MDedge ObGyn

Five years of treatment with bisphosphonates after chemotherapy for high-risk early breast cancer is too much, say researchers reporting new results from a phase 3 trial with almost 3,000 women.

Current guidelines call for 3-5 years of bisphosphonate therapy on the theory that these drugs might reduce breast cancer recurrence as well as treatment-related bone problems.

However, the new results show no difference in disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival – regardless of menopausal status – between the 1,540 women who received intravenous zoledronate over a 5-year period and 1,447 women who received such therapy over a 2-year period.

What they did find was a substantially higher risk for adverse events with prolonged bisphosphonate treatment, including risks for grade 3/4 events, bone pain, bone fractures, arthralgia, and jaw necrosis, a rare but well- recognized possibility with bisphosphonates.

Lead investigator Thomas Friedl, PhD, a statistician at University Hospital Ulm (Germany), and colleagues concluded that the current duration of treatment can be reduced and that, short of good reason to use bisphosphonates longer, such as decreased bone density, “treatment with zoledronate for 5 years should not be considered in patients with early breast cancer.”

The study was published online on June 24 in JAMA Oncology.

An accompanying editorial went even further, stating not only that “shorter duration of treatment is sufficient” but also that the whole idea of bisphosphonates for breast cancer is in doubt.

With “the modest outcomes of bisphosphonates, compared with no bone-targeted therapy, in historical trials” and the low rates of recurrence with modern treatment – less than 10% in the trial – “what, if any, is the benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonates? It’s time to reevaluate the guidelines,” said the editorialists, led by Alexandra Desnoyers, MD, a breast cancer fellow at the University of Toronto.

“We suggest that zoledronate or other amino-bisphosphonates should not be given as standard adjuvant therapy for unselected women with breast cancer,” they wrote.
 

Risk for necrosis with 5 years of zoledronate

The women in the trial had primary invasive breast cancer and were at high risk for recurrence. They had either positive nodes or high-risk features, including age (median, 53 years). They were treated at 250 centers in Germany.

The first part of the trial was to see whether use of gemcitabine improved outcomes when added to docetaxel after standard fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide adjuvant therapy following surgery. It did not, and the authors reported in 2020 that adjuvant gemcitabine should not be used in the treatment of high-risk early breast cancer.

The next phase of the trial involved zoledronate. Women were randomly assigned to receive zoledronate for 2 or 5 years after surgery and after undergoing chemotherapy. Dosing was 4 mg IV every 3 months for 2 years. The women in the 5-year group went on to receive 4 mg IV every 6 months for another 3 years.

At a mean of 5 years’ follow-up after the first zoledronate dose, there was no difference in any of the survival measures between the two dosage groups.

There was also no difference in rates of bone recurrence or in circulating tumor cells, which the bisphosphonates theory would have predicted. For instance, 10.5% of women in the 5-year group had one or more circulating tumor cells on follow-up versus 7.2% in the 2-year group.

Almost half of the women in the 5-year treatment group experienced adverse events with zoledronate – including 7.6% with grade 3/4 events – versus just over a quarter in the 2-year arm and only 5.1% with grade 3/4 events.

In the 5-year group, 8.3% of patients experienced bone pain and 5.1% experienced arthralgia versus 3.7% and 3.1%, respectively, in the 2-year arm.

Atypical fractures, such as femoral spiral fractures, are another concern with bisphosphonates. Although this trial did not report on fracture type, fractures were reported in 14 women in the 5-year group but in only 3 in the 2-year arm.

Jaw necrosis, another known adverse effect of bisphosphonates, was reported in 11 women in the 5-year group and in 5 in the 2-year group.

The study was funded by several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, the maker of zoledronate. The investigators have numerous industry ties. Dr. Friedl has received payments from Novartis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Five years of treatment with bisphosphonates after chemotherapy for high-risk early breast cancer is too much, say researchers reporting new results from a phase 3 trial with almost 3,000 women.

Current guidelines call for 3-5 years of bisphosphonate therapy on the theory that these drugs might reduce breast cancer recurrence as well as treatment-related bone problems.

However, the new results show no difference in disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival – regardless of menopausal status – between the 1,540 women who received intravenous zoledronate over a 5-year period and 1,447 women who received such therapy over a 2-year period.

What they did find was a substantially higher risk for adverse events with prolonged bisphosphonate treatment, including risks for grade 3/4 events, bone pain, bone fractures, arthralgia, and jaw necrosis, a rare but well- recognized possibility with bisphosphonates.

Lead investigator Thomas Friedl, PhD, a statistician at University Hospital Ulm (Germany), and colleagues concluded that the current duration of treatment can be reduced and that, short of good reason to use bisphosphonates longer, such as decreased bone density, “treatment with zoledronate for 5 years should not be considered in patients with early breast cancer.”

The study was published online on June 24 in JAMA Oncology.

An accompanying editorial went even further, stating not only that “shorter duration of treatment is sufficient” but also that the whole idea of bisphosphonates for breast cancer is in doubt.

With “the modest outcomes of bisphosphonates, compared with no bone-targeted therapy, in historical trials” and the low rates of recurrence with modern treatment – less than 10% in the trial – “what, if any, is the benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonates? It’s time to reevaluate the guidelines,” said the editorialists, led by Alexandra Desnoyers, MD, a breast cancer fellow at the University of Toronto.

“We suggest that zoledronate or other amino-bisphosphonates should not be given as standard adjuvant therapy for unselected women with breast cancer,” they wrote.
 

Risk for necrosis with 5 years of zoledronate

The women in the trial had primary invasive breast cancer and were at high risk for recurrence. They had either positive nodes or high-risk features, including age (median, 53 years). They were treated at 250 centers in Germany.

The first part of the trial was to see whether use of gemcitabine improved outcomes when added to docetaxel after standard fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide adjuvant therapy following surgery. It did not, and the authors reported in 2020 that adjuvant gemcitabine should not be used in the treatment of high-risk early breast cancer.

The next phase of the trial involved zoledronate. Women were randomly assigned to receive zoledronate for 2 or 5 years after surgery and after undergoing chemotherapy. Dosing was 4 mg IV every 3 months for 2 years. The women in the 5-year group went on to receive 4 mg IV every 6 months for another 3 years.

At a mean of 5 years’ follow-up after the first zoledronate dose, there was no difference in any of the survival measures between the two dosage groups.

There was also no difference in rates of bone recurrence or in circulating tumor cells, which the bisphosphonates theory would have predicted. For instance, 10.5% of women in the 5-year group had one or more circulating tumor cells on follow-up versus 7.2% in the 2-year group.

Almost half of the women in the 5-year treatment group experienced adverse events with zoledronate – including 7.6% with grade 3/4 events – versus just over a quarter in the 2-year arm and only 5.1% with grade 3/4 events.

In the 5-year group, 8.3% of patients experienced bone pain and 5.1% experienced arthralgia versus 3.7% and 3.1%, respectively, in the 2-year arm.

Atypical fractures, such as femoral spiral fractures, are another concern with bisphosphonates. Although this trial did not report on fracture type, fractures were reported in 14 women in the 5-year group but in only 3 in the 2-year arm.

Jaw necrosis, another known adverse effect of bisphosphonates, was reported in 11 women in the 5-year group and in 5 in the 2-year group.

The study was funded by several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, the maker of zoledronate. The investigators have numerous industry ties. Dr. Friedl has received payments from Novartis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Five years of treatment with bisphosphonates after chemotherapy for high-risk early breast cancer is too much, say researchers reporting new results from a phase 3 trial with almost 3,000 women.

Current guidelines call for 3-5 years of bisphosphonate therapy on the theory that these drugs might reduce breast cancer recurrence as well as treatment-related bone problems.

However, the new results show no difference in disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival – regardless of menopausal status – between the 1,540 women who received intravenous zoledronate over a 5-year period and 1,447 women who received such therapy over a 2-year period.

What they did find was a substantially higher risk for adverse events with prolonged bisphosphonate treatment, including risks for grade 3/4 events, bone pain, bone fractures, arthralgia, and jaw necrosis, a rare but well- recognized possibility with bisphosphonates.

Lead investigator Thomas Friedl, PhD, a statistician at University Hospital Ulm (Germany), and colleagues concluded that the current duration of treatment can be reduced and that, short of good reason to use bisphosphonates longer, such as decreased bone density, “treatment with zoledronate for 5 years should not be considered in patients with early breast cancer.”

The study was published online on June 24 in JAMA Oncology.

An accompanying editorial went even further, stating not only that “shorter duration of treatment is sufficient” but also that the whole idea of bisphosphonates for breast cancer is in doubt.

With “the modest outcomes of bisphosphonates, compared with no bone-targeted therapy, in historical trials” and the low rates of recurrence with modern treatment – less than 10% in the trial – “what, if any, is the benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonates? It’s time to reevaluate the guidelines,” said the editorialists, led by Alexandra Desnoyers, MD, a breast cancer fellow at the University of Toronto.

“We suggest that zoledronate or other amino-bisphosphonates should not be given as standard adjuvant therapy for unselected women with breast cancer,” they wrote.
 

Risk for necrosis with 5 years of zoledronate

The women in the trial had primary invasive breast cancer and were at high risk for recurrence. They had either positive nodes or high-risk features, including age (median, 53 years). They were treated at 250 centers in Germany.

The first part of the trial was to see whether use of gemcitabine improved outcomes when added to docetaxel after standard fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide adjuvant therapy following surgery. It did not, and the authors reported in 2020 that adjuvant gemcitabine should not be used in the treatment of high-risk early breast cancer.

The next phase of the trial involved zoledronate. Women were randomly assigned to receive zoledronate for 2 or 5 years after surgery and after undergoing chemotherapy. Dosing was 4 mg IV every 3 months for 2 years. The women in the 5-year group went on to receive 4 mg IV every 6 months for another 3 years.

At a mean of 5 years’ follow-up after the first zoledronate dose, there was no difference in any of the survival measures between the two dosage groups.

There was also no difference in rates of bone recurrence or in circulating tumor cells, which the bisphosphonates theory would have predicted. For instance, 10.5% of women in the 5-year group had one or more circulating tumor cells on follow-up versus 7.2% in the 2-year group.

Almost half of the women in the 5-year treatment group experienced adverse events with zoledronate – including 7.6% with grade 3/4 events – versus just over a quarter in the 2-year arm and only 5.1% with grade 3/4 events.

In the 5-year group, 8.3% of patients experienced bone pain and 5.1% experienced arthralgia versus 3.7% and 3.1%, respectively, in the 2-year arm.

Atypical fractures, such as femoral spiral fractures, are another concern with bisphosphonates. Although this trial did not report on fracture type, fractures were reported in 14 women in the 5-year group but in only 3 in the 2-year arm.

Jaw necrosis, another known adverse effect of bisphosphonates, was reported in 11 women in the 5-year group and in 5 in the 2-year group.

The study was funded by several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, the maker of zoledronate. The investigators have numerous industry ties. Dr. Friedl has received payments from Novartis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Those suffering from postpartum depression may have a more convenient treatment option, compared with the only drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration to specifically treat this mood disorder.

Observations from phase 3 of a clinical trial published in JAMA Psychiatry shows that zuranolone, an oral drug, improved the core symptoms of postpartum depression after just 3 days.

Postpartum depression affects approximately one in eight women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Brexanolone (Zulresso), which was approved by the FDA in 2019 to treat this condition, is administered intravenously over a 60-hour period with medical supervision.

“Many women don’t have child care and are unable to go to a hospital setting for 72 hours to receive treatment,” study author Kristina Deligiannidis, MD, associate professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, N.Y., said in an interview. “The field really does need a variety of new and novel treatments that are fast acting. It is of utmost importance that we treat [postpartum depression] as quickly as possible because it has significant effects on maternal function, mood, and the ability to care for infants.”

Dr. Deligiannidis and colleagues randomly placed 153 volunteers between the ages of 18 and 45 years, who were 6 months or less post partum, into a group that would receive either a placebo or 30 mg of zuranolone daily for 2 weeks. The participants were followed for 45 days to test the effect of the drug.

Researchers measured depression using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) – where a score of 10-13 means a patient has mild symptoms, 14-17 means mild to moderate symptoms, and anything over 17 equals moderate to severe symptoms. At the baseline of the study, the average HAMD-17 score of those in the zuranolone and placebo groups were 28.4 and 28.8, respectively.

Researchers found that after day 3, 41% of those in the zuranolone group had a 50% or greater reduction in HAMD-17 score from baseline. By day 15, the day after their last dose, 72% of those who had taken zuranolone had a reduction in HAMD-17 compared with 56% of those who had taken the placebo. By day 45, that increased to 75% in the zuranolone group and 57% in the placebo group.

Dr. Deligiannidis, who initially wasn’t sure how long it would take for patients to see the beneficial effects of zuranolone, was surprised by how fast-acting the oral drug appeared to be in the clinical trial. Unlike brexanolone, which is infused into the veins and has rapid access to the brain and nervous system, zuranolone is an oral medicine that has to go through the stomach and the gastrointestinal tract, and then it has to go into the blood system and then has to cross the blood-brain barrier, she explained.

By day 15, 45% of women who took zuranolone received a HAMD-17 score of 7 or under, meaning they have remitted depression. By day 45, 53% of women who had taken the drug were in remission.

Although the zuranolone was well tolerated, about 5% of the group experienced adverse events. Of those who experienced side effects, 15% experienced drowsiness, 9% suffered from headaches, and 8% experienced dizziness and developed an upper respiratory infection. Participants also suffered diarrhea and sedation.

Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved with the study, thought the current study’s findings were promising and would be a great alternative to brexanolone.

“You have the additional benefit that it’s an oral agent as opposed to injection, which I know a lot of patients often have concerns about,” said Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “[It’s] an exciting prospect for clinical care to be able to prescribe an oral agent patients can feel comfortable taking at home.”

When it comes to the study’s method, Dr. Tanner noted that the researchers used the HAMD-17 scale as opposed to the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), something that is used “a lot more in clinical situations and providers are a lot more familiar with.” Using the EPDS score would be more applicable “in terms of introducing these medications into true clinical care.”

In terms of follow-up, Dr. Tanner said there may be a need for ongoing research that follows the study participants for more than 45 days.

“For depressive symptoms in particular, oftentimes those symptoms ebb and flow. So seeing if there is a long-term response to these medications or just kind of an immediate onset then wane will be important in the future,” she added.

Dr. Tanner is also interested in pharmacokinetic studies involving zuranolone to see how much of the medication may potentially pass into breast milk.

Dr. Deligiannidis and Dr. Tanner had no financial disclosures.

Those suffering from postpartum depression may have a more convenient treatment option, compared with the only drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration to specifically treat this mood disorder.

Observations from phase 3 of a clinical trial published in JAMA Psychiatry shows that zuranolone, an oral drug, improved the core symptoms of postpartum depression after just 3 days.

Postpartum depression affects approximately one in eight women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Brexanolone (Zulresso), which was approved by the FDA in 2019 to treat this condition, is administered intravenously over a 60-hour period with medical supervision.

“Many women don’t have child care and are unable to go to a hospital setting for 72 hours to receive treatment,” study author Kristina Deligiannidis, MD, associate professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, N.Y., said in an interview. “The field really does need a variety of new and novel treatments that are fast acting. It is of utmost importance that we treat [postpartum depression] as quickly as possible because it has significant effects on maternal function, mood, and the ability to care for infants.”

Dr. Deligiannidis and colleagues randomly placed 153 volunteers between the ages of 18 and 45 years, who were 6 months or less post partum, into a group that would receive either a placebo or 30 mg of zuranolone daily for 2 weeks. The participants were followed for 45 days to test the effect of the drug.

Researchers measured depression using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) – where a score of 10-13 means a patient has mild symptoms, 14-17 means mild to moderate symptoms, and anything over 17 equals moderate to severe symptoms. At the baseline of the study, the average HAMD-17 score of those in the zuranolone and placebo groups were 28.4 and 28.8, respectively.

Researchers found that after day 3, 41% of those in the zuranolone group had a 50% or greater reduction in HAMD-17 score from baseline. By day 15, the day after their last dose, 72% of those who had taken zuranolone had a reduction in HAMD-17 compared with 56% of those who had taken the placebo. By day 45, that increased to 75% in the zuranolone group and 57% in the placebo group.

Dr. Deligiannidis, who initially wasn’t sure how long it would take for patients to see the beneficial effects of zuranolone, was surprised by how fast-acting the oral drug appeared to be in the clinical trial. Unlike brexanolone, which is infused into the veins and has rapid access to the brain and nervous system, zuranolone is an oral medicine that has to go through the stomach and the gastrointestinal tract, and then it has to go into the blood system and then has to cross the blood-brain barrier, she explained.

By day 15, 45% of women who took zuranolone received a HAMD-17 score of 7 or under, meaning they have remitted depression. By day 45, 53% of women who had taken the drug were in remission.

Although the zuranolone was well tolerated, about 5% of the group experienced adverse events. Of those who experienced side effects, 15% experienced drowsiness, 9% suffered from headaches, and 8% experienced dizziness and developed an upper respiratory infection. Participants also suffered diarrhea and sedation.

Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved with the study, thought the current study’s findings were promising and would be a great alternative to brexanolone.

“You have the additional benefit that it’s an oral agent as opposed to injection, which I know a lot of patients often have concerns about,” said Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “[It’s] an exciting prospect for clinical care to be able to prescribe an oral agent patients can feel comfortable taking at home.”

When it comes to the study’s method, Dr. Tanner noted that the researchers used the HAMD-17 scale as opposed to the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), something that is used “a lot more in clinical situations and providers are a lot more familiar with.” Using the EPDS score would be more applicable “in terms of introducing these medications into true clinical care.”

In terms of follow-up, Dr. Tanner said there may be a need for ongoing research that follows the study participants for more than 45 days.

