OBG Management

[polldaddy:10476065]

[polldaddy:10476065]

[polldaddy:10476065]

In the roundtable article, “The electronic medical record’s role in ObGyn burnout and patient care” (October 2019), Megan L. Evans, MD, MPH; John J. Dougherty, MD, MBA; and Mark B. Woodland, MS, MD, discussed burnout’s connection with the electronic medical record (EMR) and solutions implemented at their institutions to help cope with the problem. They highlighted changes they felt their EMR systems needed to undergo. In addition, they noted as a whole that the EMR has not improved patient care.

OBG Management polled readers to see their thoughts on this question: “Do you think that the EMR has improved patient care?”

In the roundtable article, “The electronic medical record’s role in ObGyn burnout and patient care” (October 2019), Megan L. Evans, MD, MPH; John J. Dougherty, MD, MBA; and Mark B. Woodland, MS, MD, discussed burnout’s connection with the electronic medical record (EMR) and solutions implemented at their institutions to help cope with the problem. They highlighted changes they felt their EMR systems needed to undergo. In addition, they noted as a whole that the EMR has not improved patient care.

OBG Management polled readers to see their thoughts on this question: “Do you think that the EMR has improved patient care?”

In the roundtable article, “The electronic medical record’s role in ObGyn burnout and patient care” (October 2019), Megan L. Evans, MD, MPH; John J. Dougherty, MD, MBA; and Mark B. Woodland, MS, MD, discussed burnout’s connection with the electronic medical record (EMR) and solutions implemented at their institutions to help cope with the problem. They highlighted changes they felt their EMR systems needed to undergo. In addition, they noted as a whole that the EMR has not improved patient care.

OBG Management polled readers to see their thoughts on this question: “Do you think that the EMR has improved patient care?”

Obstetricians face the potential practice dilemma of having withdrawn from the market the only drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a singleton pregnancy who have a history of singleton spontaneous preterm birth. In the recently published PROLONG (Progestin's Role in Optimizing Neonatal Gestation) study by Blackwell and colleagues, the trial results revealed that there were no significant differences in preterm birth between women treated with 17 α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P; Makena) and those who received placebo.¹ For study details and comments, see "Progesterone supplementation does not PROLONG pregnancy in women at risk for preterm birth: What do we do now?" by Michael House, MD, and Errol Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA. Subsequently, the FDA's Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 9-7 to recommend pursuit of approval withdrawal for 17P. 

To assess how experienced obstetricians would manage women with previous preterm birth if 17P became unavailable, OBG Management conducted an informal survey. Here, 4 experts respond to the question, "What are you going to do in your practice for women with a history of a previous preterm birth if 17P is no longer an option?"

Not ready to leave behind 17P for recurrent preterm delivery

Patrick Duff, MD 

Preterm delivery is arguably the most important problem in perinatal medicine. It occurs in 10% to 12% of all obstetric patients in the United States, and complications of prematurity account for the majority of neonatal deaths. A major risk factor for recurrent preterm delivery is a prior history of spontaneous preterm delivery, with or without preterm premature rupture of membranes. Clearly, prevention of recurrence is of paramount importance. 

In the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network trial, Meis and colleagues demonstrated a 34% reduction (relative risk [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.81) in the risk of recurrent preterm delivery in women who received weekly 250-mg injections of 17P (also called 17-OHPC). After publication of that trial, use of 17P became accepted practice in the United States.² 

The PROLONG study by Blackwell and colleagues questions the value of 17P.¹ In that international trial, which included 1,708 women from 41 centers in the United States and 52 outside the United States, the authors were unable to show any significant difference in the frequency of preterm delivery < 35 weeks (11.0% in the women receiving 17P and 11.5% in women receiving placebo; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26). Even when they examined the subset of women treated at US medical centers, they could not demonstrate any significant difference in treatment outcome.  

At least 2 major explanations account for the discrepancy between the MFMU and the Blackwell studies. First, the participants in the PROLONG trial were clearly not at the same increased risk for recurrent preterm delivery as those in the MFMU trial. Second, in the PROLONG trial only the minority of participants were from the United States. In fact, given the relatively low rate of recurrent preterm delivery in the PROLONG trial, the study was underpowered to detect meaningful differences in maternal outcome. Therefore, I am not ready to abandon the use of progesterone supplementation in women at risk for recurrent preterm delivery. 

Continue to: If the FDA removes 17P from the market...

If the FDA removes 17P from the market, my approach with at-risk patients will be as follows: 

• I will encourage all at-risk women to eliminate obvious risk factors, such as smoking, illicit drug use, and excessive physical activity. 
• I will encourage optimal nutrition and appropriate weight gain. 
• I will test all patients for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and bacterial vaginosis and treat women who are infected. 
• After the patient completes the first trimester, I will treat her with micronized progesterone, 200 mg daily, intravaginally. I will continue this medication until 36 to 37 weeks. 
• I will perform an assessment of cervical length at 16, 20, and 24 weeks' gestation. In patients with demonstrable cervical shortening, I will perform a cerclage.

Rational management options for reducing risk of preterm delivery

Alex C. Vidaeff, MD, MPH 

Most women who experience a spontaneous preterm delivery (sPTD) do not deliver prematurely in subsequent pregnancies.³ Two recent systematic reviews, in 2014 and 2017, found an overall risk of recurrent sPTD of 20.2% and 30%, respectively.^4,5 These numbers are closer to the background event rate of 21.9% in the PROLONG trial, while only a few women have a recurrence risk of more than 50%, as in the Meis MFMU trial.^1,2 A public health recommendation cannot be made for an intervention that is expected to work only in rare cases and fail in a majority of cases. Therefore, 17P is no longer a viable option for preventing recurrence in pregnant women with a history of sPTD, with only rare possible exceptions.

What evidence-based alternatives can be offered to pregnant women who had a previous sPTD?

Ultrasound assessment of cervical length has emerged as an effective prognosticator for recurrence in women with a prior sPTD, being able to predict 65.4% of sPTDs at a false-positive rate of 5%.^6,7 Furthermore, sonographic cervical length measurements identify high-risk women who may not need any intervention. It has been shown that, among women with prior sPTD who maintain a normal cervical length up to 24 weeks, more than 90% will deliver at 35 weeks or after without intervention.⁸  

In the United States, interventions to reduce sPTD, once a short cervix has been identified, include vaginal progesterone supplementation and cerclage. The benefit from vaginal progesterone has been documented by an individual patient data meta-analysis, while the benefit of cerclage has been highlighted in a Cochrane Review.^9,10 The results of an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis suggest that both interventions are equally effective.¹¹ Therefore, the decision on how best to minimize the risk of recurrent sPTD must be individualized based on historical and clinical circumstances, as well as the woman's informed choice.  

Based on current data, the following approach appears rational to me: 

• Cervical ultrasound surveillance between 16 and 24 weeks' gestation to identify the subgroup of women at significantly increased risk of sPTD recurrence. 
• With cervical length ≤ 25 mm, vaginal progesterone supplementation may be considered. Preferential consideration for progesterone may be given when lower genital tract inflammation is suspected, given the possible anti-inflammatory action of progesterone.^12,13 
• If cervical shortening progresses to 15 to 20 mm, cerclage may be considered. Waiting for a cervix < 15 mm may be unadvisable. In conditions of a very short cervix, frequently dilated, with exposure of the fetal membranes, ascending subclinical intra-amniotic infection already may be present, reducing the efficacy of cerclage. Preferential consideration for cerclage also may be given with 2 sPTDs or mid-trimester losses or with a history of a successful cerclage. 

Continue to: Screen cervical length early, and use cerclage or vaginal progesterone as appropriate...

Screen cervical length early, and use cerclage or vaginal progesterone as appropriate

Michael G. Ross, MD, MPH

In patients with a history of a previous preterm birth, if 17P is no longer an option, I would revert to screening for short cervix with transvaginal ultrasound.  

Screen all high-risk patients at the first prenatal visit, so as not to miss a short cervix before 16 weeks' gestation. Then, beginning at 16 weeks, screen every 2 weeks until approximately 24 weeks.  

If the cervix shortens to 25 mm or less, offer cerclage or vaginal progesterone. If the cervix shortens to 20 mm or less, I would strongly support cerclage or vaginal progesterone. 

Use of 17P is still an option, for now 

Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA 

The way in which 17P was handled by the FDA is exactly the way the system is designed to work; this should be seen as a success, not a failure.  

Given the urgent need for an intervention to prevent preterm birth, the lack of any alternative, and a single, well-designed randomized controlled trial that confirmed safety and suggested some benefit, the FDA approved 17P supplementation in February 2011 for a limited indication only—one or more prior unexplained sPTD—using the expedited review mechanism.² Under this mechanism, a follow-up clinical trial is required to confirm efficacy. This was the PROLONG trial, which failed to show any significant benefit of 17P supplementation in terms of either preterm birth prevention or neonatal outcome.¹ 

In October 2019, an FDA advisory committee met again to review these and other data. After presentations from a range of stakeholders and a robust discussion, the advisory committee voted to pursue approval withdrawal of 17P due to the lack of consistent evidence of benefit (it is important to note that this was not because of safety concerns). This is exactly the way the process is designed to work. 

Where does this leave physicians and patients? It is clear that progesterone supplementation is not a panacea for preterm birth prevention and is not indicated for all women at high risk, even those with one or more prior unexplained sPTDs. Given that preterm birth is a syndrome and not a single diagnosis, it is still possible that there is a subgroup of women who may benefit from this intervention. For this reason—and because there is no clear alternative and no known downside to the administration of this drug (other than cost)—physicians still may choose to discuss this option with their patients and, after counseling, patients still may choose to accept it. If in doubt, engage the "shared decision-making model"; talk to your patients.  

Obstetricians face the potential practice dilemma of having withdrawn from the market the only drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a singleton pregnancy who have a history of singleton spontaneous preterm birth. In the recently published PROLONG (Progestin's Role in Optimizing Neonatal Gestation) study by Blackwell and colleagues, the trial results revealed that there were no significant differences in preterm birth between women treated with 17 α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P; Makena) and those who received placebo.¹ For study details and comments, see "Progesterone supplementation does not PROLONG pregnancy in women at risk for preterm birth: What do we do now?" by Michael House, MD, and Errol Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA. Subsequently, the FDA's Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 9-7 to recommend pursuit of approval withdrawal for 17P. 

To assess how experienced obstetricians would manage women with previous preterm birth if 17P became unavailable, OBG Management conducted an informal survey. Here, 4 experts respond to the question, "What are you going to do in your practice for women with a history of a previous preterm birth if 17P is no longer an option?"

Not ready to leave behind 17P for recurrent preterm delivery

Patrick Duff, MD 

Preterm delivery is arguably the most important problem in perinatal medicine. It occurs in 10% to 12% of all obstetric patients in the United States, and complications of prematurity account for the majority of neonatal deaths. A major risk factor for recurrent preterm delivery is a prior history of spontaneous preterm delivery, with or without preterm premature rupture of membranes. Clearly, prevention of recurrence is of paramount importance. 

In the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network trial, Meis and colleagues demonstrated a 34% reduction (relative risk [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.81) in the risk of recurrent preterm delivery in women who received weekly 250-mg injections of 17P (also called 17-OHPC). After publication of that trial, use of 17P became accepted practice in the United States.² 

The PROLONG study by Blackwell and colleagues questions the value of 17P.¹ In that international trial, which included 1,708 women from 41 centers in the United States and 52 outside the United States, the authors were unable to show any significant difference in the frequency of preterm delivery < 35 weeks (11.0% in the women receiving 17P and 11.5% in women receiving placebo; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26). Even when they examined the subset of women treated at US medical centers, they could not demonstrate any significant difference in treatment outcome.  

At least 2 major explanations account for the discrepancy between the MFMU and the Blackwell studies. First, the participants in the PROLONG trial were clearly not at the same increased risk for recurrent preterm delivery as those in the MFMU trial. Second, in the PROLONG trial only the minority of participants were from the United States. In fact, given the relatively low rate of recurrent preterm delivery in the PROLONG trial, the study was underpowered to detect meaningful differences in maternal outcome. Therefore, I am not ready to abandon the use of progesterone supplementation in women at risk for recurrent preterm delivery. 

Continue to: If the FDA removes 17P from the market...

