OBG Management

Researchers have been studying the use of exogenous progestins for prevention of preterm delivery (PTD) for almost 60 years, but conflicting results contribute to an ongoing debate. Interpretation of the available data is particularly difficult because different forms and doses of progestins have been used in disparate study populations.

Based on available data, progesterone supplementation is not effective as a primary prevention strategy for PTD in the general low-risk obstetric population. PTD is a complex problem with varied and incompletely elucidated pathogenic pathways, making it unlikely that one interventional approach would be effective for all pregnant women. As a result, emerging indications for the use of progesterone are based on risk factors for PTD (ie, prior PTD and/or short cervix). However, this secondary prevention approach is a limiting factor in itself because 50% of women destined to have a PTD have no identifiable risk factors.¹ In addition, researchers have found that progestins are ineffective at delaying delivery for women with multiple gestation, suggesting that a distinct underlying mechanism of early parturition is present in these women, and that this mechanism is unresponsive to progestins.²

The formulations used in the study of progestin supplementation for PTD prevention have been almost exclusively either the synthetic 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC) or natural progesterone administered orally or vaginally. In 2003, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) supported the use of progesterone to reduce the rate of PTD,³ and in 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 17-OHPC for use as prophylaxis against recurrent PTD. As a result, in recent years, the perceived standard of care for a majority of practitioners in the United States had been that all women with a previous preterm birth should be offered 17-OHPC. It may be interesting to note that in other parts of the world, the same enthusiastic adoption did not occur. For example, in Australia and New Zealand in 2007, only 5% of practitioners were using progesterone for this indication.⁴ Further, 17-OHPC is not recommended by professional guidelines in the United Kingdom and has remained unavailable in Germany.

The publication in 2019 of the PROLONG trial called into question the use of 17-OHPC for the prevention of PTD.⁵ In the December 2019 issue of OBG Management (“Managing preterm birth in those at risk: Expert strategies”), I expressed the opinion that with only rare exceptions, 17-OHPC is no longer a viable option for recurrent PTD prevention.⁶ In light of these developments, what scientific evidence is relevant and applicable to the care of women at risk for PTD?

Continue to: Case 1 Previous spontaneous PTD at 31 weeks...

Case 1 Previous spontaneous PTD at 31 weeks

MC is an asymptomatic 32-year-old woman with a singleton pregnancy at 13 weeks’ gestation. You see her for a maternal-fetal medicine consultation because 2 years ago she had a spontaneous PTD at 31 weeks’ gestation. What management recommendations can you make to decrease her risk of recurrent PTD?

Cervical length measurement narrows in on risk

The indication “previous preterm birth” is largely meaningless because of the heterogeneity in preterm birth pathways (preterm birth as a syndrome⁷) and inadequate risk characterization. Among women who experience a spontaneous PTD, 70% to 80% do not deliver prematurely in subsequent pregnancies.⁸ To better characterize the risk of PTD recurrence, ultrasound assessment of cervical length should be used. Research has shown that among women with a prior spontaneous PTD who maintain a normal cervical length until 24 weeks’ gestation, more than 90% will deliver at 35 weeks or after without intervention.⁹ Such an approach not only identifies the subgroup of women at significantly increased risk of recurrence but also eliminates unnecessary interventions.

Cervical ultrasound surveillance should be initiated at 16 weeks’ gestation. A short cervix before 16 weeks is not associated with a statistically significant increase in risk for PTD.¹⁰ Shortening of the cervix begins approximately 10 weeks before delivery in any gestational age group.¹¹ Therefore, ultrasound assessment of the cervix at 28 weeks and after is irrelevant. In addition, after 28 weeks, cervical length varies greatly leading to loss in the predictive power of the cervical measurement.¹² Based on these considerations, cervical surveillance may be extended up to 26 weeks. Although cervical cerclage is not an option in the United States in cases in which a short cervix is detected between 24 and 26 weeks, vaginal progesterone supplementation may still be considered.

Case 1 Continued

MC was started on ultrasound cervical surveillance at 16 weeks’ gestation. Her cervical length was initially normal (> 2.5 cm), but at 18 weeks the measurement was 2.2 cm. What is your recommendation?

The value of vaginal progesterone

There appears to be increasing consensus on the value of vaginal progesterone for women with a midtrimester short cervix on sonography, with or without a history of PTD. An individual patient data meta-analysis demonstrated the benefits of vaginal progesterone.¹³ Although there was no evidence of an effect on PTD at less than 37 weeks, the rates of PTD at less than 36 weeks and spontaneous PTD at less than 34 weeks were significantly reduced (by 20% and 28%, respectively). Also, there was a significant reduction in the risk of respiratory distress syndrome (53%) and composite neonatal morbidity and mortality (41%), with no significant impact on infant development up to the second year of life.¹³

The lack of generalizable evidence of benefit on childhood outcomes, combined with considerable uncertainty about the exact role and mechanism of action of exogenous progestins, contribute to the ongoing debate. Vaginal progesterone dosage regimens have been based on extrapolations from experience with progesterone in nonpregnant women, and recent pharmacokinetic studies have revealed how precarious such extrapolations may be. As an example, in nonpregnant women, the bioavailability of oral and vaginal progesterone is similar.¹⁴ In pregnancy, however, while daily oral progesterone doubles a pregnant woman’s serum progesterone level,¹⁵ daily vaginal administration of progesterone results in only a modest rise in serum progesterone, with a coefficient of variation among individuals that is double that outside of pregnancy.¹⁶ It is, therefore, considered that vaginal progesterone in pregnancy may have a local action secondary to the uterine first-pass effect. The uterine first-pass effect for vaginal progesterone was described in nonpregnant women and is only assumed to occur in pregnancy as well. ¹⁷

After evaluating the data from the largest available study of vaginal progesterone,¹⁸ the FDA concluded in 2012 that the study did not meet the statistical significance generally expected to support the approval of a new product. However, according to a more comprehensive evidence review developed in 2019 by the National Guideline Alliance in the United Kingdom, women with a history of PTD and women with a short cervix derive an important benefit from the use of vaginal progesterone; thus, this intervention should be offered to them.¹⁹ At this time, a short cervix and PTD prevention are not considered FDA-approved indications for progesterone supplementation in pregnancy. However, vaginal progesterone is FDA approved for use in pregnant women with a history of infertility.

Continue to: Case 1 Continued...

Case 1 Continued

MC initiated treatment with daily vaginal progesterone at 18 weeks’ gestation and returned for ultrasound cervical length examination weekly instead of every other week. At 20 weeks’ gestation, cervical length was 2.0 cm; the following week it was 1.4 cm. What would you recommend at this point?

When to consider cerclage

If cervical shortening progresses to about 1.5 cm while a woman is being treated with vaginal progesterone, cerclage may be considered. The benefit of cerclage in patients with prior PTD and a short cervix was highlighted in a 2018 Cochrane Review.²⁰ In this stepwise management approach to a short cervix, waiting for a cervix to be less than 1.5 cm may be unadvisable. Under conditions of a very short cervix that is frequently dilated with exposure of fetal membranes, ascending subclinical intra-amniotic infection may already be present, reducing the efficacy of any preventive measures. Preferential consideration for cerclage from the start over initial vaginal progesterone also may be appropriate when there is a history of 2 spontaneous PTDs or mid-trimester losses, a history of a successful cerclage, or with a very short cervix (< 1.0 cm) at the initial evaluation. As for the latter, a 2018 individual patient data meta-analysis of vaginal progesterone found no benefit when the cervix was less than 1.0 cm.¹³

Progesterone plus cerclage likely to add benefit

The results of an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis suggest that both interventions—vaginal progesterone and cerclage—are equally effective.²¹ Assuming that there is no clinically meaningful difference in benefit associated with these 2 treatments, the next logical question is whether combining the 2 therapies provides any added benefit; limited observational data seem to suggest that it does. In a retrospective cohort of 86 consecutive singleton pregnancies among women who underwent ultrasound-indicated cerclage, those who used vaginal progesterone after cerclage (n = 45) had a lower rate of PTD.²² Also, a small (66 cases) case-control study demonstrated the benefit of administration of vaginal progesterone as a rescue intervention in women with cerclage and progressive cervical shortening despite cerclage.²³

Case 2 Woman experiences adverse effects from vaginal progesterone

MS is a 25-year-old G2P0101 who was started on vaginal progesterone as prophylaxis for recurrent PTD. She is now at 20 weeks’ gestation, with a stable remnant cervical length of 2.0 cm. She is reporting an increasing vaginal burning sensation and vaginal discharge caused by the nightly vaginal progesterone applications, to the point that she is unwilling to continue the treatment. She asks if any alternatives to vaginal progesterone are available to decrease her risk of PTD.

Continue to: Is oral progesterone an option?...

Is oral progesterone an option?

In the 1980s and 1990s, oral micronized progesterone was widely used in France at doses of 900 to 1,200 mg/d for women at risk for PTD. The practice was stopped when secondary hepatic effects, including cholestasis of pregnancy, were reported at a higher rate in treated women.²⁴ A rise in the serum concentration of progesterone metabolites has been associated with impaired biliary excretion and subsequent accumulation of bile acids.²⁵ In other reports, elevated serum transaminase activity was found in pregnant women treated with oral micronized progesterone, and withdrawal of treatment frequently has led to improvement in transaminase levels.²⁶ The synthesis of endogenous progesterone during normal pregnancy is between 250 and 500 mg/d,²⁶ and experts have expressed concern that exogenous progesterone supplementation may impose an additional load on the hepatic transport of sulfated metabolites. Unlike orally administered progesterone, progestins given by the vaginal route avoid the hepatic first-pass effect. For this reason, they may be associated with less hepatic dysfunction.

Although not recommended by professional guidelines, oral progesterone administration for the prevention of PTD has been used in the United States. A 2015 survey of Wisconsin prenatal care providers found that of those who prescribed any progesterone for PTD prevention, oral progesterone was prescribed by 13.1% of obstetricians, 24.4% of midwives, and 40.7% of family medicine practitioners.²⁷

Some limited recent evidence from a meta-analysis of 3 trials investigating oral progesterone versus placebo suggests effectiveness in the prevention of recurrent PTD and reduction in perinatal morbidity and mortality.¹⁵ However, the number of cases included in the meta-analysis (386) was too small to support definitive clinical recommendations. Furthermore, questions have been raised in the literature about the reliability of the largest trial included in that meta-analysis.²⁸

Case 3 Two previous spontaneous PTDs

A 29-year-old G3P0201 presents for her first prenatal appointment at 10 weeks’ gestation. With her first pregnancy she had a spontaneous PTD at 23 weeks, and the neonate did not survive. In her second pregnancy, she was treated with 17-OHPC from 16 weeks’ gestation. She had a spontaneous PTD at 29 weeks, and that child is developing normally by her report. She believes that 17-OHPC helped her in her last pregnancy and is anxious about the risk for still another PTD. Consistent with the concept of shared decision-making, you inform her of the results of the recent PROLONG trial and statements on the subject released by professional organizations such as ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). What options does she have?

17-OHPC may be a possibility in very high-risk women

According to a SMFM statement released in the wake of the PROLONG trial publication, “. . . SMFM believes that it is reasonable for providers to use 17-OHPC in women with a profile more representative of the very high-risk population reported in the Meis trial”.²⁹ Only a few women will have a recurrence risk of PTD over 50%, as was the background event rate in the Meis trial.³⁰ Such a risk level may be suspected, as an example, in women with 2 or more prior early (before 34 weeks) PTDs without intervening term deliveries. Even in those cases, if treatment with 17-OHPC is decided upon, ultrasound cervical surveillance should be added as an additional safety measure. ●

Researchers have been studying the use of exogenous progestins for prevention of preterm delivery (PTD) for almost 60 years, but conflicting results contribute to an ongoing debate. Interpretation of the available data is particularly difficult because different forms and doses of progestins have been used in disparate study populations.

Based on available data, progesterone supplementation is not effective as a primary prevention strategy for PTD in the general low-risk obstetric population. PTD is a complex problem with varied and incompletely elucidated pathogenic pathways, making it unlikely that one interventional approach would be effective for all pregnant women. As a result, emerging indications for the use of progesterone are based on risk factors for PTD (ie, prior PTD and/or short cervix). However, this secondary prevention approach is a limiting factor in itself because 50% of women destined to have a PTD have no identifiable risk factors.¹ In addition, researchers have found that progestins are ineffective at delaying delivery for women with multiple gestation, suggesting that a distinct underlying mechanism of early parturition is present in these women, and that this mechanism is unresponsive to progestins.²

The formulations used in the study of progestin supplementation for PTD prevention have been almost exclusively either the synthetic 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC) or natural progesterone administered orally or vaginally. In 2003, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) supported the use of progesterone to reduce the rate of PTD,³ and in 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 17-OHPC for use as prophylaxis against recurrent PTD. As a result, in recent years, the perceived standard of care for a majority of practitioners in the United States had been that all women with a previous preterm birth should be offered 17-OHPC. It may be interesting to note that in other parts of the world, the same enthusiastic adoption did not occur. For example, in Australia and New Zealand in 2007, only 5% of practitioners were using progesterone for this indication.⁴ Further, 17-OHPC is not recommended by professional guidelines in the United Kingdom and has remained unavailable in Germany.

The publication in 2019 of the PROLONG trial called into question the use of 17-OHPC for the prevention of PTD.⁵ In the December 2019 issue of OBG Management (“Managing preterm birth in those at risk: Expert strategies”), I expressed the opinion that with only rare exceptions, 17-OHPC is no longer a viable option for recurrent PTD prevention.⁶ In light of these developments, what scientific evidence is relevant and applicable to the care of women at risk for PTD?

Continue to: Case 1 Previous spontaneous PTD at 31 weeks...

Case 1 Previous spontaneous PTD at 31 weeks

MC is an asymptomatic 32-year-old woman with a singleton pregnancy at 13 weeks’ gestation. You see her for a maternal-fetal medicine consultation because 2 years ago she had a spontaneous PTD at 31 weeks’ gestation. What management recommendations can you make to decrease her risk of recurrent PTD?

Cervical length measurement narrows in on risk

The indication “previous preterm birth” is largely meaningless because of the heterogeneity in preterm birth pathways (preterm birth as a syndrome⁷) and inadequate risk characterization. Among women who experience a spontaneous PTD, 70% to 80% do not deliver prematurely in subsequent pregnancies.⁸ To better characterize the risk of PTD recurrence, ultrasound assessment of cervical length should be used. Research has shown that among women with a prior spontaneous PTD who maintain a normal cervical length until 24 weeks’ gestation, more than 90% will deliver at 35 weeks or after without intervention.⁹ Such an approach not only identifies the subgroup of women at significantly increased risk of recurrence but also eliminates unnecessary interventions.

Cervical ultrasound surveillance should be initiated at 16 weeks’ gestation. A short cervix before 16 weeks is not associated with a statistically significant increase in risk for PTD.¹⁰ Shortening of the cervix begins approximately 10 weeks before delivery in any gestational age group.¹¹ Therefore, ultrasound assessment of the cervix at 28 weeks and after is irrelevant. In addition, after 28 weeks, cervical length varies greatly leading to loss in the predictive power of the cervical measurement.¹² Based on these considerations, cervical surveillance may be extended up to 26 weeks. Although cervical cerclage is not an option in the United States in cases in which a short cervix is detected between 24 and 26 weeks, vaginal progesterone supplementation may still be considered.

Case 1 Continued

MC was started on ultrasound cervical surveillance at 16 weeks’ gestation. Her cervical length was initially normal (> 2.5 cm), but at 18 weeks the measurement was 2.2 cm. What is your recommendation?

The value of vaginal progesterone

There appears to be increasing consensus on the value of vaginal progesterone for women with a midtrimester short cervix on sonography, with or without a history of PTD. An individual patient data meta-analysis demonstrated the benefits of vaginal progesterone.¹³ Although there was no evidence of an effect on PTD at less than 37 weeks, the rates of PTD at less than 36 weeks and spontaneous PTD at less than 34 weeks were significantly reduced (by 20% and 28%, respectively). Also, there was a significant reduction in the risk of respiratory distress syndrome (53%) and composite neonatal morbidity and mortality (41%), with no significant impact on infant development up to the second year of life.¹³

The lack of generalizable evidence of benefit on childhood outcomes, combined with considerable uncertainty about the exact role and mechanism of action of exogenous progestins, contribute to the ongoing debate. Vaginal progesterone dosage regimens have been based on extrapolations from experience with progesterone in nonpregnant women, and recent pharmacokinetic studies have revealed how precarious such extrapolations may be. As an example, in nonpregnant women, the bioavailability of oral and vaginal progesterone is similar.¹⁴ In pregnancy, however, while daily oral progesterone doubles a pregnant woman’s serum progesterone level,¹⁵ daily vaginal administration of progesterone results in only a modest rise in serum progesterone, with a coefficient of variation among individuals that is double that outside of pregnancy.¹⁶ It is, therefore, considered that vaginal progesterone in pregnancy may have a local action secondary to the uterine first-pass effect. The uterine first-pass effect for vaginal progesterone was described in nonpregnant women and is only assumed to occur in pregnancy as well. ¹⁷

After evaluating the data from the largest available study of vaginal progesterone,¹⁸ the FDA concluded in 2012 that the study did not meet the statistical significance generally expected to support the approval of a new product. However, according to a more comprehensive evidence review developed in 2019 by the National Guideline Alliance in the United Kingdom, women with a history of PTD and women with a short cervix derive an important benefit from the use of vaginal progesterone; thus, this intervention should be offered to them.¹⁹ At this time, a short cervix and PTD prevention are not considered FDA-approved indications for progesterone supplementation in pregnancy. However, vaginal progesterone is FDA approved for use in pregnant women with a history of infertility.