“For depressive symptoms in particular, oftentimes those symptoms ebb and flow. So seeing if there is a long-term response to these medications or just kind of an immediate onset then wane will be important in the future,” she added.

Dr. Tanner is also interested in pharmacokinetic studies involving zuranolone to see how much of the medication may potentially pass into breast milk.

Dr. Deligiannidis and Dr. Tanner had no financial disclosures.

Those suffering from postpartum depression may have a more convenient treatment option, compared with the only drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration to specifically treat this mood disorder.

Observations from phase 3 of a clinical trial published in JAMA Psychiatry shows that zuranolone, an oral drug, improved the core symptoms of postpartum depression after just 3 days.

Postpartum depression affects approximately one in eight women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Brexanolone (Zulresso), which was approved by the FDA in 2019 to treat this condition, is administered intravenously over a 60-hour period with medical supervision.

“Many women don’t have child care and are unable to go to a hospital setting for 72 hours to receive treatment,” study author Kristina Deligiannidis, MD, associate professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, N.Y., said in an interview. “The field really does need a variety of new and novel treatments that are fast acting. It is of utmost importance that we treat [postpartum depression] as quickly as possible because it has significant effects on maternal function, mood, and the ability to care for infants.”

Dr. Deligiannidis and colleagues randomly placed 153 volunteers between the ages of 18 and 45 years, who were 6 months or less post partum, into a group that would receive either a placebo or 30 mg of zuranolone daily for 2 weeks. The participants were followed for 45 days to test the effect of the drug.

Researchers measured depression using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) – where a score of 10-13 means a patient has mild symptoms, 14-17 means mild to moderate symptoms, and anything over 17 equals moderate to severe symptoms. At the baseline of the study, the average HAMD-17 score of those in the zuranolone and placebo groups were 28.4 and 28.8, respectively.

Researchers found that after day 3, 41% of those in the zuranolone group had a 50% or greater reduction in HAMD-17 score from baseline. By day 15, the day after their last dose, 72% of those who had taken zuranolone had a reduction in HAMD-17 compared with 56% of those who had taken the placebo. By day 45, that increased to 75% in the zuranolone group and 57% in the placebo group.

Dr. Deligiannidis, who initially wasn’t sure how long it would take for patients to see the beneficial effects of zuranolone, was surprised by how fast-acting the oral drug appeared to be in the clinical trial. Unlike brexanolone, which is infused into the veins and has rapid access to the brain and nervous system, zuranolone is an oral medicine that has to go through the stomach and the gastrointestinal tract, and then it has to go into the blood system and then has to cross the blood-brain barrier, she explained.

By day 15, 45% of women who took zuranolone received a HAMD-17 score of 7 or under, meaning they have remitted depression. By day 45, 53% of women who had taken the drug were in remission.

Although the zuranolone was well tolerated, about 5% of the group experienced adverse events. Of those who experienced side effects, 15% experienced drowsiness, 9% suffered from headaches, and 8% experienced dizziness and developed an upper respiratory infection. Participants also suffered diarrhea and sedation.

Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved with the study, thought the current study’s findings were promising and would be a great alternative to brexanolone.

“You have the additional benefit that it’s an oral agent as opposed to injection, which I know a lot of patients often have concerns about,” said Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “[It’s] an exciting prospect for clinical care to be able to prescribe an oral agent patients can feel comfortable taking at home.”

When it comes to the study’s method, Dr. Tanner noted that the researchers used the HAMD-17 scale as opposed to the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), something that is used “a lot more in clinical situations and providers are a lot more familiar with.” Using the EPDS score would be more applicable “in terms of introducing these medications into true clinical care.”

In terms of follow-up, Dr. Tanner said there may be a need for ongoing research that follows the study participants for more than 45 days.

“For depressive symptoms in particular, oftentimes those symptoms ebb and flow. So seeing if there is a long-term response to these medications or just kind of an immediate onset then wane will be important in the future,” she added.

Dr. Tanner is also interested in pharmacokinetic studies involving zuranolone to see how much of the medication may potentially pass into breast milk.

Dr. Deligiannidis and Dr. Tanner had no financial disclosures.

The hashtag #BigHoopEnergy has sparked an online conversation about how women of color in the medical field are pressured to conform to traditional standards of professional appearance.

It started when a Latina doctor tweeted that she lost points on a practical exam in medical school because of her hoop earrings, with the evaluator writing “earrings, unprofessional.”

That led other female doctors to cite their own experiences, reported The Lily, a Washington Post publication aimed at millennial women. Many women posted photos of themselves wearing hoops, which have long been associated with Latina and African American women, the outlet said.

“There’s a big movement to police women of color and how they present themselves in medical spaces,” said Briana Christophers, an MD-PhD student at the Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program in New York. “I think in part it’s a way of trying to make people who don’t usually fit the mold, fit the mold.”

Ms. Christophers, who identifies as Latina, said she was urged to wear a black or navy suit when interviewing for doctorate programs. She wore a black suit with a lavender blouse and received comments about that – some positive, some not, she said.

“Sometimes you don’t know how to interpret those sorts of comments,” Ms. Christophers said. “Do you remember because you like the shirt, or because you don’t think I should have done that?”

Doctors of color still stand out in American medicine. The Lily cited the Association of American Medical Colleges as saying that in 2018, Hispanics made up 5.8% of active American doctors and African Americans made up 5%.

Studies show that medical professionals of color often don’t receive the same respect as their White counterparts, with some people questioning whether they’re actually doctors.

“At work, wearing my white coat that has my name pretty big on it with a badge that says doctor on it, I still get asked if I’m the environmental services staff,” Alexandra Sims, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, told The Lily. “I think it just demonstrates how deeply ingrained bias, racism, and sexism are in society and that we have a lot of work to do to disrupt that.”

Dr. Sims said the tweet about hoop earrings led her to wonder about daily decisions she makes about dress.

“Am I too much? Is this too much? Is this earring too big? Is this nail polish color too loud? And how will that be received at work?” she said, noting that she may opt not to wear hoops in certain situations, such as when she’s dealing with a grabby baby.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of the department of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, said doctors should be judged on the care they provide, not their appearance.

“Judging someone based on their earrings or their jumpsuit or whatever else that they’re noticing about the student is not an appropriate way to judge the student’s ability to take care of a patient,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said, noting that she was not speaking on behalf of the school.
 

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

The hashtag #BigHoopEnergy has sparked an online conversation about how women of color in the medical field are pressured to conform to traditional standards of professional appearance.

It started when a Latina doctor tweeted that she lost points on a practical exam in medical school because of her hoop earrings, with the evaluator writing “earrings, unprofessional.”

That led other female doctors to cite their own experiences, reported The Lily, a Washington Post publication aimed at millennial women. Many women posted photos of themselves wearing hoops, which have long been associated with Latina and African American women, the outlet said.

“There’s a big movement to police women of color and how they present themselves in medical spaces,” said Briana Christophers, an MD-PhD student at the Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program in New York. “I think in part it’s a way of trying to make people who don’t usually fit the mold, fit the mold.”

Ms. Christophers, who identifies as Latina, said she was urged to wear a black or navy suit when interviewing for doctorate programs. She wore a black suit with a lavender blouse and received comments about that – some positive, some not, she said.

“Sometimes you don’t know how to interpret those sorts of comments,” Ms. Christophers said. “Do you remember because you like the shirt, or because you don’t think I should have done that?”

Doctors of color still stand out in American medicine. The Lily cited the Association of American Medical Colleges as saying that in 2018, Hispanics made up 5.8% of active American doctors and African Americans made up 5%.

Studies show that medical professionals of color often don’t receive the same respect as their White counterparts, with some people questioning whether they’re actually doctors.

“At work, wearing my white coat that has my name pretty big on it with a badge that says doctor on it, I still get asked if I’m the environmental services staff,” Alexandra Sims, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, told The Lily. “I think it just demonstrates how deeply ingrained bias, racism, and sexism are in society and that we have a lot of work to do to disrupt that.”

Dr. Sims said the tweet about hoop earrings led her to wonder about daily decisions she makes about dress.

“Am I too much? Is this too much? Is this earring too big? Is this nail polish color too loud? And how will that be received at work?” she said, noting that she may opt not to wear hoops in certain situations, such as when she’s dealing with a grabby baby.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of the department of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, said doctors should be judged on the care they provide, not their appearance.

“Judging someone based on their earrings or their jumpsuit or whatever else that they’re noticing about the student is not an appropriate way to judge the student’s ability to take care of a patient,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said, noting that she was not speaking on behalf of the school.
 

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

The hashtag #BigHoopEnergy has sparked an online conversation about how women of color in the medical field are pressured to conform to traditional standards of professional appearance.

It started when a Latina doctor tweeted that she lost points on a practical exam in medical school because of her hoop earrings, with the evaluator writing “earrings, unprofessional.”

That led other female doctors to cite their own experiences, reported The Lily, a Washington Post publication aimed at millennial women. Many women posted photos of themselves wearing hoops, which have long been associated with Latina and African American women, the outlet said.

“There’s a big movement to police women of color and how they present themselves in medical spaces,” said Briana Christophers, an MD-PhD student at the Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program in New York. “I think in part it’s a way of trying to make people who don’t usually fit the mold, fit the mold.”

Ms. Christophers, who identifies as Latina, said she was urged to wear a black or navy suit when interviewing for doctorate programs. She wore a black suit with a lavender blouse and received comments about that – some positive, some not, she said.

“Sometimes you don’t know how to interpret those sorts of comments,” Ms. Christophers said. “Do you remember because you like the shirt, or because you don’t think I should have done that?”

Doctors of color still stand out in American medicine. The Lily cited the Association of American Medical Colleges as saying that in 2018, Hispanics made up 5.8% of active American doctors and African Americans made up 5%.

Studies show that medical professionals of color often don’t receive the same respect as their White counterparts, with some people questioning whether they’re actually doctors.

“At work, wearing my white coat that has my name pretty big on it with a badge that says doctor on it, I still get asked if I’m the environmental services staff,” Alexandra Sims, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, told The Lily. “I think it just demonstrates how deeply ingrained bias, racism, and sexism are in society and that we have a lot of work to do to disrupt that.”

Dr. Sims said the tweet about hoop earrings led her to wonder about daily decisions she makes about dress.

“Am I too much? Is this too much? Is this earring too big? Is this nail polish color too loud? And how will that be received at work?” she said, noting that she may opt not to wear hoops in certain situations, such as when she’s dealing with a grabby baby.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of the department of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, said doctors should be judged on the care they provide, not their appearance.

“Judging someone based on their earrings or their jumpsuit or whatever else that they’re noticing about the student is not an appropriate way to judge the student’s ability to take care of a patient,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said, noting that she was not speaking on behalf of the school.
 

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

Breast and cervical cancer screenings declined sharply in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among certain racial and ethnic minority groups and rural populations, notes the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The new data come from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), a program that provides cancer screening services to women with low income and inadequate health insurance.

The data show that the total number of screenings funded by the NBCCEDP declined by 87% for breast cancer screening and by 84% for cervical cancer screening in April 2020 in comparison with the previous 5-year averages for that month.

The declines in breast cancer screening varied from 84% among Hispanic women to 98% among American Indian/Alaskan Native women. The declines in cervical cancer screening varied from 82% among Black women to 92% among Asian Pacific Islander women.

In April 2020, breast cancer screening declined by 86% in metro areas, 88% in urban areas, and 89% in rural areas in comparison with respective 5-year averages. For cervical cancer screenings, the corresponding declines were 85%, 77%, and 82%.

The findings are consistent with those from studies conducted in insured populations, note the authors, led by the Amy DeGroff, PhD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

“Prolonged delays in screening related to the COVID-19 pandemic may lead to delayed diagnoses, poor health consequences, and an increase in cancer disparities among women already experiencing health inequities,” the CDC states in a press release.

Women from racial and ethnic minority groups already face a disproportionate burden of cervical and breast cancers in the United States: Black women and Hispanic women have the highest rates of cervical cancer incidence (8.3 and 8.9 per 100,000 women, respectively, vs. 7.3 per 100,000 among White women) and the highest rates of cervical cancer deaths. Black women have the highest rate of breast cancer death (26.9 per 100,000 women, vs. 19.4 per 100,000 among White women), the study authors explain.

Although the volume of screening began to recover in May 2020 – test volumes for breast and cervical cancer were 39% and 40% below the 5-year average by June 2020 – breast cancer screening in rural areas remained 52% below the 5-year average, they report.

The findings were published online June 30 in Preventive Medicine.

“This study highlights a decline in cancer screening among women of racial and ethnic minority groups with low incomes when their access to medical services decreased at the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. DeGroff comments in the CDC press release.

The findings “reinforce the need to safely maintain routine health care services during the pandemic, especially when the health care environment meets COVID-19 safety guidelines,” she adds.

The investigators used NBCCEDP administrative and program data reported to the CDC by awardees – organizations that receive funding to implement the NBCCEDP – to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the number of breast and cervical cancer screening tests administered through the program and the effects of COVID-19 on the availability of screening services and NBCCEDP awardees’ capacity to support partner clinics.

A total of 630,264 breast and 594,566 cervical cancer screening tests were conducted during the review period of January-June 2015-2020.

Despite COVID-related challenges, “a large number of awardees reported flexibility and creative efforts to reach women and support clinics’ resumption of clinical care, including screening, during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

“[The] CDC encourages health care professionals to help minimize delays in testing by continuing routine cancer screening for women having symptoms or at high risk for breast or cervical cancer,” Dr. DeGroff commented. “The Early Detection Program can help women overcome barriers to health equity by educating them about the importance of routine screening, addressing their concerns about COVID-19 transmission, and helping them to safely access screening through interventions like patient navigation.”

Future studies will examine the effect of the pandemic on screening during the second half of 2020, when surges of COVID-19 and their timing varied geographically, they note.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Breast and cervical cancer screenings declined sharply in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among certain racial and ethnic minority groups and rural populations, notes the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The new data come from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), a program that provides cancer screening services to women with low income and inadequate health insurance.

The data show that the total number of screenings funded by the NBCCEDP declined by 87% for breast cancer screening and by 84% for cervical cancer screening in April 2020 in comparison with the previous 5-year averages for that month.

The declines in breast cancer screening varied from 84% among Hispanic women to 98% among American Indian/Alaskan Native women. The declines in cervical cancer screening varied from 82% among Black women to 92% among Asian Pacific Islander women.

In April 2020, breast cancer screening declined by 86% in metro areas, 88% in urban areas, and 89% in rural areas in comparison with respective 5-year averages. For cervical cancer screenings, the corresponding declines were 85%, 77%, and 82%.

The findings are consistent with those from studies conducted in insured populations, note the authors, led by the Amy DeGroff, PhD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

“Prolonged delays in screening related to the COVID-19 pandemic may lead to delayed diagnoses, poor health consequences, and an increase in cancer disparities among women already experiencing health inequities,” the CDC states in a press release.

Women from racial and ethnic minority groups already face a disproportionate burden of cervical and breast cancers in the United States: Black women and Hispanic women have the highest rates of cervical cancer incidence (8.3 and 8.9 per 100,000 women, respectively, vs. 7.3 per 100,000 among White women) and the highest rates of cervical cancer deaths. Black women have the highest rate of breast cancer death (26.9 per 100,000 women, vs. 19.4 per 100,000 among White women), the study authors explain.

Although the volume of screening began to recover in May 2020 – test volumes for breast and cervical cancer were 39% and 40% below the 5-year average by June 2020 – breast cancer screening in rural areas remained 52% below the 5-year average, they report.

The findings were published online June 30 in Preventive Medicine.

“This study highlights a decline in cancer screening among women of racial and ethnic minority groups with low incomes when their access to medical services decreased at the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. DeGroff comments in the CDC press release.

The findings “reinforce the need to safely maintain routine health care services during the pandemic, especially when the health care environment meets COVID-19 safety guidelines,” she adds.

The investigators used NBCCEDP administrative and program data reported to the CDC by awardees – organizations that receive funding to implement the NBCCEDP – to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the number of breast and cervical cancer screening tests administered through the program and the effects of COVID-19 on the availability of screening services and NBCCEDP awardees’ capacity to support partner clinics.

A total of 630,264 breast and 594,566 cervical cancer screening tests were conducted during the review period of January-June 2015-2020.

Despite COVID-related challenges, “a large number of awardees reported flexibility and creative efforts to reach women and support clinics’ resumption of clinical care, including screening, during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

“[The] CDC encourages health care professionals to help minimize delays in testing by continuing routine cancer screening for women having symptoms or at high risk for breast or cervical cancer,” Dr. DeGroff commented. “The Early Detection Program can help women overcome barriers to health equity by educating them about the importance of routine screening, addressing their concerns about COVID-19 transmission, and helping them to safely access screening through interventions like patient navigation.”

Future studies will examine the effect of the pandemic on screening during the second half of 2020, when surges of COVID-19 and their timing varied geographically, they note.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Breast and cervical cancer screenings declined sharply in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among certain racial and ethnic minority groups and rural populations, notes the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The new data come from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), a program that provides cancer screening services to women with low income and inadequate health insurance.

The data show that the total number of screenings funded by the NBCCEDP declined by 87% for breast cancer screening and by 84% for cervical cancer screening in April 2020 in comparison with the previous 5-year averages for that month.

The declines in breast cancer screening varied from 84% among Hispanic women to 98% among American Indian/Alaskan Native women. The declines in cervical cancer screening varied from 82% among Black women to 92% among Asian Pacific Islander women.

In April 2020, breast cancer screening declined by 86% in metro areas, 88% in urban areas, and 89% in rural areas in comparison with respective 5-year averages. For cervical cancer screenings, the corresponding declines were 85%, 77%, and 82%.

