’s a Delicate Balance” by Tom Dundee, folk singer and songwriter

Our top 3 priorities should always be our own emotional and physical well-being, the well-being and security of our loved ones, and the well-being of our patients. The order of these priorities may change, depending upon circumstances. When urgent patient care demands our presence and we miss a birthday celebration, anniversary dinner, soccer game, or dance recital, we need to make certain that, the next time a conflict arises, we arrange to have a colleague cover our clinical or administrative responsibilities.

We must learn to say no when our plate is too full. Failure to say no inevitably leads to life-work imbalance. It is always flattering to be asked to make a presentation, serve on a committee, or prepare a textbook chapter, and it is natural to be concerned that, if we decline, we will not be invited again. However, that concern is unwarranted. Rather, others will respect us for acknowledging when we are too busy and will be grateful that we did not accept an invitation and then miss important deadlines. Conversely, when we do say yes, we need to honor that commitment in a timely manner.

Continue to: The importance of time...

The importance of time

Perhaps the most common complaints that patients have with respect to their interactions with physicians are that they were forced to wait too long and then felt rushed through their appointment. Therefore:

• We must respect our patients’ time and recognize that their time is as valuable as ours.
• We must schedule our patient appointments appropriately and allow different amounts of time depending upon the complexity of a patient’s condition. We should not consistently overschedule. We need to offer a genuine apology when we keep a patient waiting for more than 15 minutes in the absence of an outright emergency that requires our attention elsewhere.
• When we interact with patients, we should sit down, establish eye-to-eye contact, and never appear hurried.

“You don’t make your character in a crisis; you exhibit it.”

—Oren Arnold, journalist and novelist

In the often-chaotic environment of the operating room or the labor and delivery suite, we must be the calm voice of reason at the center of the storm. We should not yell and make demands of others. We must strive to be unflappable. The other members of the team will be appreciative if they recognize that we have a steady hand on the tiller.

“To do good is noble. To teach others to do good is nobler—and less trouble.”

—Mark Twain, humorist

We need to teach our patients about their condition(s) so that they can assume more responsibility for their own care. We also need to teach our students and colleagues so that they can help us provide the best possible care for our patients. Being a good teacher is inherent in being a good physician. As the famous scientist Albert Einstein said, “If you cannot explain it simply, you do not understand it well enough.”

“It ain’t the things you don’t know that get you. It’s the things you think you know that ain’t so.”

—Artemus Ward, humorist

We must constantly strive to practice evidence-based medicine. We should not be the first to embrace the new or the last to give up the old. In medicine, as opposed to the highway, the best place to be is usually in the middle of the road. However, our commitment to evidence-based medicine cannot be absolute. In fact, no more than half of all our present treatment guidelines are based on level 1 evidence. At times, good old-fashioned common sense tempered by years of sobering experience should carry the day.

“We may be lost, but we’re making good time.”

—Yogi Berra, major league baseball player

In my experience, only the minority of mistakes in medicine result from lack of fundamental knowledge or a deficiency in technical skill. Rather, most result from imprudent haste and/or attempts to multitask. Therefore, our lesson is to slow down, concentrate on one task at a time, complete that task, and then refocus on the next challenge.

“The single greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”

—George Bernard Shaw, playwright

We must be sure that we always “close the loop” in our written and verbal communication so that we can avoid misunderstandings that threaten personal relationships and/or patient safety.

“You raise me up so I can stand on mountains.”

—From “You Raise Me Up” as sung by Josh Groban

All of us need a mentor to raise us up. We must choose our mentors carefully and recognize that we may need different mentors at different stages of our career. As we benefit from effective mentoring, we must pay it forward and be a good mentor to others.

“Worrying is a total waste of time. It accomplishes nothing, changes nothing, and robs you of joy. It is like paying a debt that you don’t owe.”

—Mark Twain, humorist

We have to assiduously cultivate the strength of resilience. We must accept that mistakes inevitably will occur and that perfection in practice is simply not possible, despite our best intentions. We then have to learn from these errors and ensure that they never occur again. We need to apologize for our mistakes and move on. If we carry our last strikeout into our next at bat, we are likely doomed to more misfortune.

“Feeling gratitude and not expressing it is like wrapping a present and not giving it.”

—William Arthur Ward, motivational writer

Our lesson is to be keenly aware of the importance of showing gratitude to those around us. The height of our success will depend directly on the depth of our gratitude. The higher we rise in the hierarchy of the medical profession, the more gracious and kind we need to be.

“Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see.”

—Mark Twain, humorist

“Kindness is the only service that will stand the storm of life and not wash out.”

—Abraham Lincoln, American president

There is never an excuse for rudeness or hubris. We should never teach or conduct business by intimidation. The words please, thank you, and I’m sorry should be front and center in our vocabulary. We must learn not to take ourselves too seriously, to remember that the best part of life is the laughter, and to always strive for grace and humility.

“The secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.”

—Francis Peabody, physician

Patients may quickly forget what we say to them or even what we do for them, but they will never forget how we made them feel. Observe intently, listen carefully, talk less. Most people do not listen with the intent to understand. Rather, they listen with the intent to reply. We need to break this pattern by learning to listen with our heart. In fact, the quieter we become, the more we can hear. There is great symbolism in the fact that we have two ears and only one mouth.

“You got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.”

—From “The Gambler” as sung by Kenny Rogers

Sometimes the best medicine is no medicine at all, but rather a soft shoulder, an open ear, a kind heart, and a compassionate soul.

“Do small things with great love.”

—Mother Teresa, Catholic missionary

The vast majority of us will not rise to lofty political or administrative positions or ever achieve celebrity status. We are unlikely to win the Nobel Prize and unlikely to find the cure for cancer or preeclampsia. However, we can work diligently to complete each small task with precision so that, like a great artist views his or her work, we, too, will want to sign our name to the patient care plan we have created and implemented.

“Earn this.”

—From Saving Private Ryan, a Steven Spielberg movie

At the end of this movie, the mortally wounded infantry captain (played by Tom Hanks) looks up at Private Ryan (played by Matt Damon) and says, “Earn this,” meaning make sure that you live your life in a way to justify the sacrifices so many made to save you. Like Private Ryan, we have to recognize that our MD degree does not constitute a lifetime entitlement to respect and honor. Rather, we have to practice each day so we continue to earn the respect of our patients, students, and colleagues and, so that, with confidence, we can then say to our patients, “How can I be of help to you?” ●

In the first 2 years of medical school, the most common reasons for unsuccessful performance are a deficiency in cognitive knowledge, inefficient time management, and poor study skills. Thereafter, however, the principal reasons for poor performance in training or practice are personality issues and/or unprofessional behavior.

In this article, I review the attributes expected of a physician and the factors that undermine professionalism. I then offer suggestions for smoothing the pathway for personal and professional success. I crafted these suggestions with the “help” of some unlikely medical philosophers. (Note: Some variations of the cited quotations may exist.) I have tempered their guidance with my own personal experiences as a spouse, parent, and grandparent and my professional experiences over almost 50 years, during which I served as a career military officer, student clerkship director, residency program director, fellowship program director, and associate dean for student affairs. I readily acknowledge that, as major league baseball player Yogi Berra reputedly said, “I made too many wrong mistakes,” and that bad experiences are a tough way to ultimately learn good judgment. I hope these suggestions will help you avoid many of my “wrong mistakes.”

High expectations for the medical professional

“To whom much is given, much shall be required.”

—Luke 12:48

Medicine is a higher calling. It is not the usual type of business, and our patients certainly are not just customers or clients. In the unique moment of personal contact, we are asked to put the interest and well-being of our patient above all else. Our patients rightly have high expectations for what type of person their physician should be. The personal strengths expected of a physician include:

• humility
• honesty—personal and fiscal
• integrity
• strong moral compass
• fairness
• responsible
• diligent
• accountable
• insightful
• wise
• technically competent
• perseverant
• sympathetic
• empathetic
• inspiring.

To exhibit all these characteristics consistently is a herculean task and one that is impossible to fulfill. Many factors conspire to undermine our ability to steadfastly be all that we can be. Among these factors are:

• time constraints
• financial pressures
• physical illness
• emotional illness
• the explosion of information technology and scientific knowledge
• bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Therefore, we need to acknowledge with the philosopher Voltaire that “Perfect is the enemy of good.” We need to set our performance bar at excellence, not perfection. If we expect perfection of ourselves, we are destined to be consistently disappointed.

What follows is a series of well-intentioned and good-natured suggestions for keeping ourselves on an even keel, personally and professionally, and maintaining our compass setting on true north.

Continue to: Practical suggestions...

Practical suggestions

“It may not be that the race always goes to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that is the way to bet.”

—Damon Runyon, journalist

The message is to study hard, work hard, practice our technical skills, and stay on top of our game. We must commit ourselves to a lifetime of learning.

“Chance favors the prepared mind.”

—Louis Pasteur, scientist

One of the best examples of this adage is Alexander Fleming’s “chance” discovery of the bactericidal effect of a mold growing on a culture plate in his laboratory. This observation led to the development of penicillin, an amazing antibiotic that, over the course of the past century, has saved the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of patients. We need to sustain our scientific curiosity throughout our careers and always remain open to new discoveries. Moreover, we need to maintain our capacity for awe and wonder as we consider the exquisite beauty of the scientific world.

“I have a dream.”

—Martin Luther King Jr, civil rights leader

Like Reverend King, we must aspire to a world where civility, peace, and social justice prevail, a world where we embrace diversity and inclusiveness and eschew prejudice, mean-spiritedness, and narrow-mindedness. We must acknowledge that some truths and moral principles are absolute, not relative.

“Once you learn to quit, it becomes a habit.”

—Vince Lombardi, professional football coach

Our lesson: Never quit. We must be fiercely determined to do the right thing, even in troubled and confusing times.

“A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”

—Winston Churchill, British prime minister

Until proven wrong, always think the best of everyone. The bright side is far superior to the dark side. We must strive to consistently have a positive attitude and to be part of the solution to a problem, not the problem itself.

“It’s all such a delicate balance.”

—From “It’s a Delicate Balance” by Tom Dundee, folk singer and songwriter

Our top 3 priorities should always be our own emotional and physical well-being, the well-being and security of our loved ones, and the well-being of our patients. The order of these priorities may change, depending upon circumstances. When urgent patient care demands our presence and we miss a birthday celebration, anniversary dinner, soccer game, or dance recital, we need to make certain that, the next time a conflict arises, we arrange to have a colleague cover our clinical or administrative responsibilities.

We must learn to say no when our plate is too full. Failure to say no inevitably leads to life-work imbalance. It is always flattering to be asked to make a presentation, serve on a committee, or prepare a textbook chapter, and it is natural to be concerned that, if we decline, we will not be invited again. However, that concern is unwarranted. Rather, others will respect us for acknowledging when we are too busy and will be grateful that we did not accept an invitation and then miss important deadlines. Conversely, when we do say yes, we need to honor that commitment in a timely manner.