Continue to: Case 1 Continued...

Case 1 Continued

MC initiated treatment with daily vaginal progesterone at 18 weeks’ gestation and returned for ultrasound cervical length examination weekly instead of every other week. At 20 weeks’ gestation, cervical length was 2.0 cm; the following week it was 1.4 cm. What would you recommend at this point?

When to consider cerclage

If cervical shortening progresses to about 1.5 cm while a woman is being treated with vaginal progesterone, cerclage may be considered. The benefit of cerclage in patients with prior PTD and a short cervix was highlighted in a 2018 Cochrane Review.²⁰ In this stepwise management approach to a short cervix, waiting for a cervix to be less than 1.5 cm may be unadvisable. Under conditions of a very short cervix that is frequently dilated with exposure of fetal membranes, ascending subclinical intra-amniotic infection may already be present, reducing the efficacy of any preventive measures. Preferential consideration for cerclage from the start over initial vaginal progesterone also may be appropriate when there is a history of 2 spontaneous PTDs or mid-trimester losses, a history of a successful cerclage, or with a very short cervix (< 1.0 cm) at the initial evaluation. As for the latter, a 2018 individual patient data meta-analysis of vaginal progesterone found no benefit when the cervix was less than 1.0 cm.¹³

Progesterone plus cerclage likely to add benefit

The results of an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis suggest that both interventions—vaginal progesterone and cerclage—are equally effective.²¹ Assuming that there is no clinically meaningful difference in benefit associated with these 2 treatments, the next logical question is whether combining the 2 therapies provides any added benefit; limited observational data seem to suggest that it does. In a retrospective cohort of 86 consecutive singleton pregnancies among women who underwent ultrasound-indicated cerclage, those who used vaginal progesterone after cerclage (n = 45) had a lower rate of PTD.²² Also, a small (66 cases) case-control study demonstrated the benefit of administration of vaginal progesterone as a rescue intervention in women with cerclage and progressive cervical shortening despite cerclage.²³

Case 2 Woman experiences adverse effects from vaginal progesterone

MS is a 25-year-old G2P0101 who was started on vaginal progesterone as prophylaxis for recurrent PTD. She is now at 20 weeks’ gestation, with a stable remnant cervical length of 2.0 cm. She is reporting an increasing vaginal burning sensation and vaginal discharge caused by the nightly vaginal progesterone applications, to the point that she is unwilling to continue the treatment. She asks if any alternatives to vaginal progesterone are available to decrease her risk of PTD.

Continue to: Is oral progesterone an option?...

Is oral progesterone an option?

In the 1980s and 1990s, oral micronized progesterone was widely used in France at doses of 900 to 1,200 mg/d for women at risk for PTD. The practice was stopped when secondary hepatic effects, including cholestasis of pregnancy, were reported at a higher rate in treated women.²⁴ A rise in the serum concentration of progesterone metabolites has been associated with impaired biliary excretion and subsequent accumulation of bile acids.²⁵ In other reports, elevated serum transaminase activity was found in pregnant women treated with oral micronized progesterone, and withdrawal of treatment frequently has led to improvement in transaminase levels.²⁶ The synthesis of endogenous progesterone during normal pregnancy is between 250 and 500 mg/d,²⁶ and experts have expressed concern that exogenous progesterone supplementation may impose an additional load on the hepatic transport of sulfated metabolites. Unlike orally administered progesterone, progestins given by the vaginal route avoid the hepatic first-pass effect. For this reason, they may be associated with less hepatic dysfunction.

Although not recommended by professional guidelines, oral progesterone administration for the prevention of PTD has been used in the United States. A 2015 survey of Wisconsin prenatal care providers found that of those who prescribed any progesterone for PTD prevention, oral progesterone was prescribed by 13.1% of obstetricians, 24.4% of midwives, and 40.7% of family medicine practitioners.²⁷

Some limited recent evidence from a meta-analysis of 3 trials investigating oral progesterone versus placebo suggests effectiveness in the prevention of recurrent PTD and reduction in perinatal morbidity and mortality.¹⁵ However, the number of cases included in the meta-analysis (386) was too small to support definitive clinical recommendations. Furthermore, questions have been raised in the literature about the reliability of the largest trial included in that meta-analysis.²⁸

Case 3 Two previous spontaneous PTDs

A 29-year-old G3P0201 presents for her first prenatal appointment at 10 weeks’ gestation. With her first pregnancy she had a spontaneous PTD at 23 weeks, and the neonate did not survive. In her second pregnancy, she was treated with 17-OHPC from 16 weeks’ gestation. She had a spontaneous PTD at 29 weeks, and that child is developing normally by her report. She believes that 17-OHPC helped her in her last pregnancy and is anxious about the risk for still another PTD. Consistent with the concept of shared decision-making, you inform her of the results of the recent PROLONG trial and statements on the subject released by professional organizations such as ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). What options does she have?

17-OHPC may be a possibility in very high-risk women

According to a SMFM statement released in the wake of the PROLONG trial publication, “. . . SMFM believes that it is reasonable for providers to use 17-OHPC in women with a profile more representative of the very high-risk population reported in the Meis trial”.²⁹ Only a few women will have a recurrence risk of PTD over 50%, as was the background event rate in the Meis trial.³⁰ Such a risk level may be suspected, as an example, in women with 2 or more prior early (before 34 weeks) PTDs without intervening term deliveries. Even in those cases, if treatment with 17-OHPC is decided upon, ultrasound cervical surveillance should be added as an additional safety measure. ●

Researchers have been studying the use of exogenous progestins for prevention of preterm delivery (PTD) for almost 60 years, but conflicting results contribute to an ongoing debate. Interpretation of the available data is particularly difficult because different forms and doses of progestins have been used in disparate study populations.

Based on available data, progesterone supplementation is not effective as a primary prevention strategy for PTD in the general low-risk obstetric population. PTD is a complex problem with varied and incompletely elucidated pathogenic pathways, making it unlikely that one interventional approach would be effective for all pregnant women. As a result, emerging indications for the use of progesterone are based on risk factors for PTD (ie, prior PTD and/or short cervix). However, this secondary prevention approach is a limiting factor in itself because 50% of women destined to have a PTD have no identifiable risk factors.¹ In addition, researchers have found that progestins are ineffective at delaying delivery for women with multiple gestation, suggesting that a distinct underlying mechanism of early parturition is present in these women, and that this mechanism is unresponsive to progestins.²

The formulations used in the study of progestin supplementation for PTD prevention have been almost exclusively either the synthetic 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC) or natural progesterone administered orally or vaginally. In 2003, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) supported the use of progesterone to reduce the rate of PTD,³ and in 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 17-OHPC for use as prophylaxis against recurrent PTD. As a result, in recent years, the perceived standard of care for a majority of practitioners in the United States had been that all women with a previous preterm birth should be offered 17-OHPC. It may be interesting to note that in other parts of the world, the same enthusiastic adoption did not occur. For example, in Australia and New Zealand in 2007, only 5% of practitioners were using progesterone for this indication.⁴ Further, 17-OHPC is not recommended by professional guidelines in the United Kingdom and has remained unavailable in Germany.

The publication in 2019 of the PROLONG trial called into question the use of 17-OHPC for the prevention of PTD.⁵ In the December 2019 issue of OBG Management (“Managing preterm birth in those at risk: Expert strategies”), I expressed the opinion that with only rare exceptions, 17-OHPC is no longer a viable option for recurrent PTD prevention.⁶ In light of these developments, what scientific evidence is relevant and applicable to the care of women at risk for PTD?

Continue to: Case 1 Previous spontaneous PTD at 31 weeks...

Case 1 Previous spontaneous PTD at 31 weeks

MC is an asymptomatic 32-year-old woman with a singleton pregnancy at 13 weeks’ gestation. You see her for a maternal-fetal medicine consultation because 2 years ago she had a spontaneous PTD at 31 weeks’ gestation. What management recommendations can you make to decrease her risk of recurrent PTD?

Cervical length measurement narrows in on risk

The indication “previous preterm birth” is largely meaningless because of the heterogeneity in preterm birth pathways (preterm birth as a syndrome⁷) and inadequate risk characterization. Among women who experience a spontaneous PTD, 70% to 80% do not deliver prematurely in subsequent pregnancies.⁸ To better characterize the risk of PTD recurrence, ultrasound assessment of cervical length should be used. Research has shown that among women with a prior spontaneous PTD who maintain a normal cervical length until 24 weeks’ gestation, more than 90% will deliver at 35 weeks or after without intervention.⁹ Such an approach not only identifies the subgroup of women at significantly increased risk of recurrence but also eliminates unnecessary interventions.

Cervical ultrasound surveillance should be initiated at 16 weeks’ gestation. A short cervix before 16 weeks is not associated with a statistically significant increase in risk for PTD.¹⁰ Shortening of the cervix begins approximately 10 weeks before delivery in any gestational age group.¹¹ Therefore, ultrasound assessment of the cervix at 28 weeks and after is irrelevant. In addition, after 28 weeks, cervical length varies greatly leading to loss in the predictive power of the cervical measurement.¹² Based on these considerations, cervical surveillance may be extended up to 26 weeks. Although cervical cerclage is not an option in the United States in cases in which a short cervix is detected between 24 and 26 weeks, vaginal progesterone supplementation may still be considered.

Case 1 Continued

MC was started on ultrasound cervical surveillance at 16 weeks’ gestation. Her cervical length was initially normal (> 2.5 cm), but at 18 weeks the measurement was 2.2 cm. What is your recommendation?

The value of vaginal progesterone

There appears to be increasing consensus on the value of vaginal progesterone for women with a midtrimester short cervix on sonography, with or without a history of PTD. An individual patient data meta-analysis demonstrated the benefits of vaginal progesterone.¹³ Although there was no evidence of an effect on PTD at less than 37 weeks, the rates of PTD at less than 36 weeks and spontaneous PTD at less than 34 weeks were significantly reduced (by 20% and 28%, respectively). Also, there was a significant reduction in the risk of respiratory distress syndrome (53%) and composite neonatal morbidity and mortality (41%), with no significant impact on infant development up to the second year of life.¹³

The lack of generalizable evidence of benefit on childhood outcomes, combined with considerable uncertainty about the exact role and mechanism of action of exogenous progestins, contribute to the ongoing debate. Vaginal progesterone dosage regimens have been based on extrapolations from experience with progesterone in nonpregnant women, and recent pharmacokinetic studies have revealed how precarious such extrapolations may be. As an example, in nonpregnant women, the bioavailability of oral and vaginal progesterone is similar.¹⁴ In pregnancy, however, while daily oral progesterone doubles a pregnant woman’s serum progesterone level,¹⁵ daily vaginal administration of progesterone results in only a modest rise in serum progesterone, with a coefficient of variation among individuals that is double that outside of pregnancy.¹⁶ It is, therefore, considered that vaginal progesterone in pregnancy may have a local action secondary to the uterine first-pass effect. The uterine first-pass effect for vaginal progesterone was described in nonpregnant women and is only assumed to occur in pregnancy as well. ¹⁷

After evaluating the data from the largest available study of vaginal progesterone,¹⁸ the FDA concluded in 2012 that the study did not meet the statistical significance generally expected to support the approval of a new product. However, according to a more comprehensive evidence review developed in 2019 by the National Guideline Alliance in the United Kingdom, women with a history of PTD and women with a short cervix derive an important benefit from the use of vaginal progesterone; thus, this intervention should be offered to them.¹⁹ At this time, a short cervix and PTD prevention are not considered FDA-approved indications for progesterone supplementation in pregnancy. However, vaginal progesterone is FDA approved for use in pregnant women with a history of infertility.

Continue to: Case 1 Continued...

Case 1 Continued

MC initiated treatment with daily vaginal progesterone at 18 weeks’ gestation and returned for ultrasound cervical length examination weekly instead of every other week. At 20 weeks’ gestation, cervical length was 2.0 cm; the following week it was 1.4 cm. What would you recommend at this point?

When to consider cerclage

If cervical shortening progresses to about 1.5 cm while a woman is being treated with vaginal progesterone, cerclage may be considered. The benefit of cerclage in patients with prior PTD and a short cervix was highlighted in a 2018 Cochrane Review.²⁰ In this stepwise management approach to a short cervix, waiting for a cervix to be less than 1.5 cm may be unadvisable. Under conditions of a very short cervix that is frequently dilated with exposure of fetal membranes, ascending subclinical intra-amniotic infection may already be present, reducing the efficacy of any preventive measures. Preferential consideration for cerclage from the start over initial vaginal progesterone also may be appropriate when there is a history of 2 spontaneous PTDs or mid-trimester losses, a history of a successful cerclage, or with a very short cervix (< 1.0 cm) at the initial evaluation. As for the latter, a 2018 individual patient data meta-analysis of vaginal progesterone found no benefit when the cervix was less than 1.0 cm.¹³

Progesterone plus cerclage likely to add benefit

The results of an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis suggest that both interventions—vaginal progesterone and cerclage—are equally effective.²¹ Assuming that there is no clinically meaningful difference in benefit associated with these 2 treatments, the next logical question is whether combining the 2 therapies provides any added benefit; limited observational data seem to suggest that it does. In a retrospective cohort of 86 consecutive singleton pregnancies among women who underwent ultrasound-indicated cerclage, those who used vaginal progesterone after cerclage (n = 45) had a lower rate of PTD.²² Also, a small (66 cases) case-control study demonstrated the benefit of administration of vaginal progesterone as a rescue intervention in women with cerclage and progressive cervical shortening despite cerclage.²³

Case 2 Woman experiences adverse effects from vaginal progesterone

MS is a 25-year-old G2P0101 who was started on vaginal progesterone as prophylaxis for recurrent PTD. She is now at 20 weeks’ gestation, with a stable remnant cervical length of 2.0 cm. She is reporting an increasing vaginal burning sensation and vaginal discharge caused by the nightly vaginal progesterone applications, to the point that she is unwilling to continue the treatment. She asks if any alternatives to vaginal progesterone are available to decrease her risk of PTD.

Continue to: Is oral progesterone an option?...

Is oral progesterone an option?

In the 1980s and 1990s, oral micronized progesterone was widely used in France at doses of 900 to 1,200 mg/d for women at risk for PTD. The practice was stopped when secondary hepatic effects, including cholestasis of pregnancy, were reported at a higher rate in treated women.²⁴ A rise in the serum concentration of progesterone metabolites has been associated with impaired biliary excretion and subsequent accumulation of bile acids.²⁵ In other reports, elevated serum transaminase activity was found in pregnant women treated with oral micronized progesterone, and withdrawal of treatment frequently has led to improvement in transaminase levels.²⁶ The synthesis of endogenous progesterone during normal pregnancy is between 250 and 500 mg/d,²⁶ and experts have expressed concern that exogenous progesterone supplementation may impose an additional load on the hepatic transport of sulfated metabolites. Unlike orally administered progesterone, progestins given by the vaginal route avoid the hepatic first-pass effect. For this reason, they may be associated with less hepatic dysfunction.

Although not recommended by professional guidelines, oral progesterone administration for the prevention of PTD has been used in the United States. A 2015 survey of Wisconsin prenatal care providers found that of those who prescribed any progesterone for PTD prevention, oral progesterone was prescribed by 13.1% of obstetricians, 24.4% of midwives, and 40.7% of family medicine practitioners.²⁷

Some limited recent evidence from a meta-analysis of 3 trials investigating oral progesterone versus placebo suggests effectiveness in the prevention of recurrent PTD and reduction in perinatal morbidity and mortality.¹⁵ However, the number of cases included in the meta-analysis (386) was too small to support definitive clinical recommendations. Furthermore, questions have been raised in the literature about the reliability of the largest trial included in that meta-analysis.²⁸

Case 3 Two previous spontaneous PTDs

A 29-year-old G3P0201 presents for her first prenatal appointment at 10 weeks’ gestation. With her first pregnancy she had a spontaneous PTD at 23 weeks, and the neonate did not survive. In her second pregnancy, she was treated with 17-OHPC from 16 weeks’ gestation. She had a spontaneous PTD at 29 weeks, and that child is developing normally by her report. She believes that 17-OHPC helped her in her last pregnancy and is anxious about the risk for still another PTD. Consistent with the concept of shared decision-making, you inform her of the results of the recent PROLONG trial and statements on the subject released by professional organizations such as ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). What options does she have?

17-OHPC may be a possibility in very high-risk women

According to a SMFM statement released in the wake of the PROLONG trial publication, “. . . SMFM believes that it is reasonable for providers to use 17-OHPC in women with a profile more representative of the very high-risk population reported in the Meis trial”.²⁹ Only a few women will have a recurrence risk of PTD over 50%, as was the background event rate in the Meis trial.³⁰ Such a risk level may be suspected, as an example, in women with 2 or more prior early (before 34 weeks) PTDs without intervening term deliveries. Even in those cases, if treatment with 17-OHPC is decided upon, ultrasound cervical surveillance should be added as an additional safety measure. ●

[polldaddy:10527068]

[polldaddy:10527068]

[polldaddy:10527068]

CASE Pregnant woman with symptoms of genital infection

A 23-year-old primigravid woman at 15 weeks and 2 days’ gestation reported having a 2-week history of increased urinary frequency and vaginal discharge. She said she experienced similar symptoms 6 weeks previously that resolved within a week. The patient has had 3 sexual partners in the past year. Her current partner was experiencing a yellow urethral discharge and dysuria. On the patient’s speculum examination, the clinician noted a yellow-green discharge emanating from the cervix as well as cervical motion tenderness.