If the FDA removes 17P from the market, my approach with at-risk patients will be as follows: 

• I will encourage all at-risk women to eliminate obvious risk factors, such as smoking, illicit drug use, and excessive physical activity. 
• I will encourage optimal nutrition and appropriate weight gain. 
• I will test all patients for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and bacterial vaginosis and treat women who are infected. 
• After the patient completes the first trimester, I will treat her with micronized progesterone, 200 mg daily, intravaginally. I will continue this medication until 36 to 37 weeks. 
• I will perform an assessment of cervical length at 16, 20, and 24 weeks' gestation. In patients with demonstrable cervical shortening, I will perform a cerclage.

Rational management options for reducing risk of preterm delivery

Alex C. Vidaeff, MD, MPH 

Most women who experience a spontaneous preterm delivery (sPTD) do not deliver prematurely in subsequent pregnancies.³ Two recent systematic reviews, in 2014 and 2017, found an overall risk of recurrent sPTD of 20.2% and 30%, respectively.^4,5 These numbers are closer to the background event rate of 21.9% in the PROLONG trial, while only a few women have a recurrence risk of more than 50%, as in the Meis MFMU trial.^1,2 A public health recommendation cannot be made for an intervention that is expected to work only in rare cases and fail in a majority of cases. Therefore, 17P is no longer a viable option for preventing recurrence in pregnant women with a history of sPTD, with only rare possible exceptions.

What evidence-based alternatives can be offered to pregnant women who had a previous sPTD?

Ultrasound assessment of cervical length has emerged as an effective prognosticator for recurrence in women with a prior sPTD, being able to predict 65.4% of sPTDs at a false-positive rate of 5%.^6,7 Furthermore, sonographic cervical length measurements identify high-risk women who may not need any intervention. It has been shown that, among women with prior sPTD who maintain a normal cervical length up to 24 weeks, more than 90% will deliver at 35 weeks or after without intervention.⁸  

In the United States, interventions to reduce sPTD, once a short cervix has been identified, include vaginal progesterone supplementation and cerclage. The benefit from vaginal progesterone has been documented by an individual patient data meta-analysis, while the benefit of cerclage has been highlighted in a Cochrane Review.^9,10 The results of an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis suggest that both interventions are equally effective.¹¹ Therefore, the decision on how best to minimize the risk of recurrent sPTD must be individualized based on historical and clinical circumstances, as well as the woman's informed choice.  

Based on current data, the following approach appears rational to me: 

• Cervical ultrasound surveillance between 16 and 24 weeks' gestation to identify the subgroup of women at significantly increased risk of sPTD recurrence. 
• With cervical length ≤ 25 mm, vaginal progesterone supplementation may be considered. Preferential consideration for progesterone may be given when lower genital tract inflammation is suspected, given the possible anti-inflammatory action of progesterone.^12,13 
• If cervical shortening progresses to 15 to 20 mm, cerclage may be considered. Waiting for a cervix < 15 mm may be unadvisable. In conditions of a very short cervix, frequently dilated, with exposure of the fetal membranes, ascending subclinical intra-amniotic infection already may be present, reducing the efficacy of cerclage. Preferential consideration for cerclage also may be given with 2 sPTDs or mid-trimester losses or with a history of a successful cerclage. 

Continue to: Screen cervical length early, and use cerclage or vaginal progesterone as appropriate...

Screen cervical length early, and use cerclage or vaginal progesterone as appropriate

Michael G. Ross, MD, MPH

In patients with a history of a previous preterm birth, if 17P is no longer an option, I would revert to screening for short cervix with transvaginal ultrasound.  

Screen all high-risk patients at the first prenatal visit, so as not to miss a short cervix before 16 weeks' gestation. Then, beginning at 16 weeks, screen every 2 weeks until approximately 24 weeks.  

If the cervix shortens to 25 mm or less, offer cerclage or vaginal progesterone. If the cervix shortens to 20 mm or less, I would strongly support cerclage or vaginal progesterone. 

Use of 17P is still an option, for now 

Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA 

The way in which 17P was handled by the FDA is exactly the way the system is designed to work; this should be seen as a success, not a failure.  

Given the urgent need for an intervention to prevent preterm birth, the lack of any alternative, and a single, well-designed randomized controlled trial that confirmed safety and suggested some benefit, the FDA approved 17P supplementation in February 2011 for a limited indication only—one or more prior unexplained sPTD—using the expedited review mechanism.² Under this mechanism, a follow-up clinical trial is required to confirm efficacy. This was the PROLONG trial, which failed to show any significant benefit of 17P supplementation in terms of either preterm birth prevention or neonatal outcome.¹ 

In October 2019, an FDA advisory committee met again to review these and other data. After presentations from a range of stakeholders and a robust discussion, the advisory committee voted to pursue approval withdrawal of 17P due to the lack of consistent evidence of benefit (it is important to note that this was not because of safety concerns). This is exactly the way the process is designed to work. 

Where does this leave physicians and patients? It is clear that progesterone supplementation is not a panacea for preterm birth prevention and is not indicated for all women at high risk, even those with one or more prior unexplained sPTDs. Given that preterm birth is a syndrome and not a single diagnosis, it is still possible that there is a subgroup of women who may benefit from this intervention. For this reason—and because there is no clear alternative and no known downside to the administration of this drug (other than cost)—physicians still may choose to discuss this option with their patients and, after counseling, patients still may choose to accept it. If in doubt, engage the "shared decision-making model"; talk to your patients.  

Obstetricians face the potential practice dilemma of having withdrawn from the market the only drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a singleton pregnancy who have a history of singleton spontaneous preterm birth. In the recently published PROLONG (Progestin's Role in Optimizing Neonatal Gestation) study by Blackwell and colleagues, the trial results revealed that there were no significant differences in preterm birth between women treated with 17 α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P; Makena) and those who received placebo.¹ For study details and comments, see "Progesterone supplementation does not PROLONG pregnancy in women at risk for preterm birth: What do we do now?" by Michael House, MD, and Errol Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA. Subsequently, the FDA's Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 9-7 to recommend pursuit of approval withdrawal for 17P. 

To assess how experienced obstetricians would manage women with previous preterm birth if 17P became unavailable, OBG Management conducted an informal survey. Here, 4 experts respond to the question, "What are you going to do in your practice for women with a history of a previous preterm birth if 17P is no longer an option?"

Not ready to leave behind 17P for recurrent preterm delivery

Patrick Duff, MD 

Preterm delivery is arguably the most important problem in perinatal medicine. It occurs in 10% to 12% of all obstetric patients in the United States, and complications of prematurity account for the majority of neonatal deaths. A major risk factor for recurrent preterm delivery is a prior history of spontaneous preterm delivery, with or without preterm premature rupture of membranes. Clearly, prevention of recurrence is of paramount importance. 

In the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network trial, Meis and colleagues demonstrated a 34% reduction (relative risk [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.81) in the risk of recurrent preterm delivery in women who received weekly 250-mg injections of 17P (also called 17-OHPC). After publication of that trial, use of 17P became accepted practice in the United States.² 

The PROLONG study by Blackwell and colleagues questions the value of 17P.¹ In that international trial, which included 1,708 women from 41 centers in the United States and 52 outside the United States, the authors were unable to show any significant difference in the frequency of preterm delivery < 35 weeks (11.0% in the women receiving 17P and 11.5% in women receiving placebo; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26). Even when they examined the subset of women treated at US medical centers, they could not demonstrate any significant difference in treatment outcome.  

At least 2 major explanations account for the discrepancy between the MFMU and the Blackwell studies. First, the participants in the PROLONG trial were clearly not at the same increased risk for recurrent preterm delivery as those in the MFMU trial. Second, in the PROLONG trial only the minority of participants were from the United States. In fact, given the relatively low rate of recurrent preterm delivery in the PROLONG trial, the study was underpowered to detect meaningful differences in maternal outcome. Therefore, I am not ready to abandon the use of progesterone supplementation in women at risk for recurrent preterm delivery. 

Continue to: If the FDA removes 17P from the market...

If the FDA removes 17P from the market, my approach with at-risk patients will be as follows: 

• I will encourage all at-risk women to eliminate obvious risk factors, such as smoking, illicit drug use, and excessive physical activity. 
• I will encourage optimal nutrition and appropriate weight gain. 
• I will test all patients for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and bacterial vaginosis and treat women who are infected. 
• After the patient completes the first trimester, I will treat her with micronized progesterone, 200 mg daily, intravaginally. I will continue this medication until 36 to 37 weeks. 
• I will perform an assessment of cervical length at 16, 20, and 24 weeks' gestation. In patients with demonstrable cervical shortening, I will perform a cerclage.

Rational management options for reducing risk of preterm delivery

Alex C. Vidaeff, MD, MPH 

Most women who experience a spontaneous preterm delivery (sPTD) do not deliver prematurely in subsequent pregnancies.³ Two recent systematic reviews, in 2014 and 2017, found an overall risk of recurrent sPTD of 20.2% and 30%, respectively.^4,5 These numbers are closer to the background event rate of 21.9% in the PROLONG trial, while only a few women have a recurrence risk of more than 50%, as in the Meis MFMU trial.^1,2 A public health recommendation cannot be made for an intervention that is expected to work only in rare cases and fail in a majority of cases. Therefore, 17P is no longer a viable option for preventing recurrence in pregnant women with a history of sPTD, with only rare possible exceptions.

What evidence-based alternatives can be offered to pregnant women who had a previous sPTD?

Ultrasound assessment of cervical length has emerged as an effective prognosticator for recurrence in women with a prior sPTD, being able to predict 65.4% of sPTDs at a false-positive rate of 5%.^6,7 Furthermore, sonographic cervical length measurements identify high-risk women who may not need any intervention. It has been shown that, among women with prior sPTD who maintain a normal cervical length up to 24 weeks, more than 90% will deliver at 35 weeks or after without intervention.⁸  

In the United States, interventions to reduce sPTD, once a short cervix has been identified, include vaginal progesterone supplementation and cerclage. The benefit from vaginal progesterone has been documented by an individual patient data meta-analysis, while the benefit of cerclage has been highlighted in a Cochrane Review.^9,10 The results of an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis suggest that both interventions are equally effective.¹¹ Therefore, the decision on how best to minimize the risk of recurrent sPTD must be individualized based on historical and clinical circumstances, as well as the woman's informed choice.  

Based on current data, the following approach appears rational to me: 

• Cervical ultrasound surveillance between 16 and 24 weeks' gestation to identify the subgroup of women at significantly increased risk of sPTD recurrence. 
• With cervical length ≤ 25 mm, vaginal progesterone supplementation may be considered. Preferential consideration for progesterone may be given when lower genital tract inflammation is suspected, given the possible anti-inflammatory action of progesterone.^12,13 
• If cervical shortening progresses to 15 to 20 mm, cerclage may be considered. Waiting for a cervix < 15 mm may be unadvisable. In conditions of a very short cervix, frequently dilated, with exposure of the fetal membranes, ascending subclinical intra-amniotic infection already may be present, reducing the efficacy of cerclage. Preferential consideration for cerclage also may be given with 2 sPTDs or mid-trimester losses or with a history of a successful cerclage. 

Continue to: Screen cervical length early, and use cerclage or vaginal progesterone as appropriate...

Screen cervical length early, and use cerclage or vaginal progesterone as appropriate

Michael G. Ross, MD, MPH

In patients with a history of a previous preterm birth, if 17P is no longer an option, I would revert to screening for short cervix with transvaginal ultrasound.  

Screen all high-risk patients at the first prenatal visit, so as not to miss a short cervix before 16 weeks' gestation. Then, beginning at 16 weeks, screen every 2 weeks until approximately 24 weeks.  

If the cervix shortens to 25 mm or less, offer cerclage or vaginal progesterone. If the cervix shortens to 20 mm or less, I would strongly support cerclage or vaginal progesterone. 

Use of 17P is still an option, for now 

Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA 

The way in which 17P was handled by the FDA is exactly the way the system is designed to work; this should be seen as a success, not a failure.  