The findings are consistent with those from studies conducted in insured populations, note the authors, led by the Amy DeGroff, PhD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

“Prolonged delays in screening related to the COVID-19 pandemic may lead to delayed diagnoses, poor health consequences, and an increase in cancer disparities among women already experiencing health inequities,” the CDC states in a press release.

Women from racial and ethnic minority groups already face a disproportionate burden of cervical and breast cancers in the United States: Black women and Hispanic women have the highest rates of cervical cancer incidence (8.3 and 8.9 per 100,000 women, respectively, vs. 7.3 per 100,000 among White women) and the highest rates of cervical cancer deaths. Black women have the highest rate of breast cancer death (26.9 per 100,000 women, vs. 19.4 per 100,000 among White women), the study authors explain.

Although the volume of screening began to recover in May 2020 – test volumes for breast and cervical cancer were 39% and 40% below the 5-year average by June 2020 – breast cancer screening in rural areas remained 52% below the 5-year average, they report.

The findings were published online June 30 in Preventive Medicine.

“This study highlights a decline in cancer screening among women of racial and ethnic minority groups with low incomes when their access to medical services decreased at the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. DeGroff comments in the CDC press release.

The findings “reinforce the need to safely maintain routine health care services during the pandemic, especially when the health care environment meets COVID-19 safety guidelines,” she adds.

The investigators used NBCCEDP administrative and program data reported to the CDC by awardees – organizations that receive funding to implement the NBCCEDP – to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the number of breast and cervical cancer screening tests administered through the program and the effects of COVID-19 on the availability of screening services and NBCCEDP awardees’ capacity to support partner clinics.

A total of 630,264 breast and 594,566 cervical cancer screening tests were conducted during the review period of January-June 2015-2020.

Despite COVID-related challenges, “a large number of awardees reported flexibility and creative efforts to reach women and support clinics’ resumption of clinical care, including screening, during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

“[The] CDC encourages health care professionals to help minimize delays in testing by continuing routine cancer screening for women having symptoms or at high risk for breast or cervical cancer,” Dr. DeGroff commented. “The Early Detection Program can help women overcome barriers to health equity by educating them about the importance of routine screening, addressing their concerns about COVID-19 transmission, and helping them to safely access screening through interventions like patient navigation.”

Future studies will examine the effect of the pandemic on screening during the second half of 2020, when surges of COVID-19 and their timing varied geographically, they note.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the approval of secnidazole to include treatment of trichomoniasis in adults, according to a statement from manufacturer Lupin Pharmaceuticals.

Trichomoniasis vaginalis is a common, nonviral, curable sexually transmitted disease that affects approximately 3 million to 5 million adults in the United States each year; the infection can linger for months or years if left untreated, and may have a negative impact on reproductive health. The drug was approved for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis in 2017.

The availability of a single-dose oral treatment for both trichomoniasis and bacterial vaginosis may help improve adherence and reduce risk factors associated with these conditions, including pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections, according to the statement.

The approval for the new indication was based primarily on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in which women with a confirmed trichomoniasis diagnosis were randomized to a single dose of 2 g oral secnidazole or a placebo. Secnidazole showed a 92.2% cure rate for patients with trichomoniasis, compared with placebo, based on cultures collected 6-12 days after dosing. Cure rates in subsets of patients with HIV and bacterial vaginosis were 100% and 95%, respectively.

The most common treatment-related adverse events were vulvovaginal candidiasis and nausea, each reported in 2.7% of study participants. The study findings were published in March 2021 in Clinical Infections Diseases.

Secnidazole also is approved for treatment of trichomoniasis in men, based on data from four open-label studies, one with men only and three including both men and women, according to the statement.

Full prescribing information for secnidazole is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the approval of secnidazole to include treatment of trichomoniasis in adults, according to a statement from manufacturer Lupin Pharmaceuticals.

Trichomoniasis vaginalis is a common, nonviral, curable sexually transmitted disease that affects approximately 3 million to 5 million adults in the United States each year; the infection can linger for months or years if left untreated, and may have a negative impact on reproductive health. The drug was approved for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis in 2017.

The availability of a single-dose oral treatment for both trichomoniasis and bacterial vaginosis may help improve adherence and reduce risk factors associated with these conditions, including pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections, according to the statement.

The approval for the new indication was based primarily on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in which women with a confirmed trichomoniasis diagnosis were randomized to a single dose of 2 g oral secnidazole or a placebo. Secnidazole showed a 92.2% cure rate for patients with trichomoniasis, compared with placebo, based on cultures collected 6-12 days after dosing. Cure rates in subsets of patients with HIV and bacterial vaginosis were 100% and 95%, respectively.

The most common treatment-related adverse events were vulvovaginal candidiasis and nausea, each reported in 2.7% of study participants. The study findings were published in March 2021 in Clinical Infections Diseases.

Secnidazole also is approved for treatment of trichomoniasis in men, based on data from four open-label studies, one with men only and three including both men and women, according to the statement.

Full prescribing information for secnidazole is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the approval of secnidazole to include treatment of trichomoniasis in adults, according to a statement from manufacturer Lupin Pharmaceuticals.

Trichomoniasis vaginalis is a common, nonviral, curable sexually transmitted disease that affects approximately 3 million to 5 million adults in the United States each year; the infection can linger for months or years if left untreated, and may have a negative impact on reproductive health. The drug was approved for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis in 2017.

The availability of a single-dose oral treatment for both trichomoniasis and bacterial vaginosis may help improve adherence and reduce risk factors associated with these conditions, including pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections, according to the statement.

The approval for the new indication was based primarily on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in which women with a confirmed trichomoniasis diagnosis were randomized to a single dose of 2 g oral secnidazole or a placebo. Secnidazole showed a 92.2% cure rate for patients with trichomoniasis, compared with placebo, based on cultures collected 6-12 days after dosing. Cure rates in subsets of patients with HIV and bacterial vaginosis were 100% and 95%, respectively.

The most common treatment-related adverse events were vulvovaginal candidiasis and nausea, each reported in 2.7% of study participants. The study findings were published in March 2021 in Clinical Infections Diseases.

Secnidazole also is approved for treatment of trichomoniasis in men, based on data from four open-label studies, one with men only and three including both men and women, according to the statement.

Full prescribing information for secnidazole is available here.

Further details from multiple cases of myocarditis linked to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID vaccines have been described in recent papers in the medical literature.

The cases appear to occur almost exclusively in males and most often in younger age groups. While symptoms and signs of myocarditis mostly resolved with a few days of supportive care, long-term effects are unknown at present.

The authors of all the reports and of two accompanying editorials in JAMA Cardiology are unanimous in their opinion that the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks.  

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met June 23 to discuss this issue. At that meeting, it was reported that 323 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in individuals aged 29 years and younger have been confirmed, but committee members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate young people with the mRNA vaccines.

The current case reports are published in two papers in JAMA Cardiology and in three in Circulation.
 

U.S. military reports 23 cases

In one report in JAMA Cardiology, authors led by Jay Montgomery, MD, from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., described 23 cases from the U.S. Military Health System of individuals with acute myocarditis who presented within 4 days after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination (7 Pfizer and 16 Moderna).

All patients were male, 22 of 23 were on active duty, and the median age was 25 years (range, 20-51); 20 of the 23 cases occurred after receipt of a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The patients all presented with acute onset of marked chest pain. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels. Among eight patients who underwent cardiac MRI (cMRI), all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis.

Additional testing did not identify other possible causes of myocarditis. All patients received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering.

The authors reported that the military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this period, and while the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was “substantially higher” than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.

They noted that, based on historical data, among the 544,000 second doses to military members there may have been 0-10 expected myocarditis cases, but they observed 19 cases.  

“All patients in this series reflect substantial similarities in demographic characteristics, proximate vaccine dose, onset interval, and character of vaccine-associated myocarditis. The consistent pattern of clinical presentation, rapid recovery, and absence of evidence of other causes support the diagnosis of hypersensitivity myocarditis,” they stated.

They added that presentation after a second vaccine dose or, in three patients, when vaccination followed SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests that prior exposure was relevant in the hypersensitivity response.

“The spectrum of clinical presentation and reliance on patients seeking health care and on health care professionals recognizing a rare vaccine-associated adverse event limits determination of the true incidence of this condition,” the authors wrote.

They stressed that recognition of vaccine-associated myocarditis is clinically important because diagnosis impacts management, recommendations for exercise, and monitoring for cardiomyopathy.

But the authors also acknowledged that it is important to frame concerns about potential vaccine-associated myocarditis within the context of the current pandemic.

“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a clear cause of serious cardiac injury in many patients. ... Prevalence of cardiac injury may be as high as 60% in seriously ill patients. Notably, nearly 1% of highly fit athletes with mild COVID-19 infection have evidence of myocarditis on cMRI,” they wrote.

“Given that COVID-19 vaccines are remarkably effective at preventing infection, any risk of rare adverse events following immunization must be carefully weighed against the very substantial benefit of vaccination,” they concluded.
 

Four cases at Duke

In the second paper in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Han W. Kim, MD, reported four patients with acute myocarditis occurring within days of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (two Pfizer and two Moderna) in patients treated at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. The hospital courses of the four patients with myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination were uneventful, and they were discharged within 2-4 days.

The authors said that, although a causal relationship cannot be established, none of the patients had a viral prodrome or had coincident testing that revealed an alternative explanation.

They stated that these four patients represent the majority of patients with acute myocarditis identified in the past 3 months at their institution, and this led to the highest total number of patients with acute myocarditis, compared with the same 3-month period for the past 5 years. 

“Additionally, we identified only those patients with severe unremitting chest pain who sought medical attention. Those with mild or moderate chest pain might not seek medical attention, and it is possible that subclinical myocarditis may occur and could be detected by active surveillance, as has been described with smallpox vaccination,” they wrote.
 

Further case reports

In one of the papers in Circulation, a group led by Kathryn F. Larson, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., described eight patients hospitalized with chest pain who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 2-4 days of receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

Two of the patients had previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2 without need for hospitalization. All individuals were otherwise healthy males between the ages of 21 and 56 years. All but one patient developed symptoms after their second dose, and the one patient who developed myocarditis after the first vaccine dose had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.  

Systemic symptoms began within 24 hours after vaccine administration in five of eight patients, with chest pain presenting between 48 and 96 hours later. Troponin values were elevated in all individuals and appeared to peak the day after admission, whereas none had eosinophilia.

Cardiac MRI revealed findings consistent with myocarditis in all patients. All patients had resolution of their chest pain and were discharged from the hospital in stable condition.

“The patients presented here demonstrated typical signs, symptoms, and diagnostic features of acute myocarditis. The temporal association between receiving an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine and the development of myocarditis is notable,” the authors said.  

They added that they would consider the use of corticosteroids in these patients but cautioned that this could reduce the specific immune response against SARS-COV-2 triggered by the vaccine. “Thus, the duration of corticosteroid administration should be limited to the resolution of the symptoms or ventricular arrhythmias or the recovery of the left ventricular ejection fraction.”

Pending publication of long-term outcome data after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–related myocarditis, they suggest adherence to the current consensus recommendation to abstain from competitive sports for a period of 3-6 months with reevaluation prior to sports participation. 

In another of the Circulation papers, a group led by Carolyn M. Rosner, MSN,  presented a case series of seven patients hospitalized for acute myocarditis-like illness following COVID-19 vaccination, from two U.S. medical centers, in Falls Church, Va., and Dallas. All patients were males below the age of 40 years and of White or Hispanic race/ethnicity. Only one patient reported prior history of COVID-19 infection. Six patients received mRNA (Moderna or Pfizer) and one received the adenovirus (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. All patients presented 3-7 days post vaccination with acute onset chest pain and biochemical evidence of myocardial injury.

Hospital length of stay was 3 days, and all patients’ symptoms resolved by hospital discharge.

And finally, the third paper in Circulation reported a detailed description of one patient – a 52-year-old, previously healthy male who presented with acute myocarditis 3 days after the administration of the second dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The symptoms resolved, and there was a gradual improvement in cMRI findings. Ischemic injury and other potential causes of acute myocardial injury were excluded, as were other potential infectious causes of myocarditis, and there was no evidence of systemic autoimmune disease.

“Clinicians should be aware that myocarditis may be present in patients exhibiting cardiac signs and symptoms 2-4 days after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.

They added that additional surveillance of such adverse events post–COVID-19 vaccination will help identify subgroups at higher risk for this vaccine-related effect, and whether additional precautions are necessary.
 

‘Benefits outweigh risk’

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, three doctors from the CDC cite several other reports of myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccination. These include a case report published in Pediatrics of seven male adolescents aged 14-19 years who presented with myocarditis or myopericarditis within 4 days after receipt of a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

But the editorialists noted that the most comprehensive data about the risk for myocarditis following immunization with mRNA vaccines comes from Israel.

The Israeli Ministry of Health recently posted data describing 121 myocarditis cases occurring within 30 days of a second dose of mRNA vaccine among 5,049,424 persons, suggesting a crude incidence rate of approximately 24 cases per million.

On the current case reports, the CDC doctors wrote: “The striking clinical similarities in the presentations of these patients, their recent vaccination with an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, and the lack of any alternative etiologies for acute myocarditis suggest an association with immunization.”

They said that acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism.

But SARS-CoV-2 infection also causes cardiac injury which may result in severe outcomes, and based on currently available data, myocarditis following immunization with current mRNA-based vaccines is rare.

“At present, the benefits of immunization in preventing severe morbidity favors continued COVID-19 vaccination, particularly considering the increasing COVID-19 hospitalization rates among adolescents reported during spring 2021,” the editorialists stated.

But they added that many questions remain. These include whether modifications are needed to the vaccine schedule among persons with a history of possible or confirmed myocarditis after COVID vaccine, how should postvaccine myocarditis be managed, how often should follow-up assessments be performed, how might follow-up assessments affect recommendations to avoid vigorous physical activity following the diagnosis of myocarditis, and do all likely cases of acute myocarditis that appear to be uncomplicated require cardiac MRI for more definitive diagnosis?

“While the data needed to answer such questions are being collected, there is an opportunity for researchers with expertise in myocarditis to develop a comprehensive, national assessment of the natural history, pathogenesis, and treatment of acute myocarditis associated with receipt of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines,” they concluded.

In a second editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group of editors from the journal acknowledged that publication of the current case reports may contribute to additional public concern regarding immunization. But they added that clinicians discussing immunization with patients should recognize that these case series suggest that the symptomatic events consistent with myocarditis are still very rare and appear to be self-limiting.

“Given the risks of COVID-19, including the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection, the editors do not believe these case reports are sufficient to interrupt the march toward maximal vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as expeditiously as possible,” they said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Further details from multiple cases of myocarditis linked to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID vaccines have been described in recent papers in the medical literature.

The cases appear to occur almost exclusively in males and most often in younger age groups. While symptoms and signs of myocarditis mostly resolved with a few days of supportive care, long-term effects are unknown at present.

The authors of all the reports and of two accompanying editorials in JAMA Cardiology are unanimous in their opinion that the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks.  

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met June 23 to discuss this issue. At that meeting, it was reported that 323 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in individuals aged 29 years and younger have been confirmed, but committee members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate young people with the mRNA vaccines.

The current case reports are published in two papers in JAMA Cardiology and in three in Circulation.
 

U.S. military reports 23 cases

In one report in JAMA Cardiology, authors led by Jay Montgomery, MD, from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., described 23 cases from the U.S. Military Health System of individuals with acute myocarditis who presented within 4 days after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination (7 Pfizer and 16 Moderna).

All patients were male, 22 of 23 were on active duty, and the median age was 25 years (range, 20-51); 20 of the 23 cases occurred after receipt of a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The patients all presented with acute onset of marked chest pain. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels. Among eight patients who underwent cardiac MRI (cMRI), all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis.

Additional testing did not identify other possible causes of myocarditis. All patients received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering.

The authors reported that the military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this period, and while the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was “substantially higher” than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.

They noted that, based on historical data, among the 544,000 second doses to military members there may have been 0-10 expected myocarditis cases, but they observed 19 cases.  

“All patients in this series reflect substantial similarities in demographic characteristics, proximate vaccine dose, onset interval, and character of vaccine-associated myocarditis. The consistent pattern of clinical presentation, rapid recovery, and absence of evidence of other causes support the diagnosis of hypersensitivity myocarditis,” they stated.

They added that presentation after a second vaccine dose or, in three patients, when vaccination followed SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests that prior exposure was relevant in the hypersensitivity response.

“The spectrum of clinical presentation and reliance on patients seeking health care and on health care professionals recognizing a rare vaccine-associated adverse event limits determination of the true incidence of this condition,” the authors wrote.

They stressed that recognition of vaccine-associated myocarditis is clinically important because diagnosis impacts management, recommendations for exercise, and monitoring for cardiomyopathy.

But the authors also acknowledged that it is important to frame concerns about potential vaccine-associated myocarditis within the context of the current pandemic.

“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a clear cause of serious cardiac injury in many patients. ... Prevalence of cardiac injury may be as high as 60% in seriously ill patients. Notably, nearly 1% of highly fit athletes with mild COVID-19 infection have evidence of myocarditis on cMRI,” they wrote.

“Given that COVID-19 vaccines are remarkably effective at preventing infection, any risk of rare adverse events following immunization must be carefully weighed against the very substantial benefit of vaccination,” they concluded.
 

Four cases at Duke

In the second paper in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Han W. Kim, MD, reported four patients with acute myocarditis occurring within days of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (two Pfizer and two Moderna) in patients treated at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. The hospital courses of the four patients with myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination were uneventful, and they were discharged within 2-4 days.

The authors said that, although a causal relationship cannot be established, none of the patients had a viral prodrome or had coincident testing that revealed an alternative explanation.

They stated that these four patients represent the majority of patients with acute myocarditis identified in the past 3 months at their institution, and this led to the highest total number of patients with acute myocarditis, compared with the same 3-month period for the past 5 years. 