What is the most likely diagnosis, and how would you treat this patient?
 

The culprit was chlamydia

Chlamydia trachomatis is an obligate intracellular bacterium that does not stain with Gram staining. A rigid cell wall encloses its intracellular component. C trachomatis infection begins when the chlamydial elementary body enters a susceptible host cell.

Once ingested, the organism’s surface antigens (major outer membrane protein and lipopolysaccharide antigens) provide intracellular sanctuary for the bacterium by inhibiting phagolysosomal fusion. Subsequently, the elementary body morphs into a reticular body, which replicates through adenosine triphosphate (ATP)–dependent binary fission. After approximately 48 hours of replication, the organism again morphs into an elementary body and is released to infect additional cells and acquire new ATP stores for further replication.

Chlamydia can be transmitted horizontally during oral, vaginal, or anal intercourse or vertically to the infant during vaginal delivery.

The US’s most common notifiable disease

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the incidence of chlamydia infection in the United States increased considerably in recent years: from 976,455 cases in 2005 to 1,758,668 cases in 2018.¹ In 2018, rates of chlamydia infection in women were nearly double the rates in men, with an incidence of 688.2 versus 377.5 per 100,000 cases, and a prevalence of 1,150,672 versus 612,020.¹

Young adults have a higher frequency of chlamydia infection than any other age group. From 2017 to 2018, reported cases in women aged 15–19 years increased by 1.3%, to 3,306.8 per 100,000; in women aged 20–24 years, cases increased by 0.8%, to 4,064.6 per 100,000. In young men in the same age ranges, reported cases increased by 3.7%, to 959.0 cases per 100,000, and by 3.3%, to 1,784.5 per 100,000 cases, respectively.¹

Both the incidence and prevalence of chlamydia infection are higher in African Americans than in whites, while Asians have the lowest rates.¹ The prevalence of infection also is increased with incarceration, lower socioeconomic status, and residence in the southern United States.

The prevalence of chlamydia infection in pregnant women is approximately 2% to 3%, but it may be as high as 30% in high-risk populations, such as women who are unmarried, have multiple sex partners, are coinfected with another sexually transmitted disease (STD), have partners with nongonococcal urethritis, have mucopurulent discharge, have acute urethral syndrome, and have late or no prenatal care.² Since chlamydia infection often is asymptomatic and some infections resolve spontaneously, the true prevalence of infection probably is underreported.

Continue to: Chlamydia infection can cause serious clinical manifestations...

Chlamydia infection can cause serious clinical manifestations

The 15 serotypes of C trachomatis are grouped into 3 categories according to clinical manifestations:

• Serotypes A, B, Ba, and C cause endemic trachoma, characterized by bilateral irritation of the eyelids that progresses to eyelid thickening and scarring, eventually leading to corneal abrasion and blindness.
• Serotypes D–K manifest as conjunctivitis and pneumonia in newborns, proctitis in men (especially in men who have sex with men), and genitourinary infections in women. Reactive arthritis and inclusion conjunctivitis also can occur with D–K serotypes.
• Serotypes L1–L3 cause lymphogranuloma venereum.

About 70% of women with chlamydia infection are asymptomatic. Those who have symptoms often present with endocervicitis or acute urethral syndrome (acute urethritis). Manifestations of these 2 conditions include a frothy yellow-green vaginal and/or urethral discharge, dysuria, and frequency. Women who engage in rectal intercourse also may notice a purulent discharge from the anus. Untreated, C trachomatis organisms may ascend the reproductive tract, causing both endometritis and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID).

While a single episode of PID increases tubal infertility risk by 10%, a second episode increases the risk by 40%.³ Over time, recurrent and/or chronic PID causes scarring and adhesion formation, which may result in chronic pelvic pain. In addition, chronic infection is the single most important risk factor for ectopic pregnancy. Finally, chlamydia infection is a risk factor for Fitz-Hugh-Cutis syndrome (perihepatitis). In this condition, organisms ascend from the site of pelvic infection along the pericolic gutter to ultimately infect the liver capsule.

Specific complications in pregnancy

Chlamydia infection in pregnant women is associated with preterm delivery and preterm premature rupture of membranes. Infants born to mothers with untreated chlamydia infection are at risk for pneumonia, conjunctivitis, and even perinatal death.² Acquisition of infection occurs at the time of delivery rather than in the antepartum period.

The significant morbidity associated with chlamydia infection underscores the importance of regular screening, especially in pregnant women. The current United States Preventive Service Task Force guidelines recommend annual screening of all sexually active women who are 24 years of age or younger, as well as of older, high-risk women.

The CDC recommends routine screening of all pregnant women for chlamydia at the first prenatal visit. Repeat screening is recommended in the third trimester for all pregnant women younger than 25 years, those at increased risk, and those infected within the past 3 to 6 months or during the first trimester. Those who test positive should be retested 3 weeks after completion of treatment.¹

Chlamydia screening strategies

Historically, a chlamydia diagnosis was made by isolating the organisms in tissue culture. In the 1990s, however, that extremely time-consuming and resource-intensive procedure was replaced by nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT).

NAAT methodology. NAAT is the gold standard for diagnosing C trachomatis infection; this methodology utilizes various assays, including polymerase chain reaction, ligase chain reaction, and transcription-mediated amplification.

Continue to: Compared with previous culture and antigen detection techniques...

Compared with previous culture and antigen detection techniques, NAAT’s advantages include excellent sensitivity and specificity (>90% and ≥99%, respectively), enabling detection of a low inoculum of organisms in a sample obtained by noninvasive methods, such as first-void urine collection or vaginal swab.^2,4,5 Furthermore, NAAT does not impose any specific storage regulations on collected specimens, is cost effective, and can jointly test for Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which commonly co-infects with C trachomatis.⁶

Screening in pregnancy. In 2012, Blatt and colleagues examined testing patterns in nearly 1.3 million obstetric patients and found that only 59% (761,315) of women were tested for chlamydia at least once in pregnancy.⁷ Only 1 in 3 women were tested during the first prenatal visit, as CDC guidelines recommend. Testing rates declined with increasing age. Of women screened, 3.5% tested positive for chlamydia.⁷ Of these, 3 of 4 were retested at least once, with almost 20% having at least 1 subsequent positive result.⁷

Of note, in a study of women who reported receptive anal intercourse (n = 2,818), 292 women tested positive for chlamydia; 10.4% tested positive in genital-only sites, 58.6% in genital and rectal sites, and 20.5% at the rectal site only.⁸

It is alarming that only 59% of pregnant women are screened for chlamydia given the significant perinatal complications associated with this infection. Barriers to screening pregnant women may include clinician discomfort in discussing STDs and patient refusal of screening. Furthermore, clinicians should routinely ask women about receptive anal sex. Women who report this risk factor should be tested for chlamydia in both the endocervix and rectum.

Retesting and follow-up. After the initial diagnosis of chlamydia, a test of cure 3 weeks after treatment is an important aspect of care. Thus, identifying and overcoming barriers to retesting is important. Clinicians should educate patients about the importance of follow-up. Also consider incorporating the use of home-based, self-obtained vaginal swabs for retesting. Results from 2 randomized trials showed that eliminating a patient’s transportation barriers and providing a home-based alternative to a follow-up visit significantly increased rescreening rates by 33% in STD clinic patients and by 59.2% in family planning clinic patients.⁹

Reinfection risk. The rate of venereal chlamydia transmission in heterosexual partners is 70%. Since sexually active chlamydia-positive patients are at risk for reinfection by their partner after treatment completion, clinicians should refer the sex partners for evaluation. If the sex partners are reluctant to have testing, it is reasonable to provide empiric antibiotic treatment to decrease the risk of re-infection in the patient.⁷ Before doing so, however, make certain that state law permits this practice, and be sure to document the prescribed treatment in the patient’s record.

Continue to: Treatment options...

Treatment options

Prompt treatment of C trachomatis infection is essential to decrease the risk of disease sequelae. Nonpregnant adults can be treated with oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days.

In a head-to-head study performed in a controlled environment that ensured treatment adherence, 97% efficacy was achieved with one oral dose of azithromycin (1 g) compared with 100% efficacy with doxycycline.¹⁰ However, in the real-world setting, imperfect adherence to the multi-day doxycycline regimen is associated with treatment failures. Thus, a single dose of azithromycin is preferable for patients with questionable compliance.¹¹

In obstetric patients, azithromycin and amoxicillin are preferred as first-line agents for treatment of C trachomatis due to their improved safety profile in this demographic. Amoxicillin 500 mg orally 3 times daily for 7 days has 95% efficacy.²

Women allergic to these agents may be treated with an alternative regimen of erythromycin base, 500 mg orally 4 times daily for 7 days, or erythromycin ethylsuccinate, 800 mg orally 4 times daily for 7 days. Erythromycin should be reserved for second-line therapy because of its lower efficacy (64%) and frequent gastrointestinal adverse effects.² Doxycycline is contraindicated in pregnancy because of possible teratogenic effects on the teeth and bone of the fetus.

CASE Pregnant woman with symptoms of genital infection

A 23-year-old primigravid woman at 15 weeks and 2 days’ gestation reported having a 2-week history of increased urinary frequency and vaginal discharge. She said she experienced similar symptoms 6 weeks previously that resolved within a week. The patient has had 3 sexual partners in the past year. Her current partner was experiencing a yellow urethral discharge and dysuria. On the patient’s speculum examination, the clinician noted a yellow-green discharge emanating from the cervix as well as cervical motion tenderness.

What is the most likely diagnosis, and how would you treat this patient?
 

The culprit was chlamydia

Chlamydia trachomatis is an obligate intracellular bacterium that does not stain with Gram staining. A rigid cell wall encloses its intracellular component. C trachomatis infection begins when the chlamydial elementary body enters a susceptible host cell.

Once ingested, the organism’s surface antigens (major outer membrane protein and lipopolysaccharide antigens) provide intracellular sanctuary for the bacterium by inhibiting phagolysosomal fusion. Subsequently, the elementary body morphs into a reticular body, which replicates through adenosine triphosphate (ATP)–dependent binary fission. After approximately 48 hours of replication, the organism again morphs into an elementary body and is released to infect additional cells and acquire new ATP stores for further replication.

Chlamydia can be transmitted horizontally during oral, vaginal, or anal intercourse or vertically to the infant during vaginal delivery.

The US’s most common notifiable disease

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the incidence of chlamydia infection in the United States increased considerably in recent years: from 976,455 cases in 2005 to 1,758,668 cases in 2018.¹ In 2018, rates of chlamydia infection in women were nearly double the rates in men, with an incidence of 688.2 versus 377.5 per 100,000 cases, and a prevalence of 1,150,672 versus 612,020.¹

Young adults have a higher frequency of chlamydia infection than any other age group. From 2017 to 2018, reported cases in women aged 15–19 years increased by 1.3%, to 3,306.8 per 100,000; in women aged 20–24 years, cases increased by 0.8%, to 4,064.6 per 100,000. In young men in the same age ranges, reported cases increased by 3.7%, to 959.0 cases per 100,000, and by 3.3%, to 1,784.5 per 100,000 cases, respectively.¹

Both the incidence and prevalence of chlamydia infection are higher in African Americans than in whites, while Asians have the lowest rates.¹ The prevalence of infection also is increased with incarceration, lower socioeconomic status, and residence in the southern United States.

The prevalence of chlamydia infection in pregnant women is approximately 2% to 3%, but it may be as high as 30% in high-risk populations, such as women who are unmarried, have multiple sex partners, are coinfected with another sexually transmitted disease (STD), have partners with nongonococcal urethritis, have mucopurulent discharge, have acute urethral syndrome, and have late or no prenatal care.² Since chlamydia infection often is asymptomatic and some infections resolve spontaneously, the true prevalence of infection probably is underreported.

Continue to: Chlamydia infection can cause serious clinical manifestations...

Chlamydia infection can cause serious clinical manifestations

The 15 serotypes of C trachomatis are grouped into 3 categories according to clinical manifestations:

• Serotypes A, B, Ba, and C cause endemic trachoma, characterized by bilateral irritation of the eyelids that progresses to eyelid thickening and scarring, eventually leading to corneal abrasion and blindness.
• Serotypes D–K manifest as conjunctivitis and pneumonia in newborns, proctitis in men (especially in men who have sex with men), and genitourinary infections in women. Reactive arthritis and inclusion conjunctivitis also can occur with D–K serotypes.
• Serotypes L1–L3 cause lymphogranuloma venereum.

About 70% of women with chlamydia infection are asymptomatic. Those who have symptoms often present with endocervicitis or acute urethral syndrome (acute urethritis). Manifestations of these 2 conditions include a frothy yellow-green vaginal and/or urethral discharge, dysuria, and frequency. Women who engage in rectal intercourse also may notice a purulent discharge from the anus. Untreated, C trachomatis organisms may ascend the reproductive tract, causing both endometritis and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID).

While a single episode of PID increases tubal infertility risk by 10%, a second episode increases the risk by 40%.³ Over time, recurrent and/or chronic PID causes scarring and adhesion formation, which may result in chronic pelvic pain. In addition, chronic infection is the single most important risk factor for ectopic pregnancy. Finally, chlamydia infection is a risk factor for Fitz-Hugh-Cutis syndrome (perihepatitis). In this condition, organisms ascend from the site of pelvic infection along the pericolic gutter to ultimately infect the liver capsule.

Specific complications in pregnancy

Chlamydia infection in pregnant women is associated with preterm delivery and preterm premature rupture of membranes. Infants born to mothers with untreated chlamydia infection are at risk for pneumonia, conjunctivitis, and even perinatal death.² Acquisition of infection occurs at the time of delivery rather than in the antepartum period.

The significant morbidity associated with chlamydia infection underscores the importance of regular screening, especially in pregnant women. The current United States Preventive Service Task Force guidelines recommend annual screening of all sexually active women who are 24 years of age or younger, as well as of older, high-risk women.

The CDC recommends routine screening of all pregnant women for chlamydia at the first prenatal visit. Repeat screening is recommended in the third trimester for all pregnant women younger than 25 years, those at increased risk, and those infected within the past 3 to 6 months or during the first trimester. Those who test positive should be retested 3 weeks after completion of treatment.¹

Chlamydia screening strategies

Historically, a chlamydia diagnosis was made by isolating the organisms in tissue culture. In the 1990s, however, that extremely time-consuming and resource-intensive procedure was replaced by nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT).

NAAT methodology. NAAT is the gold standard for diagnosing C trachomatis infection; this methodology utilizes various assays, including polymerase chain reaction, ligase chain reaction, and transcription-mediated amplification.

Continue to: Compared with previous culture and antigen detection techniques...

Compared with previous culture and antigen detection techniques, NAAT’s advantages include excellent sensitivity and specificity (>90% and ≥99%, respectively), enabling detection of a low inoculum of organisms in a sample obtained by noninvasive methods, such as first-void urine collection or vaginal swab.^2,4,5 Furthermore, NAAT does not impose any specific storage regulations on collected specimens, is cost effective, and can jointly test for Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which commonly co-infects with C trachomatis.⁶

Screening in pregnancy. In 2012, Blatt and colleagues examined testing patterns in nearly 1.3 million obstetric patients and found that only 59% (761,315) of women were tested for chlamydia at least once in pregnancy.⁷ Only 1 in 3 women were tested during the first prenatal visit, as CDC guidelines recommend. Testing rates declined with increasing age. Of women screened, 3.5% tested positive for chlamydia.⁷ Of these, 3 of 4 were retested at least once, with almost 20% having at least 1 subsequent positive result.⁷

Of note, in a study of women who reported receptive anal intercourse (n = 2,818), 292 women tested positive for chlamydia; 10.4% tested positive in genital-only sites, 58.6% in genital and rectal sites, and 20.5% at the rectal site only.⁸

It is alarming that only 59% of pregnant women are screened for chlamydia given the significant perinatal complications associated with this infection. Barriers to screening pregnant women may include clinician discomfort in discussing STDs and patient refusal of screening. Furthermore, clinicians should routinely ask women about receptive anal sex. Women who report this risk factor should be tested for chlamydia in both the endocervix and rectum.

Retesting and follow-up. After the initial diagnosis of chlamydia, a test of cure 3 weeks after treatment is an important aspect of care. Thus, identifying and overcoming barriers to retesting is important. Clinicians should educate patients about the importance of follow-up. Also consider incorporating the use of home-based, self-obtained vaginal swabs for retesting. Results from 2 randomized trials showed that eliminating a patient’s transportation barriers and providing a home-based alternative to a follow-up visit significantly increased rescreening rates by 33% in STD clinic patients and by 59.2% in family planning clinic patients.⁹

Reinfection risk. The rate of venereal chlamydia transmission in heterosexual partners is 70%. Since sexually active chlamydia-positive patients are at risk for reinfection by their partner after treatment completion, clinicians should refer the sex partners for evaluation. If the sex partners are reluctant to have testing, it is reasonable to provide empiric antibiotic treatment to decrease the risk of re-infection in the patient.⁷ Before doing so, however, make certain that state law permits this practice, and be sure to document the prescribed treatment in the patient’s record.