Continue to: The importance of time...

The importance of time

Perhaps the most common complaints that patients have with respect to their interactions with physicians are that they were forced to wait too long and then felt rushed through their appointment. Therefore:

• We must respect our patients’ time and recognize that their time is as valuable as ours.
• We must schedule our patient appointments appropriately and allow different amounts of time depending upon the complexity of a patient’s condition. We should not consistently overschedule. We need to offer a genuine apology when we keep a patient waiting for more than 15 minutes in the absence of an outright emergency that requires our attention elsewhere.
• When we interact with patients, we should sit down, establish eye-to-eye contact, and never appear hurried.

“You don’t make your character in a crisis; you exhibit it.”

—Oren Arnold, journalist and novelist

In the often-chaotic environment of the operating room or the labor and delivery suite, we must be the calm voice of reason at the center of the storm. We should not yell and make demands of others. We must strive to be unflappable. The other members of the team will be appreciative if they recognize that we have a steady hand on the tiller.

“To do good is noble. To teach others to do good is nobler—and less trouble.”

—Mark Twain, humorist

We need to teach our patients about their condition(s) so that they can assume more responsibility for their own care. We also need to teach our students and colleagues so that they can help us provide the best possible care for our patients. Being a good teacher is inherent in being a good physician. As the famous scientist Albert Einstein said, “If you cannot explain it simply, you do not understand it well enough.”

“It ain’t the things you don’t know that get you. It’s the things you think you know that ain’t so.”

—Artemus Ward, humorist

We must constantly strive to practice evidence-based medicine. We should not be the first to embrace the new or the last to give up the old. In medicine, as opposed to the highway, the best place to be is usually in the middle of the road. However, our commitment to evidence-based medicine cannot be absolute. In fact, no more than half of all our present treatment guidelines are based on level 1 evidence. At times, good old-fashioned common sense tempered by years of sobering experience should carry the day.

“We may be lost, but we’re making good time.”

—Yogi Berra, major league baseball player

In my experience, only the minority of mistakes in medicine result from lack of fundamental knowledge or a deficiency in technical skill. Rather, most result from imprudent haste and/or attempts to multitask. Therefore, our lesson is to slow down, concentrate on one task at a time, complete that task, and then refocus on the next challenge.

“The single greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”

—George Bernard Shaw, playwright

We must be sure that we always “close the loop” in our written and verbal communication so that we can avoid misunderstandings that threaten personal relationships and/or patient safety.

“You raise me up so I can stand on mountains.”

—From “You Raise Me Up” as sung by Josh Groban

All of us need a mentor to raise us up. We must choose our mentors carefully and recognize that we may need different mentors at different stages of our career. As we benefit from effective mentoring, we must pay it forward and be a good mentor to others.

“Worrying is a total waste of time. It accomplishes nothing, changes nothing, and robs you of joy. It is like paying a debt that you don’t owe.”

—Mark Twain, humorist

We have to assiduously cultivate the strength of resilience. We must accept that mistakes inevitably will occur and that perfection in practice is simply not possible, despite our best intentions. We then have to learn from these errors and ensure that they never occur again. We need to apologize for our mistakes and move on. If we carry our last strikeout into our next at bat, we are likely doomed to more misfortune.

“Feeling gratitude and not expressing it is like wrapping a present and not giving it.”

—William Arthur Ward, motivational writer

Our lesson is to be keenly aware of the importance of showing gratitude to those around us. The height of our success will depend directly on the depth of our gratitude. The higher we rise in the hierarchy of the medical profession, the more gracious and kind we need to be.

“Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see.”

—Mark Twain, humorist

“Kindness is the only service that will stand the storm of life and not wash out.”

—Abraham Lincoln, American president

There is never an excuse for rudeness or hubris. We should never teach or conduct business by intimidation. The words please, thank you, and I’m sorry should be front and center in our vocabulary. We must learn not to take ourselves too seriously, to remember that the best part of life is the laughter, and to always strive for grace and humility.

“The secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.”

—Francis Peabody, physician

Patients may quickly forget what we say to them or even what we do for them, but they will never forget how we made them feel. Observe intently, listen carefully, talk less. Most people do not listen with the intent to understand. Rather, they listen with the intent to reply. We need to break this pattern by learning to listen with our heart. In fact, the quieter we become, the more we can hear. There is great symbolism in the fact that we have two ears and only one mouth.

“You got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.”

—From “The Gambler” as sung by Kenny Rogers

Sometimes the best medicine is no medicine at all, but rather a soft shoulder, an open ear, a kind heart, and a compassionate soul.

“Do small things with great love.”

—Mother Teresa, Catholic missionary

The vast majority of us will not rise to lofty political or administrative positions or ever achieve celebrity status. We are unlikely to win the Nobel Prize and unlikely to find the cure for cancer or preeclampsia. However, we can work diligently to complete each small task with precision so that, like a great artist views his or her work, we, too, will want to sign our name to the patient care plan we have created and implemented.

“Earn this.”

—From Saving Private Ryan, a Steven Spielberg movie

At the end of this movie, the mortally wounded infantry captain (played by Tom Hanks) looks up at Private Ryan (played by Matt Damon) and says, “Earn this,” meaning make sure that you live your life in a way to justify the sacrifices so many made to save you. Like Private Ryan, we have to recognize that our MD degree does not constitute a lifetime entitlement to respect and honor. Rather, we have to practice each day so we continue to earn the respect of our patients, students, and colleagues and, so that, with confidence, we can then say to our patients, “How can I be of help to you?” ●

In the first 2 years of medical school, the most common reasons for unsuccessful performance are a deficiency in cognitive knowledge, inefficient time management, and poor study skills. Thereafter, however, the principal reasons for poor performance in training or practice are personality issues and/or unprofessional behavior.

In this article, I review the attributes expected of a physician and the factors that undermine professionalism. I then offer suggestions for smoothing the pathway for personal and professional success. I crafted these suggestions with the “help” of some unlikely medical philosophers. (Note: Some variations of the cited quotations may exist.) I have tempered their guidance with my own personal experiences as a spouse, parent, and grandparent and my professional experiences over almost 50 years, during which I served as a career military officer, student clerkship director, residency program director, fellowship program director, and associate dean for student affairs. I readily acknowledge that, as major league baseball player Yogi Berra reputedly said, “I made too many wrong mistakes,” and that bad experiences are a tough way to ultimately learn good judgment. I hope these suggestions will help you avoid many of my “wrong mistakes.”

High expectations for the medical professional

“To whom much is given, much shall be required.”

—Luke 12:48

Medicine is a higher calling. It is not the usual type of business, and our patients certainly are not just customers or clients. In the unique moment of personal contact, we are asked to put the interest and well-being of our patient above all else. Our patients rightly have high expectations for what type of person their physician should be. The personal strengths expected of a physician include:

• humility
• honesty—personal and fiscal
• integrity
• strong moral compass
• fairness
• responsible
• diligent
• accountable
• insightful
• wise
• technically competent
• perseverant
• sympathetic
• empathetic
• inspiring.

To exhibit all these characteristics consistently is a herculean task and one that is impossible to fulfill. Many factors conspire to undermine our ability to steadfastly be all that we can be. Among these factors are:

• time constraints
• financial pressures
• physical illness
• emotional illness
• the explosion of information technology and scientific knowledge
• bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Therefore, we need to acknowledge with the philosopher Voltaire that “Perfect is the enemy of good.” We need to set our performance bar at excellence, not perfection. If we expect perfection of ourselves, we are destined to be consistently disappointed.

What follows is a series of well-intentioned and good-natured suggestions for keeping ourselves on an even keel, personally and professionally, and maintaining our compass setting on true north.

Continue to: Practical suggestions...

Practical suggestions

“It may not be that the race always goes to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that is the way to bet.”

—Damon Runyon, journalist

The message is to study hard, work hard, practice our technical skills, and stay on top of our game. We must commit ourselves to a lifetime of learning.

“Chance favors the prepared mind.”

—Louis Pasteur, scientist

One of the best examples of this adage is Alexander Fleming’s “chance” discovery of the bactericidal effect of a mold growing on a culture plate in his laboratory. This observation led to the development of penicillin, an amazing antibiotic that, over the course of the past century, has saved the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of patients. We need to sustain our scientific curiosity throughout our careers and always remain open to new discoveries. Moreover, we need to maintain our capacity for awe and wonder as we consider the exquisite beauty of the scientific world.

“I have a dream.”

—Martin Luther King Jr, civil rights leader

Like Reverend King, we must aspire to a world where civility, peace, and social justice prevail, a world where we embrace diversity and inclusiveness and eschew prejudice, mean-spiritedness, and narrow-mindedness. We must acknowledge that some truths and moral principles are absolute, not relative.

“Once you learn to quit, it becomes a habit.”

—Vince Lombardi, professional football coach

Our lesson: Never quit. We must be fiercely determined to do the right thing, even in troubled and confusing times.

“A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”

—Winston Churchill, British prime minister

Until proven wrong, always think the best of everyone. The bright side is far superior to the dark side. We must strive to consistently have a positive attitude and to be part of the solution to a problem, not the problem itself.

“It’s all such a delicate balance.”

—From “It’s a Delicate Balance” by Tom Dundee, folk singer and songwriter

Our top 3 priorities should always be our own emotional and physical well-being, the well-being and security of our loved ones, and the well-being of our patients. The order of these priorities may change, depending upon circumstances. When urgent patient care demands our presence and we miss a birthday celebration, anniversary dinner, soccer game, or dance recital, we need to make certain that, the next time a conflict arises, we arrange to have a colleague cover our clinical or administrative responsibilities.

We must learn to say no when our plate is too full. Failure to say no inevitably leads to life-work imbalance. It is always flattering to be asked to make a presentation, serve on a committee, or prepare a textbook chapter, and it is natural to be concerned that, if we decline, we will not be invited again. However, that concern is unwarranted. Rather, others will respect us for acknowledging when we are too busy and will be grateful that we did not accept an invitation and then miss important deadlines. Conversely, when we do say yes, we need to honor that commitment in a timely manner.

Continue to: The importance of time...

The importance of time

Perhaps the most common complaints that patients have with respect to their interactions with physicians are that they were forced to wait too long and then felt rushed through their appointment. Therefore:

• We must respect our patients’ time and recognize that their time is as valuable as ours.
• We must schedule our patient appointments appropriately and allow different amounts of time depending upon the complexity of a patient’s condition. We should not consistently overschedule. We need to offer a genuine apology when we keep a patient waiting for more than 15 minutes in the absence of an outright emergency that requires our attention elsewhere.
• When we interact with patients, we should sit down, establish eye-to-eye contact, and never appear hurried.

“You don’t make your character in a crisis; you exhibit it.”

—Oren Arnold, journalist and novelist

In the often-chaotic environment of the operating room or the labor and delivery suite, we must be the calm voice of reason at the center of the storm. We should not yell and make demands of others. We must strive to be unflappable. The other members of the team will be appreciative if they recognize that we have a steady hand on the tiller.