“Additionally, we identified only those patients with severe unremitting chest pain who sought medical attention. Those with mild or moderate chest pain might not seek medical attention, and it is possible that subclinical myocarditis may occur and could be detected by active surveillance, as has been described with smallpox vaccination,” they wrote.
 

Further case reports

In one of the papers in Circulation, a group led by Kathryn F. Larson, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., described eight patients hospitalized with chest pain who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 2-4 days of receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

Two of the patients had previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2 without need for hospitalization. All individuals were otherwise healthy males between the ages of 21 and 56 years. All but one patient developed symptoms after their second dose, and the one patient who developed myocarditis after the first vaccine dose had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.  

Systemic symptoms began within 24 hours after vaccine administration in five of eight patients, with chest pain presenting between 48 and 96 hours later. Troponin values were elevated in all individuals and appeared to peak the day after admission, whereas none had eosinophilia.

Cardiac MRI revealed findings consistent with myocarditis in all patients. All patients had resolution of their chest pain and were discharged from the hospital in stable condition.

“The patients presented here demonstrated typical signs, symptoms, and diagnostic features of acute myocarditis. The temporal association between receiving an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine and the development of myocarditis is notable,” the authors said.  

They added that they would consider the use of corticosteroids in these patients but cautioned that this could reduce the specific immune response against SARS-COV-2 triggered by the vaccine. “Thus, the duration of corticosteroid administration should be limited to the resolution of the symptoms or ventricular arrhythmias or the recovery of the left ventricular ejection fraction.”

Pending publication of long-term outcome data after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–related myocarditis, they suggest adherence to the current consensus recommendation to abstain from competitive sports for a period of 3-6 months with reevaluation prior to sports participation. 

In another of the Circulation papers, a group led by Carolyn M. Rosner, MSN,  presented a case series of seven patients hospitalized for acute myocarditis-like illness following COVID-19 vaccination, from two U.S. medical centers, in Falls Church, Va., and Dallas. All patients were males below the age of 40 years and of White or Hispanic race/ethnicity. Only one patient reported prior history of COVID-19 infection. Six patients received mRNA (Moderna or Pfizer) and one received the adenovirus (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. All patients presented 3-7 days post vaccination with acute onset chest pain and biochemical evidence of myocardial injury.

Hospital length of stay was 3 days, and all patients’ symptoms resolved by hospital discharge.

And finally, the third paper in Circulation reported a detailed description of one patient – a 52-year-old, previously healthy male who presented with acute myocarditis 3 days after the administration of the second dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The symptoms resolved, and there was a gradual improvement in cMRI findings. Ischemic injury and other potential causes of acute myocardial injury were excluded, as were other potential infectious causes of myocarditis, and there was no evidence of systemic autoimmune disease.

“Clinicians should be aware that myocarditis may be present in patients exhibiting cardiac signs and symptoms 2-4 days after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.

They added that additional surveillance of such adverse events post–COVID-19 vaccination will help identify subgroups at higher risk for this vaccine-related effect, and whether additional precautions are necessary.
 

‘Benefits outweigh risk’

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, three doctors from the CDC cite several other reports of myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccination. These include a case report published in Pediatrics of seven male adolescents aged 14-19 years who presented with myocarditis or myopericarditis within 4 days after receipt of a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

But the editorialists noted that the most comprehensive data about the risk for myocarditis following immunization with mRNA vaccines comes from Israel.

The Israeli Ministry of Health recently posted data describing 121 myocarditis cases occurring within 30 days of a second dose of mRNA vaccine among 5,049,424 persons, suggesting a crude incidence rate of approximately 24 cases per million.

On the current case reports, the CDC doctors wrote: “The striking clinical similarities in the presentations of these patients, their recent vaccination with an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, and the lack of any alternative etiologies for acute myocarditis suggest an association with immunization.”

They said that acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism.

But SARS-CoV-2 infection also causes cardiac injury which may result in severe outcomes, and based on currently available data, myocarditis following immunization with current mRNA-based vaccines is rare.

“At present, the benefits of immunization in preventing severe morbidity favors continued COVID-19 vaccination, particularly considering the increasing COVID-19 hospitalization rates among adolescents reported during spring 2021,” the editorialists stated.

But they added that many questions remain. These include whether modifications are needed to the vaccine schedule among persons with a history of possible or confirmed myocarditis after COVID vaccine, how should postvaccine myocarditis be managed, how often should follow-up assessments be performed, how might follow-up assessments affect recommendations to avoid vigorous physical activity following the diagnosis of myocarditis, and do all likely cases of acute myocarditis that appear to be uncomplicated require cardiac MRI for more definitive diagnosis?

“While the data needed to answer such questions are being collected, there is an opportunity for researchers with expertise in myocarditis to develop a comprehensive, national assessment of the natural history, pathogenesis, and treatment of acute myocarditis associated with receipt of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines,” they concluded.

In a second editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group of editors from the journal acknowledged that publication of the current case reports may contribute to additional public concern regarding immunization. But they added that clinicians discussing immunization with patients should recognize that these case series suggest that the symptomatic events consistent with myocarditis are still very rare and appear to be self-limiting.

“Given the risks of COVID-19, including the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection, the editors do not believe these case reports are sufficient to interrupt the march toward maximal vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as expeditiously as possible,” they said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Further details from multiple cases of myocarditis linked to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID vaccines have been described in recent papers in the medical literature.

The cases appear to occur almost exclusively in males and most often in younger age groups. While symptoms and signs of myocarditis mostly resolved with a few days of supportive care, long-term effects are unknown at present.

The authors of all the reports and of two accompanying editorials in JAMA Cardiology are unanimous in their opinion that the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks.  

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met June 23 to discuss this issue. At that meeting, it was reported that 323 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in individuals aged 29 years and younger have been confirmed, but committee members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate young people with the mRNA vaccines.

The current case reports are published in two papers in JAMA Cardiology and in three in Circulation.
 

U.S. military reports 23 cases

In one report in JAMA Cardiology, authors led by Jay Montgomery, MD, from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., described 23 cases from the U.S. Military Health System of individuals with acute myocarditis who presented within 4 days after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination (7 Pfizer and 16 Moderna).

All patients were male, 22 of 23 were on active duty, and the median age was 25 years (range, 20-51); 20 of the 23 cases occurred after receipt of a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The patients all presented with acute onset of marked chest pain. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels. Among eight patients who underwent cardiac MRI (cMRI), all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis.

Additional testing did not identify other possible causes of myocarditis. All patients received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering.

The authors reported that the military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this period, and while the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was “substantially higher” than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.

They noted that, based on historical data, among the 544,000 second doses to military members there may have been 0-10 expected myocarditis cases, but they observed 19 cases.  

“All patients in this series reflect substantial similarities in demographic characteristics, proximate vaccine dose, onset interval, and character of vaccine-associated myocarditis. The consistent pattern of clinical presentation, rapid recovery, and absence of evidence of other causes support the diagnosis of hypersensitivity myocarditis,” they stated.

They added that presentation after a second vaccine dose or, in three patients, when vaccination followed SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests that prior exposure was relevant in the hypersensitivity response.

“The spectrum of clinical presentation and reliance on patients seeking health care and on health care professionals recognizing a rare vaccine-associated adverse event limits determination of the true incidence of this condition,” the authors wrote.

They stressed that recognition of vaccine-associated myocarditis is clinically important because diagnosis impacts management, recommendations for exercise, and monitoring for cardiomyopathy.

But the authors also acknowledged that it is important to frame concerns about potential vaccine-associated myocarditis within the context of the current pandemic.

“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a clear cause of serious cardiac injury in many patients. ... Prevalence of cardiac injury may be as high as 60% in seriously ill patients. Notably, nearly 1% of highly fit athletes with mild COVID-19 infection have evidence of myocarditis on cMRI,” they wrote.

“Given that COVID-19 vaccines are remarkably effective at preventing infection, any risk of rare adverse events following immunization must be carefully weighed against the very substantial benefit of vaccination,” they concluded.
 

Four cases at Duke

In the second paper in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Han W. Kim, MD, reported four patients with acute myocarditis occurring within days of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (two Pfizer and two Moderna) in patients treated at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. The hospital courses of the four patients with myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination were uneventful, and they were discharged within 2-4 days.

The authors said that, although a causal relationship cannot be established, none of the patients had a viral prodrome or had coincident testing that revealed an alternative explanation.

They stated that these four patients represent the majority of patients with acute myocarditis identified in the past 3 months at their institution, and this led to the highest total number of patients with acute myocarditis, compared with the same 3-month period for the past 5 years. 

“Additionally, we identified only those patients with severe unremitting chest pain who sought medical attention. Those with mild or moderate chest pain might not seek medical attention, and it is possible that subclinical myocarditis may occur and could be detected by active surveillance, as has been described with smallpox vaccination,” they wrote.
 

Further case reports

In one of the papers in Circulation, a group led by Kathryn F. Larson, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., described eight patients hospitalized with chest pain who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 2-4 days of receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

Two of the patients had previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2 without need for hospitalization. All individuals were otherwise healthy males between the ages of 21 and 56 years. All but one patient developed symptoms after their second dose, and the one patient who developed myocarditis after the first vaccine dose had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.  

Systemic symptoms began within 24 hours after vaccine administration in five of eight patients, with chest pain presenting between 48 and 96 hours later. Troponin values were elevated in all individuals and appeared to peak the day after admission, whereas none had eosinophilia.

Cardiac MRI revealed findings consistent with myocarditis in all patients. All patients had resolution of their chest pain and were discharged from the hospital in stable condition.

“The patients presented here demonstrated typical signs, symptoms, and diagnostic features of acute myocarditis. The temporal association between receiving an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine and the development of myocarditis is notable,” the authors said.  

They added that they would consider the use of corticosteroids in these patients but cautioned that this could reduce the specific immune response against SARS-COV-2 triggered by the vaccine. “Thus, the duration of corticosteroid administration should be limited to the resolution of the symptoms or ventricular arrhythmias or the recovery of the left ventricular ejection fraction.”

Pending publication of long-term outcome data after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–related myocarditis, they suggest adherence to the current consensus recommendation to abstain from competitive sports for a period of 3-6 months with reevaluation prior to sports participation. 

In another of the Circulation papers, a group led by Carolyn M. Rosner, MSN,  presented a case series of seven patients hospitalized for acute myocarditis-like illness following COVID-19 vaccination, from two U.S. medical centers, in Falls Church, Va., and Dallas. All patients were males below the age of 40 years and of White or Hispanic race/ethnicity. Only one patient reported prior history of COVID-19 infection. Six patients received mRNA (Moderna or Pfizer) and one received the adenovirus (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. All patients presented 3-7 days post vaccination with acute onset chest pain and biochemical evidence of myocardial injury.

Hospital length of stay was 3 days, and all patients’ symptoms resolved by hospital discharge.

And finally, the third paper in Circulation reported a detailed description of one patient – a 52-year-old, previously healthy male who presented with acute myocarditis 3 days after the administration of the second dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The symptoms resolved, and there was a gradual improvement in cMRI findings. Ischemic injury and other potential causes of acute myocardial injury were excluded, as were other potential infectious causes of myocarditis, and there was no evidence of systemic autoimmune disease.

“Clinicians should be aware that myocarditis may be present in patients exhibiting cardiac signs and symptoms 2-4 days after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.

They added that additional surveillance of such adverse events post–COVID-19 vaccination will help identify subgroups at higher risk for this vaccine-related effect, and whether additional precautions are necessary.
 

‘Benefits outweigh risk’

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, three doctors from the CDC cite several other reports of myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccination. These include a case report published in Pediatrics of seven male adolescents aged 14-19 years who presented with myocarditis or myopericarditis within 4 days after receipt of a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

But the editorialists noted that the most comprehensive data about the risk for myocarditis following immunization with mRNA vaccines comes from Israel.

The Israeli Ministry of Health recently posted data describing 121 myocarditis cases occurring within 30 days of a second dose of mRNA vaccine among 5,049,424 persons, suggesting a crude incidence rate of approximately 24 cases per million.

On the current case reports, the CDC doctors wrote: “The striking clinical similarities in the presentations of these patients, their recent vaccination with an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, and the lack of any alternative etiologies for acute myocarditis suggest an association with immunization.”

They said that acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism.

But SARS-CoV-2 infection also causes cardiac injury which may result in severe outcomes, and based on currently available data, myocarditis following immunization with current mRNA-based vaccines is rare.

“At present, the benefits of immunization in preventing severe morbidity favors continued COVID-19 vaccination, particularly considering the increasing COVID-19 hospitalization rates among adolescents reported during spring 2021,” the editorialists stated.

But they added that many questions remain. These include whether modifications are needed to the vaccine schedule among persons with a history of possible or confirmed myocarditis after COVID vaccine, how should postvaccine myocarditis be managed, how often should follow-up assessments be performed, how might follow-up assessments affect recommendations to avoid vigorous physical activity following the diagnosis of myocarditis, and do all likely cases of acute myocarditis that appear to be uncomplicated require cardiac MRI for more definitive diagnosis?

“While the data needed to answer such questions are being collected, there is an opportunity for researchers with expertise in myocarditis to develop a comprehensive, national assessment of the natural history, pathogenesis, and treatment of acute myocarditis associated with receipt of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines,” they concluded.

In a second editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group of editors from the journal acknowledged that publication of the current case reports may contribute to additional public concern regarding immunization. But they added that clinicians discussing immunization with patients should recognize that these case series suggest that the symptomatic events consistent with myocarditis are still very rare and appear to be self-limiting.

“Given the risks of COVID-19, including the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection, the editors do not believe these case reports are sufficient to interrupt the march toward maximal vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as expeditiously as possible,” they said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant women who have even mild sleep apnea should be treated for their sleep-disordered breathing given what is known about associated risks for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and gestational diabetes, Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MS, MD, FCCP, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“This is the current standard of care,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Although guidelines on this issue are not hard and fast, I’d say that knowing what we know about the risk of adverse [maternal] outcomes, we should all try to treat these problems as soon as they’re identified” and then repeat polysomnography or home sleep testing 3-6 months post partum to “be sure the sleep-disordered breathing has resolved.”

Estimates of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) prevalence range from approximately 9% in the first trimester to 20% in the third trimester. Yet recognizing the significance of OSA in pregnant women and identifying women for testing remains a major challenge. “Most women won’t [report sleep problems] because it’s pretty much common folklore that you don’t sleep well when you’re pregnant,” said Dr. D’Ambrosio, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and current past-chair of the Women’s Lung Health Network for CHEST.

Many obstetricians and obstetrics providers, meanwhile, do not adequately screen. Typical screening tools like the Epworth Sleepiness Scale have low sensitivity and specificity during pregnancy, which means that inquiries about sleepiness, snoring, and disruptions in sleep are important, as is attention to potential risks for OSA posed by obesity, chronic hypertension, and neck circumference.

Only about a quarter of women in the United States snore during pregnancy, she noted. Snoring prevalence does increase as pregnancy progresses, reaching up to almost 50% in during the third trimester in some studies.

A four-variable screening tool reported almost 10 years ago for pregnant women is reliable for gauging risk, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. The model considers self-reported frequent snoring (more than three times/week), chronic hypertension, advanced maternal age, and a pregestational body mass index of at least 30 kg/m². “If these [factors] are present, the patient is at significant risk for OSA and should be strongly considered for testing,” she said.

Home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) is validated for pregnant women but “it can underestimate,” she said. “If you get a negative result and [have clinical suspicion], then don’t stop there.”

And considering that the prevalence of OSA – at all levels of severity – increases as pregnancy progresses, it’s important to continue talking about sleep with patients who have frequent snoring, for instance, but negative sleep test results early in pregnancy. “They could develop [OSA] as time goes on,” she said.
 

Associated risk factors

Independent associations between sleep-disordered breathing and adverse maternal outcomes were demonstrated in a prospective cohort study published several years ago of 3,705 women who underwent HSAT in early and mid-pregnancy. The adjusted odds ratios for preeclampsia when sleep-disordered breathing (an apnea-hypopnea index of ≥5) was present early in pregnancy and in mid-pregnancy were 1.94 and 1.95, respectively.

For hypertensive disorders of pregnancy more broadly, the ORs were 1.46 and 1.73, and for gestational diabetes, the ORs were 3.47 and 2.79.

“Faced with the question about why it’s important to diagnosis and treat OSA [during pregnancy] since the pregnancy will be over in a few months, I go to this study,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Waiting until the end of pregnancy is not safe. There are increased risks of very serious conditions if sleep apnea is there and it’s not treated.”

Another study demonstrating a link between OSA and maternal outcomes looked over 1.5 million deliveries in the United States and found a significantly higher prevalence of gestational diabetes (OR, 2.08), gestational hypertension (OR, 1.77), preeclampsia (OR, 2.07), and eclampsia (OR, 2.70) in pregnant women with OSA than without, after adjusting for maternal obesity. Associations remained significant after adjusting for a more comprehensive list of covariates.

Multiple potential casual pathways are at play, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. Short sleep duration decreases leptin and increases ghrelin levels, for instance, and sleep fragmentation activates the HPA axis and increases cortisol. Intermittent hypoxemia affects sympathetic activity, and intrathoracic pressure swings cause increased oxidative stress and systemic inflammation.

The resulting endothelial dysfunction, glucose dysfunction, and dyslipidemia can drive the adverse maternal outcomes documented in these studies, she said, noting that the adverse outcomes can have long-term cardiovascular consequences.

Continuous positive airway pressure therapy is well tolerated in pregnancy, and given pregnancy’s continual weight change, auto-titrating CPAP may be the best option, she said.

There is “some limited data that treatment improves maternal outcomes, and we’re still working on trying to get better data and more solid recommendations,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. There currently are no guidelines covering the diagnosis and management of OSA during pregnancy.