Continue to: Treatment options...

Treatment options

Prompt treatment of C trachomatis infection is essential to decrease the risk of disease sequelae. Nonpregnant adults can be treated with oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days.

In a head-to-head study performed in a controlled environment that ensured treatment adherence, 97% efficacy was achieved with one oral dose of azithromycin (1 g) compared with 100% efficacy with doxycycline.¹⁰ However, in the real-world setting, imperfect adherence to the multi-day doxycycline regimen is associated with treatment failures. Thus, a single dose of azithromycin is preferable for patients with questionable compliance.¹¹

In obstetric patients, azithromycin and amoxicillin are preferred as first-line agents for treatment of C trachomatis due to their improved safety profile in this demographic. Amoxicillin 500 mg orally 3 times daily for 7 days has 95% efficacy.²

Women allergic to these agents may be treated with an alternative regimen of erythromycin base, 500 mg orally 4 times daily for 7 days, or erythromycin ethylsuccinate, 800 mg orally 4 times daily for 7 days. Erythromycin should be reserved for second-line therapy because of its lower efficacy (64%) and frequent gastrointestinal adverse effects.² Doxycycline is contraindicated in pregnancy because of possible teratogenic effects on the teeth and bone of the fetus.

CASE Pregnant woman with symptoms of genital infection

A 23-year-old primigravid woman at 15 weeks and 2 days’ gestation reported having a 2-week history of increased urinary frequency and vaginal discharge. She said she experienced similar symptoms 6 weeks previously that resolved within a week. The patient has had 3 sexual partners in the past year. Her current partner was experiencing a yellow urethral discharge and dysuria. On the patient’s speculum examination, the clinician noted a yellow-green discharge emanating from the cervix as well as cervical motion tenderness.

What is the most likely diagnosis, and how would you treat this patient?
 

The culprit was chlamydia

Chlamydia trachomatis is an obligate intracellular bacterium that does not stain with Gram staining. A rigid cell wall encloses its intracellular component. C trachomatis infection begins when the chlamydial elementary body enters a susceptible host cell.

Once ingested, the organism’s surface antigens (major outer membrane protein and lipopolysaccharide antigens) provide intracellular sanctuary for the bacterium by inhibiting phagolysosomal fusion. Subsequently, the elementary body morphs into a reticular body, which replicates through adenosine triphosphate (ATP)–dependent binary fission. After approximately 48 hours of replication, the organism again morphs into an elementary body and is released to infect additional cells and acquire new ATP stores for further replication.

Chlamydia can be transmitted horizontally during oral, vaginal, or anal intercourse or vertically to the infant during vaginal delivery.

The US’s most common notifiable disease

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the incidence of chlamydia infection in the United States increased considerably in recent years: from 976,455 cases in 2005 to 1,758,668 cases in 2018.¹ In 2018, rates of chlamydia infection in women were nearly double the rates in men, with an incidence of 688.2 versus 377.5 per 100,000 cases, and a prevalence of 1,150,672 versus 612,020.¹

Young adults have a higher frequency of chlamydia infection than any other age group. From 2017 to 2018, reported cases in women aged 15–19 years increased by 1.3%, to 3,306.8 per 100,000; in women aged 20–24 years, cases increased by 0.8%, to 4,064.6 per 100,000. In young men in the same age ranges, reported cases increased by 3.7%, to 959.0 cases per 100,000, and by 3.3%, to 1,784.5 per 100,000 cases, respectively.¹

Both the incidence and prevalence of chlamydia infection are higher in African Americans than in whites, while Asians have the lowest rates.¹ The prevalence of infection also is increased with incarceration, lower socioeconomic status, and residence in the southern United States.

The prevalence of chlamydia infection in pregnant women is approximately 2% to 3%, but it may be as high as 30% in high-risk populations, such as women who are unmarried, have multiple sex partners, are coinfected with another sexually transmitted disease (STD), have partners with nongonococcal urethritis, have mucopurulent discharge, have acute urethral syndrome, and have late or no prenatal care.² Since chlamydia infection often is asymptomatic and some infections resolve spontaneously, the true prevalence of infection probably is underreported.

Continue to: Chlamydia infection can cause serious clinical manifestations...

Chlamydia infection can cause serious clinical manifestations

The 15 serotypes of C trachomatis are grouped into 3 categories according to clinical manifestations:

• Serotypes A, B, Ba, and C cause endemic trachoma, characterized by bilateral irritation of the eyelids that progresses to eyelid thickening and scarring, eventually leading to corneal abrasion and blindness.
• Serotypes D–K manifest as conjunctivitis and pneumonia in newborns, proctitis in men (especially in men who have sex with men), and genitourinary infections in women. Reactive arthritis and inclusion conjunctivitis also can occur with D–K serotypes.
• Serotypes L1–L3 cause lymphogranuloma venereum.

About 70% of women with chlamydia infection are asymptomatic. Those who have symptoms often present with endocervicitis or acute urethral syndrome (acute urethritis). Manifestations of these 2 conditions include a frothy yellow-green vaginal and/or urethral discharge, dysuria, and frequency. Women who engage in rectal intercourse also may notice a purulent discharge from the anus. Untreated, C trachomatis organisms may ascend the reproductive tract, causing both endometritis and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID).

While a single episode of PID increases tubal infertility risk by 10%, a second episode increases the risk by 40%.³ Over time, recurrent and/or chronic PID causes scarring and adhesion formation, which may result in chronic pelvic pain. In addition, chronic infection is the single most important risk factor for ectopic pregnancy. Finally, chlamydia infection is a risk factor for Fitz-Hugh-Cutis syndrome (perihepatitis). In this condition, organisms ascend from the site of pelvic infection along the pericolic gutter to ultimately infect the liver capsule.

Specific complications in pregnancy

Chlamydia infection in pregnant women is associated with preterm delivery and preterm premature rupture of membranes. Infants born to mothers with untreated chlamydia infection are at risk for pneumonia, conjunctivitis, and even perinatal death.² Acquisition of infection occurs at the time of delivery rather than in the antepartum period.

The significant morbidity associated with chlamydia infection underscores the importance of regular screening, especially in pregnant women. The current United States Preventive Service Task Force guidelines recommend annual screening of all sexually active women who are 24 years of age or younger, as well as of older, high-risk women.

The CDC recommends routine screening of all pregnant women for chlamydia at the first prenatal visit. Repeat screening is recommended in the third trimester for all pregnant women younger than 25 years, those at increased risk, and those infected within the past 3 to 6 months or during the first trimester. Those who test positive should be retested 3 weeks after completion of treatment.¹

Chlamydia screening strategies

Historically, a chlamydia diagnosis was made by isolating the organisms in tissue culture. In the 1990s, however, that extremely time-consuming and resource-intensive procedure was replaced by nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT).

NAAT methodology. NAAT is the gold standard for diagnosing C trachomatis infection; this methodology utilizes various assays, including polymerase chain reaction, ligase chain reaction, and transcription-mediated amplification.

Continue to: Compared with previous culture and antigen detection techniques...

Compared with previous culture and antigen detection techniques, NAAT’s advantages include excellent sensitivity and specificity (>90% and ≥99%, respectively), enabling detection of a low inoculum of organisms in a sample obtained by noninvasive methods, such as first-void urine collection or vaginal swab.^2,4,5 Furthermore, NAAT does not impose any specific storage regulations on collected specimens, is cost effective, and can jointly test for Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which commonly co-infects with C trachomatis.⁶

Screening in pregnancy. In 2012, Blatt and colleagues examined testing patterns in nearly 1.3 million obstetric patients and found that only 59% (761,315) of women were tested for chlamydia at least once in pregnancy.⁷ Only 1 in 3 women were tested during the first prenatal visit, as CDC guidelines recommend. Testing rates declined with increasing age. Of women screened, 3.5% tested positive for chlamydia.⁷ Of these, 3 of 4 were retested at least once, with almost 20% having at least 1 subsequent positive result.⁷

Of note, in a study of women who reported receptive anal intercourse (n = 2,818), 292 women tested positive for chlamydia; 10.4% tested positive in genital-only sites, 58.6% in genital and rectal sites, and 20.5% at the rectal site only.⁸

It is alarming that only 59% of pregnant women are screened for chlamydia given the significant perinatal complications associated with this infection. Barriers to screening pregnant women may include clinician discomfort in discussing STDs and patient refusal of screening. Furthermore, clinicians should routinely ask women about receptive anal sex. Women who report this risk factor should be tested for chlamydia in both the endocervix and rectum.

Retesting and follow-up. After the initial diagnosis of chlamydia, a test of cure 3 weeks after treatment is an important aspect of care. Thus, identifying and overcoming barriers to retesting is important. Clinicians should educate patients about the importance of follow-up. Also consider incorporating the use of home-based, self-obtained vaginal swabs for retesting. Results from 2 randomized trials showed that eliminating a patient’s transportation barriers and providing a home-based alternative to a follow-up visit significantly increased rescreening rates by 33% in STD clinic patients and by 59.2% in family planning clinic patients.⁹

Reinfection risk. The rate of venereal chlamydia transmission in heterosexual partners is 70%. Since sexually active chlamydia-positive patients are at risk for reinfection by their partner after treatment completion, clinicians should refer the sex partners for evaluation. If the sex partners are reluctant to have testing, it is reasonable to provide empiric antibiotic treatment to decrease the risk of re-infection in the patient.⁷ Before doing so, however, make certain that state law permits this practice, and be sure to document the prescribed treatment in the patient’s record.

Continue to: Treatment options...

Treatment options

Prompt treatment of C trachomatis infection is essential to decrease the risk of disease sequelae. Nonpregnant adults can be treated with oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days.

In a head-to-head study performed in a controlled environment that ensured treatment adherence, 97% efficacy was achieved with one oral dose of azithromycin (1 g) compared with 100% efficacy with doxycycline.¹⁰ However, in the real-world setting, imperfect adherence to the multi-day doxycycline regimen is associated with treatment failures. Thus, a single dose of azithromycin is preferable for patients with questionable compliance.¹¹

In obstetric patients, azithromycin and amoxicillin are preferred as first-line agents for treatment of C trachomatis due to their improved safety profile in this demographic. Amoxicillin 500 mg orally 3 times daily for 7 days has 95% efficacy.²

Women allergic to these agents may be treated with an alternative regimen of erythromycin base, 500 mg orally 4 times daily for 7 days, or erythromycin ethylsuccinate, 800 mg orally 4 times daily for 7 days. Erythromycin should be reserved for second-line therapy because of its lower efficacy (64%) and frequent gastrointestinal adverse effects.² Doxycycline is contraindicated in pregnancy because of possible teratogenic effects on the teeth and bone of the fetus.

CASE Pregnant patient with fever who has travel history to Italy

A 28-year-old primigravid woman at 12 weeks’ gestation just returned from a 2-week vacation in Italy. She requests medical evaluation because of malaise; fever; chills; rhinorrhea; mild dyspnea; a dry, nonproductive cough; and diarrhea. On physical examination, her temperature is 38.6° C (101.5° F), pulse 104 bpm, respirations 22/minute, and blood pressure 100/70 mm Hg. Auscultation of the lungs demonstrates scattered rales, rhonchi, and expiratory wheezes in both posterior lung fields. The fetal heart rate is 168 bpm. What are the most likely diagnoses? What diagnostic tests are indicated? And what clinical treatment is indicated?

In the presented case scenario, the patient’s symptoms are consistent with a viral influenza. Her recent travel history certainly makes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) the most likely diagnosis.

COVID-19, caused by a novel new coronavirus, has evolved with lightning speed since it was first identified in early December 2019.¹ The disease originated in Wuhan, China. Its epicenter is now in Europe, and over 100 countries and regions have reported cases. New cases in the United States are being identified daily, and there is no clear end to the outbreak. Several areas of the United States have been particularly hard hit by this disease: Seattle, New Orleans, and New York City. 

COVID-19 has provoked widespread unsettledness in many populations and an extraordinary response from public health officials, large corporations, professional organizations, and financial markets. We are learning more about somewhat unfamiliar public health concepts such as quarantine, containment, mitigation, reproduction number (R), and “flattening the curve.” Disneyland and Walt Disney World are now temporarily closed. Professional and collegiate sports organizations have cancelled or suspended games and tournaments. Scientific and trade association meetings have been postponed or cancelled. Broadway, Carnegie Hall, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art have now “turned out the lights.”  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone avoid gatherings that include more than 10 other persons.

This article will review the evolving epidemiology of COVID-19, describe the usual clinical manifestations of the disease, highlight the key diagnostic tests, and present guidelines for treatment. It will review the limited information currently available about the impact of COVID-19 in pregnant women. The review will conclude by describing measures that individuals can employ to prevent acquisition or transmission of infection and then by highlighting key “unanswered questions” about this new and ominous pathogen (TABLE). 

Continue to: What we know about epidemiology...

What we know about epidemiology

COVID-19 is caused by a novel new coronavirus that shares some genetic overlap with the viruses that caused Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).² The first case of COVID-19 was reported on December 1, 2019, from Wuhan, China.¹ Within a very short period of time the disease has spread throughout the world, and on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the infection to be a true pandemic. The countries with the highest prevalence of COVID-19 include China, South Korea, Iran, Italy, France, Spain, and the United States. However, more than 100 other countries and regions have reported cases. As of the first week of April, approximately 1 million persons in the world have been diagnosed with COVID-19. Of those infected, slightly more than 50,000 deaths have occurred. At the time of this writing, 234,483 cases have been documented in the United States, and current estimates indicate that approximately 7% of the population in the country could become infected.^1,3,4 

The virus responsible for COVID-19 is a single-stranded, enveloped RNA virus. Like its counterparts that caused SARS and MERS, this virus originates in animals, primarily bats. The early cases seem to have resulted from patient contact with exotic animals displayed in the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.¹

The virus is transmitted directly by respiratory droplets and by close surface-to-hand contact with infected respiratory secretions. The virus appears to remain viable on environmental surfaces for 1 to 3 days, although the degree of infectivity over time is not well delineated. With direct exposure to respiratory droplets, the infectivity is relatively high; approximately 2 to 3 individuals become infected as the result of contact with an infected patient. By contrast, the “reproduction number (R)” for influenza is closer to 1.^2,5

Certain persons appear to be at increased risk for developing infection and becoming seriously ill^2,6:

• persons older than age 60
• persons with underlying medical illness
• persons who are immunosuppressed.

The reported range in the case fatality rate (CFR) varies from 1% to 13%, with the higher rates concentrated in older patients with comorbidities.³ These initial reports of high CFRs may be misleading because in the initial phases of this pandemic many patients with mild or no symptoms were not tested, and, thus, the overall prevalence of infection is not clear. By way of comparison, the CRF for influenza A and B is about 0.1%.²

Of note, the number of reported cases in the pediatric population is low, and the outcomes in these individuals are much better than in the older population.^2,3,6 At present, there are only two reports of COVID-19 in pregnancy; these two studies include 18 women and 19 infants.^7,8 The frequency of preterm delivery was 50% in these reports. Sixteen of the 18 patients were delivered by cesarean delivery; at least 6 of these procedures were performed for a non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing. No maternal deaths were identified, and no cases of vertical transmission occurred. 

We must remember that the number of patients described in these two reports is very small. Although the initial reports are favorable, in other influenza epidemics, pregnant women have not fared so well and have experienced disproportionately higher rates of morbidity and mortality.² 

Reported clinical manifestations

The incubation period of COVID-19 ranges from 2 to 14 days; the median is 5.2 days. Many patients with proven COVID-19 infection are asymptomatic. When clinical findings are present, they usually are relatively mild and include low-grade fever, myalgias, arthralgias, sore throat, mild dyspnea, and a dry nonproductive cough. Some patients also may experience diarrhea. Of course, these findings are also consistent with influenza A or B or atypical pneumonia. One key to differentiation is the patient’s history of recent travel to an area of high COVID-19 prevalence or contact with a person who has been in one of these areas and who is clinically ill.^2,3,9,10

In some patients, notably those who are older than 65 years of age and/or who have underlying medical illnesses, the respiratory manifestations are more prominent.6 These patients may develop severe dyspnea, pneumonia, adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multiorgan failure, and septic shock. Interestingly, the more severe manifestations tend to occur during the second week of the illness. In this group of more severely ill patients requiring hospitalization, 17% to 29% develop ARDS, and 23% to 32% require admission to the intensive care unit.^2,6

Pregnant patients who become severely ill may be at risk for spontaneous miscarriage and preterm labor. With profound maternal hypoxia, fetal heart rate abnormalities may become apparent. To date, no clearly proven cases of vertical transmission of infection to the newborn have been identified. However, as noted above, current reports only include 18 pregnancies and 19 infants.^2,3,7,8,11

Continue to: Diagnostic testing...