“To do good is noble. To teach others to do good is nobler—and less trouble.”

—Mark Twain, humorist

We need to teach our patients about their condition(s) so that they can assume more responsibility for their own care. We also need to teach our students and colleagues so that they can help us provide the best possible care for our patients. Being a good teacher is inherent in being a good physician. As the famous scientist Albert Einstein said, “If you cannot explain it simply, you do not understand it well enough.”

“It ain’t the things you don’t know that get you. It’s the things you think you know that ain’t so.”

—Artemus Ward, humorist

We must constantly strive to practice evidence-based medicine. We should not be the first to embrace the new or the last to give up the old. In medicine, as opposed to the highway, the best place to be is usually in the middle of the road. However, our commitment to evidence-based medicine cannot be absolute. In fact, no more than half of all our present treatment guidelines are based on level 1 evidence. At times, good old-fashioned common sense tempered by years of sobering experience should carry the day.

“We may be lost, but we’re making good time.”

—Yogi Berra, major league baseball player

In my experience, only the minority of mistakes in medicine result from lack of fundamental knowledge or a deficiency in technical skill. Rather, most result from imprudent haste and/or attempts to multitask. Therefore, our lesson is to slow down, concentrate on one task at a time, complete that task, and then refocus on the next challenge.

“The single greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”

—George Bernard Shaw, playwright

We must be sure that we always “close the loop” in our written and verbal communication so that we can avoid misunderstandings that threaten personal relationships and/or patient safety.

“You raise me up so I can stand on mountains.”

—From “You Raise Me Up” as sung by Josh Groban

All of us need a mentor to raise us up. We must choose our mentors carefully and recognize that we may need different mentors at different stages of our career. As we benefit from effective mentoring, we must pay it forward and be a good mentor to others.

“Worrying is a total waste of time. It accomplishes nothing, changes nothing, and robs you of joy. It is like paying a debt that you don’t owe.”

—Mark Twain, humorist

We have to assiduously cultivate the strength of resilience. We must accept that mistakes inevitably will occur and that perfection in practice is simply not possible, despite our best intentions. We then have to learn from these errors and ensure that they never occur again. We need to apologize for our mistakes and move on. If we carry our last strikeout into our next at bat, we are likely doomed to more misfortune.

“Feeling gratitude and not expressing it is like wrapping a present and not giving it.”

—William Arthur Ward, motivational writer

Our lesson is to be keenly aware of the importance of showing gratitude to those around us. The height of our success will depend directly on the depth of our gratitude. The higher we rise in the hierarchy of the medical profession, the more gracious and kind we need to be.

“Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see.”

—Mark Twain, humorist

“Kindness is the only service that will stand the storm of life and not wash out.”

—Abraham Lincoln, American president

There is never an excuse for rudeness or hubris. We should never teach or conduct business by intimidation. The words please, thank you, and I’m sorry should be front and center in our vocabulary. We must learn not to take ourselves too seriously, to remember that the best part of life is the laughter, and to always strive for grace and humility.

“The secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.”

—Francis Peabody, physician

Patients may quickly forget what we say to them or even what we do for them, but they will never forget how we made them feel. Observe intently, listen carefully, talk less. Most people do not listen with the intent to understand. Rather, they listen with the intent to reply. We need to break this pattern by learning to listen with our heart. In fact, the quieter we become, the more we can hear. There is great symbolism in the fact that we have two ears and only one mouth.

“You got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.”

—From “The Gambler” as sung by Kenny Rogers

Sometimes the best medicine is no medicine at all, but rather a soft shoulder, an open ear, a kind heart, and a compassionate soul.

“Do small things with great love.”

—Mother Teresa, Catholic missionary

The vast majority of us will not rise to lofty political or administrative positions or ever achieve celebrity status. We are unlikely to win the Nobel Prize and unlikely to find the cure for cancer or preeclampsia. However, we can work diligently to complete each small task with precision so that, like a great artist views his or her work, we, too, will want to sign our name to the patient care plan we have created and implemented.

“Earn this.”

—From Saving Private Ryan, a Steven Spielberg movie

At the end of this movie, the mortally wounded infantry captain (played by Tom Hanks) looks up at Private Ryan (played by Matt Damon) and says, “Earn this,” meaning make sure that you live your life in a way to justify the sacrifices so many made to save you. Like Private Ryan, we have to recognize that our MD degree does not constitute a lifetime entitlement to respect and honor. Rather, we have to practice each day so we continue to earn the respect of our patients, students, and colleagues and, so that, with confidence, we can then say to our patients, “How can I be of help to you?” ●

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)¹ is comprised of an independent panel of preventive services clinician experts who make evidence-based recommendations, with the letter grade assigned based on the strength of the evidence, from A through D (TABLE 1), on preventive services such as health screenings, shared decision making patient counseling, and preventive medications.  Both A and B recommendations are generally accepted by both government and most private health insurance companies as a covered preventive benefit with no or minimal co-pays.

In 2002, the USPSTF released a Grade B recommendation that screening mammography for average-risk patients (with patients referring to persons assigned female at birth who have not undergone bilateral mastectomy) should take place starting at age 40 and be repeated every 1 to 2 years.² This was consistent with or endorsed by most other national breast cancer screening guidelines,  including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Radiology. 

In 2009, the USPSTF changed this Grade B recommendation, instead recommending biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74.³ The most significant change in the revised guideline was for patients aged 40 to 49, where the recommendation was “against routine screening mammography.” They went on to say that the decision to start “biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms.” Other prominent national guideline groups (ACOG, NCCN, ACS) did not agree with this recommendation and maintained that patients aged 40 to 49 should continue to be offered routine screening mammography either annually (NCCN, ACS) or at 1-to-2-year intervals (ACOG).^4-6 The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Practice endorsed the 2016 USPSTF guidelines, creating a disparity in breast cancer mammography counseling for averagerisk patients in their 40s.⁷

In 2016, the USPSTF revisited their breast cancer screening recommendation and renewed their 2009 recommendation against routine screening in patients aged 40 to 49, with the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Practice again endorsing these guidelines.⁸ ACOG, ACS, NCCN, and ACR continued to recommend age 40 as a starting age for routine mammography screening (TABLE 2). As a result, over the past 14 years, patients aged 40 to 49 were placed in an awkward position of potentially hearing different recommendations from their health care providers, those differences often depending on the specialty of the provider they were seeing. 

In 2023. On May 9, the USPSTF released a draft of their latest recommendation statement stating that all patients at average risk for breast cancer should get screened every other year beginning at age 40, bringing most of the national guideline groups into alignment with regard to age to start mammographic screening.⁹ 

Why the change? 

To answer this question, we need to examine the relevant epidemiology of breast cancer. 

Continue to: Incidence...

Incidence

It is estimated that, in the United States in 2023, there will be 300,590 new cases of breast cancer, resulting in 43,700 deaths.¹⁰ From 2015–2019, there were 128.1 new breast cancer cases/100,000 population, which is the highest rate of cancer in the United States, regardless of sex.¹¹ Diagnoses among patients aged 40 to 49 are rising at a faster rate than previously, about 2% per year between 2015 and 2019. 

Racial and ethnic differences

In addition to the racial and ethnic epidemiologic differences in breast cancer, there are also disparities in breast cancer care and outcomes that need to be considered when making national guidelines/policy recommendations. 

Black women have high mortality rates from breast cancer. While non-Hispanic White patients have the highest rates of breast cancer (TABLE 3), non-Hispanic Black patients have the highest rates of death due to breast cancer.¹⁰ There appear to be several reasons for the estimated 40%-higher rate of mortality among Black women, including: 

• systemic racism in primary research, guidelines, and policy
• inequities in diagnostic follow-up and access to evidence-based cancer treatments
• biologic differences in breast cancer (ie, the incidence of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is 2-fold higher in Black women compared with the other racial and ethnic groups in the United States).^12-14 

While prior studies have suggested that screening mammography might be less effective for patients with TNBC, a recent study demonstrated that patients who had mammography–screened-detected TNBC tumors were smaller and more likely to be node- negative compared with non-screened patients with TNBC.(14) Patients with screened-detected TNBCs were also more likely to undergo a lumpectomy instead of a mastectomy compared with non–screened detected TNBC (68.3% vs 46.1%; P = .002) (TABLE 4). These data strongly suggest that screening mammography is indeed effective in detecting TNBC at earlier stages, one of the best proxies for breast cancer mortality. 

Non-White patients have higher incidence rates of breast cancer in their 40s. A second factor to consider in racial differences is the relatively higher incidence of breast cancer in Hispanic, Black, and Asian patients in their 40s compared with non-Hispanic White patients. In a recent analysis of data from 1973 to 2010 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, the median age of patients with breast cancer in the United States was 58.0 years (interquartile range [IQR], 50.0–67.0 years).¹⁶ Across all US demographic populations by age at diagnosis, more than 20% of patients will have their initial diagnosis of  breast cancer under the age of 50, and 1.55% (1 in 65) patients between ages 40 and 49 years will be diagnosed with breast cancer.4 However, among patients aged 50 and younger diagnosed with breast cancer, a significantly higher proportion are Black (31%), Hispanic (34.9%), or Asian (32.8%) versus White (23.1%) (P < .001 for all).¹⁶ So, for there to be similar racial and ethnic mammography capture rates with White patients, starting mammography screening ages would need to be lower for Black (age 47 years), Hispanic (and 46 years), and Asian (age 47 years) patients. Data from this study of the SEER database16 also demonstrated that more Black and Hispanic patients at age of diagnosis were diagnosed with advanced (regional or distant) breast cancer (46.6% and 42.9%, respectively) versus White or Asian patients (37.1% and 35.6%, respectively; P < .001 for all). 

These findings led the authors of the study to conclude that the “Current [2016] USPSTF breast cancer screening recommendations do not reflect age-specific patterns based on race.” The USPSTF stated that this is one of the reasons why they reconsidered their stance on screening , and now recommend screening for all patients starting at age 40. 