“We’ve come a long way ... but we still have more to do,” she said. “We have a long way to go to getting [OSA in pregnant women] well recognized, with screening techniques and diagnosis.”

Asked after the meeting about Dr. D’Ambrosio’s messages, Anita Rajagopal, MD, said that OSA screening during pregnancy needs to be improved through more collaboration “with our ob.gyn. and primary care colleagues.”

Too often, she said, “the signs and symptoms of OSA in pregnancy are written off as ‘just harmless snoring’ while in fact the patient has treatable sleep disordered breathing with potential adverse effects.” Dr. Rajagopal is department medical director for sleep medicine at Community Physician Network and medical director of the Community Health Network Sleep-Wake Disorders Center, both in Indianapolis.

Dr. D’Ambrosio reported that she has no potential conflicts of interest related to the material she presented, and Dr. Rajagopal stated she has no potential conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women who have even mild sleep apnea should be treated for their sleep-disordered breathing given what is known about associated risks for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and gestational diabetes, Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MS, MD, FCCP, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“This is the current standard of care,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Although guidelines on this issue are not hard and fast, I’d say that knowing what we know about the risk of adverse [maternal] outcomes, we should all try to treat these problems as soon as they’re identified” and then repeat polysomnography or home sleep testing 3-6 months post partum to “be sure the sleep-disordered breathing has resolved.”

Estimates of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) prevalence range from approximately 9% in the first trimester to 20% in the third trimester. Yet recognizing the significance of OSA in pregnant women and identifying women for testing remains a major challenge. “Most women won’t [report sleep problems] because it’s pretty much common folklore that you don’t sleep well when you’re pregnant,” said Dr. D’Ambrosio, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and current past-chair of the Women’s Lung Health Network for CHEST.

Many obstetricians and obstetrics providers, meanwhile, do not adequately screen. Typical screening tools like the Epworth Sleepiness Scale have low sensitivity and specificity during pregnancy, which means that inquiries about sleepiness, snoring, and disruptions in sleep are important, as is attention to potential risks for OSA posed by obesity, chronic hypertension, and neck circumference.

Only about a quarter of women in the United States snore during pregnancy, she noted. Snoring prevalence does increase as pregnancy progresses, reaching up to almost 50% in during the third trimester in some studies.

A four-variable screening tool reported almost 10 years ago for pregnant women is reliable for gauging risk, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. The model considers self-reported frequent snoring (more than three times/week), chronic hypertension, advanced maternal age, and a pregestational body mass index of at least 30 kg/m². “If these [factors] are present, the patient is at significant risk for OSA and should be strongly considered for testing,” she said.

Home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) is validated for pregnant women but “it can underestimate,” she said. “If you get a negative result and [have clinical suspicion], then don’t stop there.”

And considering that the prevalence of OSA – at all levels of severity – increases as pregnancy progresses, it’s important to continue talking about sleep with patients who have frequent snoring, for instance, but negative sleep test results early in pregnancy. “They could develop [OSA] as time goes on,” she said.
 

Associated risk factors

Independent associations between sleep-disordered breathing and adverse maternal outcomes were demonstrated in a prospective cohort study published several years ago of 3,705 women who underwent HSAT in early and mid-pregnancy. The adjusted odds ratios for preeclampsia when sleep-disordered breathing (an apnea-hypopnea index of ≥5) was present early in pregnancy and in mid-pregnancy were 1.94 and 1.95, respectively.

For hypertensive disorders of pregnancy more broadly, the ORs were 1.46 and 1.73, and for gestational diabetes, the ORs were 3.47 and 2.79.

“Faced with the question about why it’s important to diagnosis and treat OSA [during pregnancy] since the pregnancy will be over in a few months, I go to this study,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Waiting until the end of pregnancy is not safe. There are increased risks of very serious conditions if sleep apnea is there and it’s not treated.”

Another study demonstrating a link between OSA and maternal outcomes looked over 1.5 million deliveries in the United States and found a significantly higher prevalence of gestational diabetes (OR, 2.08), gestational hypertension (OR, 1.77), preeclampsia (OR, 2.07), and eclampsia (OR, 2.70) in pregnant women with OSA than without, after adjusting for maternal obesity. Associations remained significant after adjusting for a more comprehensive list of covariates.

Multiple potential casual pathways are at play, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. Short sleep duration decreases leptin and increases ghrelin levels, for instance, and sleep fragmentation activates the HPA axis and increases cortisol. Intermittent hypoxemia affects sympathetic activity, and intrathoracic pressure swings cause increased oxidative stress and systemic inflammation.

The resulting endothelial dysfunction, glucose dysfunction, and dyslipidemia can drive the adverse maternal outcomes documented in these studies, she said, noting that the adverse outcomes can have long-term cardiovascular consequences.

Continuous positive airway pressure therapy is well tolerated in pregnancy, and given pregnancy’s continual weight change, auto-titrating CPAP may be the best option, she said.

There is “some limited data that treatment improves maternal outcomes, and we’re still working on trying to get better data and more solid recommendations,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. There currently are no guidelines covering the diagnosis and management of OSA during pregnancy.

“We’ve come a long way ... but we still have more to do,” she said. “We have a long way to go to getting [OSA in pregnant women] well recognized, with screening techniques and diagnosis.”

Asked after the meeting about Dr. D’Ambrosio’s messages, Anita Rajagopal, MD, said that OSA screening during pregnancy needs to be improved through more collaboration “with our ob.gyn. and primary care colleagues.”

Too often, she said, “the signs and symptoms of OSA in pregnancy are written off as ‘just harmless snoring’ while in fact the patient has treatable sleep disordered breathing with potential adverse effects.” Dr. Rajagopal is department medical director for sleep medicine at Community Physician Network and medical director of the Community Health Network Sleep-Wake Disorders Center, both in Indianapolis.

Dr. D’Ambrosio reported that she has no potential conflicts of interest related to the material she presented, and Dr. Rajagopal stated she has no potential conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women who have even mild sleep apnea should be treated for their sleep-disordered breathing given what is known about associated risks for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and gestational diabetes, Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MS, MD, FCCP, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“This is the current standard of care,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Although guidelines on this issue are not hard and fast, I’d say that knowing what we know about the risk of adverse [maternal] outcomes, we should all try to treat these problems as soon as they’re identified” and then repeat polysomnography or home sleep testing 3-6 months post partum to “be sure the sleep-disordered breathing has resolved.”

Estimates of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) prevalence range from approximately 9% in the first trimester to 20% in the third trimester. Yet recognizing the significance of OSA in pregnant women and identifying women for testing remains a major challenge. “Most women won’t [report sleep problems] because it’s pretty much common folklore that you don’t sleep well when you’re pregnant,” said Dr. D’Ambrosio, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and current past-chair of the Women’s Lung Health Network for CHEST.

Many obstetricians and obstetrics providers, meanwhile, do not adequately screen. Typical screening tools like the Epworth Sleepiness Scale have low sensitivity and specificity during pregnancy, which means that inquiries about sleepiness, snoring, and disruptions in sleep are important, as is attention to potential risks for OSA posed by obesity, chronic hypertension, and neck circumference.

Only about a quarter of women in the United States snore during pregnancy, she noted. Snoring prevalence does increase as pregnancy progresses, reaching up to almost 50% in during the third trimester in some studies.

A four-variable screening tool reported almost 10 years ago for pregnant women is reliable for gauging risk, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. The model considers self-reported frequent snoring (more than three times/week), chronic hypertension, advanced maternal age, and a pregestational body mass index of at least 30 kg/m². “If these [factors] are present, the patient is at significant risk for OSA and should be strongly considered for testing,” she said.

Home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) is validated for pregnant women but “it can underestimate,” she said. “If you get a negative result and [have clinical suspicion], then don’t stop there.”

And considering that the prevalence of OSA – at all levels of severity – increases as pregnancy progresses, it’s important to continue talking about sleep with patients who have frequent snoring, for instance, but negative sleep test results early in pregnancy. “They could develop [OSA] as time goes on,” she said.
 

Associated risk factors

Independent associations between sleep-disordered breathing and adverse maternal outcomes were demonstrated in a prospective cohort study published several years ago of 3,705 women who underwent HSAT in early and mid-pregnancy. The adjusted odds ratios for preeclampsia when sleep-disordered breathing (an apnea-hypopnea index of ≥5) was present early in pregnancy and in mid-pregnancy were 1.94 and 1.95, respectively.

For hypertensive disorders of pregnancy more broadly, the ORs were 1.46 and 1.73, and for gestational diabetes, the ORs were 3.47 and 2.79.

“Faced with the question about why it’s important to diagnosis and treat OSA [during pregnancy] since the pregnancy will be over in a few months, I go to this study,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Waiting until the end of pregnancy is not safe. There are increased risks of very serious conditions if sleep apnea is there and it’s not treated.”

Another study demonstrating a link between OSA and maternal outcomes looked over 1.5 million deliveries in the United States and found a significantly higher prevalence of gestational diabetes (OR, 2.08), gestational hypertension (OR, 1.77), preeclampsia (OR, 2.07), and eclampsia (OR, 2.70) in pregnant women with OSA than without, after adjusting for maternal obesity. Associations remained significant after adjusting for a more comprehensive list of covariates.

Multiple potential casual pathways are at play, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. Short sleep duration decreases leptin and increases ghrelin levels, for instance, and sleep fragmentation activates the HPA axis and increases cortisol. Intermittent hypoxemia affects sympathetic activity, and intrathoracic pressure swings cause increased oxidative stress and systemic inflammation.

The resulting endothelial dysfunction, glucose dysfunction, and dyslipidemia can drive the adverse maternal outcomes documented in these studies, she said, noting that the adverse outcomes can have long-term cardiovascular consequences.

Continuous positive airway pressure therapy is well tolerated in pregnancy, and given pregnancy’s continual weight change, auto-titrating CPAP may be the best option, she said.

There is “some limited data that treatment improves maternal outcomes, and we’re still working on trying to get better data and more solid recommendations,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. There currently are no guidelines covering the diagnosis and management of OSA during pregnancy.

“We’ve come a long way ... but we still have more to do,” she said. “We have a long way to go to getting [OSA in pregnant women] well recognized, with screening techniques and diagnosis.”

Asked after the meeting about Dr. D’Ambrosio’s messages, Anita Rajagopal, MD, said that OSA screening during pregnancy needs to be improved through more collaboration “with our ob.gyn. and primary care colleagues.”

Too often, she said, “the signs and symptoms of OSA in pregnancy are written off as ‘just harmless snoring’ while in fact the patient has treatable sleep disordered breathing with potential adverse effects.” Dr. Rajagopal is department medical director for sleep medicine at Community Physician Network and medical director of the Community Health Network Sleep-Wake Disorders Center, both in Indianapolis.

Dr. D’Ambrosio reported that she has no potential conflicts of interest related to the material she presented, and Dr. Rajagopal stated she has no potential conflicts of interest.

The contraceptive needs of women who have had in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies are real but are being overlooked, according to study data presented at the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists (RCOG) Virtual World Congress 2021.

The interview-based study found that women report not being routinely informed about the chance of spontaneous pregnancy after IVF. “There is scope to follow-up with women after IVF … but information about the chances of spontaneous births and need for contraception isn’t given,” said lead researcher Annette Thwaites, MD, an academic clinical fellow and a senior registrar in Community Sexual and Reproductive Health at Kings College Hospital, London.

“Fertility services, maternity services, and community services could all do more to give women information on contraception postnatally,” Dr. Thwaites said.

“Even if a woman has had IVF previously, a woman shouldn’t lose the right to plan the rest of her family,” she added. “We need to stop shielding these women from the information they really do need.”

Dr. Thwaites first came across the issue around contraception after IVF pregnancy while talking to new mothers in a postnatal ward for another study. Ward staff told her not to enter the rooms with women who had had IVF births, with the implication that these women would not need or want contraception.

With this in mind, Dr. Thwaites and colleagues aimed to better understand the contraceptive needs of women after successful IVF pregnancy to improve service delivery and prevent unplanned and rapid-repeat pregnancies after IVF.

The researchers interviewed 21 women who had spontaneous pregnancies after successful IVF. Participants were aged 35-50 years, the majority were White, British, professional, married for at least 10 years, and living in nuclear families.

Of the spontaneous post-IVF pregnancies in these women, outcomes included single (11) and multiple live births (1 twin), miscarriage (1), ectopic (1) termination of pregnancy (1), and three ongoing pregnancies.  

After IVF pregnancy, most women said that they used no contraception or ineffective contraception and had never had a conversation around contraception after IVF.

The women also reported that spontaneous pregnancy was shocking and not universally welcomed, and interpregnancy intervals were often short.

In addition, comments by these women suggested certain aspects of the IVF experience reinforced their perceptions of subfertility. One is quoted as saying, “It seemed to be this big failure if you were having IVF.” Another said, “It’s bad enough that I’m having to conceive my baby like this.”
 

An unmet need

In her 30 years of practice, Melanie Davies, MD, has seen many women who experience natural pregnancy after IVF. She agrees it is important to address these women’s contraceptive needs but stresses that it needs to be approached carefully.

“It can stir up sensitivities to discuss this issue after having an IVF pregnancy,” said Dr. Davies, a consultant obstetrician and gynecologist at University College London Hospitals, London. “I think many women genuinely think that contraception after IVF just doesn’t apply, but lots of women do have natural pregnancies after IVF. I think women do need this information, but we need to be aware of the sensitivities around this issue, so the way we deliver it is crucial.”

Gwenda Burns, chief executive of the National Patient Charity Fertility Network UK, which supports people before, during, and after fertility treatment, agrees that the process leading up to a successful IVF birth can have lasting effects.

“Fertility struggles and going through fertility treatment can put an enormous strain on both physical and mental health and can have a long-lasting impact,” Ms. Burns said when asked to comment on the new study.

“It is vital that patients receive the right support, guidance, and advice following treatment, including when natural conception may still be possible,” Ms. Burns continued.
 

Growing population

Given the increasing use of IVF in recent years, Dr. Thwaites said the importance of understanding and meeting the contraceptive needs of women post-IVF is increasingly important. Also, people are turning to it earlier and for other reasons, such as women in same sex relationships, single women, pre-implantation genetic testing, and surrogates.

“During the recruitment process for the current study, I came across women who said since their IVF pregnancies they had no idea what they should do about contraception,” Dr. Thwaites said.

But she empathizes with health care professionals too. “I genuinely feel that health care professionals just don’t know how to advise women in this setting, so they avoid the topic of contraception altogether with these women. They are concerned about making women feel awkward or upsetting them. In my experience, there is very little said about IVF and contraception in the same breath.”
 

Women believe subfertility always persists after IVF

Among participants in the study, the causes of the women’s subfertility were wide-ranging and included tubal, anovulatory, male factor, joint, and unexplained, the latter of which affects 25% of couples with fertility issues. In the cohort, women had taken up to 9 years to conceive their first child and one had a donor egg conception.

After IVF, the chance of pregnancy will depend on the reason for the couple’s subfertility. “Given that a huge number of patients these days have unexplained subfertility. This is when there is no absolute cause of infertility identified, and it might not prevent a pregnancy but slows it down,” Dr. Davies said in an interview. “Such couples still have a chance of natural pregnancy.”

Polycystic ovary syndrome as a cause of subfertility is often associated with improvement in fertility after IVF, Dr. Davies noted. “This can improve after a spontaneous pregnancy or after IVF, even if the IVF is not a success, and this is possibly due to needling the ovary.”

Dr. Thwaites added that challenging women’s perceptions of their subfertility is critical if headway is to be made on this topic. Many women have persistent views concerning their subfertility after successful IVF, which may be rooted in previous failed treatment; need for repeat cycles or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI); low numbers of eggs collected; poor quality embryos; and pregnancy complications, to note some of the most common reasons.

“So many [women] feel that they are very lucky to have had a pregnancy because their journey has been difficult. They might have had a successful pregnancy, but they still hold a sense of personal failure,” said Dr. Thwaites. “Even after spontaneous pregnancy some women said it was a miracle or freak event. [Yet two of these] women had two spontaneous pregnancies.”

Remarkably, even after subsequent spontaneous pregnancy, use of contraception and the most effective methods remained low among participants.

As well as fixed beliefs concerning their subfertility, other barriers to contraception use included a lack of knowledge of likelihood of spontaneous pregnancy; lack of contraceptive experience; and inherent incentives towards shorter interpregnancy intervals (e.g., the convenience and privacy of undergoing further IVF while still on maternity leave and availability of frozen embryos).

Looking ahead, Dr. Thwaites says there is a clear need to link and/or expand the maternity services dataset to uncover the true rates of post-IVF spontaneous pregnancy.

Dr. Thwaites and Dr. Davies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The contraceptive needs of women who have had in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies are real but are being overlooked, according to study data presented at the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists (RCOG) Virtual World Congress 2021.

The interview-based study found that women report not being routinely informed about the chance of spontaneous pregnancy after IVF. “There is scope to follow-up with women after IVF … but information about the chances of spontaneous births and need for contraception isn’t given,” said lead researcher Annette Thwaites, MD, an academic clinical fellow and a senior registrar in Community Sexual and Reproductive Health at Kings College Hospital, London.

“Fertility services, maternity services, and community services could all do more to give women information on contraception postnatally,” Dr. Thwaites said.

“Even if a woman has had IVF previously, a woman shouldn’t lose the right to plan the rest of her family,” she added. “We need to stop shielding these women from the information they really do need.”

Dr. Thwaites first came across the issue around contraception after IVF pregnancy while talking to new mothers in a postnatal ward for another study. Ward staff told her not to enter the rooms with women who had had IVF births, with the implication that these women would not need or want contraception.

With this in mind, Dr. Thwaites and colleagues aimed to better understand the contraceptive needs of women after successful IVF pregnancy to improve service delivery and prevent unplanned and rapid-repeat pregnancies after IVF.