Given the urgent need for an intervention to prevent preterm birth, the lack of any alternative, and a single, well-designed randomized controlled trial that confirmed safety and suggested some benefit, the FDA approved 17P supplementation in February 2011 for a limited indication only—one or more prior unexplained sPTD—using the expedited review mechanism.² Under this mechanism, a follow-up clinical trial is required to confirm efficacy. This was the PROLONG trial, which failed to show any significant benefit of 17P supplementation in terms of either preterm birth prevention or neonatal outcome.¹ 

In October 2019, an FDA advisory committee met again to review these and other data. After presentations from a range of stakeholders and a robust discussion, the advisory committee voted to pursue approval withdrawal of 17P due to the lack of consistent evidence of benefit (it is important to note that this was not because of safety concerns). This is exactly the way the process is designed to work. 

Where does this leave physicians and patients? It is clear that progesterone supplementation is not a panacea for preterm birth prevention and is not indicated for all women at high risk, even those with one or more prior unexplained sPTDs. Given that preterm birth is a syndrome and not a single diagnosis, it is still possible that there is a subgroup of women who may benefit from this intervention. For this reason—and because there is no clear alternative and no known downside to the administration of this drug (other than cost)—physicians still may choose to discuss this option with their patients and, after counseling, patients still may choose to accept it. If in doubt, engage the "shared decision-making model"; talk to your patients.  

Prior to last year, this column was titled “Update on osteoporosis.” My observation, however, is that too many ObGyn providers simply measure bone mass (known as bone mineral density, or BMD), label a patient as normal, osteopenic, or osteoporotic, and then consider pharmacotherapy. The FRAX fracture prediction algorithm, which incorporates age, weight, height, history of any previous fracture, family history of hip fracture, current smoking, use of glucocorticoid medications, and any history of rheumatoid arthritis, has refined the screening process somewhat, if and when it is utilized. As clinicians, we should never lose sight of our goal: to prevent fragility fractures. Having osteoporosis increases that risk, but not having osteoporosis does not eliminate it.

In this Update, I highlight various ways in which work published this past year may help us to improve our patients’ bone health and reduce fragility fractures.

Updated ISCD guidance emphasizes appropriate BMD testing, use of the
Z-score, and terminology 

International Society for Clinical Densitometry. 2019 ISCD Official Positions-Adult. June 2019.  https://www.iscd.org/official-positions/2019-ISCD-official-positions-adult. 

Continue to: Indications for BMD testing...

Indications for BMD testing 

The ISCD's indications for BMD testing remain for women age 65 and older. For postmenopausal women younger than age 65, a BMD test is indicated if they have a risk factor for low bone mass, such as 1) low body weight, 2) prior fracture, 3) high-risk medication use, or 4) a disease or condition associated with bone loss. A BMD test also is indicated for women during the menopausal transition with clinical risk factors for fracture, such as low body weight, prior fracture, or high-risk medication use. Interestingly, the ISCD recommendation for men is similar but uses age 70 for this group. 

In addition, the ISCD recommends BMD testing in adults with a fragility fracture, with a disease or condition associated with low bone mass, or taking medications associated with low bone mass, as well as for anyone being considered for pharmacologic therapy, being treated (to monitor treatment effect), not receiving therapy in whom evidence of bone loss would lead to treatment, and in women discontinuing estrogen who should be considered for BMD testing according to the indications already mentioned. 

Sites to assess for osteoporosis. The World Health Organization international reference standard for osteoporosis diagnosis is a T-score of -2.5 or less at the femoral neck. The reference standard, from which the T-score is calculated, is for white women aged 20 to 29 years of age from the database of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Osteoporosis also may be diagnosed in postmenopausal women if the T-score of the lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck is -2.5 or less. In certain circumstances, the 33% radius (also called the one-third radius) may be utilized. Other hip regions of interest, including Ward's area and the greater trochanter, should not be used for diagnosis. 

The skeletal sites at which to measure BMD include the anteroposterior of the spine and hip in all patients. In terms of the spine, use L1-L4 for spine BMD measurement. However, exclude vertebrae that are affected by local structural changes or artifact. Use 3 vertebrae if 4 cannot be used, and 2 if 3 cannot be used. BMD-based diagnostic classification should not be made using a single vertebra. Anatomically abnormal vertebrae may be excluded from analysis if they are clearly abnormal and nonassessable within the resolution of the system, or if there is more than a 1.0 T-score difference between the vertebra in question and adjacent vertebrae. When vertebrae are excluded, the BMD of the remaining vertebrae are used to derive the T-score. 

For BMD measurement at the hip, the femoral neck or total proximal femur—whichever is lowest—should be used. Either hip may be measured. Data are insufficient on whether mean T-scores for bilateral hip BMD should be used for diagnosis. 

Terminology. While the ISCD retains the term osteopenia, the term low bone mass or low bone density is preferred. People with low bone mass or density are not necessarily at high fracture risk. 

Concerning BMD reporting in women prior to menopause, Z-scores, not T-scores, are preferred. A Z-score of -2.0 or lower is defined as "below the expected range for age"; a Z-score above -2.0 is "within the expected range for age." 

Use of serial BMD testing 

Finally, regarding serial BMD measurements, such testing in combination with clinical assessment of fracture risk can be used to determine whether treatment should be initiated in untreated patients. Furthermore, serial BMD testing can monitor a patient's response to therapy by finding an increase or stability of bone density. It should be used to monitor individuals following cessation of osteoporosis drug therapy. Serial BMD testing can detect loss of bone density, indicating the need to assess treatment adherence, evaluate possible secondary causes of osteoporosis, and possibly re-evaluate therapeutic options. 

Intervals between BMD testing should be determined according to each patient's clinical status. Typically, 1 year after initiating or changing therapy is appropriate, with longer intervals once therapeutic effect is established.

Continue to: Dyspareunia drug has positive effects on bone...

Dyspareunia drug has positive effects on bone 

de Villiers TJ, Altomare C, Particco M, et al. Effects of ospemifene on bone in postmenopausal women. Climacteric. 2019;22:442-447. 

Previously, ospemifene effectively reduced bone loss in ovariectomized rats, with activity comparable to that of estradiol and raloxifene.³ Clinical data from 3 phase 1 or 2 clinical trials found that ospemifene 60 mg/day had a positive effect on biochemical markers for bone turnover in healthy postmenopausal women, with significant improvements relative to placebo and effects comparable to those of raloxifene.⁴ 

Effects on bone formation/resorption biomarkers 

In a recent study, de Villiers and colleagues reported the first phase 3 trial that looked at markers of bone formation and bone resorption.⁵ A total of 316 women were randomly assigned to receive ospemifene, and 315 received placebo.

Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups. Participants' mean age was approximately 60 years, mean body mass index (BMI) was 27.2 kg/m2, and mean duration of VVA was 8 to 9 years. Serum levels of 9 bone biomarkers were similar between groups at baseline. 

At week 12, all 5 markers of bone resorption improved with ospemifene treatment, and 3 of the 5 (NTX, CTX, and TRACP-5b) did so in a statistically significant fashion compared with placebo (P≤.02). In addition, at week 12, all 4 markers of bone formation improved with ospemifene treatment compared with placebo (P≤.008). Furthermore, lower bone resorption markers with ospemifene were observed regardless of time since menopause (≤ 5 years or
> 5 years) or baseline BMD, whether normal, osteopenic, or osteoporotic. 

Interpret results cautiously 

The authors caution that the data are limited to biochemical markers rather than fracture or BMD. It is known that there is good correlation between biochemical markers for bone turnover and the occurrence of fracture.⁶ 

Continue to: Sarcopenia adds to osteoporotic risk for fractures...

Sarcopenia adds to osteoporotic risk for fractures 

Lima RM, de Oliveira RJ, Raposo R, et al. Stages of sarcopenia, bone mineral density, and the prevalence of osteoporosis in older women. Arch Osteoporos. 2019;14:38. 

In 1989, the term sarcopenia was introduced to refer to the age-related decline in skeletal muscle mass.⁸ Currently, sarcopenia is defined as a progressive decline in muscle mass, strength, and physical function, thus increasing the risk for various adverse outcomes, including osteoporosis.⁹ Although muscle and bone tissues differ morphologically, their functioning is closely interconnected. 

The sarcopenia-osteoporosis connection 

Lima and colleagues sought to investigate the relationship between sarcopenia and osteoporosis.¹⁰ They measured women's fat free mass with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanning, muscle strength using a dynamometer to measure knee extension torque while participants were seated, and functional performance using the timed "up and go test" in which participants were timed as they got up from a chair, walked 3 meters around a cone, and returned to sit in the chair.^10,11 

The authors used definitions from the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP). Participants who had normal results in all 3 domains were considered nonsarcopenic. Presarcopenia was defined as having low fat free mass on DXA scanning but normal strength and function. Participants who had low fat free mass and either low strength or low function were labeled as having sarcopenia. Severe sarcopenia was defined as abnormal results in all 3 domains. 

Two hundred thirty-four women (mean age, 68.3 years; range, 60-80) underwent BMD testing and were evaluated according to the 3 domains of possible sarcopenia. All were community dwelling and did not have cognitive impairment or functional dependency. 

The rates of osteoporosis were 15.8%, 19.2%, 35.3%, and 46.2% for nonsarcopenia, presarcopenia, sarcopenia, and severe sarcopenia, respectively (P=.002). Whole-body and femoral neck BMD values were significantly lower among all sarcopenia stages when compared with nonsarcopenia (P<.05). The severe sarcopenia group showed the lowest lumbar spine T-scores (P<.05). When clustered, sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia presented a significantly higher risk for osteoporosis (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-7.8). 

Consider sarcopenia a risk factor 

The authors concluded that these "results provide support for the concept that a dose-response relationship exists between sarcopenia stages, BMD, and the presence of osteoporosis. These findings strengthen the clinical significance of the EWGSOP sarcopenia definitions and indicate that severe sarcopenia should be viewed with attention by healthcare professionals." 

Continue to: Certain characteristics may offset fracture risk in aromatase inhibitor users...

Certain characteristics may offset fracture risk in aromatase inhibitor users 

Leslie WD, Morin SN, Lix LM, et al. Fracture risk in women with breast cancer initiating aromatase inhibitor therapy: a registry-based cohort study. Oncologist. 2019;24:1432-1438. 

The use of AIs increases bone turnover and induces bone loss at trabecular-rich bone sites at an average rate of 1% to 3% per year, with reports of up to a threefold increased fracture incidence.¹³ By contrast, a large nationwide population-based cohort study using US Medicare data identified minimal fracture risk from AI use compared with tamoxifen use (11% higher for nonvertebral fractures, not significantly increased for hip fractures).¹⁴ 

An article published previously in this column reported that women on AIs treated with intravenous zoledronic acid had improvements in BMD, while women treated with denosumab had statistically significant fewer fractures compared with those receiving placebo, whether they had normal bone mass, osteopenia, or osteoporosis at
baseline.^15-17
 

Data derived from a population-based BMD registry 

In a recent cohort study, Leslie and colleagues offer the opinion that "observations in the clinical trial setting may differ from routine clinical practice."¹⁸ The authors examined fracture outcomes using a large clinical registry of BMD results from women in Manitoba, Canada. They identified women at least 40 years of age initiating AI therapy for breast cancer (n = 1,775), women with breast cancer not receiving AI therapy (n = 1,016), and women from the general population without breast cancer (n = 34,205). 

Fracture outcomes were assessed after a mean of 6.2 years for the AI users, all of whom had at least 12 months of AI exposure. At baseline, AI users had higher BMI, higher BMD, lower osteoporosis prevalence, and fewer prior fractures than women from the general population or women with breast cancer without AI use (all P<.001). After adjusting for all covariates, AI users were not at significantly greater risk for major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% CI, 0.93-1.42), hip fracture (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.56-1.43), or any fracture (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.88-1.28) compared with the general population. 

Results challenge prevailing view 

Thus, the authors concluded that higher baseline BMI, BMD, and lower prevalence of prior fracture at baseline may offset the adverse effects of AI exposure. Although confirmatory data from large cohort studies are required, the authors stated that their findings challenge the view that all women with breast cancer initiating AI therapy should be considered at high risk for fracture.  