My current counseling approach

I encourage all racial and ethnic patients between the ages of 40 and 49 to undergo screening mammography because of the associated relative risk mortality reduction rates, which range from 15% to 50%. I also share that with my patients that, because of the younger average age of onset of breast cancer in Black, Hispanic, and Asian patients, they may derive additional benefit from screening starting at age 40.⁴ 

Impact of draft guidelines on breast cancer screening and mortality in younger patients

There is clear, unequivocal, and repeatable Level 1 evidence that screening mammography in the general population of patients aged 40 to 49 reduces breast cancer mortality. Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer in the United States, the second leading cause of cancer mortality in patients, and 1 in 5 new breast cancer diagnoses occur in patients between the ages of 40 and 49. While recent efforts have been made to come to consensus on a screening starting age of 40 for patients at average risk for breast cancer, the USPSTF appeared to be an outlier with their 2016 recommendation to routinely start mammography screening at age 50 instead of 40.¹⁷ 

The USPSTF is a very important national voice in cancer prevention, and their 2023 (draft) revised guidelines to age 40 as the recommended starting screening age now agrees with the leading US guideline groups listed in Table 2. These guideline groups have gone through varying processes, and now have finally arrived at the same conclusion for age to start screening mammography in women of average risk. This agreement should come as a significant comfort to health care providers and patients alike. Changing the starting age to 40 years will result in thousands of lives and hundreds of thousands of life-years saved for patients aged 40 to 49. ● 

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)¹ is comprised of an independent panel of preventive services clinician experts who make evidence-based recommendations, with the letter grade assigned based on the strength of the evidence, from A through D (TABLE 1), on preventive services such as health screenings, shared decision making patient counseling, and preventive medications.  Both A and B recommendations are generally accepted by both government and most private health insurance companies as a covered preventive benefit with no or minimal co-pays.

In 2002, the USPSTF released a Grade B recommendation that screening mammography for average-risk patients (with patients referring to persons assigned female at birth who have not undergone bilateral mastectomy) should take place starting at age 40 and be repeated every 1 to 2 years.² This was consistent with or endorsed by most other national breast cancer screening guidelines,  including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Radiology. 

In 2009, the USPSTF changed this Grade B recommendation, instead recommending biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74.³ The most significant change in the revised guideline was for patients aged 40 to 49, where the recommendation was “against routine screening mammography.” They went on to say that the decision to start “biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms.” Other prominent national guideline groups (ACOG, NCCN, ACS) did not agree with this recommendation and maintained that patients aged 40 to 49 should continue to be offered routine screening mammography either annually (NCCN, ACS) or at 1-to-2-year intervals (ACOG).^4-6 The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Practice endorsed the 2016 USPSTF guidelines, creating a disparity in breast cancer mammography counseling for averagerisk patients in their 40s.⁷

In 2016, the USPSTF revisited their breast cancer screening recommendation and renewed their 2009 recommendation against routine screening in patients aged 40 to 49, with the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Practice again endorsing these guidelines.⁸ ACOG, ACS, NCCN, and ACR continued to recommend age 40 as a starting age for routine mammography screening (TABLE 2). As a result, over the past 14 years, patients aged 40 to 49 were placed in an awkward position of potentially hearing different recommendations from their health care providers, those differences often depending on the specialty of the provider they were seeing. 

In 2023. On May 9, the USPSTF released a draft of their latest recommendation statement stating that all patients at average risk for breast cancer should get screened every other year beginning at age 40, bringing most of the national guideline groups into alignment with regard to age to start mammographic screening.⁹ 

Why the change? 

To answer this question, we need to examine the relevant epidemiology of breast cancer. 

Continue to: Incidence...

Incidence

It is estimated that, in the United States in 2023, there will be 300,590 new cases of breast cancer, resulting in 43,700 deaths.¹⁰ From 2015–2019, there were 128.1 new breast cancer cases/100,000 population, which is the highest rate of cancer in the United States, regardless of sex.¹¹ Diagnoses among patients aged 40 to 49 are rising at a faster rate than previously, about 2% per year between 2015 and 2019. 

Racial and ethnic differences

In addition to the racial and ethnic epidemiologic differences in breast cancer, there are also disparities in breast cancer care and outcomes that need to be considered when making national guidelines/policy recommendations. 

Black women have high mortality rates from breast cancer. While non-Hispanic White patients have the highest rates of breast cancer (TABLE 3), non-Hispanic Black patients have the highest rates of death due to breast cancer.¹⁰ There appear to be several reasons for the estimated 40%-higher rate of mortality among Black women, including: 

• systemic racism in primary research, guidelines, and policy
• inequities in diagnostic follow-up and access to evidence-based cancer treatments
• biologic differences in breast cancer (ie, the incidence of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is 2-fold higher in Black women compared with the other racial and ethnic groups in the United States).^12-14 

While prior studies have suggested that screening mammography might be less effective for patients with TNBC, a recent study demonstrated that patients who had mammography–screened-detected TNBC tumors were smaller and more likely to be node- negative compared with non-screened patients with TNBC.(14) Patients with screened-detected TNBCs were also more likely to undergo a lumpectomy instead of a mastectomy compared with non–screened detected TNBC (68.3% vs 46.1%; P = .002) (TABLE 4). These data strongly suggest that screening mammography is indeed effective in detecting TNBC at earlier stages, one of the best proxies for breast cancer mortality. 

Non-White patients have higher incidence rates of breast cancer in their 40s. A second factor to consider in racial differences is the relatively higher incidence of breast cancer in Hispanic, Black, and Asian patients in their 40s compared with non-Hispanic White patients. In a recent analysis of data from 1973 to 2010 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, the median age of patients with breast cancer in the United States was 58.0 years (interquartile range [IQR], 50.0–67.0 years).¹⁶ Across all US demographic populations by age at diagnosis, more than 20% of patients will have their initial diagnosis of  breast cancer under the age of 50, and 1.55% (1 in 65) patients between ages 40 and 49 years will be diagnosed with breast cancer.4 However, among patients aged 50 and younger diagnosed with breast cancer, a significantly higher proportion are Black (31%), Hispanic (34.9%), or Asian (32.8%) versus White (23.1%) (P < .001 for all).¹⁶ So, for there to be similar racial and ethnic mammography capture rates with White patients, starting mammography screening ages would need to be lower for Black (age 47 years), Hispanic (and 46 years), and Asian (age 47 years) patients. Data from this study of the SEER database16 also demonstrated that more Black and Hispanic patients at age of diagnosis were diagnosed with advanced (regional or distant) breast cancer (46.6% and 42.9%, respectively) versus White or Asian patients (37.1% and 35.6%, respectively; P < .001 for all). 

These findings led the authors of the study to conclude that the “Current [2016] USPSTF breast cancer screening recommendations do not reflect age-specific patterns based on race.” The USPSTF stated that this is one of the reasons why they reconsidered their stance on screening , and now recommend screening for all patients starting at age 40. 

My current counseling approach

I encourage all racial and ethnic patients between the ages of 40 and 49 to undergo screening mammography because of the associated relative risk mortality reduction rates, which range from 15% to 50%. I also share that with my patients that, because of the younger average age of onset of breast cancer in Black, Hispanic, and Asian patients, they may derive additional benefit from screening starting at age 40.⁴ 

Impact of draft guidelines on breast cancer screening and mortality in younger patients

There is clear, unequivocal, and repeatable Level 1 evidence that screening mammography in the general population of patients aged 40 to 49 reduces breast cancer mortality. Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer in the United States, the second leading cause of cancer mortality in patients, and 1 in 5 new breast cancer diagnoses occur in patients between the ages of 40 and 49. While recent efforts have been made to come to consensus on a screening starting age of 40 for patients at average risk for breast cancer, the USPSTF appeared to be an outlier with their 2016 recommendation to routinely start mammography screening at age 50 instead of 40.¹⁷ 

The USPSTF is a very important national voice in cancer prevention, and their 2023 (draft) revised guidelines to age 40 as the recommended starting screening age now agrees with the leading US guideline groups listed in Table 2. These guideline groups have gone through varying processes, and now have finally arrived at the same conclusion for age to start screening mammography in women of average risk. This agreement should come as a significant comfort to health care providers and patients alike. Changing the starting age to 40 years will result in thousands of lives and hundreds of thousands of life-years saved for patients aged 40 to 49. ● 

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)¹ is comprised of an independent panel of preventive services clinician experts who make evidence-based recommendations, with the letter grade assigned based on the strength of the evidence, from A through D (TABLE 1), on preventive services such as health screenings, shared decision making patient counseling, and preventive medications.  Both A and B recommendations are generally accepted by both government and most private health insurance companies as a covered preventive benefit with no or minimal co-pays.

In 2002, the USPSTF released a Grade B recommendation that screening mammography for average-risk patients (with patients referring to persons assigned female at birth who have not undergone bilateral mastectomy) should take place starting at age 40 and be repeated every 1 to 2 years.² This was consistent with or endorsed by most other national breast cancer screening guidelines,  including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Radiology. 

In 2009, the USPSTF changed this Grade B recommendation, instead recommending biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74.³ The most significant change in the revised guideline was for patients aged 40 to 49, where the recommendation was “against routine screening mammography.” They went on to say that the decision to start “biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms.” Other prominent national guideline groups (ACOG, NCCN, ACS) did not agree with this recommendation and maintained that patients aged 40 to 49 should continue to be offered routine screening mammography either annually (NCCN, ACS) or at 1-to-2-year intervals (ACOG).^4-6 The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Practice endorsed the 2016 USPSTF guidelines, creating a disparity in breast cancer mammography counseling for averagerisk patients in their 40s.⁷

In 2016, the USPSTF revisited their breast cancer screening recommendation and renewed their 2009 recommendation against routine screening in patients aged 40 to 49, with the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Practice again endorsing these guidelines.⁸ ACOG, ACS, NCCN, and ACR continued to recommend age 40 as a starting age for routine mammography screening (TABLE 2). As a result, over the past 14 years, patients aged 40 to 49 were placed in an awkward position of potentially hearing different recommendations from their health care providers, those differences often depending on the specialty of the provider they were seeing. 

In 2023. On May 9, the USPSTF released a draft of their latest recommendation statement stating that all patients at average risk for breast cancer should get screened every other year beginning at age 40, bringing most of the national guideline groups into alignment with regard to age to start mammographic screening.⁹ 

Why the change? 

To answer this question, we need to examine the relevant epidemiology of breast cancer. 

Continue to: Incidence...

Incidence

It is estimated that, in the United States in 2023, there will be 300,590 new cases of breast cancer, resulting in 43,700 deaths.¹⁰ From 2015–2019, there were 128.1 new breast cancer cases/100,000 population, which is the highest rate of cancer in the United States, regardless of sex.¹¹ Diagnoses among patients aged 40 to 49 are rising at a faster rate than previously, about 2% per year between 2015 and 2019. 

Racial and ethnic differences

In addition to the racial and ethnic epidemiologic differences in breast cancer, there are also disparities in breast cancer care and outcomes that need to be considered when making national guidelines/policy recommendations. 

Black women have high mortality rates from breast cancer. While non-Hispanic White patients have the highest rates of breast cancer (TABLE 3), non-Hispanic Black patients have the highest rates of death due to breast cancer.¹⁰ There appear to be several reasons for the estimated 40%-higher rate of mortality among Black women, including: 

• systemic racism in primary research, guidelines, and policy
• inequities in diagnostic follow-up and access to evidence-based cancer treatments
• biologic differences in breast cancer (ie, the incidence of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is 2-fold higher in Black women compared with the other racial and ethnic groups in the United States).^12-14 

While prior studies have suggested that screening mammography might be less effective for patients with TNBC, a recent study demonstrated that patients who had mammography–screened-detected TNBC tumors were smaller and more likely to be node- negative compared with non-screened patients with TNBC.(14) Patients with screened-detected TNBCs were also more likely to undergo a lumpectomy instead of a mastectomy compared with non–screened detected TNBC (68.3% vs 46.1%; P = .002) (TABLE 4). These data strongly suggest that screening mammography is indeed effective in detecting TNBC at earlier stages, one of the best proxies for breast cancer mortality. 