The researchers interviewed 21 women who had spontaneous pregnancies after successful IVF. Participants were aged 35-50 years, the majority were White, British, professional, married for at least 10 years, and living in nuclear families.

Of the spontaneous post-IVF pregnancies in these women, outcomes included single (11) and multiple live births (1 twin), miscarriage (1), ectopic (1) termination of pregnancy (1), and three ongoing pregnancies.  

After IVF pregnancy, most women said that they used no contraception or ineffective contraception and had never had a conversation around contraception after IVF.

The women also reported that spontaneous pregnancy was shocking and not universally welcomed, and interpregnancy intervals were often short.

In addition, comments by these women suggested certain aspects of the IVF experience reinforced their perceptions of subfertility. One is quoted as saying, “It seemed to be this big failure if you were having IVF.” Another said, “It’s bad enough that I’m having to conceive my baby like this.”
 

An unmet need

In her 30 years of practice, Melanie Davies, MD, has seen many women who experience natural pregnancy after IVF. She agrees it is important to address these women’s contraceptive needs but stresses that it needs to be approached carefully.

“It can stir up sensitivities to discuss this issue after having an IVF pregnancy,” said Dr. Davies, a consultant obstetrician and gynecologist at University College London Hospitals, London. “I think many women genuinely think that contraception after IVF just doesn’t apply, but lots of women do have natural pregnancies after IVF. I think women do need this information, but we need to be aware of the sensitivities around this issue, so the way we deliver it is crucial.”

Gwenda Burns, chief executive of the National Patient Charity Fertility Network UK, which supports people before, during, and after fertility treatment, agrees that the process leading up to a successful IVF birth can have lasting effects.

“Fertility struggles and going through fertility treatment can put an enormous strain on both physical and mental health and can have a long-lasting impact,” Ms. Burns said when asked to comment on the new study.

“It is vital that patients receive the right support, guidance, and advice following treatment, including when natural conception may still be possible,” Ms. Burns continued.
 

Growing population

Given the increasing use of IVF in recent years, Dr. Thwaites said the importance of understanding and meeting the contraceptive needs of women post-IVF is increasingly important. Also, people are turning to it earlier and for other reasons, such as women in same sex relationships, single women, pre-implantation genetic testing, and surrogates.

“During the recruitment process for the current study, I came across women who said since their IVF pregnancies they had no idea what they should do about contraception,” Dr. Thwaites said.

But she empathizes with health care professionals too. “I genuinely feel that health care professionals just don’t know how to advise women in this setting, so they avoid the topic of contraception altogether with these women. They are concerned about making women feel awkward or upsetting them. In my experience, there is very little said about IVF and contraception in the same breath.”
 

Women believe subfertility always persists after IVF

Among participants in the study, the causes of the women’s subfertility were wide-ranging and included tubal, anovulatory, male factor, joint, and unexplained, the latter of which affects 25% of couples with fertility issues. In the cohort, women had taken up to 9 years to conceive their first child and one had a donor egg conception.

After IVF, the chance of pregnancy will depend on the reason for the couple’s subfertility. “Given that a huge number of patients these days have unexplained subfertility. This is when there is no absolute cause of infertility identified, and it might not prevent a pregnancy but slows it down,” Dr. Davies said in an interview. “Such couples still have a chance of natural pregnancy.”

Polycystic ovary syndrome as a cause of subfertility is often associated with improvement in fertility after IVF, Dr. Davies noted. “This can improve after a spontaneous pregnancy or after IVF, even if the IVF is not a success, and this is possibly due to needling the ovary.”

Dr. Thwaites added that challenging women’s perceptions of their subfertility is critical if headway is to be made on this topic. Many women have persistent views concerning their subfertility after successful IVF, which may be rooted in previous failed treatment; need for repeat cycles or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI); low numbers of eggs collected; poor quality embryos; and pregnancy complications, to note some of the most common reasons.

“So many [women] feel that they are very lucky to have had a pregnancy because their journey has been difficult. They might have had a successful pregnancy, but they still hold a sense of personal failure,” said Dr. Thwaites. “Even after spontaneous pregnancy some women said it was a miracle or freak event. [Yet two of these] women had two spontaneous pregnancies.”

Remarkably, even after subsequent spontaneous pregnancy, use of contraception and the most effective methods remained low among participants.

As well as fixed beliefs concerning their subfertility, other barriers to contraception use included a lack of knowledge of likelihood of spontaneous pregnancy; lack of contraceptive experience; and inherent incentives towards shorter interpregnancy intervals (e.g., the convenience and privacy of undergoing further IVF while still on maternity leave and availability of frozen embryos).

Looking ahead, Dr. Thwaites says there is a clear need to link and/or expand the maternity services dataset to uncover the true rates of post-IVF spontaneous pregnancy.

Dr. Thwaites and Dr. Davies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The contraceptive needs of women who have had in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies are real but are being overlooked, according to study data presented at the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists (RCOG) Virtual World Congress 2021.

The interview-based study found that women report not being routinely informed about the chance of spontaneous pregnancy after IVF. “There is scope to follow-up with women after IVF … but information about the chances of spontaneous births and need for contraception isn’t given,” said lead researcher Annette Thwaites, MD, an academic clinical fellow and a senior registrar in Community Sexual and Reproductive Health at Kings College Hospital, London.

“Fertility services, maternity services, and community services could all do more to give women information on contraception postnatally,” Dr. Thwaites said.

“Even if a woman has had IVF previously, a woman shouldn’t lose the right to plan the rest of her family,” she added. “We need to stop shielding these women from the information they really do need.”

Dr. Thwaites first came across the issue around contraception after IVF pregnancy while talking to new mothers in a postnatal ward for another study. Ward staff told her not to enter the rooms with women who had had IVF births, with the implication that these women would not need or want contraception.

With this in mind, Dr. Thwaites and colleagues aimed to better understand the contraceptive needs of women after successful IVF pregnancy to improve service delivery and prevent unplanned and rapid-repeat pregnancies after IVF.

The researchers interviewed 21 women who had spontaneous pregnancies after successful IVF. Participants were aged 35-50 years, the majority were White, British, professional, married for at least 10 years, and living in nuclear families.

Of the spontaneous post-IVF pregnancies in these women, outcomes included single (11) and multiple live births (1 twin), miscarriage (1), ectopic (1) termination of pregnancy (1), and three ongoing pregnancies.  

After IVF pregnancy, most women said that they used no contraception or ineffective contraception and had never had a conversation around contraception after IVF.

The women also reported that spontaneous pregnancy was shocking and not universally welcomed, and interpregnancy intervals were often short.

In addition, comments by these women suggested certain aspects of the IVF experience reinforced their perceptions of subfertility. One is quoted as saying, “It seemed to be this big failure if you were having IVF.” Another said, “It’s bad enough that I’m having to conceive my baby like this.”
 

An unmet need

In her 30 years of practice, Melanie Davies, MD, has seen many women who experience natural pregnancy after IVF. She agrees it is important to address these women’s contraceptive needs but stresses that it needs to be approached carefully.

“It can stir up sensitivities to discuss this issue after having an IVF pregnancy,” said Dr. Davies, a consultant obstetrician and gynecologist at University College London Hospitals, London. “I think many women genuinely think that contraception after IVF just doesn’t apply, but lots of women do have natural pregnancies after IVF. I think women do need this information, but we need to be aware of the sensitivities around this issue, so the way we deliver it is crucial.”

Gwenda Burns, chief executive of the National Patient Charity Fertility Network UK, which supports people before, during, and after fertility treatment, agrees that the process leading up to a successful IVF birth can have lasting effects.

“Fertility struggles and going through fertility treatment can put an enormous strain on both physical and mental health and can have a long-lasting impact,” Ms. Burns said when asked to comment on the new study.

“It is vital that patients receive the right support, guidance, and advice following treatment, including when natural conception may still be possible,” Ms. Burns continued.
 

Growing population

Given the increasing use of IVF in recent years, Dr. Thwaites said the importance of understanding and meeting the contraceptive needs of women post-IVF is increasingly important. Also, people are turning to it earlier and for other reasons, such as women in same sex relationships, single women, pre-implantation genetic testing, and surrogates.

“During the recruitment process for the current study, I came across women who said since their IVF pregnancies they had no idea what they should do about contraception,” Dr. Thwaites said.

But she empathizes with health care professionals too. “I genuinely feel that health care professionals just don’t know how to advise women in this setting, so they avoid the topic of contraception altogether with these women. They are concerned about making women feel awkward or upsetting them. In my experience, there is very little said about IVF and contraception in the same breath.”
 

Women believe subfertility always persists after IVF

Among participants in the study, the causes of the women’s subfertility were wide-ranging and included tubal, anovulatory, male factor, joint, and unexplained, the latter of which affects 25% of couples with fertility issues. In the cohort, women had taken up to 9 years to conceive their first child and one had a donor egg conception.

After IVF, the chance of pregnancy will depend on the reason for the couple’s subfertility. “Given that a huge number of patients these days have unexplained subfertility. This is when there is no absolute cause of infertility identified, and it might not prevent a pregnancy but slows it down,” Dr. Davies said in an interview. “Such couples still have a chance of natural pregnancy.”

Polycystic ovary syndrome as a cause of subfertility is often associated with improvement in fertility after IVF, Dr. Davies noted. “This can improve after a spontaneous pregnancy or after IVF, even if the IVF is not a success, and this is possibly due to needling the ovary.”

Dr. Thwaites added that challenging women’s perceptions of their subfertility is critical if headway is to be made on this topic. Many women have persistent views concerning their subfertility after successful IVF, which may be rooted in previous failed treatment; need for repeat cycles or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI); low numbers of eggs collected; poor quality embryos; and pregnancy complications, to note some of the most common reasons.

“So many [women] feel that they are very lucky to have had a pregnancy because their journey has been difficult. They might have had a successful pregnancy, but they still hold a sense of personal failure,” said Dr. Thwaites. “Even after spontaneous pregnancy some women said it was a miracle or freak event. [Yet two of these] women had two spontaneous pregnancies.”

Remarkably, even after subsequent spontaneous pregnancy, use of contraception and the most effective methods remained low among participants.

As well as fixed beliefs concerning their subfertility, other barriers to contraception use included a lack of knowledge of likelihood of spontaneous pregnancy; lack of contraceptive experience; and inherent incentives towards shorter interpregnancy intervals (e.g., the convenience and privacy of undergoing further IVF while still on maternity leave and availability of frozen embryos).

Looking ahead, Dr. Thwaites says there is a clear need to link and/or expand the maternity services dataset to uncover the true rates of post-IVF spontaneous pregnancy.

Dr. Thwaites and Dr. Davies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

OBSTETRIC ANAL SPHINCTER INJURY: PREVENTION AND REPAIR 

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; MAY 2021)

Experience with warm perineal compresses and massage

I have been a midwife for 45 years. I have used warm compresses on the perineum my whole career. I don't need data to tell me it provides comfort. My patients do. 
I don't do much massage of the perineum, only slightly while applying K-Y or another water-soluble gel. 

A slow, controlled extension of the vertex and healthy tissue is the best way to prevent tears. 

Karen Parker, MN, CNM 

Ashland, Oregon 

Dr. Barbieri responds 

I thank Ms. Parker for her clinical recommendation: "Yes to warm compresses" and "Massage of the perineum?" Not so much. 

Continue to: CESAREAN MYOMECTOMY...

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; FEBRUARY 2021) 

Timely comments on cesarean myomectomy 

Dr. Barbieri's editorial on cesarean myomectomy is very timely, especially the quote from Dr. K.S.J. Olah: "The berating I received was severe and disproportionate to the crime. The rule was that myomectomy performed at cesarean section was not just frowned upon but expressly forbidden." 

I had a very similar experience with panniculectomy and "tummy tuck" as a part of cesarean delivery (CD). Traditionally, a combination of a CD with any other surgical procedures (myomectomy, abdominoplasty, and so on) has not been accepted in the obstetric community. The main reason for such an opinion has been the unfounded fear of complications of combined procedures, including but not limited to infection, hematomas, and poor wound healing. None of these concerns have been supported by studies. Obvious advantages of combining a CD with other surgical procedures, including abdominoplasty, are obvious: the elimination of a second anesthesia, increased patient satisfaction, and no need for a second surgery. 

We reviewed the outcomes in 52 patients who underwent a combination of CD with other procedures (such as panniculectomy, abdominoplasty, hernia repairs, myomectomies, and ovarian biopsies). The postsurgical outcomes included in the analysis were postsurgical fever and the presence of seromas, hematomas, and wound dehiscence.¹ Twelve of our own patients had a panniculectomy during CD performed by a plastic surgeon. While the preoperative complications of panniculectomy may have been well described, there is a paucity of data in women who underwent the cosmetic procedure at the time of CD. We concluded that the performance of a panniculectomy and tummy tuck as part of a CD does not appear to increase surgical complications in patients with a high body mass index. Our preliminary results and call for further studies were received at the American College of Surgeons 2017 meeting in San Diego.² 

Boris Petrikovsky, MD, PhD 

Sunny Island Beach, Florida 

References 

1. Petrikovsky BM, Swancoat S, Zharov EV. Safety of panniculectomy during cesarean section: a prospective, non-randomized study. J Reprod Med. 2019;64:197-200. 
2. Petrikovsky BM. Is the combination of panniculectomy and cesarean section safe? Scientific Poster Presentation-Obstetrics and Gynecology. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225(4 suppl 2):E130. 

Dr. Barbieri responds 

I agree with Dr. Petrikovsky that advances in the field of obstetrical surgery have been inhibited by a tendency to criticize innovation. Less than 40 years ago, leaders in gynecology did not initially accept the application of minimally invasive gynecology surgical techniques to common gyn procedures including hysterectomy. Every surgical field is rapidly innovating. Obstetrical surgeons should be encouraged to pursue new approaches, as you are doing. We wish you success in your pioneering work. 

Continue to: A CASE OF BV...

A CASE OF BV DURING PREGNANCY: BEST MANAGEMENT APPROACH 

CALLIE FOX REEDER, MD, AND PATRICK DUFF, MD (ID CONSULT; FEBRUARY 2021) 

Secnidazole for treatment of BV 

The article by Drs. Reeder and Duff incorrectly states that there are no single-dose therapeutic options for bacterial vaginosis (BV) in the United States. Secnidazole 2 g single oral dose was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017, and it is now included in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) clinical management guidelines for the treatment of BV in nonpregnant patients. 

Secnidazole is not contraindicated in pregnancy. In a poster presented at the 2020 ACOG annual clinical meeting, we summarized results of the preclinical studies that were part of the FDA submission.¹ There was no evidence of secnidazole toxicity in fertility and pre- and postnatal reproductive toxicology studies. In addition, there were no adverse developmental outcomes when secnidazole was administered orally to pregnant rats and rabbits during organogenesis at doses up to 4 times the clinical dose. These findings are consistent with the observation that no other preclinical studies, or experience from postmarketing use of secnidazole for approved indications, have suggested a risk of adverse effects when using secnidazole in pregnancy. 

Steven E. Chavoustie, MD 

North Miami, Florida 

Reference 

1. Pentikis H, Eder S, Kaufman G, Chavoustie S. Secnidazole, an approved single dose drug for bacterial vaginosis, does not cause reproductive toxicity in animals [16A]. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:12S. 

Drs. Reeder and Duff respond 

We are very appreciative of Dr. Chavoustie's interest in our article and for his thoughtful assessment of the role of single-dose secnidazole for the treatment of BV. As we noted in our article, this drug has been used extensively in Europe and Asia, but there is much less published experience with the drug in the United States. We pointed out the excellent results reported by Hillier and colleagues with 1-g and 2-g doses of this medication.¹ Dr. Chavoustie is correct in stating that there is no risk of fetal harm based on animal data at up to 4 times the recommended human dose, although the manufacturer recommends discontinuing breastfeeding during, and for 96 hours after, treatment. According to www.goodrx.com, the cost of a single 2-g dose of secnidazole is $325; the cost of a 7-day course of metronidazole is approximately $16. 

Reference 

1. Hillier SL, Nyirjesy P, Waldbaum AS, et al. Secnidazole treatment of bacterial vaginosis: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:379-386. 

Continue to: OPTIMIZING THE USE OF...

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; JANUARY 2021) 

Vigilant labor progress aids in oxytocin optimization 

I read with particular interest Dr. Barbieri's editorial on optimizing oxytocin infusion. This topic is relevant for my practice as I am the kind of physician described and I usually get upset when the oxytocin is not managed as I ordered. 

In my opinion, several things need clarification. On our unit, the most significant point of controversy is the definition of tachysystole, mainly when we are using a tocodynamometer and not an internal transducer. 

I contend that it is quite challenging to ascertain the effectiveness of any given labor pattern based only on the number of contractions. Although we joke about "pit to distress," the truth is that contractions need to be "effective," which to me means strong enough to induce cervical changes. 

In my clinical practice, with a tocodynamometer, having 5 contractions that do not produce cervical changes (unless associated with abnormalities of the fetal heart rate tracing) is not a clinically relevant finding as we do not have a way to gauge the strength of such contractions. 

I usually employ a mid-range oxytocin protocol, starting at 4 mU per minute and increasing by 4 mU every 20 minutes. Through 30 years of practicing obstetrics, I have found that this protocol renders excellent results in achieving an efficient labor pattern without jeopardizing fetal well-being. 

On learning about oxytocin's pharmacokinetics, I still support Dr. Rhonda L. Perry and her colleagues' conclusion that, until we learn better about this aspect of oxytocin pharmacology, each woman is her own bioassay.¹ Furthermore, we see this in our daily practice: some patients go into full efficient labor with oxytocin at 4 mU per minute while others at 30 mU per minute do zilch. 