Prior to last year, this column was titled “Update on osteoporosis.” My observation, however, is that too many ObGyn providers simply measure bone mass (known as bone mineral density, or BMD), label a patient as normal, osteopenic, or osteoporotic, and then consider pharmacotherapy. The FRAX fracture prediction algorithm, which incorporates age, weight, height, history of any previous fracture, family history of hip fracture, current smoking, use of glucocorticoid medications, and any history of rheumatoid arthritis, has refined the screening process somewhat, if and when it is utilized. As clinicians, we should never lose sight of our goal: to prevent fragility fractures. Having osteoporosis increases that risk, but not having osteoporosis does not eliminate it.

In this Update, I highlight various ways in which work published this past year may help us to improve our patients’ bone health and reduce fragility fractures.

Updated ISCD guidance emphasizes appropriate BMD testing, use of the
Z-score, and terminology 

International Society for Clinical Densitometry. 2019 ISCD Official Positions-Adult. June 2019.  https://www.iscd.org/official-positions/2019-ISCD-official-positions-adult. 

Continue to: Indications for BMD testing...

Indications for BMD testing 

The ISCD's indications for BMD testing remain for women age 65 and older. For postmenopausal women younger than age 65, a BMD test is indicated if they have a risk factor for low bone mass, such as 1) low body weight, 2) prior fracture, 3) high-risk medication use, or 4) a disease or condition associated with bone loss. A BMD test also is indicated for women during the menopausal transition with clinical risk factors for fracture, such as low body weight, prior fracture, or high-risk medication use. Interestingly, the ISCD recommendation for men is similar but uses age 70 for this group. 

In addition, the ISCD recommends BMD testing in adults with a fragility fracture, with a disease or condition associated with low bone mass, or taking medications associated with low bone mass, as well as for anyone being considered for pharmacologic therapy, being treated (to monitor treatment effect), not receiving therapy in whom evidence of bone loss would lead to treatment, and in women discontinuing estrogen who should be considered for BMD testing according to the indications already mentioned. 

Sites to assess for osteoporosis. The World Health Organization international reference standard for osteoporosis diagnosis is a T-score of -2.5 or less at the femoral neck. The reference standard, from which the T-score is calculated, is for white women aged 20 to 29 years of age from the database of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Osteoporosis also may be diagnosed in postmenopausal women if the T-score of the lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck is -2.5 or less. In certain circumstances, the 33% radius (also called the one-third radius) may be utilized. Other hip regions of interest, including Ward's area and the greater trochanter, should not be used for diagnosis. 

The skeletal sites at which to measure BMD include the anteroposterior of the spine and hip in all patients. In terms of the spine, use L1-L4 for spine BMD measurement. However, exclude vertebrae that are affected by local structural changes or artifact. Use 3 vertebrae if 4 cannot be used, and 2 if 3 cannot be used. BMD-based diagnostic classification should not be made using a single vertebra. Anatomically abnormal vertebrae may be excluded from analysis if they are clearly abnormal and nonassessable within the resolution of the system, or if there is more than a 1.0 T-score difference between the vertebra in question and adjacent vertebrae. When vertebrae are excluded, the BMD of the remaining vertebrae are used to derive the T-score. 

For BMD measurement at the hip, the femoral neck or total proximal femur—whichever is lowest—should be used. Either hip may be measured. Data are insufficient on whether mean T-scores for bilateral hip BMD should be used for diagnosis. 

Terminology. While the ISCD retains the term osteopenia, the term low bone mass or low bone density is preferred. People with low bone mass or density are not necessarily at high fracture risk. 

Concerning BMD reporting in women prior to menopause, Z-scores, not T-scores, are preferred. A Z-score of -2.0 or lower is defined as "below the expected range for age"; a Z-score above -2.0 is "within the expected range for age." 

Use of serial BMD testing 

Finally, regarding serial BMD measurements, such testing in combination with clinical assessment of fracture risk can be used to determine whether treatment should be initiated in untreated patients. Furthermore, serial BMD testing can monitor a patient's response to therapy by finding an increase or stability of bone density. It should be used to monitor individuals following cessation of osteoporosis drug therapy. Serial BMD testing can detect loss of bone density, indicating the need to assess treatment adherence, evaluate possible secondary causes of osteoporosis, and possibly re-evaluate therapeutic options. 

Intervals between BMD testing should be determined according to each patient's clinical status. Typically, 1 year after initiating or changing therapy is appropriate, with longer intervals once therapeutic effect is established.

Continue to: Dyspareunia drug has positive effects on bone...

Dyspareunia drug has positive effects on bone 

de Villiers TJ, Altomare C, Particco M, et al. Effects of ospemifene on bone in postmenopausal women. Climacteric. 2019;22:442-447. 

Previously, ospemifene effectively reduced bone loss in ovariectomized rats, with activity comparable to that of estradiol and raloxifene.³ Clinical data from 3 phase 1 or 2 clinical trials found that ospemifene 60 mg/day had a positive effect on biochemical markers for bone turnover in healthy postmenopausal women, with significant improvements relative to placebo and effects comparable to those of raloxifene.⁴ 

Effects on bone formation/resorption biomarkers 

In a recent study, de Villiers and colleagues reported the first phase 3 trial that looked at markers of bone formation and bone resorption.⁵ A total of 316 women were randomly assigned to receive ospemifene, and 315 received placebo.

Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups. Participants' mean age was approximately 60 years, mean body mass index (BMI) was 27.2 kg/m2, and mean duration of VVA was 8 to 9 years. Serum levels of 9 bone biomarkers were similar between groups at baseline. 

At week 12, all 5 markers of bone resorption improved with ospemifene treatment, and 3 of the 5 (NTX, CTX, and TRACP-5b) did so in a statistically significant fashion compared with placebo (P≤.02). In addition, at week 12, all 4 markers of bone formation improved with ospemifene treatment compared with placebo (P≤.008). Furthermore, lower bone resorption markers with ospemifene were observed regardless of time since menopause (≤ 5 years or
> 5 years) or baseline BMD, whether normal, osteopenic, or osteoporotic. 

Interpret results cautiously 

The authors caution that the data are limited to biochemical markers rather than fracture or BMD. It is known that there is good correlation between biochemical markers for bone turnover and the occurrence of fracture.⁶ 

Continue to: Sarcopenia adds to osteoporotic risk for fractures...

Sarcopenia adds to osteoporotic risk for fractures 

Lima RM, de Oliveira RJ, Raposo R, et al. Stages of sarcopenia, bone mineral density, and the prevalence of osteoporosis in older women. Arch Osteoporos. 2019;14:38. 

In 1989, the term sarcopenia was introduced to refer to the age-related decline in skeletal muscle mass.⁸ Currently, sarcopenia is defined as a progressive decline in muscle mass, strength, and physical function, thus increasing the risk for various adverse outcomes, including osteoporosis.⁹ Although muscle and bone tissues differ morphologically, their functioning is closely interconnected. 

The sarcopenia-osteoporosis connection 

Lima and colleagues sought to investigate the relationship between sarcopenia and osteoporosis.¹⁰ They measured women's fat free mass with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanning, muscle strength using a dynamometer to measure knee extension torque while participants were seated, and functional performance using the timed "up and go test" in which participants were timed as they got up from a chair, walked 3 meters around a cone, and returned to sit in the chair.^10,11 

The authors used definitions from the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP). Participants who had normal results in all 3 domains were considered nonsarcopenic. Presarcopenia was defined as having low fat free mass on DXA scanning but normal strength and function. Participants who had low fat free mass and either low strength or low function were labeled as having sarcopenia. Severe sarcopenia was defined as abnormal results in all 3 domains. 

Two hundred thirty-four women (mean age, 68.3 years; range, 60-80) underwent BMD testing and were evaluated according to the 3 domains of possible sarcopenia. All were community dwelling and did not have cognitive impairment or functional dependency. 

The rates of osteoporosis were 15.8%, 19.2%, 35.3%, and 46.2% for nonsarcopenia, presarcopenia, sarcopenia, and severe sarcopenia, respectively (P=.002). Whole-body and femoral neck BMD values were significantly lower among all sarcopenia stages when compared with nonsarcopenia (P<.05). The severe sarcopenia group showed the lowest lumbar spine T-scores (P<.05). When clustered, sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia presented a significantly higher risk for osteoporosis (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-7.8). 

Consider sarcopenia a risk factor 

The authors concluded that these "results provide support for the concept that a dose-response relationship exists between sarcopenia stages, BMD, and the presence of osteoporosis. These findings strengthen the clinical significance of the EWGSOP sarcopenia definitions and indicate that severe sarcopenia should be viewed with attention by healthcare professionals." 

Continue to: Certain characteristics may offset fracture risk in aromatase inhibitor users...

Certain characteristics may offset fracture risk in aromatase inhibitor users 

Leslie WD, Morin SN, Lix LM, et al. Fracture risk in women with breast cancer initiating aromatase inhibitor therapy: a registry-based cohort study. Oncologist. 2019;24:1432-1438. 

The use of AIs increases bone turnover and induces bone loss at trabecular-rich bone sites at an average rate of 1% to 3% per year, with reports of up to a threefold increased fracture incidence.¹³ By contrast, a large nationwide population-based cohort study using US Medicare data identified minimal fracture risk from AI use compared with tamoxifen use (11% higher for nonvertebral fractures, not significantly increased for hip fractures).¹⁴ 

An article published previously in this column reported that women on AIs treated with intravenous zoledronic acid had improvements in BMD, while women treated with denosumab had statistically significant fewer fractures compared with those receiving placebo, whether they had normal bone mass, osteopenia, or osteoporosis at
baseline.^15-17
 

Data derived from a population-based BMD registry 

In a recent cohort study, Leslie and colleagues offer the opinion that "observations in the clinical trial setting may differ from routine clinical practice."¹⁸ The authors examined fracture outcomes using a large clinical registry of BMD results from women in Manitoba, Canada. They identified women at least 40 years of age initiating AI therapy for breast cancer (n = 1,775), women with breast cancer not receiving AI therapy (n = 1,016), and women from the general population without breast cancer (n = 34,205). 

Fracture outcomes were assessed after a mean of 6.2 years for the AI users, all of whom had at least 12 months of AI exposure. At baseline, AI users had higher BMI, higher BMD, lower osteoporosis prevalence, and fewer prior fractures than women from the general population or women with breast cancer without AI use (all P<.001). After adjusting for all covariates, AI users were not at significantly greater risk for major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% CI, 0.93-1.42), hip fracture (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.56-1.43), or any fracture (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.88-1.28) compared with the general population. 

Results challenge prevailing view 

Thus, the authors concluded that higher baseline BMI, BMD, and lower prevalence of prior fracture at baseline may offset the adverse effects of AI exposure. Although confirmatory data from large cohort studies are required, the authors stated that their findings challenge the view that all women with breast cancer initiating AI therapy should be considered at high risk for fracture.  

Prior to last year, this column was titled “Update on osteoporosis.” My observation, however, is that too many ObGyn providers simply measure bone mass (known as bone mineral density, or BMD), label a patient as normal, osteopenic, or osteoporotic, and then consider pharmacotherapy. The FRAX fracture prediction algorithm, which incorporates age, weight, height, history of any previous fracture, family history of hip fracture, current smoking, use of glucocorticoid medications, and any history of rheumatoid arthritis, has refined the screening process somewhat, if and when it is utilized. As clinicians, we should never lose sight of our goal: to prevent fragility fractures. Having osteoporosis increases that risk, but not having osteoporosis does not eliminate it.

In this Update, I highlight various ways in which work published this past year may help us to improve our patients’ bone health and reduce fragility fractures.

Updated ISCD guidance emphasizes appropriate BMD testing, use of the
Z-score, and terminology 

International Society for Clinical Densitometry. 2019 ISCD Official Positions-Adult. June 2019.  https://www.iscd.org/official-positions/2019-ISCD-official-positions-adult. 

Continue to: Indications for BMD testing...

Indications for BMD testing 

The ISCD's indications for BMD testing remain for women age 65 and older. For postmenopausal women younger than age 65, a BMD test is indicated if they have a risk factor for low bone mass, such as 1) low body weight, 2) prior fracture, 3) high-risk medication use, or 4) a disease or condition associated with bone loss. A BMD test also is indicated for women during the menopausal transition with clinical risk factors for fracture, such as low body weight, prior fracture, or high-risk medication use. Interestingly, the ISCD recommendation for men is similar but uses age 70 for this group. 