Non-White patients have higher incidence rates of breast cancer in their 40s. A second factor to consider in racial differences is the relatively higher incidence of breast cancer in Hispanic, Black, and Asian patients in their 40s compared with non-Hispanic White patients. In a recent analysis of data from 1973 to 2010 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, the median age of patients with breast cancer in the United States was 58.0 years (interquartile range [IQR], 50.0–67.0 years).¹⁶ Across all US demographic populations by age at diagnosis, more than 20% of patients will have their initial diagnosis of  breast cancer under the age of 50, and 1.55% (1 in 65) patients between ages 40 and 49 years will be diagnosed with breast cancer.4 However, among patients aged 50 and younger diagnosed with breast cancer, a significantly higher proportion are Black (31%), Hispanic (34.9%), or Asian (32.8%) versus White (23.1%) (P < .001 for all).¹⁶ So, for there to be similar racial and ethnic mammography capture rates with White patients, starting mammography screening ages would need to be lower for Black (age 47 years), Hispanic (and 46 years), and Asian (age 47 years) patients. Data from this study of the SEER database16 also demonstrated that more Black and Hispanic patients at age of diagnosis were diagnosed with advanced (regional or distant) breast cancer (46.6% and 42.9%, respectively) versus White or Asian patients (37.1% and 35.6%, respectively; P < .001 for all). 

These findings led the authors of the study to conclude that the “Current [2016] USPSTF breast cancer screening recommendations do not reflect age-specific patterns based on race.” The USPSTF stated that this is one of the reasons why they reconsidered their stance on screening , and now recommend screening for all patients starting at age 40. 

My current counseling approach

I encourage all racial and ethnic patients between the ages of 40 and 49 to undergo screening mammography because of the associated relative risk mortality reduction rates, which range from 15% to 50%. I also share that with my patients that, because of the younger average age of onset of breast cancer in Black, Hispanic, and Asian patients, they may derive additional benefit from screening starting at age 40.⁴ 

Impact of draft guidelines on breast cancer screening and mortality in younger patients

There is clear, unequivocal, and repeatable Level 1 evidence that screening mammography in the general population of patients aged 40 to 49 reduces breast cancer mortality. Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer in the United States, the second leading cause of cancer mortality in patients, and 1 in 5 new breast cancer diagnoses occur in patients between the ages of 40 and 49. While recent efforts have been made to come to consensus on a screening starting age of 40 for patients at average risk for breast cancer, the USPSTF appeared to be an outlier with their 2016 recommendation to routinely start mammography screening at age 50 instead of 40.¹⁷ 

The USPSTF is a very important national voice in cancer prevention, and their 2023 (draft) revised guidelines to age 40 as the recommended starting screening age now agrees with the leading US guideline groups listed in Table 2. These guideline groups have gone through varying processes, and now have finally arrived at the same conclusion for age to start screening mammography in women of average risk. This agreement should come as a significant comfort to health care providers and patients alike. Changing the starting age to 40 years will result in thousands of lives and hundreds of thousands of life-years saved for patients aged 40 to 49. ● 

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a negative-sense, single-stranded, ribonucleic acid (RNA) virus that is a member of Pneumoviridae family. Two subtypes, A and B, and multiple genotypes circulate during fall and winter seasonal outbreaks of RSV.¹ RSV can cause severe lower respiratory tract disease including bronchiolitis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, and death. Each year, RSV disease causes the hospitalization of 1.5% to 2% of children younger than 6 months of age, resulting in 100 to 300 deaths.² For infants younger than 1 year, RSV infection is the leading cause of hospitalization.³ In 2023, two new treatments have become available to prevent RSV disease: nirsevimab and RSVPreF vaccine. 

Nirsevimab

Nirsevimab is an antibody to an RSV antigen. It has a long half-life and is approved for administration to infants, providing passive immunization. In contrast, administration of the RSVPreF vaccine to pregnant persons elicits active maternal immunity, resulting in the production of anti-RSV antibodies that are transferred to the fetus, resulting in passive immunity in the infant. Seasonal administration of nirsevimab and the RSV vaccine maximizes benefit to the infant and conserves limited health care resources. In temperate regions in the United States, the RSV infection season typically begins in October and peaks in December through mid-February and ends in April or May.^4,5 In southern Florida, the RSV season often begins in August to September, peaks in November through December, and ends in March.^4,5 

This editorial reviews 3 strategies for prevention of RSV infection in infants, including: 

• universal treatment of newborns with nirsevimab
• immunization of pregnant persons with an RSVpreF vaccine in the third trimester appropriately timed to occur just before the beginning or during RSV infection season
• prioritizing universal maternal RSV vaccination with reflex administration of nirsevimab to newborns when the pregnant person was  not vaccinated.⁶ 

Of note, there are no studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of combining RSVpreF vaccine and nirsevimab. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) does not recommend combining both RSV vaccination of pregnant persons plus nirsevimab treatment of the infant, except in limited circumstances, such as for immunocompromised pregnant people with limited antibody production or newborns who have a massive transfusion, which dilutes antibody titres.⁶ 

RSV prevention strategy 1

Universal treatment of newborns and infants  with nirsevimab 

Nirsevimab (Beyfortus, Sanofi and AstraZeneca) is an IgG 1-kappa monoclonal antibody with a long half-life that targets the prefusion conformation of the RSV F-protein, resulting in passive immunity to infection.7 Passive immunization results in rapid protection against infection because it does not require activation of the immune system. Nirsevimab is long acting due to amino acid substitutions in the Fc region, increasing binding to the neonatal Fc receptor, which protects IgG antibodies from degradation, thereby extending the antibody half-life. The terminal halflife of nirsevimab is 71 days, and the duration of protection following a single dose is at least 5 months. 

Nirsevimab is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for all neonates and infants born or entering their first RSV infection season and for children up to  24 months of age who are vulnerable to severe RSV during their second RSV infection season. For infants born outside the RSV infection season, nirsevimab should be administered once prior to the start of the next RSV infection season.⁷ Nirsevimab is administered as a single intramuscular injection at a dose of  50 mg for neonates and infants < 5 kg  in weight and a dose of 100 mg for neonates and infants ≥ 5 kg in weight.⁷ The list average wholesale price for both doses is $594.⁸  Nirsevimab is contraindicated for patients with a serious hypersensitivity reaction to nirsevimab or its excipients.⁷ In clinical trials, adverse reactions including rash and injection site reaction were reported in 1.2% of participants.7 Some RSV variants may be resistant to neutralization with nirsevimab.^7,9 

In a randomized clinical trial, 1,490 infants born ≥ 35 weeks’ gestation, the rates of medically-attended RSV lower respiratory tract disease (MA RSV LRTD) through 150 days of follow-up in the placebo and nirsevimab groups were 5.0% and 1.2%, respectively (P < .001).^7,10 Compared with placebo, nirsevimab reduced hospitalizations due to RSV LRTD by 60% through 150 days of follow up. In a randomized clinical trial enrolling 1,453 infants born between 29 weeks’ and < 35 weeks’ gestation, the rates of MA RSV LRTD through 150 days of follow up in the placebo and nirsevimab groups were 9.5% and 2.6%, respectively  (P < .001). In this study of infants born preterm, compared with placebo, nirsevimab reduced hospitalization due to RSV LRTD by 70% through 150 days of follow up.⁷ Nirsevimab is thought to be cost-effective at the current price per dose, but more data are needed to precisely define the magnitude of the health care savings associated with universal nirsevimab administration.^11-13 The CDC reports that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of nirsevimab administration to infants is approximately $250,000, given an estimated cost of $500 for one dose of vaccine.¹⁴ 

Universal passive vaccination of newborns is recommended by many state departments of public health, which can provide the vaccine without cost to clinicians and health care facilities participating in the children’s vaccination program.

Continue to: RSV prevention strategy 2...

RSV prevention strategy 2

Universal RSV vaccination of pregnant persons from September through January 

The RSVpreF vaccine (Abryvso, Pfizer) is approved by the FDA for the active immunization of pregnant persons between 32 through 36 weeks’ gestation for the prevention of RSV LRTD in infants from birth through 6 months of age.¹⁵ Administration of the RSVpreF vaccine to pregnant people elicits the formation of antiRSV antibodies that are transferred transplacentally to the fetus, resulting in the protection of the infant from RSV during the first 6 months of life. The RSVpreF vaccine also is approved to prevent RSV LRTD in people aged ≥ 60 years. 

The RSVpreF vaccine contains the prefusion form of the RSV fusion (F) protein responsible for viral entry into host cells. The vaccine contains 60 µg of both RSV preF A and preF B recombinant proteins. The vaccine is administered as a single intramuscular dose in a volume of 0.5 mL. The vaccine is provided in a vial in a lyophilized form and must be reconstituted prior to administration. The average wholesale price of RSVPreF vaccine is $354.¹⁶ The vaccine is contraindicated for people who have had an allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine. The most commonly reported adverse reaction is injection site pain (41%).¹⁵ The FDA reports a “numerical imbalance in preterm births in Abrysvo recipients compared to placebo recipients” (5.7% vs 4.7%), and “available data are insufficient to establish or exclude a causal relationship between preterm birth and Abrysvo.”¹⁵ In rabbits there is no evidence of developmental toxicity and congenital anomalies associated with the RSVpreF vaccine. In human studies, no differences in the rate of congenital anomalies or fetal deaths were noted between RSVpreF vaccine and placebo.

 In a clinical trial, 6,975 pregnant participants 24 through  36 weeks’ gestation were randomly assigned to receive a placebo or the RSVpreF vaccine.^15,17 After birth, follow-up of infants at 180 days, showed that the rates of MA RSV LRTD among the infants in the placebo and RSVpreF vaccine groups were 3.4% and 1.6%, respectively. At 180 days, the reported rates of severe RSV LRTD in the placebo and RSVpreF vaccine groups were 1.8% and 0.5%, respectively. In this study, among the subset of pregnant participants who received the RSVpreF vaccine (n = 1,572) or placebo  (n = 1,539) at 32 through 36 weeks’ gestation, the rates of MA RSV LRTD among the infants in the placebo and RSVpreF vaccine groups were 3.6% and 1.5%, respectively. In the subset of pregnant participants vaccinated at 32 through 36 weeks’ gestation, at 180 days postvaccination, the reported rates of severe RSV LRTD in the placebo and RSVpreF vaccine groups were 1.6% and  0.4%, respectively.¹⁵ 

The CDC has recommended that the RSVpreF vaccine be administered to pregnant people 32 through 36 weeks’ gestation from September through the end of January in most of the continental United States to reduce the rate of RSV LRTD in infants.⁶ September was selected because it is 1 to 2 months before the start of the RSV season, and it takes at least 14 days for maternal vaccination to result in transplacental transfer of protective antibodies to the fetus. January was selected because it is 2 to 3 months before the anticipated end of the RSV season.⁶ The CDC also noted that, for regions with a different pattern of RSV seasonality, clinicians should follow the guidance of local public health officials. This applies to the states of Alaska, southern Florida, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.6 The CDC recommended that infants born < 34 weeks’ gestation should receive nirsevimab.⁶ 

Maternal RSV vaccination is thought to be cost-effective for reducing RSV LRTD in infants. However, the cost-effectiveness analyses are sensitive to the pricing of the two main options: maternal RSV vaccination and nirsevimab.