Based on the above, I think that optimization requires close vigilance of the labor and the fetal status at any given time, not determining an oxytocin rate of infusion or dosage. 
We should be observant on evaluating labor progress, and we should not hesitate to use internal pressure catheters when needed to obtain a more accurate evaluation of the labor pattern. 

By examining the patient's labor progress at regular intervals, we also optimize the oxytocin infusion by determining if the infusion is producing the expected cervical changes. 

Tomas Hernandez-Mejia, MD 

Pasco, Washington 

Reference
 
1. Perry RL, Satin AJ, Barth WH, et al. The pharmacokinetics of oxytocin as they apply to labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:1590-1593. 

Dr. Barbieri responds 

I thank Dr. Tomas Hernandez-Mejia for sharing his expertise in utilizing a higher dose of oxytocin to optimize labor and birth. Dr. Hernandez-Mejia's view is supported by the recent publication of a high-quality clinical trial showing that a high-dose oxytocin protocol (initial and incremental rate of 6 mIU/min) did not cause an increase in adverse perinatal outcomes compared with a standard-dose protocol (initial and incremental rate of 2 mIU/min) but slightly shortened the duration of labor.¹ Based on this clinical trial, my conclusion is that the high-dose protocol, if appropriately monitored for excess uterine contractions and fetal heart rate pattern, is safe. 

Reference 

1. Son M, Roy A, Stetson BT, et al. High-dose compared with standard-dose oxytocin regimens to augment labor in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137:991-998. 

Continue to: PREGNANCY OF UNKNOWN...

IRIS G. INSOGNA, MD, AND PAULA C. BRADY, MD (AUGUST 2020) 

I would like to thank Dr. Iris Insogna and Dr. Paula Brady for their very informative article on pregnancy of unknown location. However, please allow me to make a suggestion that will clarify terminology for all practicing ObGyns. 

The medical literature uses the terms cornual pregnancy and interstitial pregnancy interchangeably, although they are actually very different conditions and have significant different implications. Clinicians are often confused about which is an intrauterine pregnancy and which is a true ectopic pregnancy. This confusion was addressed in a 2006 article in Fertility and Sterility, which explains that a cornual pregnancy refers to the implantation and development of a gestation in one of the upper and lateral portions of the uterus.¹ This may occur in a rudimentary horn or in one horn of a septate or bicornuate uterus. Conversely, an interstitial pregnancy is a gestation that implants within the proximal, intramural portion of the fallopian tube that is enveloped by myometrium. Therefore, a cornual pregnancy is actually an intrauterine pregnancy, whereas an interstitial pregnancy is a true ectopic pregnancy. 

I hope that all clinicians will read the article in Fertility and Sterility and adopt this terminology to avoid future confusion and misunderstandings. 

Alan D. Rosen, MD 

Houston, Texas 

Reference 

1. Malinowski A, Bates SK. Semantics and pitfalls in the diagnosis of cornual/interstitial pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:1764.e11-1764.e14.

OBSTETRIC ANAL SPHINCTER INJURY: PREVENTION AND REPAIR 

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; MAY 2021)

Experience with warm perineal compresses and massage

I have been a midwife for 45 years. I have used warm compresses on the perineum my whole career. I don't need data to tell me it provides comfort. My patients do. 
I don't do much massage of the perineum, only slightly while applying K-Y or another water-soluble gel. 

A slow, controlled extension of the vertex and healthy tissue is the best way to prevent tears. 

Karen Parker, MN, CNM 

Ashland, Oregon 

Dr. Barbieri responds 

I thank Ms. Parker for her clinical recommendation: "Yes to warm compresses" and "Massage of the perineum?" Not so much. 

Continue to: CESAREAN MYOMECTOMY...

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; FEBRUARY 2021) 

Timely comments on cesarean myomectomy 

Dr. Barbieri's editorial on cesarean myomectomy is very timely, especially the quote from Dr. K.S.J. Olah: "The berating I received was severe and disproportionate to the crime. The rule was that myomectomy performed at cesarean section was not just frowned upon but expressly forbidden." 

I had a very similar experience with panniculectomy and "tummy tuck" as a part of cesarean delivery (CD). Traditionally, a combination of a CD with any other surgical procedures (myomectomy, abdominoplasty, and so on) has not been accepted in the obstetric community. The main reason for such an opinion has been the unfounded fear of complications of combined procedures, including but not limited to infection, hematomas, and poor wound healing. None of these concerns have been supported by studies. Obvious advantages of combining a CD with other surgical procedures, including abdominoplasty, are obvious: the elimination of a second anesthesia, increased patient satisfaction, and no need for a second surgery. 

We reviewed the outcomes in 52 patients who underwent a combination of CD with other procedures (such as panniculectomy, abdominoplasty, hernia repairs, myomectomies, and ovarian biopsies). The postsurgical outcomes included in the analysis were postsurgical fever and the presence of seromas, hematomas, and wound dehiscence.¹ Twelve of our own patients had a panniculectomy during CD performed by a plastic surgeon. While the preoperative complications of panniculectomy may have been well described, there is a paucity of data in women who underwent the cosmetic procedure at the time of CD. We concluded that the performance of a panniculectomy and tummy tuck as part of a CD does not appear to increase surgical complications in patients with a high body mass index. Our preliminary results and call for further studies were received at the American College of Surgeons 2017 meeting in San Diego.² 

Boris Petrikovsky, MD, PhD 

Sunny Island Beach, Florida 

References 

1. Petrikovsky BM, Swancoat S, Zharov EV. Safety of panniculectomy during cesarean section: a prospective, non-randomized study. J Reprod Med. 2019;64:197-200. 
2. Petrikovsky BM. Is the combination of panniculectomy and cesarean section safe? Scientific Poster Presentation-Obstetrics and Gynecology. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225(4 suppl 2):E130. 

Dr. Barbieri responds 

I agree with Dr. Petrikovsky that advances in the field of obstetrical surgery have been inhibited by a tendency to criticize innovation. Less than 40 years ago, leaders in gynecology did not initially accept the application of minimally invasive gynecology surgical techniques to common gyn procedures including hysterectomy. Every surgical field is rapidly innovating. Obstetrical surgeons should be encouraged to pursue new approaches, as you are doing. We wish you success in your pioneering work. 

Continue to: A CASE OF BV...

A CASE OF BV DURING PREGNANCY: BEST MANAGEMENT APPROACH 

CALLIE FOX REEDER, MD, AND PATRICK DUFF, MD (ID CONSULT; FEBRUARY 2021) 

Secnidazole for treatment of BV 

The article by Drs. Reeder and Duff incorrectly states that there are no single-dose therapeutic options for bacterial vaginosis (BV) in the United States. Secnidazole 2 g single oral dose was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017, and it is now included in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) clinical management guidelines for the treatment of BV in nonpregnant patients. 

Secnidazole is not contraindicated in pregnancy. In a poster presented at the 2020 ACOG annual clinical meeting, we summarized results of the preclinical studies that were part of the FDA submission.¹ There was no evidence of secnidazole toxicity in fertility and pre- and postnatal reproductive toxicology studies. In addition, there were no adverse developmental outcomes when secnidazole was administered orally to pregnant rats and rabbits during organogenesis at doses up to 4 times the clinical dose. These findings are consistent with the observation that no other preclinical studies, or experience from postmarketing use of secnidazole for approved indications, have suggested a risk of adverse effects when using secnidazole in pregnancy. 

Steven E. Chavoustie, MD 

North Miami, Florida 

Reference 

1. Pentikis H, Eder S, Kaufman G, Chavoustie S. Secnidazole, an approved single dose drug for bacterial vaginosis, does not cause reproductive toxicity in animals [16A]. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:12S. 

Drs. Reeder and Duff respond 

We are very appreciative of Dr. Chavoustie's interest in our article and for his thoughtful assessment of the role of single-dose secnidazole for the treatment of BV. As we noted in our article, this drug has been used extensively in Europe and Asia, but there is much less published experience with the drug in the United States. We pointed out the excellent results reported by Hillier and colleagues with 1-g and 2-g doses of this medication.¹ Dr. Chavoustie is correct in stating that there is no risk of fetal harm based on animal data at up to 4 times the recommended human dose, although the manufacturer recommends discontinuing breastfeeding during, and for 96 hours after, treatment. According to www.goodrx.com, the cost of a single 2-g dose of secnidazole is $325; the cost of a 7-day course of metronidazole is approximately $16. 

Reference 

1. Hillier SL, Nyirjesy P, Waldbaum AS, et al. Secnidazole treatment of bacterial vaginosis: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:379-386. 

Continue to: OPTIMIZING THE USE OF...

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; JANUARY 2021) 

Vigilant labor progress aids in oxytocin optimization 

I read with particular interest Dr. Barbieri's editorial on optimizing oxytocin infusion. This topic is relevant for my practice as I am the kind of physician described and I usually get upset when the oxytocin is not managed as I ordered. 

In my opinion, several things need clarification. On our unit, the most significant point of controversy is the definition of tachysystole, mainly when we are using a tocodynamometer and not an internal transducer. 

I contend that it is quite challenging to ascertain the effectiveness of any given labor pattern based only on the number of contractions. Although we joke about "pit to distress," the truth is that contractions need to be "effective," which to me means strong enough to induce cervical changes. 

In my clinical practice, with a tocodynamometer, having 5 contractions that do not produce cervical changes (unless associated with abnormalities of the fetal heart rate tracing) is not a clinically relevant finding as we do not have a way to gauge the strength of such contractions. 

I usually employ a mid-range oxytocin protocol, starting at 4 mU per minute and increasing by 4 mU every 20 minutes. Through 30 years of practicing obstetrics, I have found that this protocol renders excellent results in achieving an efficient labor pattern without jeopardizing fetal well-being. 

On learning about oxytocin's pharmacokinetics, I still support Dr. Rhonda L. Perry and her colleagues' conclusion that, until we learn better about this aspect of oxytocin pharmacology, each woman is her own bioassay.¹ Furthermore, we see this in our daily practice: some patients go into full efficient labor with oxytocin at 4 mU per minute while others at 30 mU per minute do zilch. 

Based on the above, I think that optimization requires close vigilance of the labor and the fetal status at any given time, not determining an oxytocin rate of infusion or dosage. 
We should be observant on evaluating labor progress, and we should not hesitate to use internal pressure catheters when needed to obtain a more accurate evaluation of the labor pattern. 

By examining the patient's labor progress at regular intervals, we also optimize the oxytocin infusion by determining if the infusion is producing the expected cervical changes. 

Tomas Hernandez-Mejia, MD 

Pasco, Washington 

Reference
 
1. Perry RL, Satin AJ, Barth WH, et al. The pharmacokinetics of oxytocin as they apply to labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:1590-1593. 

Dr. Barbieri responds 

I thank Dr. Tomas Hernandez-Mejia for sharing his expertise in utilizing a higher dose of oxytocin to optimize labor and birth. Dr. Hernandez-Mejia's view is supported by the recent publication of a high-quality clinical trial showing that a high-dose oxytocin protocol (initial and incremental rate of 6 mIU/min) did not cause an increase in adverse perinatal outcomes compared with a standard-dose protocol (initial and incremental rate of 2 mIU/min) but slightly shortened the duration of labor.¹ Based on this clinical trial, my conclusion is that the high-dose protocol, if appropriately monitored for excess uterine contractions and fetal heart rate pattern, is safe. 

Reference 

1. Son M, Roy A, Stetson BT, et al. High-dose compared with standard-dose oxytocin regimens to augment labor in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137:991-998. 

Continue to: PREGNANCY OF UNKNOWN...

IRIS G. INSOGNA, MD, AND PAULA C. BRADY, MD (AUGUST 2020) 

I would like to thank Dr. Iris Insogna and Dr. Paula Brady for their very informative article on pregnancy of unknown location. However, please allow me to make a suggestion that will clarify terminology for all practicing ObGyns. 

The medical literature uses the terms cornual pregnancy and interstitial pregnancy interchangeably, although they are actually very different conditions and have significant different implications. Clinicians are often confused about which is an intrauterine pregnancy and which is a true ectopic pregnancy. This confusion was addressed in a 2006 article in Fertility and Sterility, which explains that a cornual pregnancy refers to the implantation and development of a gestation in one of the upper and lateral portions of the uterus.¹ This may occur in a rudimentary horn or in one horn of a septate or bicornuate uterus. Conversely, an interstitial pregnancy is a gestation that implants within the proximal, intramural portion of the fallopian tube that is enveloped by myometrium. Therefore, a cornual pregnancy is actually an intrauterine pregnancy, whereas an interstitial pregnancy is a true ectopic pregnancy. 

I hope that all clinicians will read the article in Fertility and Sterility and adopt this terminology to avoid future confusion and misunderstandings. 

Alan D. Rosen, MD 

Houston, Texas 

Reference 

1. Malinowski A, Bates SK. Semantics and pitfalls in the diagnosis of cornual/interstitial pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:1764.e11-1764.e14.

OBSTETRIC ANAL SPHINCTER INJURY: PREVENTION AND REPAIR 

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; MAY 2021)

Experience with warm perineal compresses and massage

I have been a midwife for 45 years. I have used warm compresses on the perineum my whole career. I don't need data to tell me it provides comfort. My patients do. 
I don't do much massage of the perineum, only slightly while applying K-Y or another water-soluble gel. 

A slow, controlled extension of the vertex and healthy tissue is the best way to prevent tears. 

Karen Parker, MN, CNM 

Ashland, Oregon 

Dr. Barbieri responds 

I thank Ms. Parker for her clinical recommendation: "Yes to warm compresses" and "Massage of the perineum?" Not so much. 

Continue to: CESAREAN MYOMECTOMY...

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; FEBRUARY 2021) 

Timely comments on cesarean myomectomy 

Dr. Barbieri's editorial on cesarean myomectomy is very timely, especially the quote from Dr. K.S.J. Olah: "The berating I received was severe and disproportionate to the crime. The rule was that myomectomy performed at cesarean section was not just frowned upon but expressly forbidden." 

I had a very similar experience with panniculectomy and "tummy tuck" as a part of cesarean delivery (CD). Traditionally, a combination of a CD with any other surgical procedures (myomectomy, abdominoplasty, and so on) has not been accepted in the obstetric community. The main reason for such an opinion has been the unfounded fear of complications of combined procedures, including but not limited to infection, hematomas, and poor wound healing. None of these concerns have been supported by studies. Obvious advantages of combining a CD with other surgical procedures, including abdominoplasty, are obvious: the elimination of a second anesthesia, increased patient satisfaction, and no need for a second surgery. 

We reviewed the outcomes in 52 patients who underwent a combination of CD with other procedures (such as panniculectomy, abdominoplasty, hernia repairs, myomectomies, and ovarian biopsies). The postsurgical outcomes included in the analysis were postsurgical fever and the presence of seromas, hematomas, and wound dehiscence.¹ Twelve of our own patients had a panniculectomy during CD performed by a plastic surgeon. While the preoperative complications of panniculectomy may have been well described, there is a paucity of data in women who underwent the cosmetic procedure at the time of CD. We concluded that the performance of a panniculectomy and tummy tuck as part of a CD does not appear to increase surgical complications in patients with a high body mass index. Our preliminary results and call for further studies were received at the American College of Surgeons 2017 meeting in San Diego.² 

Boris Petrikovsky, MD, PhD 

Sunny Island Beach, Florida 

References 

1. Petrikovsky BM, Swancoat S, Zharov EV. Safety of panniculectomy during cesarean section: a prospective, non-randomized study. J Reprod Med. 2019;64:197-200. 
2. Petrikovsky BM. Is the combination of panniculectomy and cesarean section safe? Scientific Poster Presentation-Obstetrics and Gynecology. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225(4 suppl 2):E130. 

Dr. Barbieri responds 

I agree with Dr. Petrikovsky that advances in the field of obstetrical surgery have been inhibited by a tendency to criticize innovation. Less than 40 years ago, leaders in gynecology did not initially accept the application of minimally invasive gynecology surgical techniques to common gyn procedures including hysterectomy. Every surgical field is rapidly innovating. Obstetrical surgeons should be encouraged to pursue new approaches, as you are doing. We wish you success in your pioneering work. 

Continue to: A CASE OF BV...

A CASE OF BV DURING PREGNANCY: BEST MANAGEMENT APPROACH 

CALLIE FOX REEDER, MD, AND PATRICK DUFF, MD (ID CONSULT; FEBRUARY 2021) 

Secnidazole for treatment of BV 

The article by Drs. Reeder and Duff incorrectly states that there are no single-dose therapeutic options for bacterial vaginosis (BV) in the United States. Secnidazole 2 g single oral dose was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017, and it is now included in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) clinical management guidelines for the treatment of BV in nonpregnant patients. 

Secnidazole is not contraindicated in pregnancy. In a poster presented at the 2020 ACOG annual clinical meeting, we summarized results of the preclinical studies that were part of the FDA submission.¹ There was no evidence of secnidazole toxicity in fertility and pre- and postnatal reproductive toxicology studies. In addition, there were no adverse developmental outcomes when secnidazole was administered orally to pregnant rats and rabbits during organogenesis at doses up to 4 times the clinical dose. These findings are consistent with the observation that no other preclinical studies, or experience from postmarketing use of secnidazole for approved indications, have suggested a risk of adverse effects when using secnidazole in pregnancy. 

Steven E. Chavoustie, MD 

North Miami, Florida 

Reference 

1. Pentikis H, Eder S, Kaufman G, Chavoustie S. Secnidazole, an approved single dose drug for bacterial vaginosis, does not cause reproductive toxicity in animals [16A]. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:12S. 

Drs. Reeder and Duff respond 

We are very appreciative of Dr. Chavoustie's interest in our article and for his thoughtful assessment of the role of single-dose secnidazole for the treatment of BV. As we noted in our article, this drug has been used extensively in Europe and Asia, but there is much less published experience with the drug in the United States. We pointed out the excellent results reported by Hillier and colleagues with 1-g and 2-g doses of this medication.¹ Dr. Chavoustie is correct in stating that there is no risk of fetal harm based on animal data at up to 4 times the recommended human dose, although the manufacturer recommends discontinuing breastfeeding during, and for 96 hours after, treatment. According to www.goodrx.com, the cost of a single 2-g dose of secnidazole is $325; the cost of a 7-day course of metronidazole is approximately $16. 