Diagnostic testing

Infected patients may have a decreased peripheral white blood cell count, with a specific decrease in the number of lymphocytes. Thrombocytopenia may be present, as well as an elevation in the hepatic transaminase enzymes (ALT, AST).²

X-ray, chest CT, and RT-PCR. The three most important diagnostic tests are chest x-ray, chest computed tomography (CT) scan, and real-time PCR (RT-PCR) or nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT).^2,6 Specimens for RT-PCR or NAAT should be obtained from the oropharynx and nasopharynx using a synthetic-tipped applicator with an aluminum shaft. Patients who are intubated should have specimens obtained by broncho-alveolar lavage. The virus also has been recovered from blood and stool, but not yet from urine, amniotic fluid, placenta, cord blood, or breast milk.² 

CT and chest x-ray show characteristic ground-glass opacities in both lung fields, combined with multiple areas of consolidation. Chest imaging is particularly helpful when the patient has all the major clinical manifestations, but the initial RT-PCR or NAAT is negative.

Treatment

Fortunately, most infected persons can be treated as outpatients. Because this condition may be confused with influenza A or B, initial treatment with a drug such as oseltamivir 75 mg orally twice daily for five days is very reasonable.⁹ Supportive therapy is critically important in this clinical setting. Acetaminophen, up to 3,000 mg/d in divided doses, or ibuprofen, up to 2,400 mg/d in divided doses, can be used to reduce fever and relieve myalgias and arthralgias. The latter drug, of course, should not be used in pregnant women. The patient should be encouraged to rest and to stay well hydrated. Loperamide can be used to treat diarrhea, 4 mg orally initially, then 2 mg orally after each loose stool up to a maximum of 16 mg/d. Pregnant patients should be cautioned to watch for signs of preterm labor.^9,12 Patients should remain in relative isolation at home until they are free of signs of illness and they test negative for COVID-19.

For patients who are more severely ill at initial evaluation or who deteriorate while undergoing outpatient management, hospitalization is indicated.2,6 Patients should be placed in rooms that provide protection against aerosolized infection. They should receive supplemental oxygen and be observed closely for signs of superimposed bacterial infection. Depending upon the suspected bacterial pathogen, appropriate antibiotics may include ceftriaxone, which targets Streptococcus pneumoniae, Hemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis; azithromycin, which targets mycoplasmas; and vancomycin, which specifically covers Staphylococcus aureus. Health care workers should wear appropriate personal protective equipment when interacting with these patients, including cap, N95 mask, face shield, gloves, gown, and shoe covers. If a woman with COVID-19 has delivered, and the pediatrician permits rooming in, the isolette should be positioned at least 6 feet away from the mother. The mother should use a mechanical breast pump to obtain milk and then have another family member feed the baby until the mother tests negative for the virus.  The breast pump needs to be cleaned meticulously after each use. The number of visitors to the mother’s room should be strictly limited.3,9

At the present time, there is no specific antiviral drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of COVID-19. The National Institutes of Health is currently conducting a trial of remdesivir for affected patients.¹³ The drug is also available from the manufacturer outside of this trial on a “compassionate use” basis. Another treatment regimen receiving extensive publicity is the combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine. Its effectiveness has not been confirmed in a properly designed randomized trial.

Prevention hinges on commonsense precautions

Although vaccine trials are underway, public health authorities estimate that a vaccine will not be commercially available for at least 12 to 18 months. Therefore, independent of “community/organizational” mitigation programs, individuals should observe the following commonsense precautions to minimize their risk of contracting or transmitting COVID-19^2,3,5,14:

• Eliminate any nonessential travel, particularly by plane or cruise ship.
• Avoid events that draw large crowds, such as concerts, theater performances, movies, and even religious services. 
• When out in public, try to maintain a distance of 6 feet from others
• Remain at home if you feel ill, particularly if you have respiratory symptoms.
• Cough or sneeze into your sleeve rather than your bare hand.
• Avoid handshakes.
• Wash your hands frequently in warm soapy water for at least 20 seconds, particularly after touching environmental surfaces such as counter tops and handrails.
• If you use hand sanitizers, they should have an alcohol content of at least 60%.
• Clean environmental surfaces frequently with a dilute bleach solution.

CASE Resolved

The clinical manifestations displayed by this patient are consistent with viral influenza. The recent travel history to one of the European epicenters makes COVID-19 the most likely diagnosis. The patient should have a chest CT scan and a RT-PCR or NAAT to confirm the diagnosis. If the diagnosis is confirmed, she and her close contacts should be self-quarantined at home for 14 days.  She should receive appropriate supportive care with anti-pyretics, analgesics, and anti-diarrhea agents. If she develops signs of serious respiratory compromise, she should be admitted to an isolation room in the hospital for intensive respiratory therapy and close observation for superimposed bacterial pneumonia.

CASE Pregnant patient with fever who has travel history to Italy

A 28-year-old primigravid woman at 12 weeks’ gestation just returned from a 2-week vacation in Italy. She requests medical evaluation because of malaise; fever; chills; rhinorrhea; mild dyspnea; a dry, nonproductive cough; and diarrhea. On physical examination, her temperature is 38.6° C (101.5° F), pulse 104 bpm, respirations 22/minute, and blood pressure 100/70 mm Hg. Auscultation of the lungs demonstrates scattered rales, rhonchi, and expiratory wheezes in both posterior lung fields. The fetal heart rate is 168 bpm. What are the most likely diagnoses? What diagnostic tests are indicated? And what clinical treatment is indicated?

In the presented case scenario, the patient’s symptoms are consistent with a viral influenza. Her recent travel history certainly makes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) the most likely diagnosis.

COVID-19, caused by a novel new coronavirus, has evolved with lightning speed since it was first identified in early December 2019.¹ The disease originated in Wuhan, China. Its epicenter is now in Europe, and over 100 countries and regions have reported cases. New cases in the United States are being identified daily, and there is no clear end to the outbreak. Several areas of the United States have been particularly hard hit by this disease: Seattle, New Orleans, and New York City. 

COVID-19 has provoked widespread unsettledness in many populations and an extraordinary response from public health officials, large corporations, professional organizations, and financial markets. We are learning more about somewhat unfamiliar public health concepts such as quarantine, containment, mitigation, reproduction number (R), and “flattening the curve.” Disneyland and Walt Disney World are now temporarily closed. Professional and collegiate sports organizations have cancelled or suspended games and tournaments. Scientific and trade association meetings have been postponed or cancelled. Broadway, Carnegie Hall, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art have now “turned out the lights.”  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone avoid gatherings that include more than 10 other persons.

This article will review the evolving epidemiology of COVID-19, describe the usual clinical manifestations of the disease, highlight the key diagnostic tests, and present guidelines for treatment. It will review the limited information currently available about the impact of COVID-19 in pregnant women. The review will conclude by describing measures that individuals can employ to prevent acquisition or transmission of infection and then by highlighting key “unanswered questions” about this new and ominous pathogen (TABLE). 

Continue to: What we know about epidemiology...

What we know about epidemiology

COVID-19 is caused by a novel new coronavirus that shares some genetic overlap with the viruses that caused Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).² The first case of COVID-19 was reported on December 1, 2019, from Wuhan, China.¹ Within a very short period of time the disease has spread throughout the world, and on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the infection to be a true pandemic. The countries with the highest prevalence of COVID-19 include China, South Korea, Iran, Italy, France, Spain, and the United States. However, more than 100 other countries and regions have reported cases. As of the first week of April, approximately 1 million persons in the world have been diagnosed with COVID-19. Of those infected, slightly more than 50,000 deaths have occurred. At the time of this writing, 234,483 cases have been documented in the United States, and current estimates indicate that approximately 7% of the population in the country could become infected.^1,3,4 

The virus responsible for COVID-19 is a single-stranded, enveloped RNA virus. Like its counterparts that caused SARS and MERS, this virus originates in animals, primarily bats. The early cases seem to have resulted from patient contact with exotic animals displayed in the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.¹

The virus is transmitted directly by respiratory droplets and by close surface-to-hand contact with infected respiratory secretions. The virus appears to remain viable on environmental surfaces for 1 to 3 days, although the degree of infectivity over time is not well delineated. With direct exposure to respiratory droplets, the infectivity is relatively high; approximately 2 to 3 individuals become infected as the result of contact with an infected patient. By contrast, the “reproduction number (R)” for influenza is closer to 1.^2,5

Certain persons appear to be at increased risk for developing infection and becoming seriously ill^2,6:

• persons older than age 60
• persons with underlying medical illness
• persons who are immunosuppressed.

The reported range in the case fatality rate (CFR) varies from 1% to 13%, with the higher rates concentrated in older patients with comorbidities.³ These initial reports of high CFRs may be misleading because in the initial phases of this pandemic many patients with mild or no symptoms were not tested, and, thus, the overall prevalence of infection is not clear. By way of comparison, the CRF for influenza A and B is about 0.1%.²

Of note, the number of reported cases in the pediatric population is low, and the outcomes in these individuals are much better than in the older population.^2,3,6 At present, there are only two reports of COVID-19 in pregnancy; these two studies include 18 women and 19 infants.^7,8 The frequency of preterm delivery was 50% in these reports. Sixteen of the 18 patients were delivered by cesarean delivery; at least 6 of these procedures were performed for a non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing. No maternal deaths were identified, and no cases of vertical transmission occurred. 

We must remember that the number of patients described in these two reports is very small. Although the initial reports are favorable, in other influenza epidemics, pregnant women have not fared so well and have experienced disproportionately higher rates of morbidity and mortality.² 

Reported clinical manifestations

The incubation period of COVID-19 ranges from 2 to 14 days; the median is 5.2 days. Many patients with proven COVID-19 infection are asymptomatic. When clinical findings are present, they usually are relatively mild and include low-grade fever, myalgias, arthralgias, sore throat, mild dyspnea, and a dry nonproductive cough. Some patients also may experience diarrhea. Of course, these findings are also consistent with influenza A or B or atypical pneumonia. One key to differentiation is the patient’s history of recent travel to an area of high COVID-19 prevalence or contact with a person who has been in one of these areas and who is clinically ill.^2,3,9,10

In some patients, notably those who are older than 65 years of age and/or who have underlying medical illnesses, the respiratory manifestations are more prominent.6 These patients may develop severe dyspnea, pneumonia, adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multiorgan failure, and septic shock. Interestingly, the more severe manifestations tend to occur during the second week of the illness. In this group of more severely ill patients requiring hospitalization, 17% to 29% develop ARDS, and 23% to 32% require admission to the intensive care unit.^2,6

Pregnant patients who become severely ill may be at risk for spontaneous miscarriage and preterm labor. With profound maternal hypoxia, fetal heart rate abnormalities may become apparent. To date, no clearly proven cases of vertical transmission of infection to the newborn have been identified. However, as noted above, current reports only include 18 pregnancies and 19 infants.^2,3,7,8,11

Continue to: Diagnostic testing...

Diagnostic testing

Infected patients may have a decreased peripheral white blood cell count, with a specific decrease in the number of lymphocytes. Thrombocytopenia may be present, as well as an elevation in the hepatic transaminase enzymes (ALT, AST).²

X-ray, chest CT, and RT-PCR. The three most important diagnostic tests are chest x-ray, chest computed tomography (CT) scan, and real-time PCR (RT-PCR) or nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT).^2,6 Specimens for RT-PCR or NAAT should be obtained from the oropharynx and nasopharynx using a synthetic-tipped applicator with an aluminum shaft. Patients who are intubated should have specimens obtained by broncho-alveolar lavage. The virus also has been recovered from blood and stool, but not yet from urine, amniotic fluid, placenta, cord blood, or breast milk.² 

CT and chest x-ray show characteristic ground-glass opacities in both lung fields, combined with multiple areas of consolidation. Chest imaging is particularly helpful when the patient has all the major clinical manifestations, but the initial RT-PCR or NAAT is negative.

Treatment

Fortunately, most infected persons can be treated as outpatients. Because this condition may be confused with influenza A or B, initial treatment with a drug such as oseltamivir 75 mg orally twice daily for five days is very reasonable.⁹ Supportive therapy is critically important in this clinical setting. Acetaminophen, up to 3,000 mg/d in divided doses, or ibuprofen, up to 2,400 mg/d in divided doses, can be used to reduce fever and relieve myalgias and arthralgias. The latter drug, of course, should not be used in pregnant women. The patient should be encouraged to rest and to stay well hydrated. Loperamide can be used to treat diarrhea, 4 mg orally initially, then 2 mg orally after each loose stool up to a maximum of 16 mg/d. Pregnant patients should be cautioned to watch for signs of preterm labor.^9,12 Patients should remain in relative isolation at home until they are free of signs of illness and they test negative for COVID-19.

For patients who are more severely ill at initial evaluation or who deteriorate while undergoing outpatient management, hospitalization is indicated.2,6 Patients should be placed in rooms that provide protection against aerosolized infection. They should receive supplemental oxygen and be observed closely for signs of superimposed bacterial infection. Depending upon the suspected bacterial pathogen, appropriate antibiotics may include ceftriaxone, which targets Streptococcus pneumoniae, Hemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis; azithromycin, which targets mycoplasmas; and vancomycin, which specifically covers Staphylococcus aureus. Health care workers should wear appropriate personal protective equipment when interacting with these patients, including cap, N95 mask, face shield, gloves, gown, and shoe covers. If a woman with COVID-19 has delivered, and the pediatrician permits rooming in, the isolette should be positioned at least 6 feet away from the mother. The mother should use a mechanical breast pump to obtain milk and then have another family member feed the baby until the mother tests negative for the virus.  The breast pump needs to be cleaned meticulously after each use. The number of visitors to the mother’s room should be strictly limited.3,9

At the present time, there is no specific antiviral drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of COVID-19. The National Institutes of Health is currently conducting a trial of remdesivir for affected patients.¹³ The drug is also available from the manufacturer outside of this trial on a “compassionate use” basis. Another treatment regimen receiving extensive publicity is the combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine. Its effectiveness has not been confirmed in a properly designed randomized trial.

Prevention hinges on commonsense precautions

Although vaccine trials are underway, public health authorities estimate that a vaccine will not be commercially available for at least 12 to 18 months. Therefore, independent of “community/organizational” mitigation programs, individuals should observe the following commonsense precautions to minimize their risk of contracting or transmitting COVID-19^2,3,5,14:

• Eliminate any nonessential travel, particularly by plane or cruise ship.
• Avoid events that draw large crowds, such as concerts, theater performances, movies, and even religious services. 
• When out in public, try to maintain a distance of 6 feet from others
• Remain at home if you feel ill, particularly if you have respiratory symptoms.
• Cough or sneeze into your sleeve rather than your bare hand.
• Avoid handshakes.
• Wash your hands frequently in warm soapy water for at least 20 seconds, particularly after touching environmental surfaces such as counter tops and handrails.
• If you use hand sanitizers, they should have an alcohol content of at least 60%.
• Clean environmental surfaces frequently with a dilute bleach solution.

CASE Resolved

The clinical manifestations displayed by this patient are consistent with viral influenza. The recent travel history to one of the European epicenters makes COVID-19 the most likely diagnosis. The patient should have a chest CT scan and a RT-PCR or NAAT to confirm the diagnosis. If the diagnosis is confirmed, she and her close contacts should be self-quarantined at home for 14 days.  She should receive appropriate supportive care with anti-pyretics, analgesics, and anti-diarrhea agents. If she develops signs of serious respiratory compromise, she should be admitted to an isolation room in the hospital for intensive respiratory therapy and close observation for superimposed bacterial pneumonia.

CASE Pregnant patient with fever who has travel history to Italy

A 28-year-old primigravid woman at 12 weeks’ gestation just returned from a 2-week vacation in Italy. She requests medical evaluation because of malaise; fever; chills; rhinorrhea; mild dyspnea; a dry, nonproductive cough; and diarrhea. On physical examination, her temperature is 38.6° C (101.5° F), pulse 104 bpm, respirations 22/minute, and blood pressure 100/70 mm Hg. Auscultation of the lungs demonstrates scattered rales, rhonchi, and expiratory wheezes in both posterior lung fields. The fetal heart rate is 168 bpm. What are the most likely diagnoses? What diagnostic tests are indicated? And what clinical treatment is indicated?

In the presented case scenario, the patient’s symptoms are consistent with a viral influenza. Her recent travel history certainly makes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) the most likely diagnosis.

COVID-19, caused by a novel new coronavirus, has evolved with lightning speed since it was first identified in early December 2019.¹ The disease originated in Wuhan, China. Its epicenter is now in Europe, and over 100 countries and regions have reported cases. New cases in the United States are being identified daily, and there is no clear end to the outbreak. Several areas of the United States have been particularly hard hit by this disease: Seattle, New Orleans, and New York City. 

COVID-19 has provoked widespread unsettledness in many populations and an extraordinary response from public health officials, large corporations, professional organizations, and financial markets. We are learning more about somewhat unfamiliar public health concepts such as quarantine, containment, mitigation, reproduction number (R), and “flattening the curve.” Disneyland and Walt Disney World are now temporarily closed. Professional and collegiate sports organizations have cancelled or suspended games and tournaments. Scientific and trade association meetings have been postponed or cancelled. Broadway, Carnegie Hall, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art have now “turned out the lights.”  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone avoid gatherings that include more than 10 other persons.

This article will review the evolving epidemiology of COVID-19, describe the usual clinical manifestations of the disease, highlight the key diagnostic tests, and present guidelines for treatment. It will review the limited information currently available about the impact of COVID-19 in pregnant women. The review will conclude by describing measures that individuals can employ to prevent acquisition or transmission of infection and then by highlighting key “unanswered questions” about this new and ominous pathogen (TABLE). 

Continue to: What we know about epidemiology...