It is estimated that nirsevimab may provide greater protection than maternal RSV vaccination from RSV LRTD, but the maternal RSVpreF vaccine is priced lower than nirsevimab.¹⁸ Focusing administration of RSVpreF vaccine from September through January of the RSV infection season is thought to maximize benefits to infants and reduce total cost of the vaccination program.¹⁹ With year-round RSVpreF vaccine dosing, the estimated ICER per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is approximately $400,000, whereas seasonal dosing reduces the cost to approximately $170,000.¹⁹ 

RSV prevention strategy 3

Vaccinate pregnant persons; reflex to newborn treatment with nirsevimab if maternal RSV vaccination did not occur

RSVpreF vaccination to all pregnant persons 32 through 36 weeks’ gestation during RSV infection season is not likely to result in 100% adherence. For instance, in a CDC-conducted survey only 47% of pregnant persons received an influenza vaccine.2 Newborns whose mothers did not receive an RSVpreF vaccine will need to be considered for treatment with nirsevimab. Collaboration and communication among obstetricians and pediatricians will be needed to avoid miscommunication and missed opportunities to treat newborns during the birth hospitalization. Enhancements in electronic health records, linking the mother’s vaccination record with the newborn’s medical record plus an added feature of electronic alerts when the mother did not receive an appropriately timed RSVpreF vaccine would improve the communication of important clinical information to the pediatrician. 

Next steps for the upcoming peak  RSV season

We are currently in the 2023–2024 RSV infection season and can expect a peak in cases of RSV between December 2023 and February 2024. The CDC recommends protecting all infants against RSV-associated LRTD. The options are to administer the maternal RSVpreF vaccine to pregnant persons or treating the infant with nirsevimab. The vaccine is just now becoming available for administration in regional pharmacies, physician practices, and health systems. Obstetrician-gynecologists should follow the recommendation of their state department of public health. As noted above, many state departments of public health are recommending that all newborns receive nirsevimab. For clinicians in those states, RSVPreF vaccination of pregnant persons is not a priority. ●

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a negative-sense, single-stranded, ribonucleic acid (RNA) virus that is a member of Pneumoviridae family. Two subtypes, A and B, and multiple genotypes circulate during fall and winter seasonal outbreaks of RSV.¹ RSV can cause severe lower respiratory tract disease including bronchiolitis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, and death. Each year, RSV disease causes the hospitalization of 1.5% to 2% of children younger than 6 months of age, resulting in 100 to 300 deaths.² For infants younger than 1 year, RSV infection is the leading cause of hospitalization.³ In 2023, two new treatments have become available to prevent RSV disease: nirsevimab and RSVPreF vaccine. 

Nirsevimab

Nirsevimab is an antibody to an RSV antigen. It has a long half-life and is approved for administration to infants, providing passive immunization. In contrast, administration of the RSVPreF vaccine to pregnant persons elicits active maternal immunity, resulting in the production of anti-RSV antibodies that are transferred to the fetus, resulting in passive immunity in the infant. Seasonal administration of nirsevimab and the RSV vaccine maximizes benefit to the infant and conserves limited health care resources. In temperate regions in the United States, the RSV infection season typically begins in October and peaks in December through mid-February and ends in April or May.^4,5 In southern Florida, the RSV season often begins in August to September, peaks in November through December, and ends in March.^4,5 

This editorial reviews 3 strategies for prevention of RSV infection in infants, including: 

• universal treatment of newborns with nirsevimab
• immunization of pregnant persons with an RSVpreF vaccine in the third trimester appropriately timed to occur just before the beginning or during RSV infection season
• prioritizing universal maternal RSV vaccination with reflex administration of nirsevimab to newborns when the pregnant person was  not vaccinated.⁶ 

Of note, there are no studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of combining RSVpreF vaccine and nirsevimab. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) does not recommend combining both RSV vaccination of pregnant persons plus nirsevimab treatment of the infant, except in limited circumstances, such as for immunocompromised pregnant people with limited antibody production or newborns who have a massive transfusion, which dilutes antibody titres.⁶ 

RSV prevention strategy 1

Universal treatment of newborns and infants  with nirsevimab 

Nirsevimab (Beyfortus, Sanofi and AstraZeneca) is an IgG 1-kappa monoclonal antibody with a long half-life that targets the prefusion conformation of the RSV F-protein, resulting in passive immunity to infection.7 Passive immunization results in rapid protection against infection because it does not require activation of the immune system. Nirsevimab is long acting due to amino acid substitutions in the Fc region, increasing binding to the neonatal Fc receptor, which protects IgG antibodies from degradation, thereby extending the antibody half-life. The terminal halflife of nirsevimab is 71 days, and the duration of protection following a single dose is at least 5 months. 

Nirsevimab is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for all neonates and infants born or entering their first RSV infection season and for children up to  24 months of age who are vulnerable to severe RSV during their second RSV infection season. For infants born outside the RSV infection season, nirsevimab should be administered once prior to the start of the next RSV infection season.⁷ Nirsevimab is administered as a single intramuscular injection at a dose of  50 mg for neonates and infants < 5 kg  in weight and a dose of 100 mg for neonates and infants ≥ 5 kg in weight.⁷ The list average wholesale price for both doses is $594.⁸  Nirsevimab is contraindicated for patients with a serious hypersensitivity reaction to nirsevimab or its excipients.⁷ In clinical trials, adverse reactions including rash and injection site reaction were reported in 1.2% of participants.7 Some RSV variants may be resistant to neutralization with nirsevimab.^7,9 

In a randomized clinical trial, 1,490 infants born ≥ 35 weeks’ gestation, the rates of medically-attended RSV lower respiratory tract disease (MA RSV LRTD) through 150 days of follow-up in the placebo and nirsevimab groups were 5.0% and 1.2%, respectively (P < .001).^7,10 Compared with placebo, nirsevimab reduced hospitalizations due to RSV LRTD by 60% through 150 days of follow up. In a randomized clinical trial enrolling 1,453 infants born between 29 weeks’ and < 35 weeks’ gestation, the rates of MA RSV LRTD through 150 days of follow up in the placebo and nirsevimab groups were 9.5% and 2.6%, respectively  (P < .001). In this study of infants born preterm, compared with placebo, nirsevimab reduced hospitalization due to RSV LRTD by 70% through 150 days of follow up.⁷ Nirsevimab is thought to be cost-effective at the current price per dose, but more data are needed to precisely define the magnitude of the health care savings associated with universal nirsevimab administration.^11-13 The CDC reports that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of nirsevimab administration to infants is approximately $250,000, given an estimated cost of $500 for one dose of vaccine.¹⁴ 

Universal passive vaccination of newborns is recommended by many state departments of public health, which can provide the vaccine without cost to clinicians and health care facilities participating in the children’s vaccination program.

Continue to: RSV prevention strategy 2...

RSV prevention strategy 2

Universal RSV vaccination of pregnant persons from September through January 

The RSVpreF vaccine (Abryvso, Pfizer) is approved by the FDA for the active immunization of pregnant persons between 32 through 36 weeks’ gestation for the prevention of RSV LRTD in infants from birth through 6 months of age.¹⁵ Administration of the RSVpreF vaccine to pregnant people elicits the formation of antiRSV antibodies that are transferred transplacentally to the fetus, resulting in the protection of the infant from RSV during the first 6 months of life. The RSVpreF vaccine also is approved to prevent RSV LRTD in people aged ≥ 60 years. 

The RSVpreF vaccine contains the prefusion form of the RSV fusion (F) protein responsible for viral entry into host cells. The vaccine contains 60 µg of both RSV preF A and preF B recombinant proteins. The vaccine is administered as a single intramuscular dose in a volume of 0.5 mL. The vaccine is provided in a vial in a lyophilized form and must be reconstituted prior to administration. The average wholesale price of RSVPreF vaccine is $354.¹⁶ The vaccine is contraindicated for people who have had an allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine. The most commonly reported adverse reaction is injection site pain (41%).¹⁵ The FDA reports a “numerical imbalance in preterm births in Abrysvo recipients compared to placebo recipients” (5.7% vs 4.7%), and “available data are insufficient to establish or exclude a causal relationship between preterm birth and Abrysvo.”¹⁵ In rabbits there is no evidence of developmental toxicity and congenital anomalies associated with the RSVpreF vaccine. In human studies, no differences in the rate of congenital anomalies or fetal deaths were noted between RSVpreF vaccine and placebo.

 In a clinical trial, 6,975 pregnant participants 24 through  36 weeks’ gestation were randomly assigned to receive a placebo or the RSVpreF vaccine.^15,17 After birth, follow-up of infants at 180 days, showed that the rates of MA RSV LRTD among the infants in the placebo and RSVpreF vaccine groups were 3.4% and 1.6%, respectively. At 180 days, the reported rates of severe RSV LRTD in the placebo and RSVpreF vaccine groups were 1.8% and 0.5%, respectively. In this study, among the subset of pregnant participants who received the RSVpreF vaccine (n = 1,572) or placebo  (n = 1,539) at 32 through 36 weeks’ gestation, the rates of MA RSV LRTD among the infants in the placebo and RSVpreF vaccine groups were 3.6% and 1.5%, respectively. In the subset of pregnant participants vaccinated at 32 through 36 weeks’ gestation, at 180 days postvaccination, the reported rates of severe RSV LRTD in the placebo and RSVpreF vaccine groups were 1.6% and  0.4%, respectively.¹⁵ 

The CDC has recommended that the RSVpreF vaccine be administered to pregnant people 32 through 36 weeks’ gestation from September through the end of January in most of the continental United States to reduce the rate of RSV LRTD in infants.⁶ September was selected because it is 1 to 2 months before the start of the RSV season, and it takes at least 14 days for maternal vaccination to result in transplacental transfer of protective antibodies to the fetus. January was selected because it is 2 to 3 months before the anticipated end of the RSV season.⁶ The CDC also noted that, for regions with a different pattern of RSV seasonality, clinicians should follow the guidance of local public health officials. This applies to the states of Alaska, southern Florida, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.6 The CDC recommended that infants born < 34 weeks’ gestation should receive nirsevimab.⁶ 

Maternal RSV vaccination is thought to be cost-effective for reducing RSV LRTD in infants. However, the cost-effectiveness analyses are sensitive to the pricing of the two main options: maternal RSV vaccination and nirsevimab.