In addition, the ISCD recommends BMD testing in adults with a fragility fracture, with a disease or condition associated with low bone mass, or taking medications associated with low bone mass, as well as for anyone being considered for pharmacologic therapy, being treated (to monitor treatment effect), not receiving therapy in whom evidence of bone loss would lead to treatment, and in women discontinuing estrogen who should be considered for BMD testing according to the indications already mentioned. 

Sites to assess for osteoporosis. The World Health Organization international reference standard for osteoporosis diagnosis is a T-score of -2.5 or less at the femoral neck. The reference standard, from which the T-score is calculated, is for white women aged 20 to 29 years of age from the database of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Osteoporosis also may be diagnosed in postmenopausal women if the T-score of the lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck is -2.5 or less. In certain circumstances, the 33% radius (also called the one-third radius) may be utilized. Other hip regions of interest, including Ward's area and the greater trochanter, should not be used for diagnosis. 

The skeletal sites at which to measure BMD include the anteroposterior of the spine and hip in all patients. In terms of the spine, use L1-L4 for spine BMD measurement. However, exclude vertebrae that are affected by local structural changes or artifact. Use 3 vertebrae if 4 cannot be used, and 2 if 3 cannot be used. BMD-based diagnostic classification should not be made using a single vertebra. Anatomically abnormal vertebrae may be excluded from analysis if they are clearly abnormal and nonassessable within the resolution of the system, or if there is more than a 1.0 T-score difference between the vertebra in question and adjacent vertebrae. When vertebrae are excluded, the BMD of the remaining vertebrae are used to derive the T-score. 

For BMD measurement at the hip, the femoral neck or total proximal femur—whichever is lowest—should be used. Either hip may be measured. Data are insufficient on whether mean T-scores for bilateral hip BMD should be used for diagnosis. 

Terminology. While the ISCD retains the term osteopenia, the term low bone mass or low bone density is preferred. People with low bone mass or density are not necessarily at high fracture risk. 

Concerning BMD reporting in women prior to menopause, Z-scores, not T-scores, are preferred. A Z-score of -2.0 or lower is defined as "below the expected range for age"; a Z-score above -2.0 is "within the expected range for age." 

Use of serial BMD testing 

Finally, regarding serial BMD measurements, such testing in combination with clinical assessment of fracture risk can be used to determine whether treatment should be initiated in untreated patients. Furthermore, serial BMD testing can monitor a patient's response to therapy by finding an increase or stability of bone density. It should be used to monitor individuals following cessation of osteoporosis drug therapy. Serial BMD testing can detect loss of bone density, indicating the need to assess treatment adherence, evaluate possible secondary causes of osteoporosis, and possibly re-evaluate therapeutic options. 

Intervals between BMD testing should be determined according to each patient's clinical status. Typically, 1 year after initiating or changing therapy is appropriate, with longer intervals once therapeutic effect is established.

Continue to: Dyspareunia drug has positive effects on bone...

Dyspareunia drug has positive effects on bone 

de Villiers TJ, Altomare C, Particco M, et al. Effects of ospemifene on bone in postmenopausal women. Climacteric. 2019;22:442-447. 

Previously, ospemifene effectively reduced bone loss in ovariectomized rats, with activity comparable to that of estradiol and raloxifene.³ Clinical data from 3 phase 1 or 2 clinical trials found that ospemifene 60 mg/day had a positive effect on biochemical markers for bone turnover in healthy postmenopausal women, with significant improvements relative to placebo and effects comparable to those of raloxifene.⁴ 

Effects on bone formation/resorption biomarkers 

In a recent study, de Villiers and colleagues reported the first phase 3 trial that looked at markers of bone formation and bone resorption.⁵ A total of 316 women were randomly assigned to receive ospemifene, and 315 received placebo.

Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups. Participants' mean age was approximately 60 years, mean body mass index (BMI) was 27.2 kg/m2, and mean duration of VVA was 8 to 9 years. Serum levels of 9 bone biomarkers were similar between groups at baseline. 

At week 12, all 5 markers of bone resorption improved with ospemifene treatment, and 3 of the 5 (NTX, CTX, and TRACP-5b) did so in a statistically significant fashion compared with placebo (P≤.02). In addition, at week 12, all 4 markers of bone formation improved with ospemifene treatment compared with placebo (P≤.008). Furthermore, lower bone resorption markers with ospemifene were observed regardless of time since menopause (≤ 5 years or
> 5 years) or baseline BMD, whether normal, osteopenic, or osteoporotic. 

Interpret results cautiously 

The authors caution that the data are limited to biochemical markers rather than fracture or BMD. It is known that there is good correlation between biochemical markers for bone turnover and the occurrence of fracture.⁶ 

Continue to: Sarcopenia adds to osteoporotic risk for fractures...

Sarcopenia adds to osteoporotic risk for fractures 

Lima RM, de Oliveira RJ, Raposo R, et al. Stages of sarcopenia, bone mineral density, and the prevalence of osteoporosis in older women. Arch Osteoporos. 2019;14:38. 

In 1989, the term sarcopenia was introduced to refer to the age-related decline in skeletal muscle mass.⁸ Currently, sarcopenia is defined as a progressive decline in muscle mass, strength, and physical function, thus increasing the risk for various adverse outcomes, including osteoporosis.⁹ Although muscle and bone tissues differ morphologically, their functioning is closely interconnected. 

The sarcopenia-osteoporosis connection 

Lima and colleagues sought to investigate the relationship between sarcopenia and osteoporosis.¹⁰ They measured women's fat free mass with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanning, muscle strength using a dynamometer to measure knee extension torque while participants were seated, and functional performance using the timed "up and go test" in which participants were timed as they got up from a chair, walked 3 meters around a cone, and returned to sit in the chair.^10,11 

The authors used definitions from the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP). Participants who had normal results in all 3 domains were considered nonsarcopenic. Presarcopenia was defined as having low fat free mass on DXA scanning but normal strength and function. Participants who had low fat free mass and either low strength or low function were labeled as having sarcopenia. Severe sarcopenia was defined as abnormal results in all 3 domains. 

Two hundred thirty-four women (mean age, 68.3 years; range, 60-80) underwent BMD testing and were evaluated according to the 3 domains of possible sarcopenia. All were community dwelling and did not have cognitive impairment or functional dependency. 

The rates of osteoporosis were 15.8%, 19.2%, 35.3%, and 46.2% for nonsarcopenia, presarcopenia, sarcopenia, and severe sarcopenia, respectively (P=.002). Whole-body and femoral neck BMD values were significantly lower among all sarcopenia stages when compared with nonsarcopenia (P<.05). The severe sarcopenia group showed the lowest lumbar spine T-scores (P<.05). When clustered, sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia presented a significantly higher risk for osteoporosis (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-7.8). 

Consider sarcopenia a risk factor 

The authors concluded that these "results provide support for the concept that a dose-response relationship exists between sarcopenia stages, BMD, and the presence of osteoporosis. These findings strengthen the clinical significance of the EWGSOP sarcopenia definitions and indicate that severe sarcopenia should be viewed with attention by healthcare professionals." 

Continue to: Certain characteristics may offset fracture risk in aromatase inhibitor users...

Certain characteristics may offset fracture risk in aromatase inhibitor users 

Leslie WD, Morin SN, Lix LM, et al. Fracture risk in women with breast cancer initiating aromatase inhibitor therapy: a registry-based cohort study. Oncologist. 2019;24:1432-1438. 

The use of AIs increases bone turnover and induces bone loss at trabecular-rich bone sites at an average rate of 1% to 3% per year, with reports of up to a threefold increased fracture incidence.¹³ By contrast, a large nationwide population-based cohort study using US Medicare data identified minimal fracture risk from AI use compared with tamoxifen use (11% higher for nonvertebral fractures, not significantly increased for hip fractures).¹⁴ 

An article published previously in this column reported that women on AIs treated with intravenous zoledronic acid had improvements in BMD, while women treated with denosumab had statistically significant fewer fractures compared with those receiving placebo, whether they had normal bone mass, osteopenia, or osteoporosis at
baseline.^15-17
 

Data derived from a population-based BMD registry 

In a recent cohort study, Leslie and colleagues offer the opinion that "observations in the clinical trial setting may differ from routine clinical practice."¹⁸ The authors examined fracture outcomes using a large clinical registry of BMD results from women in Manitoba, Canada. They identified women at least 40 years of age initiating AI therapy for breast cancer (n = 1,775), women with breast cancer not receiving AI therapy (n = 1,016), and women from the general population without breast cancer (n = 34,205). 

Fracture outcomes were assessed after a mean of 6.2 years for the AI users, all of whom had at least 12 months of AI exposure. At baseline, AI users had higher BMI, higher BMD, lower osteoporosis prevalence, and fewer prior fractures than women from the general population or women with breast cancer without AI use (all P<.001). After adjusting for all covariates, AI users were not at significantly greater risk for major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% CI, 0.93-1.42), hip fracture (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.56-1.43), or any fracture (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.88-1.28) compared with the general population. 

Results challenge prevailing view 

Thus, the authors concluded that higher baseline BMI, BMD, and lower prevalence of prior fracture at baseline may offset the adverse effects of AI exposure. Although confirmatory data from large cohort studies are required, the authors stated that their findings challenge the view that all women with breast cancer initiating AI therapy should be considered at high risk for fracture.  

Preterm birth (PTB) remains a significant public health concern and a major cause of newborn morbidity and mortality. In the United States, 1 in 10 babies are born preterm (< 37 weeks), and this rate has changed little in 30 years.¹ 

In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved progesterone supplementation—specifically, α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P) injection (Makena)—to prevent recurrent PTB in women with a singleton pregnancy at high risk by virtue of a prior spontaneous PTB.² This was the first-ever FDA-approved drug for PTB prevention, and it was the first drug approved by the FDA for use in pregnancy in more than 15 years. The approval of 17P utilized the FDA's Subpart H Accelerated Approval Pathway, which applies to therapies that: 1) treat serious conditions with unmet need, and 2) demonstrate safety and efficacy on surrogate end points reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.³ 

By voting their approval of 17P in 2011, the FDA affirmed that PTB was a serious condition with unmet need, that birth < 37 weeks was an accepted surrogate end point, and that there was compelling evidence of safety and benefit. The compelling evidence presented was a single, randomized, vehicle-controlled clinical trial conducted by the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network, which showed significant reduction in recurrent PTB < 37 weeks (from 54.9% in the placebo group to 36.3% in the 17P group; P<.001; relative risk [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.81).⁴ 

In 2017, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) reaffirmed the use of 17P to prevent recurrent PTB and, that same year, it was estimated that 75% of eligible patients received 17P.^5,6 Importantly, Subpart H approval requires one or more follow-up clinical trials confirming safety and efficacy. And the FDA has the right—the responsibility—to revisit approval if such trials are either not performed or are unfavorable. 

The recently published PROLONG study by Blackwell and colleagues is this required postapproval confirmatory trial conducted to verify the clinical benefit of 17P supplementation.⁷ 

Continue to: Study design, and stunning results...

Study design, and stunning results 

PROLONG (Progestin's Role in Optimizing Neonatal Gestation) was a randomized (2:1), double-blind, vehicle-controlled, multicenter international trial (2009-2018) conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of 17P injection in 1,708 women with a singleton pregnancy and one or more prior spontaneous PTBs.⁷ Women in the active treatment group (n = 1,130) received weekly intramuscular injections of 17P, while those in the control group (n = 578) received weekly injections of inert oil vehicle. 

Results of the trial showed no significant reduction in the co-primary end points, which were PTB < 35 weeks (11.0% in the 17P group vs 11.5% in the placebo group; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26) and neonatal morbidity index (5.6% in the 17P group vs 5.0% in the placebo group; RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.68-1.61). There was no evidence of benefit for any subpopulation (geographic region, race, or other PTB risk factor). Maternal outcomes also were similar between the groups. No significant safety concerns were identified. 

Important differences between MFMU and PROLONG trials 

Strengths of the PROLONG trial include its randomized, placebo-controlled design, excellent follow-up rate, and use of a protocol that mirrored that of the MFMU trial. The primary limitation of PROLONG is that participants experienced a lower rate of PTB compared with those in the MFMU trial. The rate of PTB < 37 weeks was 54.9% in the control group of the MFMU trial compared with 21.9% in PROLONG. 