What we know about epidemiology

COVID-19 is caused by a novel new coronavirus that shares some genetic overlap with the viruses that caused Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).² The first case of COVID-19 was reported on December 1, 2019, from Wuhan, China.¹ Within a very short period of time the disease has spread throughout the world, and on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the infection to be a true pandemic. The countries with the highest prevalence of COVID-19 include China, South Korea, Iran, Italy, France, Spain, and the United States. However, more than 100 other countries and regions have reported cases. As of the first week of April, approximately 1 million persons in the world have been diagnosed with COVID-19. Of those infected, slightly more than 50,000 deaths have occurred. At the time of this writing, 234,483 cases have been documented in the United States, and current estimates indicate that approximately 7% of the population in the country could become infected.^1,3,4 

The virus responsible for COVID-19 is a single-stranded, enveloped RNA virus. Like its counterparts that caused SARS and MERS, this virus originates in animals, primarily bats. The early cases seem to have resulted from patient contact with exotic animals displayed in the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.¹

The virus is transmitted directly by respiratory droplets and by close surface-to-hand contact with infected respiratory secretions. The virus appears to remain viable on environmental surfaces for 1 to 3 days, although the degree of infectivity over time is not well delineated. With direct exposure to respiratory droplets, the infectivity is relatively high; approximately 2 to 3 individuals become infected as the result of contact with an infected patient. By contrast, the “reproduction number (R)” for influenza is closer to 1.^2,5

Certain persons appear to be at increased risk for developing infection and becoming seriously ill^2,6:

• persons older than age 60
• persons with underlying medical illness
• persons who are immunosuppressed.

The reported range in the case fatality rate (CFR) varies from 1% to 13%, with the higher rates concentrated in older patients with comorbidities.³ These initial reports of high CFRs may be misleading because in the initial phases of this pandemic many patients with mild or no symptoms were not tested, and, thus, the overall prevalence of infection is not clear. By way of comparison, the CRF for influenza A and B is about 0.1%.²

Of note, the number of reported cases in the pediatric population is low, and the outcomes in these individuals are much better than in the older population.^2,3,6 At present, there are only two reports of COVID-19 in pregnancy; these two studies include 18 women and 19 infants.^7,8 The frequency of preterm delivery was 50% in these reports. Sixteen of the 18 patients were delivered by cesarean delivery; at least 6 of these procedures were performed for a non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing. No maternal deaths were identified, and no cases of vertical transmission occurred. 

We must remember that the number of patients described in these two reports is very small. Although the initial reports are favorable, in other influenza epidemics, pregnant women have not fared so well and have experienced disproportionately higher rates of morbidity and mortality.² 

Reported clinical manifestations

The incubation period of COVID-19 ranges from 2 to 14 days; the median is 5.2 days. Many patients with proven COVID-19 infection are asymptomatic. When clinical findings are present, they usually are relatively mild and include low-grade fever, myalgias, arthralgias, sore throat, mild dyspnea, and a dry nonproductive cough. Some patients also may experience diarrhea. Of course, these findings are also consistent with influenza A or B or atypical pneumonia. One key to differentiation is the patient’s history of recent travel to an area of high COVID-19 prevalence or contact with a person who has been in one of these areas and who is clinically ill.^2,3,9,10

In some patients, notably those who are older than 65 years of age and/or who have underlying medical illnesses, the respiratory manifestations are more prominent.6 These patients may develop severe dyspnea, pneumonia, adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multiorgan failure, and septic shock. Interestingly, the more severe manifestations tend to occur during the second week of the illness. In this group of more severely ill patients requiring hospitalization, 17% to 29% develop ARDS, and 23% to 32% require admission to the intensive care unit.^2,6

Pregnant patients who become severely ill may be at risk for spontaneous miscarriage and preterm labor. With profound maternal hypoxia, fetal heart rate abnormalities may become apparent. To date, no clearly proven cases of vertical transmission of infection to the newborn have been identified. However, as noted above, current reports only include 18 pregnancies and 19 infants.^2,3,7,8,11

Continue to: Diagnostic testing...

Diagnostic testing

Infected patients may have a decreased peripheral white blood cell count, with a specific decrease in the number of lymphocytes. Thrombocytopenia may be present, as well as an elevation in the hepatic transaminase enzymes (ALT, AST).²

X-ray, chest CT, and RT-PCR. The three most important diagnostic tests are chest x-ray, chest computed tomography (CT) scan, and real-time PCR (RT-PCR) or nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT).^2,6 Specimens for RT-PCR or NAAT should be obtained from the oropharynx and nasopharynx using a synthetic-tipped applicator with an aluminum shaft. Patients who are intubated should have specimens obtained by broncho-alveolar lavage. The virus also has been recovered from blood and stool, but not yet from urine, amniotic fluid, placenta, cord blood, or breast milk.² 

CT and chest x-ray show characteristic ground-glass opacities in both lung fields, combined with multiple areas of consolidation. Chest imaging is particularly helpful when the patient has all the major clinical manifestations, but the initial RT-PCR or NAAT is negative.

Treatment

Fortunately, most infected persons can be treated as outpatients. Because this condition may be confused with influenza A or B, initial treatment with a drug such as oseltamivir 75 mg orally twice daily for five days is very reasonable.⁹ Supportive therapy is critically important in this clinical setting. Acetaminophen, up to 3,000 mg/d in divided doses, or ibuprofen, up to 2,400 mg/d in divided doses, can be used to reduce fever and relieve myalgias and arthralgias. The latter drug, of course, should not be used in pregnant women. The patient should be encouraged to rest and to stay well hydrated. Loperamide can be used to treat diarrhea, 4 mg orally initially, then 2 mg orally after each loose stool up to a maximum of 16 mg/d. Pregnant patients should be cautioned to watch for signs of preterm labor.^9,12 Patients should remain in relative isolation at home until they are free of signs of illness and they test negative for COVID-19.

For patients who are more severely ill at initial evaluation or who deteriorate while undergoing outpatient management, hospitalization is indicated.2,6 Patients should be placed in rooms that provide protection against aerosolized infection. They should receive supplemental oxygen and be observed closely for signs of superimposed bacterial infection. Depending upon the suspected bacterial pathogen, appropriate antibiotics may include ceftriaxone, which targets Streptococcus pneumoniae, Hemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis; azithromycin, which targets mycoplasmas; and vancomycin, which specifically covers Staphylococcus aureus. Health care workers should wear appropriate personal protective equipment when interacting with these patients, including cap, N95 mask, face shield, gloves, gown, and shoe covers. If a woman with COVID-19 has delivered, and the pediatrician permits rooming in, the isolette should be positioned at least 6 feet away from the mother. The mother should use a mechanical breast pump to obtain milk and then have another family member feed the baby until the mother tests negative for the virus.  The breast pump needs to be cleaned meticulously after each use. The number of visitors to the mother’s room should be strictly limited.3,9

At the present time, there is no specific antiviral drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of COVID-19. The National Institutes of Health is currently conducting a trial of remdesivir for affected patients.¹³ The drug is also available from the manufacturer outside of this trial on a “compassionate use” basis. Another treatment regimen receiving extensive publicity is the combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine. Its effectiveness has not been confirmed in a properly designed randomized trial.

Prevention hinges on commonsense precautions

Although vaccine trials are underway, public health authorities estimate that a vaccine will not be commercially available for at least 12 to 18 months. Therefore, independent of “community/organizational” mitigation programs, individuals should observe the following commonsense precautions to minimize their risk of contracting or transmitting COVID-19^2,3,5,14:

• Eliminate any nonessential travel, particularly by plane or cruise ship.
• Avoid events that draw large crowds, such as concerts, theater performances, movies, and even religious services. 
• When out in public, try to maintain a distance of 6 feet from others
• Remain at home if you feel ill, particularly if you have respiratory symptoms.
• Cough or sneeze into your sleeve rather than your bare hand.
• Avoid handshakes.
• Wash your hands frequently in warm soapy water for at least 20 seconds, particularly after touching environmental surfaces such as counter tops and handrails.
• If you use hand sanitizers, they should have an alcohol content of at least 60%.
• Clean environmental surfaces frequently with a dilute bleach solution.

CASE Resolved

The clinical manifestations displayed by this patient are consistent with viral influenza. The recent travel history to one of the European epicenters makes COVID-19 the most likely diagnosis. The patient should have a chest CT scan and a RT-PCR or NAAT to confirm the diagnosis. If the diagnosis is confirmed, she and her close contacts should be self-quarantined at home for 14 days.  She should receive appropriate supportive care with anti-pyretics, analgesics, and anti-diarrhea agents. If she develops signs of serious respiratory compromise, she should be admitted to an isolation room in the hospital for intensive respiratory therapy and close observation for superimposed bacterial pneumonia.

He Y, Zhong J, Zhou W, et al. Four surgical strategies for the treatment of cesarean scar defect: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:593-602.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

With the increase in cesarean deliveries performed over the decades, the sequelae of the surgery are now arising. Cesarean scar defects (CSDs) are a complication seen when the endometrium and muscular layers from a prior uterine scar are damaged. This damage in the uterine scar can lead to abnormal uterine bleeding and the implantation of an ectopic pregnancy, which can be life-threatening. Ultrasonography can be used to diagnose this defect, which can appear as a hypoechoic space filled with postmenstrual blood, representing a myometrial tear at the wound site.¹ There are several risk factors for CSD, including multiple cesarean deliveries, cesarean delivery during advanced stages of labor, and uterine incisions near the cervix. Elevated body mass index as well as gestational diabetes also have been found to be associated with inadequate healing of the prior cesarean incision.² Studies have shown that both single- and double-layer closure of the hysterotomy during a cesarean delivery have similar incidences of CSDs.^3,4 There are multiple ways to correct a CSD; however, there is no gold standard that has been identified in the literature.

Details about the study

The study by He and colleagues is a meta-analysis aimed at comparing the treatment of CSDs via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, combined hysteroscopy and laparoscopy, and vaginal repair. The primary outcome measures were reduction in abnormal uterine bleeding and scar defect depth. A total of 10 studies (n = 858) were reviewed: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 observational studies. The studies analyzed varied in terms of which techniques were compared.

Patients who underwent uterine scar resection by combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy had a shorter duration of abnormal uterine bleeding when compared with hysteroscopy alone (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37−2.36; P = .007) and vaginal repair (SMD = 1.58; 95% CI, 0.97−2.19; P<.0001). Combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic technique also was found to reduce the diverticulum depth more than in vaginal repair (SMD = 1.57; 95% CI, 0.54−2.61; P = .003).

Continue to: Study strengths and weaknesses...

Study strengths and weaknesses

This is the first meta-analysis to compare the different surgical techniques to correct a CSD. The authors were able to compare many of the characteristics regarding the routes of repair, including hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, and vaginal. The authors were able to analyze the combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic approach, which facilitates evaluation of the location and satisfaction of defect repair during the procedure.

Some weaknesses of this study include the limited amount of RCTs available for review. All studies were also from China, where the rate of CSDs is higher. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to all populations. Given that the included studies were done at different sites, it is difficult to determine surgical expertise and surgical technique. Additionally, the studies analyzed varied by which techniques were compared; therefore, indirect analyses were conducted to compare certain techniques. There was limited follow-up for these patients (anywhere from 3 to 6 months), so long-term data and future pregnancy data are needed to determine the efficacy of these procedures.

He Y, Zhong J, Zhou W, et al. Four surgical strategies for the treatment of cesarean scar defect: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:593-602.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

With the increase in cesarean deliveries performed over the decades, the sequelae of the surgery are now arising. Cesarean scar defects (CSDs) are a complication seen when the endometrium and muscular layers from a prior uterine scar are damaged. This damage in the uterine scar can lead to abnormal uterine bleeding and the implantation of an ectopic pregnancy, which can be life-threatening. Ultrasonography can be used to diagnose this defect, which can appear as a hypoechoic space filled with postmenstrual blood, representing a myometrial tear at the wound site.¹ There are several risk factors for CSD, including multiple cesarean deliveries, cesarean delivery during advanced stages of labor, and uterine incisions near the cervix. Elevated body mass index as well as gestational diabetes also have been found to be associated with inadequate healing of the prior cesarean incision.² Studies have shown that both single- and double-layer closure of the hysterotomy during a cesarean delivery have similar incidences of CSDs.^3,4 There are multiple ways to correct a CSD; however, there is no gold standard that has been identified in the literature.

Details about the study

The study by He and colleagues is a meta-analysis aimed at comparing the treatment of CSDs via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, combined hysteroscopy and laparoscopy, and vaginal repair. The primary outcome measures were reduction in abnormal uterine bleeding and scar defect depth. A total of 10 studies (n = 858) were reviewed: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 observational studies. The studies analyzed varied in terms of which techniques were compared.

Patients who underwent uterine scar resection by combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy had a shorter duration of abnormal uterine bleeding when compared with hysteroscopy alone (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37−2.36; P = .007) and vaginal repair (SMD = 1.58; 95% CI, 0.97−2.19; P<.0001). Combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic technique also was found to reduce the diverticulum depth more than in vaginal repair (SMD = 1.57; 95% CI, 0.54−2.61; P = .003).

Continue to: Study strengths and weaknesses...

Study strengths and weaknesses

This is the first meta-analysis to compare the different surgical techniques to correct a CSD. The authors were able to compare many of the characteristics regarding the routes of repair, including hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, and vaginal. The authors were able to analyze the combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic approach, which facilitates evaluation of the location and satisfaction of defect repair during the procedure.

Some weaknesses of this study include the limited amount of RCTs available for review. All studies were also from China, where the rate of CSDs is higher. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to all populations. Given that the included studies were done at different sites, it is difficult to determine surgical expertise and surgical technique. Additionally, the studies analyzed varied by which techniques were compared; therefore, indirect analyses were conducted to compare certain techniques. There was limited follow-up for these patients (anywhere from 3 to 6 months), so long-term data and future pregnancy data are needed to determine the efficacy of these procedures.

He Y, Zhong J, Zhou W, et al. Four surgical strategies for the treatment of cesarean scar defect: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:593-602.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

With the increase in cesarean deliveries performed over the decades, the sequelae of the surgery are now arising. Cesarean scar defects (CSDs) are a complication seen when the endometrium and muscular layers from a prior uterine scar are damaged. This damage in the uterine scar can lead to abnormal uterine bleeding and the implantation of an ectopic pregnancy, which can be life-threatening. Ultrasonography can be used to diagnose this defect, which can appear as a hypoechoic space filled with postmenstrual blood, representing a myometrial tear at the wound site.¹ There are several risk factors for CSD, including multiple cesarean deliveries, cesarean delivery during advanced stages of labor, and uterine incisions near the cervix. Elevated body mass index as well as gestational diabetes also have been found to be associated with inadequate healing of the prior cesarean incision.² Studies have shown that both single- and double-layer closure of the hysterotomy during a cesarean delivery have similar incidences of CSDs.^3,4 There are multiple ways to correct a CSD; however, there is no gold standard that has been identified in the literature.

Details about the study

The study by He and colleagues is a meta-analysis aimed at comparing the treatment of CSDs via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, combined hysteroscopy and laparoscopy, and vaginal repair. The primary outcome measures were reduction in abnormal uterine bleeding and scar defect depth. A total of 10 studies (n = 858) were reviewed: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 observational studies. The studies analyzed varied in terms of which techniques were compared.

Patients who underwent uterine scar resection by combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy had a shorter duration of abnormal uterine bleeding when compared with hysteroscopy alone (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37−2.36; P = .007) and vaginal repair (SMD = 1.58; 95% CI, 0.97−2.19; P<.0001). Combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic technique also was found to reduce the diverticulum depth more than in vaginal repair (SMD = 1.57; 95% CI, 0.54−2.61; P = .003).

Continue to: Study strengths and weaknesses...

Study strengths and weaknesses

This is the first meta-analysis to compare the different surgical techniques to correct a CSD. The authors were able to compare many of the characteristics regarding the routes of repair, including hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, and vaginal. The authors were able to analyze the combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic approach, which facilitates evaluation of the location and satisfaction of defect repair during the procedure.

Some weaknesses of this study include the limited amount of RCTs available for review. All studies were also from China, where the rate of CSDs is higher. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to all populations. Given that the included studies were done at different sites, it is difficult to determine surgical expertise and surgical technique. Additionally, the studies analyzed varied by which techniques were compared; therefore, indirect analyses were conducted to compare certain techniques. There was limited follow-up for these patients (anywhere from 3 to 6 months), so long-term data and future pregnancy data are needed to determine the efficacy of these procedures.

Over the past year, major strides have been made in the treatment of gynecologic malignancies. In this Update, we highlight 3 notable studies. The first is a phase 3, multicenter, international, randomized clinical trial that demonstrated a significant improvement in both overall and failure-free survival with the use of adjuvant chemoradiation versus radiotherapy alone in patients with stage III or high-risk uterine cancer. Additionally, we describe the results of 2 phase 3, multicenter, international, randomized clinical trials in ovarian cancer treatment: use of poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in combination with platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy followed by the PARP inhibitor as maintenance therapy, and secondary cytoreductive surgery in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer.

We provide a brief overview of current treatment strategies, summarize the key findings of these trials, and establish how these findings have changed our management of these gynecologic malignancies.

Adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy improves survival in women with high-risk endometrial cancer 

de Boer SM, Powell ME, Mileshkin L, et al; on behalf of the PORTEC Study Group. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): patterns of recurrence and post-hoc survival analysis of a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;1273-1285. 