It is estimated that nirsevimab may provide greater protection than maternal RSV vaccination from RSV LRTD, but the maternal RSVpreF vaccine is priced lower than nirsevimab.¹⁸ Focusing administration of RSVpreF vaccine from September through January of the RSV infection season is thought to maximize benefits to infants and reduce total cost of the vaccination program.¹⁹ With year-round RSVpreF vaccine dosing, the estimated ICER per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is approximately $400,000, whereas seasonal dosing reduces the cost to approximately $170,000.¹⁹ 

RSV prevention strategy 3

Vaccinate pregnant persons; reflex to newborn treatment with nirsevimab if maternal RSV vaccination did not occur

RSVpreF vaccination to all pregnant persons 32 through 36 weeks’ gestation during RSV infection season is not likely to result in 100% adherence. For instance, in a CDC-conducted survey only 47% of pregnant persons received an influenza vaccine.2 Newborns whose mothers did not receive an RSVpreF vaccine will need to be considered for treatment with nirsevimab. Collaboration and communication among obstetricians and pediatricians will be needed to avoid miscommunication and missed opportunities to treat newborns during the birth hospitalization. Enhancements in electronic health records, linking the mother’s vaccination record with the newborn’s medical record plus an added feature of electronic alerts when the mother did not receive an appropriately timed RSVpreF vaccine would improve the communication of important clinical information to the pediatrician. 

Next steps for the upcoming peak  RSV season

We are currently in the 2023–2024 RSV infection season and can expect a peak in cases of RSV between December 2023 and February 2024. The CDC recommends protecting all infants against RSV-associated LRTD. The options are to administer the maternal RSVpreF vaccine to pregnant persons or treating the infant with nirsevimab. The vaccine is just now becoming available for administration in regional pharmacies, physician practices, and health systems. Obstetrician-gynecologists should follow the recommendation of their state department of public health. As noted above, many state departments of public health are recommending that all newborns receive nirsevimab. For clinicians in those states, RSVPreF vaccination of pregnant persons is not a priority. ●

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a negative-sense, single-stranded, ribonucleic acid (RNA) virus that is a member of Pneumoviridae family. Two subtypes, A and B, and multiple genotypes circulate during fall and winter seasonal outbreaks of RSV.¹ RSV can cause severe lower respiratory tract disease including bronchiolitis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, and death. Each year, RSV disease causes the hospitalization of 1.5% to 2% of children younger than 6 months of age, resulting in 100 to 300 deaths.² For infants younger than 1 year, RSV infection is the leading cause of hospitalization.³ In 2023, two new treatments have become available to prevent RSV disease: nirsevimab and RSVPreF vaccine. 

Nirsevimab

Nirsevimab is an antibody to an RSV antigen. It has a long half-life and is approved for administration to infants, providing passive immunization. In contrast, administration of the RSVPreF vaccine to pregnant persons elicits active maternal immunity, resulting in the production of anti-RSV antibodies that are transferred to the fetus, resulting in passive immunity in the infant. Seasonal administration of nirsevimab and the RSV vaccine maximizes benefit to the infant and conserves limited health care resources. In temperate regions in the United States, the RSV infection season typically begins in October and peaks in December through mid-February and ends in April or May.^4,5 In southern Florida, the RSV season often begins in August to September, peaks in November through December, and ends in March.^4,5 

This editorial reviews 3 strategies for prevention of RSV infection in infants, including: 

• universal treatment of newborns with nirsevimab
• immunization of pregnant persons with an RSVpreF vaccine in the third trimester appropriately timed to occur just before the beginning or during RSV infection season
• prioritizing universal maternal RSV vaccination with reflex administration of nirsevimab to newborns when the pregnant person was  not vaccinated.⁶ 

Of note, there are no studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of combining RSVpreF vaccine and nirsevimab. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) does not recommend combining both RSV vaccination of pregnant persons plus nirsevimab treatment of the infant, except in limited circumstances, such as for immunocompromised pregnant people with limited antibody production or newborns who have a massive transfusion, which dilutes antibody titres.⁶ 

RSV prevention strategy 1

Universal treatment of newborns and infants  with nirsevimab 

Nirsevimab (Beyfortus, Sanofi and AstraZeneca) is an IgG 1-kappa monoclonal antibody with a long half-life that targets the prefusion conformation of the RSV F-protein, resulting in passive immunity to infection.7 Passive immunization results in rapid protection against infection because it does not require activation of the immune system. Nirsevimab is long acting due to amino acid substitutions in the Fc region, increasing binding to the neonatal Fc receptor, which protects IgG antibodies from degradation, thereby extending the antibody half-life. The terminal halflife of nirsevimab is 71 days, and the duration of protection following a single dose is at least 5 months. 

Nirsevimab is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for all neonates and infants born or entering their first RSV infection season and for children up to  24 months of age who are vulnerable to severe RSV during their second RSV infection season. For infants born outside the RSV infection season, nirsevimab should be administered once prior to the start of the next RSV infection season.⁷ Nirsevimab is administered as a single intramuscular injection at a dose of  50 mg for neonates and infants < 5 kg  in weight and a dose of 100 mg for neonates and infants ≥ 5 kg in weight.⁷ The list average wholesale price for both doses is $594.⁸  Nirsevimab is contraindicated for patients with a serious hypersensitivity reaction to nirsevimab or its excipients.⁷ In clinical trials, adverse reactions including rash and injection site reaction were reported in 1.2% of participants.7 Some RSV variants may be resistant to neutralization with nirsevimab.^7,9 

In a randomized clinical trial, 1,490 infants born ≥ 35 weeks’ gestation, the rates of medically-attended RSV lower respiratory tract disease (MA RSV LRTD) through 150 days of follow-up in the placebo and nirsevimab groups were 5.0% and 1.2%, respectively (P < .001).^7,10 Compared with placebo, nirsevimab reduced hospitalizations due to RSV LRTD by 60% through 150 days of follow up. In a randomized clinical trial enrolling 1,453 infants born between 29 weeks’ and < 35 weeks’ gestation, the rates of MA RSV LRTD through 150 days of follow up in the placebo and nirsevimab groups were 9.5% and 2.6%, respectively  (P < .001). In this study of infants born preterm, compared with placebo, nirsevimab reduced hospitalization due to RSV LRTD by 70% through 150 days of follow up.⁷ Nirsevimab is thought to be cost-effective at the current price per dose, but more data are needed to precisely define the magnitude of the health care savings associated with universal nirsevimab administration.^11-13 The CDC reports that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of nirsevimab administration to infants is approximately $250,000, given an estimated cost of $500 for one dose of vaccine.¹⁴ 

Universal passive vaccination of newborns is recommended by many state departments of public health, which can provide the vaccine without cost to clinicians and health care facilities participating in the children’s vaccination program.

Continue to: RSV prevention strategy 2...

RSV prevention strategy 2

Universal RSV vaccination of pregnant persons from September through January 

The RSVpreF vaccine (Abryvso, Pfizer) is approved by the FDA for the active immunization of pregnant persons between 32 through 36 weeks’ gestation for the prevention of RSV LRTD in infants from birth through 6 months of age.¹⁵ Administration of the RSVpreF vaccine to pregnant people elicits the formation of antiRSV antibodies that are transferred transplacentally to the fetus, resulting in the protection of the infant from RSV during the first 6 months of life. The RSVpreF vaccine also is approved to prevent RSV LRTD in people aged ≥ 60 years. 

The RSVpreF vaccine contains the prefusion form of the RSV fusion (F) protein responsible for viral entry into host cells. The vaccine contains 60 µg of both RSV preF A and preF B recombinant proteins. The vaccine is administered as a single intramuscular dose in a volume of 0.5 mL. The vaccine is provided in a vial in a lyophilized form and must be reconstituted prior to administration. The average wholesale price of RSVPreF vaccine is $354.¹⁶ The vaccine is contraindicated for people who have had an allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine. The most commonly reported adverse reaction is injection site pain (41%).¹⁵ The FDA reports a “numerical imbalance in preterm births in Abrysvo recipients compared to placebo recipients” (5.7% vs 4.7%), and “available data are insufficient to establish or exclude a causal relationship between preterm birth and Abrysvo.”¹⁵ In rabbits there is no evidence of developmental toxicity and congenital anomalies associated with the RSVpreF vaccine. In human studies, no differences in the rate of congenital anomalies or fetal deaths were noted between RSVpreF vaccine and placebo.

 In a clinical trial, 6,975 pregnant participants 24 through  36 weeks’ gestation were randomly assigned to receive a placebo or the RSVpreF vaccine.^15,17 After birth, follow-up of infants at 180 days, showed that the rates of MA RSV LRTD among the infants in the placebo and RSVpreF vaccine groups were 3.4% and 1.6%, respectively. At 180 days, the reported rates of severe RSV LRTD in the placebo and RSVpreF vaccine groups were 1.8% and 0.5%, respectively. In this study, among the subset of pregnant participants who received the RSVpreF vaccine (n = 1,572) or placebo  (n = 1,539) at 32 through 36 weeks’ gestation, the rates of MA RSV LRTD among the infants in the placebo and RSVpreF vaccine groups were 3.6% and 1.5%, respectively. In the subset of pregnant participants vaccinated at 32 through 36 weeks’ gestation, at 180 days postvaccination, the reported rates of severe RSV LRTD in the placebo and RSVpreF vaccine groups were 1.6% and  0.4%, respectively.¹⁵ 

The CDC has recommended that the RSVpreF vaccine be administered to pregnant people 32 through 36 weeks’ gestation from September through the end of January in most of the continental United States to reduce the rate of RSV LRTD in infants.⁶ September was selected because it is 1 to 2 months before the start of the RSV season, and it takes at least 14 days for maternal vaccination to result in transplacental transfer of protective antibodies to the fetus. January was selected because it is 2 to 3 months before the anticipated end of the RSV season.⁶ The CDC also noted that, for regions with a different pattern of RSV seasonality, clinicians should follow the guidance of local public health officials. This applies to the states of Alaska, southern Florida, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.6 The CDC recommended that infants born < 34 weeks’ gestation should receive nirsevimab.⁶ 

Maternal RSV vaccination is thought to be cost-effective for reducing RSV LRTD in infants. However, the cost-effectiveness analyses are sensitive to the pricing of the two main options: maternal RSV vaccination and nirsevimab.