Given the low rate of PTB in PROLONG, the study was underpowered for the co-primary outcomes. In addition, lower rates of PTB in PROLONG compared with in the MFMU trial likely reflected different patient populations.⁸ Moreover, PROLONG was an international trial. Of the 1,708 participants, most were recruited in Russia (36%) and Ukraine (25%); only 23% were from the United States. By contrast, participants in the MFMU trial were recruited from US academic medical centers. Also, participants in the MFMU trial were significantly more likely to have a short cervix, to have a history of more than one PTB, and to be African American.

Discrepant trial results create clinical quandary 

In October 2019, the FDA's Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 9-7 to withdraw approval for 17P. Committee members struggled with the conflicting data between the 2 trials and hesitated to remove a medication whose use has become standard practice. Ultimately, however, it was lack of substantial evidence of effectiveness of 17P that swayed the committee's vote. While the FDA generally follows the recommendation of an advisory committee, it is not bound to do so. 

Societies' perspectives 

So what are physicians and patients to do? It is possible that a small subgroup of women at extremely high risk for early PTB may benefit from 17P administration. SMFM stated: "...it is reasonable for providers to use 17-OHPC [17P] in women with a profile more representative of the very high-risk population reported in the Meis [MFMU] trial."⁸ Further, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) stated in a Practice Advisory dated October 25, 2019, that "ACOG is not changing our clinical recommendations at this time... [We] will be reviewing subsequent forthcoming analyses and will issue updated clinical guidance as appropriate."⁹ 

Where we stand on 17P use going forward 

17P should be available to women who previously may have benefited from its use. However, 17P should not be recommended routinely to prevent recurrent spontaneous PTB in women with one prior PTB and no other risk factors. Of note, the PROLONG trial does not change recommendations for cervical length screening. Women with a history of a prior spontaneous PTB should undergo cervical length screening to identify those individuals who may benefit from an ultrasound-indicated cerclage.  

Preterm birth (PTB) remains a significant public health concern and a major cause of newborn morbidity and mortality. In the United States, 1 in 10 babies are born preterm (< 37 weeks), and this rate has changed little in 30 years.¹ 

In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved progesterone supplementation—specifically, α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P) injection (Makena)—to prevent recurrent PTB in women with a singleton pregnancy at high risk by virtue of a prior spontaneous PTB.² This was the first-ever FDA-approved drug for PTB prevention, and it was the first drug approved by the FDA for use in pregnancy in more than 15 years. The approval of 17P utilized the FDA's Subpart H Accelerated Approval Pathway, which applies to therapies that: 1) treat serious conditions with unmet need, and 2) demonstrate safety and efficacy on surrogate end points reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.³ 

By voting their approval of 17P in 2011, the FDA affirmed that PTB was a serious condition with unmet need, that birth < 37 weeks was an accepted surrogate end point, and that there was compelling evidence of safety and benefit. The compelling evidence presented was a single, randomized, vehicle-controlled clinical trial conducted by the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network, which showed significant reduction in recurrent PTB < 37 weeks (from 54.9% in the placebo group to 36.3% in the 17P group; P<.001; relative risk [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.81).⁴ 

In 2017, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) reaffirmed the use of 17P to prevent recurrent PTB and, that same year, it was estimated that 75% of eligible patients received 17P.^5,6 Importantly, Subpart H approval requires one or more follow-up clinical trials confirming safety and efficacy. And the FDA has the right—the responsibility—to revisit approval if such trials are either not performed or are unfavorable. 

The recently published PROLONG study by Blackwell and colleagues is this required postapproval confirmatory trial conducted to verify the clinical benefit of 17P supplementation.⁷ 

Continue to: Study design, and stunning results...

Study design, and stunning results 

PROLONG (Progestin's Role in Optimizing Neonatal Gestation) was a randomized (2:1), double-blind, vehicle-controlled, multicenter international trial (2009-2018) conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of 17P injection in 1,708 women with a singleton pregnancy and one or more prior spontaneous PTBs.⁷ Women in the active treatment group (n = 1,130) received weekly intramuscular injections of 17P, while those in the control group (n = 578) received weekly injections of inert oil vehicle. 

Results of the trial showed no significant reduction in the co-primary end points, which were PTB < 35 weeks (11.0% in the 17P group vs 11.5% in the placebo group; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26) and neonatal morbidity index (5.6% in the 17P group vs 5.0% in the placebo group; RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.68-1.61). There was no evidence of benefit for any subpopulation (geographic region, race, or other PTB risk factor). Maternal outcomes also were similar between the groups. No significant safety concerns were identified. 

Important differences between MFMU and PROLONG trials 

Strengths of the PROLONG trial include its randomized, placebo-controlled design, excellent follow-up rate, and use of a protocol that mirrored that of the MFMU trial. The primary limitation of PROLONG is that participants experienced a lower rate of PTB compared with those in the MFMU trial. The rate of PTB < 37 weeks was 54.9% in the control group of the MFMU trial compared with 21.9% in PROLONG. 

Given the low rate of PTB in PROLONG, the study was underpowered for the co-primary outcomes. In addition, lower rates of PTB in PROLONG compared with in the MFMU trial likely reflected different patient populations.⁸ Moreover, PROLONG was an international trial. Of the 1,708 participants, most were recruited in Russia (36%) and Ukraine (25%); only 23% were from the United States. By contrast, participants in the MFMU trial were recruited from US academic medical centers. Also, participants in the MFMU trial were significantly more likely to have a short cervix, to have a history of more than one PTB, and to be African American.

Discrepant trial results create clinical quandary 

In October 2019, the FDA's Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 9-7 to withdraw approval for 17P. Committee members struggled with the conflicting data between the 2 trials and hesitated to remove a medication whose use has become standard practice. Ultimately, however, it was lack of substantial evidence of effectiveness of 17P that swayed the committee's vote. While the FDA generally follows the recommendation of an advisory committee, it is not bound to do so. 

Societies' perspectives 

So what are physicians and patients to do? It is possible that a small subgroup of women at extremely high risk for early PTB may benefit from 17P administration. SMFM stated: "...it is reasonable for providers to use 17-OHPC [17P] in women with a profile more representative of the very high-risk population reported in the Meis [MFMU] trial."⁸ Further, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) stated in a Practice Advisory dated October 25, 2019, that "ACOG is not changing our clinical recommendations at this time... [We] will be reviewing subsequent forthcoming analyses and will issue updated clinical guidance as appropriate."⁹ 

Where we stand on 17P use going forward 

17P should be available to women who previously may have benefited from its use. However, 17P should not be recommended routinely to prevent recurrent spontaneous PTB in women with one prior PTB and no other risk factors. Of note, the PROLONG trial does not change recommendations for cervical length screening. Women with a history of a prior spontaneous PTB should undergo cervical length screening to identify those individuals who may benefit from an ultrasound-indicated cerclage.  

Preterm birth (PTB) remains a significant public health concern and a major cause of newborn morbidity and mortality. In the United States, 1 in 10 babies are born preterm (< 37 weeks), and this rate has changed little in 30 years.¹ 

In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved progesterone supplementation—specifically, α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P) injection (Makena)—to prevent recurrent PTB in women with a singleton pregnancy at high risk by virtue of a prior spontaneous PTB.² This was the first-ever FDA-approved drug for PTB prevention, and it was the first drug approved by the FDA for use in pregnancy in more than 15 years. The approval of 17P utilized the FDA's Subpart H Accelerated Approval Pathway, which applies to therapies that: 1) treat serious conditions with unmet need, and 2) demonstrate safety and efficacy on surrogate end points reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.³ 

By voting their approval of 17P in 2011, the FDA affirmed that PTB was a serious condition with unmet need, that birth < 37 weeks was an accepted surrogate end point, and that there was compelling evidence of safety and benefit. The compelling evidence presented was a single, randomized, vehicle-controlled clinical trial conducted by the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network, which showed significant reduction in recurrent PTB < 37 weeks (from 54.9% in the placebo group to 36.3% in the 17P group; P<.001; relative risk [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.81).⁴ 

In 2017, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) reaffirmed the use of 17P to prevent recurrent PTB and, that same year, it was estimated that 75% of eligible patients received 17P.^5,6 Importantly, Subpart H approval requires one or more follow-up clinical trials confirming safety and efficacy. And the FDA has the right—the responsibility—to revisit approval if such trials are either not performed or are unfavorable. 

The recently published PROLONG study by Blackwell and colleagues is this required postapproval confirmatory trial conducted to verify the clinical benefit of 17P supplementation.⁷ 

Continue to: Study design, and stunning results...

Study design, and stunning results 

PROLONG (Progestin's Role in Optimizing Neonatal Gestation) was a randomized (2:1), double-blind, vehicle-controlled, multicenter international trial (2009-2018) conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of 17P injection in 1,708 women with a singleton pregnancy and one or more prior spontaneous PTBs.⁷ Women in the active treatment group (n = 1,130) received weekly intramuscular injections of 17P, while those in the control group (n = 578) received weekly injections of inert oil vehicle. 

Results of the trial showed no significant reduction in the co-primary end points, which were PTB < 35 weeks (11.0% in the 17P group vs 11.5% in the placebo group; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26) and neonatal morbidity index (5.6% in the 17P group vs 5.0% in the placebo group; RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.68-1.61). There was no evidence of benefit for any subpopulation (geographic region, race, or other PTB risk factor). Maternal outcomes also were similar between the groups. No significant safety concerns were identified. 

Important differences between MFMU and PROLONG trials 

Strengths of the PROLONG trial include its randomized, placebo-controlled design, excellent follow-up rate, and use of a protocol that mirrored that of the MFMU trial. The primary limitation of PROLONG is that participants experienced a lower rate of PTB compared with those in the MFMU trial. The rate of PTB < 37 weeks was 54.9% in the control group of the MFMU trial compared with 21.9% in PROLONG. 

Given the low rate of PTB in PROLONG, the study was underpowered for the co-primary outcomes. In addition, lower rates of PTB in PROLONG compared with in the MFMU trial likely reflected different patient populations.⁸ Moreover, PROLONG was an international trial. Of the 1,708 participants, most were recruited in Russia (36%) and Ukraine (25%); only 23% were from the United States. By contrast, participants in the MFMU trial were recruited from US academic medical centers. Also, participants in the MFMU trial were significantly more likely to have a short cervix, to have a history of more than one PTB, and to be African American.

Discrepant trial results create clinical quandary 

In October 2019, the FDA's Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 9-7 to withdraw approval for 17P. Committee members struggled with the conflicting data between the 2 trials and hesitated to remove a medication whose use has become standard practice. Ultimately, however, it was lack of substantial evidence of effectiveness of 17P that swayed the committee's vote. While the FDA generally follows the recommendation of an advisory committee, it is not bound to do so. 

Societies' perspectives 

So what are physicians and patients to do? It is possible that a small subgroup of women at extremely high risk for early PTB may benefit from 17P administration. SMFM stated: "...it is reasonable for providers to use 17-OHPC [17P] in women with a profile more representative of the very high-risk population reported in the Meis [MFMU] trial."⁸ Further, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) stated in a Practice Advisory dated October 25, 2019, that "ACOG is not changing our clinical recommendations at this time... [We] will be reviewing subsequent forthcoming analyses and will issue updated clinical guidance as appropriate."⁹ 

Where we stand on 17P use going forward 

17P should be available to women who previously may have benefited from its use. However, 17P should not be recommended routinely to prevent recurrent spontaneous PTB in women with one prior PTB and no other risk factors. Of note, the PROLONG trial does not change recommendations for cervical length screening. Women with a history of a prior spontaneous PTB should undergo cervical length screening to identify those individuals who may benefit from an ultrasound-indicated cerclage.  

You have just safely delivered the baby who is quietly resting on her mother’s chest. You begin active management of the third stage of labor, administering oxytocin, performing uterine massage and applying controlled tension on the umbilical cord. There is no evidence of excess postpartum bleeding.

How long will you wait to deliver the placenta?