In the United States, it is estimated that more than 61,000 women were diagnosed with endometrial cancer in 2019.¹ Women with endometrial cancer usually have a favorable prognosis; more than 65% are diagnosed with early-stage disease, which is associated with a 95% 5-year survival rate.¹ However, 15% to 20% of patients have disease with high-risk features, including advanced stage (stage II-IV), high tumor grade, lymphovascular space invasion, deep myometrial invasion, or nonendometrioid histologic subtypes (serous or clear cell).² The presence of these high-risk disease features is associated with an increased incidence of distant metastases and cancer-related death. 

Adjuvant therapy in high-risk endometrial cancer 

To date, the optimal adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk endometrial cancer remains controversial. Prior data from Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocol 122 demonstrated that chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival when compared with radiotherapy in patients with advanced-stage endometrial cancer.³ As such, chemotherapy now is frequently used in this population, often in combination with radiation, although data describing the benefit of chemoradiation are limited.⁴ For women with earlier-stage disease with high-risk features, the value of chemotherapy plus radiation is uncertain.^5,6 

Continue to: Benefit observed with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy...

Benefit observed with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy 

In a multicenter, international, randomized phase 3 trial, known as the PORTEC-3 trial, de Boer and colleagues sought to determine if combined adjuvant chemoradiation improved overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival when compared with external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone in the treatment of women with high-risk endometrial cancer.⁷ Women were eligible for the study if they had histologically confirmed stage I, grade 3 endometrioid endometrial cancer with deep invasion and/or lymphovascular space invasion, stage II or III disease, or stage I-III disease with serous or clear cell histology. 

Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio; 330 women received adjuvant EBRT alone (total dose of 48.6 Gy administered in 27 fractions), and 330 received adjuvant chemotherapy during and after radiation therapy (CTRT) (2 cycles of cisplatin 50 mg/m² IV given on days 1 and 22 of EBRT followed by 4 cycles of carboplatin AUC 5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m² IV every 3 weeks). 

At a median follow-up of 73 months, treatment with adjuvant CTRT, compared with adjuvant EBRT alone, was associated with a significant improvement in both overall survival (5-year OS: 81.4% vs 76.1%, P = .034 [FIGURE]) and failure-free survival (5-year failure-free survival: 76.5% vs 69.1%, P = .016). 

The greatest absolute benefit of adjuvant CTRT, compared with EBRT alone, in survival was among women with stage III endometrial cancer (5-year OS: 78.5% vs 68.5%, P = .043) or serous cancers (19% absolute improvement in 5-year OS), or both. Significant differences in 5-year OS and failure-free survival in women with stage I-II cancer were not observed with adjuvant CTRT when compared with adjuvant EBRT alone. At 5 years, significantly more adverse events of grade 2 or worse were reported in the adjuvant CTRT arm. 

Results from similar trials 

Since the publication of results from the updated analysis of PORTEC-3, results from 2 pertinent trials have been published.^8,9 In the GOG 249 trial, women with stage I-II endometrial cancer with high-risk features were randomly assigned to receive 3 cycles of carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy with vaginal brachytherapy or EBRT.⁸ There was no difference in survival, but a significant increase in both pelvic and para-aortic recurrences were seen after the combination of chemotherapy and vaginal brachytherapy.⁸ 

In GOG 258, women with stage III-IVA endometrial cancer were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy alone (carboplatin-paclitaxel) or adjuvant chemotherapy after EBRT.⁹ No differences in recurrence-free or overall survival were noted, but there was a significant increase in the number of vaginal and pelvic or para-aortic recurrences in patients in the chemotherapy-only arm.⁹

Role for PARP inhibitor plus first-line chemotherapy, and as maintenance therapy, in ovarian cancer treatment 

Coleman RL, Fleming GF, Brady MF, et al. Veliparib with first-line chemotherapy and as maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2403-2415. 

Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer-related deaths among women in the United States.¹⁰ Treatment consists of cytoreductive surgery combined with platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy.¹¹ Despite favorable initial responses, more than 80% of patients experience a recurrence, with an 18-month median time to progression.¹² As a result, recent efforts have focused on finding novel therapeutic approaches to improve treatment outcomes and mitigate the risk of disease recurrence. 

Continue to: PARP inhibitors are changing the face of treatment...

PARP inhibitors are changing the face of treatment 

Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerases (PARPs) are a family of enzymes that play a critical role in DNA damage repair. These enzymes promote DNA repair by recruiting proteins involved in repairing single-strand and double-strand DNA breaks and in protecting and restarting stalled DNA replication forks.¹³ The predominant mechanisms of action of PARP inhibitors in cells with homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD) include inhibiting repair of single-strand DNA breaks and trapping PARP-DNA complexes at stalled DNA replication forks.¹⁴ 

Germline or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations and genetic alterations resulting in HRD are present in about 20% and 30% of ovarian carcinomas, respectively, and increase the susceptibility of tumors to platinum-based agents and PARP inhibitors.^15,16 Based on multiple clinical trials that demonstrated the efficacy of single-agent PARP in the treatment of recurrent ovarian carcinoma and as maintenance therapy after an initial response to platinum-based therapy, the US Food and Drug Administration approved olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib for the treatment of high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer.^17-19 Only olaparib is approved for maintenance therapy after initial adjuvant therapy in patients with BRCA mutations.²⁰ 

Given the robust response to PARP inhibitors, there has been great interest in using these agents earlier in the disease course in combination with chemotherapy. 

Efficacy of veliparib with chemotherapy and as maintenance monotherapy 

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, Coleman and colleagues sought to determine the efficacy of the PARP inhibitor veliparib when administered with first-line carboplatin and paclitaxel induction chemotherapy and subsequently continued as maintenance monotherapy.²¹ 

Women with stage III or IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma were eligible for the study. Cytoreductive surgery could be performed prior to the initiation of trial treatment or after 3 cycles of chemotherapy. 

Participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio: 371 women received carboplatin and paclitaxel plus placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control arm); 376 received chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib combination-only arm); and 377 received chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by veliparib maintenance therapy (veliparib-throughout arm). Combination chemotherapy consisted of 6 cycles, and maintenance therapy was an additional 30 cycles. 

Progression-free survival extended 

At a median follow-up of 28 months, investigators observed a significant improvement in progression-free survival in the veliparib-throughout (initial and maintenance therapy) arm compared with the control arm in 3 cohorts: the BRCA-mutation cohort, the HRD cohort, and the intention-to-treat population (all participants undergoing randomization). 

In the BRCA-mutation cohort, the median progression-free survival was 12.7 months longer in the veliparib-throughout arm than in the control arm. Similarly, in the HRD cohort, the median progression-free survival was 11.4 months longer in the veliparib-throughout arm than in the control group. In the intention-to-treat population, the median progression-free survival increased from 17.3 to 23.5 months in the veliparib-throughout arm compared with the control arm. 

Women who received veliparib experienced increased rates of nausea, anemia, and fatigue and were more likely to require dose reductions and treatment interruptions. Myelodysplastic syndrome was reported in 1 patient (BRCA1 positive) in the veliparib combination-only arm.

Secondary cytoreductive surgery or chemotherapy alone for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian carcinoma? 

Coleman RL, Spirtos NM, Enserro D, et al. Secondary surgical cytoreduction for recurrent ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1929-1939. 

Primary surgical cytoreduction combined with platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy remains the mainstay of ovarian cancer treatment.¹¹ The role of surgery for women with recurrent ovarian cancer, so-called secondary cytoreduction, remains controversial.²² 

Data have shown that among women who undergo secondary surgery, those with little or no postoperative residual disease benefit the most from a secondary debulking.^23-26 Prior work largely is based on small retrospective reports and is limited by substantial bias in the selection of patients undergoing surgery. Additionally, with the availability of targeted therapies such as bevacizumab and PARP inhibitors as maintenance—medical interventions with a demonstrated benefit in progression-free survival^17-19,27—the role of secondary cytoreduction in the treatment of ovarian carcinoma needs to be clarified. 

Continue to: Overall survival after secondary cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy...

Overall survival after secondary cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy 

Coleman and colleagues conducted a prospective, multicenter, international, randomized phase 3 trial to assess whether secondary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy would improve overall survival versus chemotherapy alone among women with resectable platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer.²² Platinum sensitivity was defined as a disease-free interval of at least 6 months after the last cycle of platinum-based chemotherapy. 

All women had recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma considered to be amenable to complete gross surgical resection by the investigator and a history of complete response to at least 3 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy as determined by a normal CA-125 value or negative imaging studies (if obtained). 

Participants were randomly assigned 1:1, with 240 women assigned to secondary surgical cytoreduction followed by platinum-based chemotherapy, and 245 assigned to chemotherapy alone. The type of adjuvant chemotherapy used (carboplatin-paclitaxel or carboplatin-gemcitabine) and whether or not bevacizumab was administered were at the investigators' discretion. 

Shorter survival, decline in quality of life 

Among the participants assigned to and who underwent surgery, complete gross resection was achieved in 67%. Eighty-four percent of the entire study population received platinum-based chemotherapy with bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab maintenance therapy, which was equally distributed between the 2 study arms. 

At a median follow-up of 48.1 months, median overall survival was 50.6 months in the surgery arm compared with 64.7 months in the chemotherapy arm, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) for death of 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.72; P = .08). This effect was unchanged after adjusting for platinum-free interval, chemotherapy choice, and restricting the analysis to women who had a complete gross resection. 

Similarly, the adjusted HR for disease progression or death was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66-1.01) and corresponded to a median progression-free survival of 18.9 months for the surgery group and 16.2 months for the chemotherapy group. Surgical morbidity was reported in 9% of patients who underwent surgery, and 1 patient (0.4%) died from postoperative complications. 

While a significant decline in both quality of life and patient-reported outcomes was reported immediately after surgery, significant differences were not noted between the 2 groups after the initial postoperative recovery period. 

Over the past year, major strides have been made in the treatment of gynecologic malignancies. In this Update, we highlight 3 notable studies. The first is a phase 3, multicenter, international, randomized clinical trial that demonstrated a significant improvement in both overall and failure-free survival with the use of adjuvant chemoradiation versus radiotherapy alone in patients with stage III or high-risk uterine cancer. Additionally, we describe the results of 2 phase 3, multicenter, international, randomized clinical trials in ovarian cancer treatment: use of poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in combination with platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy followed by the PARP inhibitor as maintenance therapy, and secondary cytoreductive surgery in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer.

We provide a brief overview of current treatment strategies, summarize the key findings of these trials, and establish how these findings have changed our management of these gynecologic malignancies.

Adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy improves survival in women with high-risk endometrial cancer 

de Boer SM, Powell ME, Mileshkin L, et al; on behalf of the PORTEC Study Group. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): patterns of recurrence and post-hoc survival analysis of a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;1273-1285. 

In the United States, it is estimated that more than 61,000 women were diagnosed with endometrial cancer in 2019.¹ Women with endometrial cancer usually have a favorable prognosis; more than 65% are diagnosed with early-stage disease, which is associated with a 95% 5-year survival rate.¹ However, 15% to 20% of patients have disease with high-risk features, including advanced stage (stage II-IV), high tumor grade, lymphovascular space invasion, deep myometrial invasion, or nonendometrioid histologic subtypes (serous or clear cell).² The presence of these high-risk disease features is associated with an increased incidence of distant metastases and cancer-related death. 

Adjuvant therapy in high-risk endometrial cancer 

To date, the optimal adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk endometrial cancer remains controversial. Prior data from Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocol 122 demonstrated that chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival when compared with radiotherapy in patients with advanced-stage endometrial cancer.³ As such, chemotherapy now is frequently used in this population, often in combination with radiation, although data describing the benefit of chemoradiation are limited.⁴ For women with earlier-stage disease with high-risk features, the value of chemotherapy plus radiation is uncertain.^5,6 

Continue to: Benefit observed with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy...

Benefit observed with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy 

In a multicenter, international, randomized phase 3 trial, known as the PORTEC-3 trial, de Boer and colleagues sought to determine if combined adjuvant chemoradiation improved overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival when compared with external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone in the treatment of women with high-risk endometrial cancer.⁷ Women were eligible for the study if they had histologically confirmed stage I, grade 3 endometrioid endometrial cancer with deep invasion and/or lymphovascular space invasion, stage II or III disease, or stage I-III disease with serous or clear cell histology. 

Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio; 330 women received adjuvant EBRT alone (total dose of 48.6 Gy administered in 27 fractions), and 330 received adjuvant chemotherapy during and after radiation therapy (CTRT) (2 cycles of cisplatin 50 mg/m² IV given on days 1 and 22 of EBRT followed by 4 cycles of carboplatin AUC 5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m² IV every 3 weeks). 

At a median follow-up of 73 months, treatment with adjuvant CTRT, compared with adjuvant EBRT alone, was associated with a significant improvement in both overall survival (5-year OS: 81.4% vs 76.1%, P = .034 [FIGURE]) and failure-free survival (5-year failure-free survival: 76.5% vs 69.1%, P = .016). 

The greatest absolute benefit of adjuvant CTRT, compared with EBRT alone, in survival was among women with stage III endometrial cancer (5-year OS: 78.5% vs 68.5%, P = .043) or serous cancers (19% absolute improvement in 5-year OS), or both. Significant differences in 5-year OS and failure-free survival in women with stage I-II cancer were not observed with adjuvant CTRT when compared with adjuvant EBRT alone. At 5 years, significantly more adverse events of grade 2 or worse were reported in the adjuvant CTRT arm. 

Results from similar trials 

Since the publication of results from the updated analysis of PORTEC-3, results from 2 pertinent trials have been published.^8,9 In the GOG 249 trial, women with stage I-II endometrial cancer with high-risk features were randomly assigned to receive 3 cycles of carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy with vaginal brachytherapy or EBRT.⁸ There was no difference in survival, but a significant increase in both pelvic and para-aortic recurrences were seen after the combination of chemotherapy and vaginal brachytherapy.⁸ 

In GOG 258, women with stage III-IVA endometrial cancer were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy alone (carboplatin-paclitaxel) or adjuvant chemotherapy after EBRT.⁹ No differences in recurrence-free or overall survival were noted, but there was a significant increase in the number of vaginal and pelvic or para-aortic recurrences in patients in the chemotherapy-only arm.⁹

Role for PARP inhibitor plus first-line chemotherapy, and as maintenance therapy, in ovarian cancer treatment 

Coleman RL, Fleming GF, Brady MF, et al. Veliparib with first-line chemotherapy and as maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2403-2415. 

Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer-related deaths among women in the United States.¹⁰ Treatment consists of cytoreductive surgery combined with platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy.¹¹ Despite favorable initial responses, more than 80% of patients experience a recurrence, with an 18-month median time to progression.¹² As a result, recent efforts have focused on finding novel therapeutic approaches to improve treatment outcomes and mitigate the risk of disease recurrence. 

Continue to: PARP inhibitors are changing the face of treatment...

PARP inhibitors are changing the face of treatment 

Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerases (PARPs) are a family of enzymes that play a critical role in DNA damage repair. These enzymes promote DNA repair by recruiting proteins involved in repairing single-strand and double-strand DNA breaks and in protecting and restarting stalled DNA replication forks.¹³ The predominant mechanisms of action of PARP inhibitors in cells with homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD) include inhibiting repair of single-strand DNA breaks and trapping PARP-DNA complexes at stalled DNA replication forks.¹⁴ 

Germline or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations and genetic alterations resulting in HRD are present in about 20% and 30% of ovarian carcinomas, respectively, and increase the susceptibility of tumors to platinum-based agents and PARP inhibitors.^15,16 Based on multiple clinical trials that demonstrated the efficacy of single-agent PARP in the treatment of recurrent ovarian carcinoma and as maintenance therapy after an initial response to platinum-based therapy, the US Food and Drug Administration approved olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib for the treatment of high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer.^17-19 Only olaparib is approved for maintenance therapy after initial adjuvant therapy in patients with BRCA mutations.²⁰ 

Given the robust response to PARP inhibitors, there has been great interest in using these agents earlier in the disease course in combination with chemotherapy. 

Efficacy of veliparib with chemotherapy and as maintenance monotherapy 

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, Coleman and colleagues sought to determine the efficacy of the PARP inhibitor veliparib when administered with first-line carboplatin and paclitaxel induction chemotherapy and subsequently continued as maintenance monotherapy.²¹ 

Women with stage III or IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma were eligible for the study. Cytoreductive surgery could be performed prior to the initiation of trial treatment or after 3 cycles of chemotherapy. 

Participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio: 371 women received carboplatin and paclitaxel plus placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control arm); 376 received chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib combination-only arm); and 377 received chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by veliparib maintenance therapy (veliparib-throughout arm). Combination chemotherapy consisted of 6 cycles, and maintenance therapy was an additional 30 cycles. 

Progression-free survival extended 

At a median follow-up of 28 months, investigators observed a significant improvement in progression-free survival in the veliparib-throughout (initial and maintenance therapy) arm compared with the control arm in 3 cohorts: the BRCA-mutation cohort, the HRD cohort, and the intention-to-treat population (all participants undergoing randomization). 

In the BRCA-mutation cohort, the median progression-free survival was 12.7 months longer in the veliparib-throughout arm than in the control arm. Similarly, in the HRD cohort, the median progression-free survival was 11.4 months longer in the veliparib-throughout arm than in the control group. In the intention-to-treat population, the median progression-free survival increased from 17.3 to 23.5 months in the veliparib-throughout arm compared with the control arm. 