Reference 

1. Hillier SL, Nyirjesy P, Waldbaum AS, et al. Secnidazole treatment of bacterial vaginosis: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:379-386. 

Continue to: OPTIMIZING THE USE OF...

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; JANUARY 2021) 

Vigilant labor progress aids in oxytocin optimization 

I read with particular interest Dr. Barbieri's editorial on optimizing oxytocin infusion. This topic is relevant for my practice as I am the kind of physician described and I usually get upset when the oxytocin is not managed as I ordered. 

In my opinion, several things need clarification. On our unit, the most significant point of controversy is the definition of tachysystole, mainly when we are using a tocodynamometer and not an internal transducer. 

I contend that it is quite challenging to ascertain the effectiveness of any given labor pattern based only on the number of contractions. Although we joke about "pit to distress," the truth is that contractions need to be "effective," which to me means strong enough to induce cervical changes. 

In my clinical practice, with a tocodynamometer, having 5 contractions that do not produce cervical changes (unless associated with abnormalities of the fetal heart rate tracing) is not a clinically relevant finding as we do not have a way to gauge the strength of such contractions. 

I usually employ a mid-range oxytocin protocol, starting at 4 mU per minute and increasing by 4 mU every 20 minutes. Through 30 years of practicing obstetrics, I have found that this protocol renders excellent results in achieving an efficient labor pattern without jeopardizing fetal well-being. 

On learning about oxytocin's pharmacokinetics, I still support Dr. Rhonda L. Perry and her colleagues' conclusion that, until we learn better about this aspect of oxytocin pharmacology, each woman is her own bioassay.¹ Furthermore, we see this in our daily practice: some patients go into full efficient labor with oxytocin at 4 mU per minute while others at 30 mU per minute do zilch. 

Based on the above, I think that optimization requires close vigilance of the labor and the fetal status at any given time, not determining an oxytocin rate of infusion or dosage. 
We should be observant on evaluating labor progress, and we should not hesitate to use internal pressure catheters when needed to obtain a more accurate evaluation of the labor pattern. 

By examining the patient's labor progress at regular intervals, we also optimize the oxytocin infusion by determining if the infusion is producing the expected cervical changes. 

Tomas Hernandez-Mejia, MD 

Pasco, Washington 

Reference
 
1. Perry RL, Satin AJ, Barth WH, et al. The pharmacokinetics of oxytocin as they apply to labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:1590-1593. 

Dr. Barbieri responds 

I thank Dr. Tomas Hernandez-Mejia for sharing his expertise in utilizing a higher dose of oxytocin to optimize labor and birth. Dr. Hernandez-Mejia's view is supported by the recent publication of a high-quality clinical trial showing that a high-dose oxytocin protocol (initial and incremental rate of 6 mIU/min) did not cause an increase in adverse perinatal outcomes compared with a standard-dose protocol (initial and incremental rate of 2 mIU/min) but slightly shortened the duration of labor.¹ Based on this clinical trial, my conclusion is that the high-dose protocol, if appropriately monitored for excess uterine contractions and fetal heart rate pattern, is safe. 

Reference 

1. Son M, Roy A, Stetson BT, et al. High-dose compared with standard-dose oxytocin regimens to augment labor in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137:991-998. 

Continue to: PREGNANCY OF UNKNOWN...

IRIS G. INSOGNA, MD, AND PAULA C. BRADY, MD (AUGUST 2020) 

I would like to thank Dr. Iris Insogna and Dr. Paula Brady for their very informative article on pregnancy of unknown location. However, please allow me to make a suggestion that will clarify terminology for all practicing ObGyns. 

The medical literature uses the terms cornual pregnancy and interstitial pregnancy interchangeably, although they are actually very different conditions and have significant different implications. Clinicians are often confused about which is an intrauterine pregnancy and which is a true ectopic pregnancy. This confusion was addressed in a 2006 article in Fertility and Sterility, which explains that a cornual pregnancy refers to the implantation and development of a gestation in one of the upper and lateral portions of the uterus.¹ This may occur in a rudimentary horn or in one horn of a septate or bicornuate uterus. Conversely, an interstitial pregnancy is a gestation that implants within the proximal, intramural portion of the fallopian tube that is enveloped by myometrium. Therefore, a cornual pregnancy is actually an intrauterine pregnancy, whereas an interstitial pregnancy is a true ectopic pregnancy. 

I hope that all clinicians will read the article in Fertility and Sterility and adopt this terminology to avoid future confusion and misunderstandings. 

Alan D. Rosen, MD 

Houston, Texas 

Reference 

1. Malinowski A, Bates SK. Semantics and pitfalls in the diagnosis of cornual/interstitial pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:1764.e11-1764.e14.

Frequency or timing of unprotected intercourse within 14 days before IUD placement had no impact on pregnancy if a preplacement pregnancy test was negative, based on data from 655 women who received IUDs.

Many women present for emergency contraception with a history of unprotected intercourse, often beyond the 5-day guidelines for emergency contraception recommended by the World Health Organization, wrote Abena BakenRa, MD, of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues. “As such, we lack data on situations in which multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse occurred in the same menstrual cycle of use, especially episodes occurring more than 5 days before emergency contraception use,” the researchers said.

To determine pregnancy risk during a longer period before IUD placement, the researchers reviewed secondary data from a randomized trial of 655 women who received the copper T380A IUD or levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine system for emergency contraception. The women were aged 18-35 years and were enrolled at one of six family planning clinics in Utah between August 2016 and December 2019.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers assessed pregnancies at 1 month after IUD placement. All of the women had a confirmed negative urine pregnancy test result immediately before IUD placement.

Overall, 286 women (43.7%) reported multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse, with a median of three episodes. A total of 95 women (14.4%) reported at least one unprotected intercourse episode at 6 days or more prior to IUD placement. No pregnancies were reported among women in either of these categories (0.0% for both). Pregnancy risk was 0.2% among those who reported unprotected intercourse within 5 days of IUD placement.

No pregnancies occurred in those who reported additional episodes of unprotected intercourse at 6-7 days, 6-10 days, or 6-14 days before IUD placement (0% for all).

In both the copper IUD and levonorgestrel groups, 68% and 74%, respectively, of the women reported that all fertile-window unprotected intercourse events occurred in the 5 days prior to IUD placement.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of power for analysis of certain categories of assessment, such as pregnancy rates by timing or frequency, the inclusion of patients only from the state of Utah, and the potential underreporting of unprotected intercourse, the researchers noted. However, the findings were strengthened by the relatively large sample size, and by data on unprotected intercourse before IUD placement in a randomized, controlled trial that included two types of IUDs, they said.

“For these situations with multiple unprotected intercourse episodes and extended time between unprotected intercourse and emergency contraception request, potential users should be informed of the evidence of IUD emergency contraception efficacy, compared with the current state of uncertain data for oral emergency contraception methods,” the researchers said.

“Given the multitude of barriers that may impede timely presentation to care (insurance and cost concerns, difficulty finding a capable health care professional, or sexual assault trauma), these data are critical to patient-centered family planning care,” they concluded.

Data support IUD placement in practice

“Understanding potential barriers to placement of long-acting reversible contraception such as IUDs is essential to expanding access to contraception,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“This study is a secondary analysis of a randomized trial that compared copper versus levonorgestrel IUD placement for emergency contraception. Investigators were able to evaluate frequency and timing of unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to IUD placement and prospectively collect data assessing pregnancy risk 1 month after IUD placement,” she said.

The study findings suggest that the risk of pregnancy with unprotected intercourse within 14 days of IUD placement is low overall, and that this risk does not appear to increase with multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse during this time period, Dr. Krishna said. “In general, insertion of an IUD may occur at any time during the menstrual cycle as long as pregnancy may be reasonably excluded and clinicians are encouraged to initiate and place long-acting reversible contraceptives in a single visit, if possible,” she noted. However, “there is a paucity of data on risk of pregnancy when assessing efficacy of IUDs as emergency contraception with episodes of unprotected intercourse more than 5 days prior to IUD placement,” she added.

The study results also suggest that pregnancy risk is similar between women who reported unprotected intercourse within 5 days prior to IUD placement and those who reported unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to IUD placement, said Dr. Krishna. “These findings are clinically significant, as they add to our understanding of risk of pregnancy with unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to placement of an IUD,” she emphasized.

In practice, the study results “will help clinicians counsel patients on risk of pregnancy after IUD placement for emergency contraception,” said Dr. Krishna. “More studies evaluating risk of pregnancy after IUD placement for emergency contraception with episodes of unprotected intercourse more than 5 days prior to placement are needed to further assess the potential to expand the time frame for IUD use as emergency contraception,” she said. “Reducing barriers to IUD access, especially in setting of emergency contraception, is essential to lowering unintended pregnancy rates in the United States.”

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, as well as the University of Utah Population Health Research Foundation, the National Center for Research Resources, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. Several coauthors disclosed grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Office of Research on Women’s Health of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers, as well as Dr. Krishna, had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Frequency or timing of unprotected intercourse within 14 days before IUD placement had no impact on pregnancy if a preplacement pregnancy test was negative, based on data from 655 women who received IUDs.

Many women present for emergency contraception with a history of unprotected intercourse, often beyond the 5-day guidelines for emergency contraception recommended by the World Health Organization, wrote Abena BakenRa, MD, of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues. “As such, we lack data on situations in which multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse occurred in the same menstrual cycle of use, especially episodes occurring more than 5 days before emergency contraception use,” the researchers said.

To determine pregnancy risk during a longer period before IUD placement, the researchers reviewed secondary data from a randomized trial of 655 women who received the copper T380A IUD or levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine system for emergency contraception. The women were aged 18-35 years and were enrolled at one of six family planning clinics in Utah between August 2016 and December 2019.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers assessed pregnancies at 1 month after IUD placement. All of the women had a confirmed negative urine pregnancy test result immediately before IUD placement.

Overall, 286 women (43.7%) reported multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse, with a median of three episodes. A total of 95 women (14.4%) reported at least one unprotected intercourse episode at 6 days or more prior to IUD placement. No pregnancies were reported among women in either of these categories (0.0% for both). Pregnancy risk was 0.2% among those who reported unprotected intercourse within 5 days of IUD placement.

No pregnancies occurred in those who reported additional episodes of unprotected intercourse at 6-7 days, 6-10 days, or 6-14 days before IUD placement (0% for all).

In both the copper IUD and levonorgestrel groups, 68% and 74%, respectively, of the women reported that all fertile-window unprotected intercourse events occurred in the 5 days prior to IUD placement.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of power for analysis of certain categories of assessment, such as pregnancy rates by timing or frequency, the inclusion of patients only from the state of Utah, and the potential underreporting of unprotected intercourse, the researchers noted. However, the findings were strengthened by the relatively large sample size, and by data on unprotected intercourse before IUD placement in a randomized, controlled trial that included two types of IUDs, they said.

“For these situations with multiple unprotected intercourse episodes and extended time between unprotected intercourse and emergency contraception request, potential users should be informed of the evidence of IUD emergency contraception efficacy, compared with the current state of uncertain data for oral emergency contraception methods,” the researchers said.

“Given the multitude of barriers that may impede timely presentation to care (insurance and cost concerns, difficulty finding a capable health care professional, or sexual assault trauma), these data are critical to patient-centered family planning care,” they concluded.

Data support IUD placement in practice

“Understanding potential barriers to placement of long-acting reversible contraception such as IUDs is essential to expanding access to contraception,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“This study is a secondary analysis of a randomized trial that compared copper versus levonorgestrel IUD placement for emergency contraception. Investigators were able to evaluate frequency and timing of unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to IUD placement and prospectively collect data assessing pregnancy risk 1 month after IUD placement,” she said.

The study findings suggest that the risk of pregnancy with unprotected intercourse within 14 days of IUD placement is low overall, and that this risk does not appear to increase with multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse during this time period, Dr. Krishna said. “In general, insertion of an IUD may occur at any time during the menstrual cycle as long as pregnancy may be reasonably excluded and clinicians are encouraged to initiate and place long-acting reversible contraceptives in a single visit, if possible,” she noted. However, “there is a paucity of data on risk of pregnancy when assessing efficacy of IUDs as emergency contraception with episodes of unprotected intercourse more than 5 days prior to IUD placement,” she added.

The study results also suggest that pregnancy risk is similar between women who reported unprotected intercourse within 5 days prior to IUD placement and those who reported unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to IUD placement, said Dr. Krishna. “These findings are clinically significant, as they add to our understanding of risk of pregnancy with unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to placement of an IUD,” she emphasized.

In practice, the study results “will help clinicians counsel patients on risk of pregnancy after IUD placement for emergency contraception,” said Dr. Krishna. “More studies evaluating risk of pregnancy after IUD placement for emergency contraception with episodes of unprotected intercourse more than 5 days prior to placement are needed to further assess the potential to expand the time frame for IUD use as emergency contraception,” she said. “Reducing barriers to IUD access, especially in setting of emergency contraception, is essential to lowering unintended pregnancy rates in the United States.”

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, as well as the University of Utah Population Health Research Foundation, the National Center for Research Resources, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. Several coauthors disclosed grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Office of Research on Women’s Health of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers, as well as Dr. Krishna, had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Frequency or timing of unprotected intercourse within 14 days before IUD placement had no impact on pregnancy if a preplacement pregnancy test was negative, based on data from 655 women who received IUDs.

Many women present for emergency contraception with a history of unprotected intercourse, often beyond the 5-day guidelines for emergency contraception recommended by the World Health Organization, wrote Abena BakenRa, MD, of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues. “As such, we lack data on situations in which multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse occurred in the same menstrual cycle of use, especially episodes occurring more than 5 days before emergency contraception use,” the researchers said.

To determine pregnancy risk during a longer period before IUD placement, the researchers reviewed secondary data from a randomized trial of 655 women who received the copper T380A IUD or levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine system for emergency contraception. The women were aged 18-35 years and were enrolled at one of six family planning clinics in Utah between August 2016 and December 2019.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers assessed pregnancies at 1 month after IUD placement. All of the women had a confirmed negative urine pregnancy test result immediately before IUD placement.

Overall, 286 women (43.7%) reported multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse, with a median of three episodes. A total of 95 women (14.4%) reported at least one unprotected intercourse episode at 6 days or more prior to IUD placement. No pregnancies were reported among women in either of these categories (0.0% for both). Pregnancy risk was 0.2% among those who reported unprotected intercourse within 5 days of IUD placement.

No pregnancies occurred in those who reported additional episodes of unprotected intercourse at 6-7 days, 6-10 days, or 6-14 days before IUD placement (0% for all).

In both the copper IUD and levonorgestrel groups, 68% and 74%, respectively, of the women reported that all fertile-window unprotected intercourse events occurred in the 5 days prior to IUD placement.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of power for analysis of certain categories of assessment, such as pregnancy rates by timing or frequency, the inclusion of patients only from the state of Utah, and the potential underreporting of unprotected intercourse, the researchers noted. However, the findings were strengthened by the relatively large sample size, and by data on unprotected intercourse before IUD placement in a randomized, controlled trial that included two types of IUDs, they said.

“For these situations with multiple unprotected intercourse episodes and extended time between unprotected intercourse and emergency contraception request, potential users should be informed of the evidence of IUD emergency contraception efficacy, compared with the current state of uncertain data for oral emergency contraception methods,” the researchers said.

“Given the multitude of barriers that may impede timely presentation to care (insurance and cost concerns, difficulty finding a capable health care professional, or sexual assault trauma), these data are critical to patient-centered family planning care,” they concluded.

Data support IUD placement in practice

“Understanding potential barriers to placement of long-acting reversible contraception such as IUDs is essential to expanding access to contraception,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“This study is a secondary analysis of a randomized trial that compared copper versus levonorgestrel IUD placement for emergency contraception. Investigators were able to evaluate frequency and timing of unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to IUD placement and prospectively collect data assessing pregnancy risk 1 month after IUD placement,” she said.

The study findings suggest that the risk of pregnancy with unprotected intercourse within 14 days of IUD placement is low overall, and that this risk does not appear to increase with multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse during this time period, Dr. Krishna said. “In general, insertion of an IUD may occur at any time during the menstrual cycle as long as pregnancy may be reasonably excluded and clinicians are encouraged to initiate and place long-acting reversible contraceptives in a single visit, if possible,” she noted. However, “there is a paucity of data on risk of pregnancy when assessing efficacy of IUDs as emergency contraception with episodes of unprotected intercourse more than 5 days prior to IUD placement,” she added.

The study results also suggest that pregnancy risk is similar between women who reported unprotected intercourse within 5 days prior to IUD placement and those who reported unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to IUD placement, said Dr. Krishna. “These findings are clinically significant, as they add to our understanding of risk of pregnancy with unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to placement of an IUD,” she emphasized.

In practice, the study results “will help clinicians counsel patients on risk of pregnancy after IUD placement for emergency contraception,” said Dr. Krishna. “More studies evaluating risk of pregnancy after IUD placement for emergency contraception with episodes of unprotected intercourse more than 5 days prior to placement are needed to further assess the potential to expand the time frame for IUD use as emergency contraception,” she said. “Reducing barriers to IUD access, especially in setting of emergency contraception, is essential to lowering unintended pregnancy rates in the United States.”

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, as well as the University of Utah Population Health Research Foundation, the National Center for Research Resources, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. Several coauthors disclosed grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Office of Research on Women’s Health of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers, as well as Dr. Krishna, had no financial conflicts to disclose.