Active management of the third stage of labor

Most authorities recommend active management of the third stage of labor because active management reduces the risk of maternal hemorrhage >1,000 mL (relative risk [RR], 0.34), postpartum hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL (RR, 0.50), and maternal blood transfusion (RR, 0.35) compared with expectant management.¹

The most important component of active management of the third stage of labor is the administration of a uterotonic after delivery of the newborn. In the United States, oxytocin is the uterotonic most often utilized for the active management of the third stage of labor. Authors of a recent randomized clinical trial reported that intravenous oxytocin is superior to intramuscular oxytocin for reducing postpartum blood loss (385 vs 445 mL), the frequency of blood loss greater than 1,000 mL (4.6% vs 8.1%), and the rate of maternal blood transfusion (1.5% vs 4.4%).²

In addition to administering oxytocin, the active management of the third stage often involves maneuvers to accelerate placental delivery, including the Crede and Brandt-Andrews maneuvers and controlled tension on the umbilical cord. The Crede maneuver, described in 1853, involves placing a hand on the abdominal wall near the uterine fundus and squeezing the uterine fundus between the thumb and fingers.^3,4

The Brandt-Andrews maneuver, described in 1933, involves placing a clamp on the umbilical cord close to the vulva.⁵ The clamp is used to apply judicious tension on the cord with one hand, while the other hand is placed on the mother’s abdomen with the palm and fingers overlying the junction between the uterine corpus and the lower segment. With judicious tension on the cord, the abdominal hand pushes the uterus upward toward the umbilicus. Placental separation is indicated when lengthening of the umbilical cord occurs. The Brandt-Andrews maneuver may be associated with fewer cases of uterine inversion than the Crede maneuver.^5-7

Of note, umbilical cord traction has not been demonstrated to reduce the need for blood transfusion or the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) >1,000 mL, and it is commonly utilized by obstetricians and midwives.^8,9 Hence, in the third stage, the delivering clinician should routinely administer a uterotonic, but use of judicious tension on the cord can be deferred if the woman prefers a noninterventional approach to delivery.

Following a vaginal birth, when should the diagnosis of retained placenta be made?

The historic definition of retained placenta is nonexpulsion of the placenta 30 minutes after delivery of the newborn. However, many observational studies report that, when active management of the third stage is utilized, 90%, 95%, and 99% of placentas deliver by 9 minutes, 13 minutes, and 28 minutes, respectively.¹⁰ In addition, many observational studies report that the incidence of PPH increases significantly with longer intervals between birth of the newborn and delivery of the placenta. In one study the rate of blood loss >500 mL was 8.5% when the placenta delivered between 5 and 9 minutes and 35.1% when the placenta delivered ≥30 minutes following birth of the baby.¹⁰ In another observational study, compared with women delivering the placenta < 10 minutes after birth, women delivering the placenta ≥30 minutes after birth had a 3-fold increased risk of PPH.¹¹ Similar findings have been reported in other studies.^12-14

Continue to: Based on the association between a delay in delivery...

Based on the association between a delay in delivery of the placenta and an increased risk of PPH, some authorities recommend that, in term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta should be made at 20 minutes following birth and consideration should be given to removing the placenta at this time. For women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, manual removal of the placenta 20 minutes following birth may be the best decision for balancing the benefit of preventing PPH with the risk of unnecessary intervention. For women with no anesthesia, delaying manual removal of the placenta to 30 minutes or more following birth may permit more time for the placenta to deliver prior to performing an intervention that might cause pain, but the delay increases the risk of PPH.

Beware of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, and be ready to recognize and treat uterine inversion

---

The retained placenta may prevent the uterine muscle from effectively contracting around penetrating veins and arteries, thereby increasing the risk of postpartum hemorrhage. The placenta that has separated from the uterine wall but is trapped inside the uterine cavity can be removed easily with manual extraction. If the placenta is physiologically adherent to the uterine wall, a gentle sweeping motion with an intrauterine hand usually can separate the placenta from the uterus in preparation for manual extraction. However, if a placenta accreta spectrum disorder is contributing to a retained placenta, it may be difficult to separate the densely adherent portion of the uterus from the uterine wall. In the presence of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, vigorous attempts to remove the placenta may precipitate massive bleeding. In some cases, the acchoucheur/midwife may recognize the presence of a focal accreta and cease attempts to remove the placenta in order to organize the personnel and equipment needed to effectively treat a potential case of placenta accreta. In one study, when a placenta accreta was recognized or suspected, immediately ceasing attempts at manually removing the placenta resulted in better case outcomes than continued attempts to remove the placenta.¹

Uterine inversion may occur during an attempt to manually remove the placenta. There is universal agreement that once a uterine inversion is recognized it is critically important to immediately restore normal uterine anatomy to avoid massive hemorrhage and maternal shock. The initial management of uterine inversion includes:

• stopping oxytocin infusion
• initiating high volume fluid resuscitation
• considering a dose of a uterine relaxant, such as nitroglycerin or terbutaline
• preparing for blood product replacement.

In my experience, when uterine inversion is immediately recognized and successfully treated, blood product replacement is not usually necessary. However, if uterine inversion has not been immediately recognized or treated, massive hemorrhage and shock may occur.

Two approaches to the vaginal restoration of uterine anatomy involve using the tips of the fingers and palm of the hand to guide the wall of the uterus back to its normal position (FIGURE 1) or to forcefully use a fist to force the uterine wall back to its normal position (FIGURE 2). If these maneuvers are unsuccessful, a laparotomy may be necessary.

At laparotomy, the Huntington or Haultain procedures may help restore normal uterine anatomy. The Huntington procedure involves using clamps to apply symmetrical tension to the left and right round ligaments and/or uterine serosa to sequentially tease the uterus back to normal anatomy.^2,3 The Haultain procedure involves a vertical incision on the posterior wall of the uterus to release the uterine constriction ring that is preventing the return of the uterine fundus to its normal position (FIGURE 3).^4,5

References

1. Kayem G, Anselem O, Schmitz T, et al. Conservative versus radical management in cases of placenta accreta: a historical study. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2007;36:680-687.
2. Huntington JL. Acute inversion of the uterus. Boston Med Surg J. 1921;184:376-378.
3. Huntington JL, Irving FC, Kellogg FS. Abdominal reposition in acute inversion of the puerperal uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1928;15:34-40.
4. Haultain FW. Abdominal hysterotomy for chronic uterine inversion: a record of 3 cases. Proc Roy Soc Med. 1908;1:528-535.
5. Easterday CL, Reid DE. Inversion of the puerperal uterus managed by the Haultain technique; A case report. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1959;78:1224-1226.

Manual extraction of the placenta

Prior to performing manual extraction of the placenta, a decision should be made regarding the approach to anesthesia and perioperative antibiotics. Manual extraction of the placenta is performed by placing one hand on the uterine fundus to stabilize the uterus and using the other hand to follow the umbilical cord into the uterine cavity. The intrauterine hand is used to separate the uterine-placental interface with a gentle sweeping motion. The placental mass is grasped and gently teased through the cervix and vagina. Inspection of the placenta to ensure complete removal is necessary.

An alternative to manual extraction of the placenta is the use of Bierer forceps and ultrasound guidance to tease the placenta through the cervical os. This technique involves the following steps¹⁵:

1. use ultrasound to locate the placenta

2. place a ring forceps on the anterior lip of the cervix

3. introduce the Bierer forcep into the uterus

4. use the forceps to grasp the placenta and pull it toward the vagina

5. stop frequently to re-grasp placental tissue that is deeper in the uterine cavity

6. once the placenta is extracted, examine the placenta to ensure complete removal.

Of note when manual extraction is used to deliver a retained placenta, randomized clinical trials report no benefit for the following interventions:

• perioperative antibiotics¹⁶
• nitroglycerin to relax the uterus¹⁷
• ultrasound to detect retained placental tissue.¹⁸

Best timing for manual extraction of the placenta

The timing for the diagnosis of retained placenta, and the risks and benefits of manual extraction would be best evaluated in a large, randomized clinical trial. However, based on observational studies, in a term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta is best made using a 20-minute interval. In women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, consideration should be given to manual removal of the placenta at that time.

You have just safely delivered the baby who is quietly resting on her mother’s chest. You begin active management of the third stage of labor, administering oxytocin, performing uterine massage and applying controlled tension on the umbilical cord. There is no evidence of excess postpartum bleeding.

How long will you wait to deliver the placenta?

Active management of the third stage of labor

Most authorities recommend active management of the third stage of labor because active management reduces the risk of maternal hemorrhage >1,000 mL (relative risk [RR], 0.34), postpartum hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL (RR, 0.50), and maternal blood transfusion (RR, 0.35) compared with expectant management.¹

The most important component of active management of the third stage of labor is the administration of a uterotonic after delivery of the newborn. In the United States, oxytocin is the uterotonic most often utilized for the active management of the third stage of labor. Authors of a recent randomized clinical trial reported that intravenous oxytocin is superior to intramuscular oxytocin for reducing postpartum blood loss (385 vs 445 mL), the frequency of blood loss greater than 1,000 mL (4.6% vs 8.1%), and the rate of maternal blood transfusion (1.5% vs 4.4%).²

In addition to administering oxytocin, the active management of the third stage often involves maneuvers to accelerate placental delivery, including the Crede and Brandt-Andrews maneuvers and controlled tension on the umbilical cord. The Crede maneuver, described in 1853, involves placing a hand on the abdominal wall near the uterine fundus and squeezing the uterine fundus between the thumb and fingers.^3,4

The Brandt-Andrews maneuver, described in 1933, involves placing a clamp on the umbilical cord close to the vulva.⁵ The clamp is used to apply judicious tension on the cord with one hand, while the other hand is placed on the mother’s abdomen with the palm and fingers overlying the junction between the uterine corpus and the lower segment. With judicious tension on the cord, the abdominal hand pushes the uterus upward toward the umbilicus. Placental separation is indicated when lengthening of the umbilical cord occurs. The Brandt-Andrews maneuver may be associated with fewer cases of uterine inversion than the Crede maneuver.^5-7

Of note, umbilical cord traction has not been demonstrated to reduce the need for blood transfusion or the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) >1,000 mL, and it is commonly utilized by obstetricians and midwives.^8,9 Hence, in the third stage, the delivering clinician should routinely administer a uterotonic, but use of judicious tension on the cord can be deferred if the woman prefers a noninterventional approach to delivery.

Following a vaginal birth, when should the diagnosis of retained placenta be made?

The historic definition of retained placenta is nonexpulsion of the placenta 30 minutes after delivery of the newborn. However, many observational studies report that, when active management of the third stage is utilized, 90%, 95%, and 99% of placentas deliver by 9 minutes, 13 minutes, and 28 minutes, respectively.¹⁰ In addition, many observational studies report that the incidence of PPH increases significantly with longer intervals between birth of the newborn and delivery of the placenta. In one study the rate of blood loss >500 mL was 8.5% when the placenta delivered between 5 and 9 minutes and 35.1% when the placenta delivered ≥30 minutes following birth of the baby.¹⁰ In another observational study, compared with women delivering the placenta < 10 minutes after birth, women delivering the placenta ≥30 minutes after birth had a 3-fold increased risk of PPH.¹¹ Similar findings have been reported in other studies.^12-14

Continue to: Based on the association between a delay in delivery...

Based on the association between a delay in delivery of the placenta and an increased risk of PPH, some authorities recommend that, in term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta should be made at 20 minutes following birth and consideration should be given to removing the placenta at this time. For women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, manual removal of the placenta 20 minutes following birth may be the best decision for balancing the benefit of preventing PPH with the risk of unnecessary intervention. For women with no anesthesia, delaying manual removal of the placenta to 30 minutes or more following birth may permit more time for the placenta to deliver prior to performing an intervention that might cause pain, but the delay increases the risk of PPH.

Beware of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, and be ready to recognize and treat uterine inversion

---

The retained placenta may prevent the uterine muscle from effectively contracting around penetrating veins and arteries, thereby increasing the risk of postpartum hemorrhage. The placenta that has separated from the uterine wall but is trapped inside the uterine cavity can be removed easily with manual extraction. If the placenta is physiologically adherent to the uterine wall, a gentle sweeping motion with an intrauterine hand usually can separate the placenta from the uterus in preparation for manual extraction. However, if a placenta accreta spectrum disorder is contributing to a retained placenta, it may be difficult to separate the densely adherent portion of the uterus from the uterine wall. In the presence of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, vigorous attempts to remove the placenta may precipitate massive bleeding. In some cases, the acchoucheur/midwife may recognize the presence of a focal accreta and cease attempts to remove the placenta in order to organize the personnel and equipment needed to effectively treat a potential case of placenta accreta. In one study, when a placenta accreta was recognized or suspected, immediately ceasing attempts at manually removing the placenta resulted in better case outcomes than continued attempts to remove the placenta.¹

Uterine inversion may occur during an attempt to manually remove the placenta. There is universal agreement that once a uterine inversion is recognized it is critically important to immediately restore normal uterine anatomy to avoid massive hemorrhage and maternal shock. The initial management of uterine inversion includes:

• stopping oxytocin infusion
• initiating high volume fluid resuscitation
• considering a dose of a uterine relaxant, such as nitroglycerin or terbutaline
• preparing for blood product replacement.