Women who received veliparib experienced increased rates of nausea, anemia, and fatigue and were more likely to require dose reductions and treatment interruptions. Myelodysplastic syndrome was reported in 1 patient (BRCA1 positive) in the veliparib combination-only arm.

Secondary cytoreductive surgery or chemotherapy alone for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian carcinoma? 

Coleman RL, Spirtos NM, Enserro D, et al. Secondary surgical cytoreduction for recurrent ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1929-1939. 

Primary surgical cytoreduction combined with platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy remains the mainstay of ovarian cancer treatment.¹¹ The role of surgery for women with recurrent ovarian cancer, so-called secondary cytoreduction, remains controversial.²² 

Data have shown that among women who undergo secondary surgery, those with little or no postoperative residual disease benefit the most from a secondary debulking.^23-26 Prior work largely is based on small retrospective reports and is limited by substantial bias in the selection of patients undergoing surgery. Additionally, with the availability of targeted therapies such as bevacizumab and PARP inhibitors as maintenance—medical interventions with a demonstrated benefit in progression-free survival^17-19,27—the role of secondary cytoreduction in the treatment of ovarian carcinoma needs to be clarified. 

Continue to: Overall survival after secondary cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy...

Overall survival after secondary cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy 

Coleman and colleagues conducted a prospective, multicenter, international, randomized phase 3 trial to assess whether secondary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy would improve overall survival versus chemotherapy alone among women with resectable platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer.²² Platinum sensitivity was defined as a disease-free interval of at least 6 months after the last cycle of platinum-based chemotherapy. 

All women had recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma considered to be amenable to complete gross surgical resection by the investigator and a history of complete response to at least 3 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy as determined by a normal CA-125 value or negative imaging studies (if obtained). 

Participants were randomly assigned 1:1, with 240 women assigned to secondary surgical cytoreduction followed by platinum-based chemotherapy, and 245 assigned to chemotherapy alone. The type of adjuvant chemotherapy used (carboplatin-paclitaxel or carboplatin-gemcitabine) and whether or not bevacizumab was administered were at the investigators' discretion. 

Shorter survival, decline in quality of life 

Among the participants assigned to and who underwent surgery, complete gross resection was achieved in 67%. Eighty-four percent of the entire study population received platinum-based chemotherapy with bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab maintenance therapy, which was equally distributed between the 2 study arms. 

At a median follow-up of 48.1 months, median overall survival was 50.6 months in the surgery arm compared with 64.7 months in the chemotherapy arm, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) for death of 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.72; P = .08). This effect was unchanged after adjusting for platinum-free interval, chemotherapy choice, and restricting the analysis to women who had a complete gross resection. 

Similarly, the adjusted HR for disease progression or death was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66-1.01) and corresponded to a median progression-free survival of 18.9 months for the surgery group and 16.2 months for the chemotherapy group. Surgical morbidity was reported in 9% of patients who underwent surgery, and 1 patient (0.4%) died from postoperative complications. 

While a significant decline in both quality of life and patient-reported outcomes was reported immediately after surgery, significant differences were not noted between the 2 groups after the initial postoperative recovery period. 

Over the past year, major strides have been made in the treatment of gynecologic malignancies. In this Update, we highlight 3 notable studies. The first is a phase 3, multicenter, international, randomized clinical trial that demonstrated a significant improvement in both overall and failure-free survival with the use of adjuvant chemoradiation versus radiotherapy alone in patients with stage III or high-risk uterine cancer. Additionally, we describe the results of 2 phase 3, multicenter, international, randomized clinical trials in ovarian cancer treatment: use of poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in combination with platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy followed by the PARP inhibitor as maintenance therapy, and secondary cytoreductive surgery in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer.

We provide a brief overview of current treatment strategies, summarize the key findings of these trials, and establish how these findings have changed our management of these gynecologic malignancies.

Adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy improves survival in women with high-risk endometrial cancer 

de Boer SM, Powell ME, Mileshkin L, et al; on behalf of the PORTEC Study Group. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): patterns of recurrence and post-hoc survival analysis of a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;1273-1285. 

In the United States, it is estimated that more than 61,000 women were diagnosed with endometrial cancer in 2019.¹ Women with endometrial cancer usually have a favorable prognosis; more than 65% are diagnosed with early-stage disease, which is associated with a 95% 5-year survival rate.¹ However, 15% to 20% of patients have disease with high-risk features, including advanced stage (stage II-IV), high tumor grade, lymphovascular space invasion, deep myometrial invasion, or nonendometrioid histologic subtypes (serous or clear cell).² The presence of these high-risk disease features is associated with an increased incidence of distant metastases and cancer-related death. 

Adjuvant therapy in high-risk endometrial cancer 

To date, the optimal adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk endometrial cancer remains controversial. Prior data from Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocol 122 demonstrated that chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival when compared with radiotherapy in patients with advanced-stage endometrial cancer.³ As such, chemotherapy now is frequently used in this population, often in combination with radiation, although data describing the benefit of chemoradiation are limited.⁴ For women with earlier-stage disease with high-risk features, the value of chemotherapy plus radiation is uncertain.^5,6 

Continue to: Benefit observed with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy...

Benefit observed with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy 

In a multicenter, international, randomized phase 3 trial, known as the PORTEC-3 trial, de Boer and colleagues sought to determine if combined adjuvant chemoradiation improved overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival when compared with external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone in the treatment of women with high-risk endometrial cancer.⁷ Women were eligible for the study if they had histologically confirmed stage I, grade 3 endometrioid endometrial cancer with deep invasion and/or lymphovascular space invasion, stage II or III disease, or stage I-III disease with serous or clear cell histology. 

Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio; 330 women received adjuvant EBRT alone (total dose of 48.6 Gy administered in 27 fractions), and 330 received adjuvant chemotherapy during and after radiation therapy (CTRT) (2 cycles of cisplatin 50 mg/m² IV given on days 1 and 22 of EBRT followed by 4 cycles of carboplatin AUC 5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m² IV every 3 weeks). 

At a median follow-up of 73 months, treatment with adjuvant CTRT, compared with adjuvant EBRT alone, was associated with a significant improvement in both overall survival (5-year OS: 81.4% vs 76.1%, P = .034 [FIGURE]) and failure-free survival (5-year failure-free survival: 76.5% vs 69.1%, P = .016). 

The greatest absolute benefit of adjuvant CTRT, compared with EBRT alone, in survival was among women with stage III endometrial cancer (5-year OS: 78.5% vs 68.5%, P = .043) or serous cancers (19% absolute improvement in 5-year OS), or both. Significant differences in 5-year OS and failure-free survival in women with stage I-II cancer were not observed with adjuvant CTRT when compared with adjuvant EBRT alone. At 5 years, significantly more adverse events of grade 2 or worse were reported in the adjuvant CTRT arm. 

Results from similar trials 

Since the publication of results from the updated analysis of PORTEC-3, results from 2 pertinent trials have been published.^8,9 In the GOG 249 trial, women with stage I-II endometrial cancer with high-risk features were randomly assigned to receive 3 cycles of carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy with vaginal brachytherapy or EBRT.⁸ There was no difference in survival, but a significant increase in both pelvic and para-aortic recurrences were seen after the combination of chemotherapy and vaginal brachytherapy.⁸ 

In GOG 258, women with stage III-IVA endometrial cancer were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy alone (carboplatin-paclitaxel) or adjuvant chemotherapy after EBRT.⁹ No differences in recurrence-free or overall survival were noted, but there was a significant increase in the number of vaginal and pelvic or para-aortic recurrences in patients in the chemotherapy-only arm.⁹

Role for PARP inhibitor plus first-line chemotherapy, and as maintenance therapy, in ovarian cancer treatment 

Coleman RL, Fleming GF, Brady MF, et al. Veliparib with first-line chemotherapy and as maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2403-2415. 

Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer-related deaths among women in the United States.¹⁰ Treatment consists of cytoreductive surgery combined with platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy.¹¹ Despite favorable initial responses, more than 80% of patients experience a recurrence, with an 18-month median time to progression.¹² As a result, recent efforts have focused on finding novel therapeutic approaches to improve treatment outcomes and mitigate the risk of disease recurrence. 

Continue to: PARP inhibitors are changing the face of treatment...

PARP inhibitors are changing the face of treatment 

Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerases (PARPs) are a family of enzymes that play a critical role in DNA damage repair. These enzymes promote DNA repair by recruiting proteins involved in repairing single-strand and double-strand DNA breaks and in protecting and restarting stalled DNA replication forks.¹³ The predominant mechanisms of action of PARP inhibitors in cells with homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD) include inhibiting repair of single-strand DNA breaks and trapping PARP-DNA complexes at stalled DNA replication forks.¹⁴ 

Germline or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations and genetic alterations resulting in HRD are present in about 20% and 30% of ovarian carcinomas, respectively, and increase the susceptibility of tumors to platinum-based agents and PARP inhibitors.^15,16 Based on multiple clinical trials that demonstrated the efficacy of single-agent PARP in the treatment of recurrent ovarian carcinoma and as maintenance therapy after an initial response to platinum-based therapy, the US Food and Drug Administration approved olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib for the treatment of high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer.^17-19 Only olaparib is approved for maintenance therapy after initial adjuvant therapy in patients with BRCA mutations.²⁰ 

Given the robust response to PARP inhibitors, there has been great interest in using these agents earlier in the disease course in combination with chemotherapy. 

Efficacy of veliparib with chemotherapy and as maintenance monotherapy 

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, Coleman and colleagues sought to determine the efficacy of the PARP inhibitor veliparib when administered with first-line carboplatin and paclitaxel induction chemotherapy and subsequently continued as maintenance monotherapy.²¹ 

Women with stage III or IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma were eligible for the study. Cytoreductive surgery could be performed prior to the initiation of trial treatment or after 3 cycles of chemotherapy. 

Participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio: 371 women received carboplatin and paclitaxel plus placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control arm); 376 received chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib combination-only arm); and 377 received chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by veliparib maintenance therapy (veliparib-throughout arm). Combination chemotherapy consisted of 6 cycles, and maintenance therapy was an additional 30 cycles. 

Progression-free survival extended 

At a median follow-up of 28 months, investigators observed a significant improvement in progression-free survival in the veliparib-throughout (initial and maintenance therapy) arm compared with the control arm in 3 cohorts: the BRCA-mutation cohort, the HRD cohort, and the intention-to-treat population (all participants undergoing randomization). 

In the BRCA-mutation cohort, the median progression-free survival was 12.7 months longer in the veliparib-throughout arm than in the control arm. Similarly, in the HRD cohort, the median progression-free survival was 11.4 months longer in the veliparib-throughout arm than in the control group. In the intention-to-treat population, the median progression-free survival increased from 17.3 to 23.5 months in the veliparib-throughout arm compared with the control arm. 

Women who received veliparib experienced increased rates of nausea, anemia, and fatigue and were more likely to require dose reductions and treatment interruptions. Myelodysplastic syndrome was reported in 1 patient (BRCA1 positive) in the veliparib combination-only arm.

Secondary cytoreductive surgery or chemotherapy alone for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian carcinoma? 

Coleman RL, Spirtos NM, Enserro D, et al. Secondary surgical cytoreduction for recurrent ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1929-1939. 

Primary surgical cytoreduction combined with platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy remains the mainstay of ovarian cancer treatment.¹¹ The role of surgery for women with recurrent ovarian cancer, so-called secondary cytoreduction, remains controversial.²² 

Data have shown that among women who undergo secondary surgery, those with little or no postoperative residual disease benefit the most from a secondary debulking.^23-26 Prior work largely is based on small retrospective reports and is limited by substantial bias in the selection of patients undergoing surgery. Additionally, with the availability of targeted therapies such as bevacizumab and PARP inhibitors as maintenance—medical interventions with a demonstrated benefit in progression-free survival^17-19,27—the role of secondary cytoreduction in the treatment of ovarian carcinoma needs to be clarified. 

Continue to: Overall survival after secondary cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy...

Overall survival after secondary cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy 

Coleman and colleagues conducted a prospective, multicenter, international, randomized phase 3 trial to assess whether secondary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy would improve overall survival versus chemotherapy alone among women with resectable platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer.²² Platinum sensitivity was defined as a disease-free interval of at least 6 months after the last cycle of platinum-based chemotherapy. 

All women had recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma considered to be amenable to complete gross surgical resection by the investigator and a history of complete response to at least 3 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy as determined by a normal CA-125 value or negative imaging studies (if obtained). 

Participants were randomly assigned 1:1, with 240 women assigned to secondary surgical cytoreduction followed by platinum-based chemotherapy, and 245 assigned to chemotherapy alone. The type of adjuvant chemotherapy used (carboplatin-paclitaxel or carboplatin-gemcitabine) and whether or not bevacizumab was administered were at the investigators' discretion. 

Shorter survival, decline in quality of life 

Among the participants assigned to and who underwent surgery, complete gross resection was achieved in 67%. Eighty-four percent of the entire study population received platinum-based chemotherapy with bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab maintenance therapy, which was equally distributed between the 2 study arms. 

At a median follow-up of 48.1 months, median overall survival was 50.6 months in the surgery arm compared with 64.7 months in the chemotherapy arm, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) for death of 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.72; P = .08). This effect was unchanged after adjusting for platinum-free interval, chemotherapy choice, and restricting the analysis to women who had a complete gross resection. 

Similarly, the adjusted HR for disease progression or death was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66-1.01) and corresponded to a median progression-free survival of 18.9 months for the surgery group and 16.2 months for the chemotherapy group. Surgical morbidity was reported in 9% of patients who underwent surgery, and 1 patient (0.4%) died from postoperative complications. 

While a significant decline in both quality of life and patient-reported outcomes was reported immediately after surgery, significant differences were not noted between the 2 groups after the initial postoperative recovery period. 

Most J, St Amant M, Hsia DS, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for energy intake in pregnant women with obesity. J Clin Invest. 2019;129:4682-4690.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

In 2009, the Institute of Medicine, now known as the National Academy of Medicine, updated its gestational weight gain guideline. This guideline’s major difference, compared with the 1990 guideline, is a specific weight gain range for women with obesity: 5 to 9 kg, or 11 to 20 lb.¹ This weight gain range was chosen in part because it allows for a minimum weight gain that supports the growth and development of tissues (fetus, placenta, breast, uterus) and fluids (blood volume, intracellular and extracellular fluid), also known as the “fat-free” mass.

Many studies have since shown not only associations between lower-than-guideline-recommended weight gain and improved pregnancy outcomes (for example, reductions in preeclampsia and cesarean deliveries), but also increases in low birth weight for infants of women with obesity.^2,3 Although the weight gain guideline differs based on a woman’s prepregnancy body mass index, the energy requirements, or how many additional calories a woman should consume daily, are the same for all, regardless of weight prior to pregnancy: an increase by 340 to 452 kcal/day in the second and third trimesters.¹

Recently, Most and colleagues challenged this recommendation for energy requirements with results from their prospective observational study of 54 women with obesity during pregnancy.⁴ They aimed to evaluate energy intake with the energy intake-balance method (doubly labeled water and whole-room indirect calorimetry and body composition) according to tests done at 13 to 16 weeks’ gestation and 35 to 37 weeks’ gestation and according to the current National Academy of Medicine gestational weight gain guideline (inadequate, recommended, or excessive weight gain groups).⁴

Details of the study

Women who participated in this study were recruited from the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana and were mostly multiparas (57%); about half had a college degree or higher (52%) and 41% were African American. The investigators found that gestational weight gain in their participants was similar to that found in other large epidemiologic studies in that 67% of women had excessive gestational weight gain.⁵

Findings. For women who gained the recommended amount of weight (n = 8), mean (SD) daily energy intake was 2,698 (99) kcal/day and energy expenditure was 2,824 (105) kcal/day. Therefore, to meet the recommended amount of weight gain, these women had a negative energy balance (-125 [52] kcal/day). Women with inadequate weight gain
(n = 10) also had a negative energy balance (-262 [32] kcal/day), but the difference was not significantly different compared with that in the recommended gestational weight gain group (P = .08). By contrast, women with excessive gestational weight gain (n = 36) had a mean (SD) positive energy balance of 186 (29) kcal/day.

Fat-free mass and fat mass weight gains. The body weight gains of the fat-free and fat mass compartments also were compared with linear mixed effect models among the 3 weight gain groups. There were no differences in the amount of fat-free mass gained among the 3 weight gain groups (P>.05), but women with excessive gestational weight gain had significantly higher increases in fat mass compared with the other 2 weight gain groups (P<.001).

Pregnancy outcomes. Although there were no differences in cesarean deliveries or birth weight among the 3 weight gain groups, the study was not powered to detect these differences.

Continue to: Study strengths and limitations...

Study strengths and limitations

It is important to note that this study by Most and colleagues was not a health behavior intervention for gestational weight gain. Women who participated in the study did not receive specific directions or advice on diet or physical activity. Furthermore, the study used the current gestational weight gain guideline as a reference to determine energy intake. As such, findings from this study alone cannot be used to adapt the current gestational weight gain guideline for women with obesity.

The study methods were rigorous in terms of the energy intake measurements, but a larger and more diverse sample size is needed to confirm the study findings.