It is estimated that nirsevimab may provide greater protection than maternal RSV vaccination from RSV LRTD, but the maternal RSVpreF vaccine is priced lower than nirsevimab.¹⁸ Focusing administration of RSVpreF vaccine from September through January of the RSV infection season is thought to maximize benefits to infants and reduce total cost of the vaccination program.¹⁹ With year-round RSVpreF vaccine dosing, the estimated ICER per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is approximately $400,000, whereas seasonal dosing reduces the cost to approximately $170,000.¹⁹ 

RSV prevention strategy 3

Vaccinate pregnant persons; reflex to newborn treatment with nirsevimab if maternal RSV vaccination did not occur

RSVpreF vaccination to all pregnant persons 32 through 36 weeks’ gestation during RSV infection season is not likely to result in 100% adherence. For instance, in a CDC-conducted survey only 47% of pregnant persons received an influenza vaccine.2 Newborns whose mothers did not receive an RSVpreF vaccine will need to be considered for treatment with nirsevimab. Collaboration and communication among obstetricians and pediatricians will be needed to avoid miscommunication and missed opportunities to treat newborns during the birth hospitalization. Enhancements in electronic health records, linking the mother’s vaccination record with the newborn’s medical record plus an added feature of electronic alerts when the mother did not receive an appropriately timed RSVpreF vaccine would improve the communication of important clinical information to the pediatrician. 

Next steps for the upcoming peak  RSV season

We are currently in the 2023–2024 RSV infection season and can expect a peak in cases of RSV between December 2023 and February 2024. The CDC recommends protecting all infants against RSV-associated LRTD. The options are to administer the maternal RSVpreF vaccine to pregnant persons or treating the infant with nirsevimab. The vaccine is just now becoming available for administration in regional pharmacies, physician practices, and health systems. Obstetrician-gynecologists should follow the recommendation of their state department of public health. As noted above, many state departments of public health are recommending that all newborns receive nirsevimab. For clinicians in those states, RSVPreF vaccination of pregnant persons is not a priority. ●

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Cervical cancer was the most common cancer killer of persons with a cervix in the early 1900s in the United States. Widespread adoption of the Pap test in the mid-20th century followed by large-scale outreach through programs such as the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program have dramatically reduced deaths from cervical cancer. The development of a highly effective vaccine that targets human papillomavirus (HPV), the virus implicated in all cervical cancers, has made prevention even more accessible and attainable. Primary prevention with HPV vaccination in conjunction with regular screening as recommended by current guidelines is the most effective way we can prevent cervical cancer.

Despite these advances, the incidence and death rates from cervical cancer have plateaued over the last decade.¹ Additionally, many fear that due to the poor attendance at screening visits since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the incidence might further rise in the United States.² Among those in the United States diagnosed with cervical cancer, more than 50% have not been screened in over 5 years or had their abnormal results not managed as recommended by current guidelines, suggesting that operational and access issues are contributors to incident cervical cancer. In addition, HPV vaccination rates have increased only slightly from year to year. According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), coverage with 1 or more doses of HPV vaccine in 2021 increased only by 1.8% and has stagnated, with administration to about 75% of those for whom it is recommended.³ The plateauing will limit our ability to eradicate cervical cancer in the United States, permitting death from a largely preventable disease.

Establishing the framework for the eradication of cervical cancer

The World Health Organization (WHO) adopted a global strategy called the Cervical Cancer Elimination Initiative in August 2020. This initiative is a multipronged effort that focuses on vaccination (90% of girls fully vaccinated by age 15), screening (70% of women screened by age 35 with an effective test and again at age 45), and treatment (90% treatment of precancer and 90% management of women with invasive cancer).⁴

These are the numbers we need to achieve if all countries are to reach a cervical cancer incidence of less than 4 per 100,000 persons with a cervix. The WHO further suggests that each country should meet the “90-70-90” targets by 2030 if we are to achieve the low incidence by the turn of the century.⁴ To date, few regions of the world have achieved these goals, and sadly the United States is not among them.

In response to this call to action, many medical and policymaking organizations are taking inventory and implementing strategies to achieve the WHO 2030 targets for cervical cancer eradication. In the United States, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO; www.sgo.org), the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP; www.ASCCP.org), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG; www.acog.org), the American Cancer Society (ACS; www.cancer.org), and many others have initiated programs in a collaborative esprit de corps with the aim of eradicating this deadly disease.

In this Update, we review several studies with evidence of screening and management strategies that show promise of accelerating the eradication of cervical cancer.

Continue to: Transitioning to primary HPV screening in the United States...

Downs LS Jr, Nayar R, Gerndt J, et al; American Cancer Society Primary HPV Screening Initiative Steering Committee. Implementation in action: collaborating on the transition to primary HPV screening for cervical cancer in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73:458-460.

The American Cancer Society released an updated cervical cancer screening guideline in July 2020 that recommended testing for HPV as the preferred strategy. Reasons behind the change, moving away from a Pap test as part of the initial screen, are:

• increased sensitivity of primary HPV testing when compared with conventional cervical cytology (Pap test)
• improved risk stratification to identify who is at risk for cervical cancer now and in the future
• improved efficiency in identifying those who need colposcopy, thus limiting unnecessary procedures without increasing the risk of false-negative tests, thereby missing cervical precancer or invasive cancer.

Some countries with organized screening programs have already made the switch. Self-sampling for HPV is currently being considered for an approved use in the United States, further improving access to screening for cervical cancer when the initial step can be completed by the patient at home or simplified in nontraditional health care settings.²

ACS initiative created to address barriers to primary HPV testing

Challenges to primary HPV testing remain, including laboratory implementation, payment, and operationalizing clinical workflow (for example, HPV testing with reflex cytology instead of cytology with reflex HPV testing).⁵ There are undoubtedly other unforeseen barriers in the current US health care environment.

In a recent commentary, Downs and colleagues described how the ACS has convened the Primary HPV Screening Initiative (PHSI), nested under the ACS National Roundtable on Cervical Cancer, which is charged with identifying critical barriers to, and opportunities for, transitioning to primary HPV screening.⁵ The deliverable will be a roadmap with tools and recommendations to support health systems, laboratories, providers, patients, and payers as they make this evolution.

Work groups will develop resources

Patients, particularly those who have had routine cervical cancer screening over their lifetime, also will be curious about the changes in recommendations. The Provider Needs Workgroup within the PHSI structure will develop tools and patient education materials regarding the data, workflow, benefits, and safety of this new paradigm for cervical cancer screening.

Laboratories that process and interpret tests likely will bear the heaviest load of changes. For example, not all commercially available HPV tests in the United States are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for primary HPV testing. Some sites will need to adapt their equipment to ensure adherence to FDA-approved tests. Laboratory workflows will need to be altered for aliquots to be tested for HPV first, and the remainder for cytology. Quality assurance and accreditation requirements for testing will need modifications, and further efforts will be needed to ensure sufficient numbers of trained cytopathologists, whose workforce is rapidly declining, for processing and reading cervical cytology.

In addition, payment for HPV testing alone, without the need for a Pap test, might not be supported by payers that support safety-net providers and sites, who arguably serve the most vulnerable patients and those most at risk for cervical cancer. Collaboration across medical professionals, societies, payers, and policymakers will provide a critical infrastructure to make the change in the most seamless fashion and limit the harm from missed opportunities for screening.

Continue to: The quest for a “molecular Pap”: Dual-stain testing as a predictor of high-grade CIN...

Magkana M, Mentzelopoulou P, Magkana E, et al. p16/Ki-67 Dual staining is a reliable biomarker for risk stratification for patients with borderline/mild cytology in cervical cancer screening. Anticancer Res. 2022;42:2599-2606.

Stanczuk G, Currie H, Forson W, et al. Clinical performance of triage strategies for Hr-HPV-positive women; a longitudinal evaluation of cytology, p16/K-67 dual stain cytology, and HPV16/18 genotyping. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2022;31:1492-1498.
 

One new technology that was recently FDA approved and recommended for management of abnormal cervical cancer screening testing is dual-stain (DS) testing. Dual-stain testing is a cytology-based test that evaluates the concurrent expression of p16, a tumor suppressor protein upregulated in HPV oncogenesis, and Ki-67, a cell proliferation marker.^6,7 Two recent studies have showcased the outstanding clinical performance of DS testing and triage strategies that incorporate DS testing.

Higher specificity, fewer colposcopies needed with DS testing

Magkana and colleagues prospectively evaluated patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS), low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), or negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM) cytology referred for colposcopy, and they compared p16/Ki-67 DS testing with high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+); comparable sensitivities for CIN 2+ detection were seen (97.3% and 98.7%, respectively).⁸

Dual-stain testing exhibited higher specificity at 99.3% compared with HR-HPV testing at 52.2%. Incorporating DS testing into triage strategies also led to fewer colposcopies needed to detect CIN 2+ compared with current ASCCP guidelines that use traditional cervical cancer screening algorithms.

DS cytology strategy had the highest sensitivity for CIN 2+ detection

An additional study by Stanczuk and colleagues evaluated triage strategies in a cohort of HR-HPV positive patients who participated in the Scottish Papillomavirus Dumfries and Galloway study with HPV 16/18 genotyping (HPV 16/18), liquid-based cytology (LBC), and p16/Ki-67 DS cytology.⁹ Of these 3 triage strategies, DS cytology had the highest sensitivity for the detection of CIN 2+, at 77.7% (with a specificity of 74.2%), performance that is arguably better than cytology.

When evaluated in sequence as part of a triage strategy after HPV primary screening, HPV 16/18–positive patients reflexed to DS testing showed a similar sensitivity as those who would be triaged with LBC (TABLE).⁹

DS testing’s potential

These studies add to the growing body of literature that supports the use of DS testing in cervical cancer screening management guidelines and that are being incorporated into currently existing workflows. Furthermore, with advancements in digital imaging and machine learning, DS testing holds the potential for a high throughput, reproducible, and accurate risk stratification that can replace the current reliance on cytology, furthering the potential for a fully molecular Pap test.^10,11

Continue to: Cervical cancer screening in women older than age 65: Is there benefit?...

Firtina Tuncer S, Tuncer HA. Cervical cancer screening in women aged older than 65 years. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2023;27:207-211.

Booth BB, Tranberg M, Gustafson LW, et al. Risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse in women aged  ≥ 69 referred to colposcopy due to an HPV-positive screening test. BMC Cancer. 2023;23:405.
 

Current guidelines in the United States recommend that cervical cancer screening for all persons with a cervix end at age 65. These age restrictions were a change in guidelines updated in 2012 and endorsed by the US Preventive Services Task Force.^12,13 Evidence suggests that because of high likelihood of regression and slow progression of disease, risks of screening prior to age 21 outweigh its benefits. With primary HPV testing, the age at screening debut is 25 for the same reasons.¹⁴ In people with a history of CIN 2+, active surveillance should continue for at least 25 years with HPV-based screening regardless of age. In the absence of a history of CIN 2+, however, the data to support discontinuation of screening after age 65 are less clear.

HPV positivity found to be most substantial risk for CIN 2+

In a study published this year in the Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, Firtina Tuncer and colleagues described their experience extending “routine screening” in patients older than 65 years.¹⁵ Data including cervical cytology, HPV test results, biopsy findings, and endocervical curettage results were collected, and abnormal findings were managed according to the 2012 and 2019 ASCCP guidelines.