In my experience, when uterine inversion is immediately recognized and successfully treated, blood product replacement is not usually necessary. However, if uterine inversion has not been immediately recognized or treated, massive hemorrhage and shock may occur.

Two approaches to the vaginal restoration of uterine anatomy involve using the tips of the fingers and palm of the hand to guide the wall of the uterus back to its normal position (FIGURE 1) or to forcefully use a fist to force the uterine wall back to its normal position (FIGURE 2). If these maneuvers are unsuccessful, a laparotomy may be necessary.

At laparotomy, the Huntington or Haultain procedures may help restore normal uterine anatomy. The Huntington procedure involves using clamps to apply symmetrical tension to the left and right round ligaments and/or uterine serosa to sequentially tease the uterus back to normal anatomy.^2,3 The Haultain procedure involves a vertical incision on the posterior wall of the uterus to release the uterine constriction ring that is preventing the return of the uterine fundus to its normal position (FIGURE 3).^4,5

References

1. Kayem G, Anselem O, Schmitz T, et al. Conservative versus radical management in cases of placenta accreta: a historical study. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2007;36:680-687.
2. Huntington JL. Acute inversion of the uterus. Boston Med Surg J. 1921;184:376-378.
3. Huntington JL, Irving FC, Kellogg FS. Abdominal reposition in acute inversion of the puerperal uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1928;15:34-40.
4. Haultain FW. Abdominal hysterotomy for chronic uterine inversion: a record of 3 cases. Proc Roy Soc Med. 1908;1:528-535.
5. Easterday CL, Reid DE. Inversion of the puerperal uterus managed by the Haultain technique; A case report. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1959;78:1224-1226.

Manual extraction of the placenta

Prior to performing manual extraction of the placenta, a decision should be made regarding the approach to anesthesia and perioperative antibiotics. Manual extraction of the placenta is performed by placing one hand on the uterine fundus to stabilize the uterus and using the other hand to follow the umbilical cord into the uterine cavity. The intrauterine hand is used to separate the uterine-placental interface with a gentle sweeping motion. The placental mass is grasped and gently teased through the cervix and vagina. Inspection of the placenta to ensure complete removal is necessary.

An alternative to manual extraction of the placenta is the use of Bierer forceps and ultrasound guidance to tease the placenta through the cervical os. This technique involves the following steps¹⁵:

1. use ultrasound to locate the placenta

2. place a ring forceps on the anterior lip of the cervix

3. introduce the Bierer forcep into the uterus

4. use the forceps to grasp the placenta and pull it toward the vagina

5. stop frequently to re-grasp placental tissue that is deeper in the uterine cavity

6. once the placenta is extracted, examine the placenta to ensure complete removal.

Of note when manual extraction is used to deliver a retained placenta, randomized clinical trials report no benefit for the following interventions:

• perioperative antibiotics¹⁶
• nitroglycerin to relax the uterus¹⁷
• ultrasound to detect retained placental tissue.¹⁸

Best timing for manual extraction of the placenta

The timing for the diagnosis of retained placenta, and the risks and benefits of manual extraction would be best evaluated in a large, randomized clinical trial. However, based on observational studies, in a term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta is best made using a 20-minute interval. In women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, consideration should be given to manual removal of the placenta at that time.

You have just safely delivered the baby who is quietly resting on her mother’s chest. You begin active management of the third stage of labor, administering oxytocin, performing uterine massage and applying controlled tension on the umbilical cord. There is no evidence of excess postpartum bleeding.

How long will you wait to deliver the placenta?

Active management of the third stage of labor

Most authorities recommend active management of the third stage of labor because active management reduces the risk of maternal hemorrhage >1,000 mL (relative risk [RR], 0.34), postpartum hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL (RR, 0.50), and maternal blood transfusion (RR, 0.35) compared with expectant management.¹

The most important component of active management of the third stage of labor is the administration of a uterotonic after delivery of the newborn. In the United States, oxytocin is the uterotonic most often utilized for the active management of the third stage of labor. Authors of a recent randomized clinical trial reported that intravenous oxytocin is superior to intramuscular oxytocin for reducing postpartum blood loss (385 vs 445 mL), the frequency of blood loss greater than 1,000 mL (4.6% vs 8.1%), and the rate of maternal blood transfusion (1.5% vs 4.4%).²

In addition to administering oxytocin, the active management of the third stage often involves maneuvers to accelerate placental delivery, including the Crede and Brandt-Andrews maneuvers and controlled tension on the umbilical cord. The Crede maneuver, described in 1853, involves placing a hand on the abdominal wall near the uterine fundus and squeezing the uterine fundus between the thumb and fingers.^3,4

The Brandt-Andrews maneuver, described in 1933, involves placing a clamp on the umbilical cord close to the vulva.⁵ The clamp is used to apply judicious tension on the cord with one hand, while the other hand is placed on the mother’s abdomen with the palm and fingers overlying the junction between the uterine corpus and the lower segment. With judicious tension on the cord, the abdominal hand pushes the uterus upward toward the umbilicus. Placental separation is indicated when lengthening of the umbilical cord occurs. The Brandt-Andrews maneuver may be associated with fewer cases of uterine inversion than the Crede maneuver.^5-7

Of note, umbilical cord traction has not been demonstrated to reduce the need for blood transfusion or the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) >1,000 mL, and it is commonly utilized by obstetricians and midwives.^8,9 Hence, in the third stage, the delivering clinician should routinely administer a uterotonic, but use of judicious tension on the cord can be deferred if the woman prefers a noninterventional approach to delivery.

Following a vaginal birth, when should the diagnosis of retained placenta be made?

The historic definition of retained placenta is nonexpulsion of the placenta 30 minutes after delivery of the newborn. However, many observational studies report that, when active management of the third stage is utilized, 90%, 95%, and 99% of placentas deliver by 9 minutes, 13 minutes, and 28 minutes, respectively.¹⁰ In addition, many observational studies report that the incidence of PPH increases significantly with longer intervals between birth of the newborn and delivery of the placenta. In one study the rate of blood loss >500 mL was 8.5% when the placenta delivered between 5 and 9 minutes and 35.1% when the placenta delivered ≥30 minutes following birth of the baby.¹⁰ In another observational study, compared with women delivering the placenta < 10 minutes after birth, women delivering the placenta ≥30 minutes after birth had a 3-fold increased risk of PPH.¹¹ Similar findings have been reported in other studies.^12-14

Continue to: Based on the association between a delay in delivery...

Based on the association between a delay in delivery of the placenta and an increased risk of PPH, some authorities recommend that, in term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta should be made at 20 minutes following birth and consideration should be given to removing the placenta at this time. For women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, manual removal of the placenta 20 minutes following birth may be the best decision for balancing the benefit of preventing PPH with the risk of unnecessary intervention. For women with no anesthesia, delaying manual removal of the placenta to 30 minutes or more following birth may permit more time for the placenta to deliver prior to performing an intervention that might cause pain, but the delay increases the risk of PPH.

Beware of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, and be ready to recognize and treat uterine inversion

---

The retained placenta may prevent the uterine muscle from effectively contracting around penetrating veins and arteries, thereby increasing the risk of postpartum hemorrhage. The placenta that has separated from the uterine wall but is trapped inside the uterine cavity can be removed easily with manual extraction. If the placenta is physiologically adherent to the uterine wall, a gentle sweeping motion with an intrauterine hand usually can separate the placenta from the uterus in preparation for manual extraction. However, if a placenta accreta spectrum disorder is contributing to a retained placenta, it may be difficult to separate the densely adherent portion of the uterus from the uterine wall. In the presence of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, vigorous attempts to remove the placenta may precipitate massive bleeding. In some cases, the acchoucheur/midwife may recognize the presence of a focal accreta and cease attempts to remove the placenta in order to organize the personnel and equipment needed to effectively treat a potential case of placenta accreta. In one study, when a placenta accreta was recognized or suspected, immediately ceasing attempts at manually removing the placenta resulted in better case outcomes than continued attempts to remove the placenta.¹

Uterine inversion may occur during an attempt to manually remove the placenta. There is universal agreement that once a uterine inversion is recognized it is critically important to immediately restore normal uterine anatomy to avoid massive hemorrhage and maternal shock. The initial management of uterine inversion includes:

• stopping oxytocin infusion
• initiating high volume fluid resuscitation
• considering a dose of a uterine relaxant, such as nitroglycerin or terbutaline
• preparing for blood product replacement.

In my experience, when uterine inversion is immediately recognized and successfully treated, blood product replacement is not usually necessary. However, if uterine inversion has not been immediately recognized or treated, massive hemorrhage and shock may occur.

Two approaches to the vaginal restoration of uterine anatomy involve using the tips of the fingers and palm of the hand to guide the wall of the uterus back to its normal position (FIGURE 1) or to forcefully use a fist to force the uterine wall back to its normal position (FIGURE 2). If these maneuvers are unsuccessful, a laparotomy may be necessary.

At laparotomy, the Huntington or Haultain procedures may help restore normal uterine anatomy. The Huntington procedure involves using clamps to apply symmetrical tension to the left and right round ligaments and/or uterine serosa to sequentially tease the uterus back to normal anatomy.^2,3 The Haultain procedure involves a vertical incision on the posterior wall of the uterus to release the uterine constriction ring that is preventing the return of the uterine fundus to its normal position (FIGURE 3).^4,5

References

1. Kayem G, Anselem O, Schmitz T, et al. Conservative versus radical management in cases of placenta accreta: a historical study. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2007;36:680-687.
2. Huntington JL. Acute inversion of the uterus. Boston Med Surg J. 1921;184:376-378.
3. Huntington JL, Irving FC, Kellogg FS. Abdominal reposition in acute inversion of the puerperal uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1928;15:34-40.
4. Haultain FW. Abdominal hysterotomy for chronic uterine inversion: a record of 3 cases. Proc Roy Soc Med. 1908;1:528-535.
5. Easterday CL, Reid DE. Inversion of the puerperal uterus managed by the Haultain technique; A case report. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1959;78:1224-1226.

Manual extraction of the placenta

Prior to performing manual extraction of the placenta, a decision should be made regarding the approach to anesthesia and perioperative antibiotics. Manual extraction of the placenta is performed by placing one hand on the uterine fundus to stabilize the uterus and using the other hand to follow the umbilical cord into the uterine cavity. The intrauterine hand is used to separate the uterine-placental interface with a gentle sweeping motion. The placental mass is grasped and gently teased through the cervix and vagina. Inspection of the placenta to ensure complete removal is necessary.

An alternative to manual extraction of the placenta is the use of Bierer forceps and ultrasound guidance to tease the placenta through the cervical os. This technique involves the following steps¹⁵:

1. use ultrasound to locate the placenta

2. place a ring forceps on the anterior lip of the cervix

3. introduce the Bierer forcep into the uterus

4. use the forceps to grasp the placenta and pull it toward the vagina

5. stop frequently to re-grasp placental tissue that is deeper in the uterine cavity

6. once the placenta is extracted, examine the placenta to ensure complete removal.

Of note when manual extraction is used to deliver a retained placenta, randomized clinical trials report no benefit for the following interventions:

• perioperative antibiotics¹⁶
• nitroglycerin to relax the uterus¹⁷
• ultrasound to detect retained placental tissue.¹⁸

Best timing for manual extraction of the placenta

The timing for the diagnosis of retained placenta, and the risks and benefits of manual extraction would be best evaluated in a large, randomized clinical trial. However, based on observational studies, in a term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta is best made using a 20-minute interval. In women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, consideration should be given to manual removal of the placenta at that time.