Clinical Review

Laundry detergent, a cleaning agent ubiquitous in the modern household, often is suspected as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). In one North American study, 10.7% of 738 patients undergoing patch testing believed that laundry detergent was a contributing factor, whereas their referring physicians had the same concern less often (in 2.3% of cases).¹Likewise, in a 1992 survey of western US households, more than 20% of 3841 respondents reported skin or health problems attributed to a textile and/or laundry product.² The suspicion of laundry detergent as a causative agent of ACD is perpetuated across popular wellness and beauty websites.^3,4 Does the evidence support this degree of suspicion? Or, similar to the well-meaning parent who misguidedly fixates on foods as the cause of their child’s atopic dermatitis and believes elimination diets are the solution,⁵ could a similar desire for control in the face of the unpredictability of eczema drive consumers and health care providers alike to blame laundry detergent—a familiar and modifiable cause?

We provide a summary of the evidence for the potential allergenicity of laundry detergent, including common allergens present in laundry detergent, the role of machine washing, and the differential diagnosis for laundry detergent–associated ACD.

Allergenic Ingredients in Laundry Detergent

Potential allergens present in laundry detergent include fragrances, preservatives, surfactants, emulsifiers, bleaches, brighteners, enzymes, and dyes.^6-8 In an analysis of allergens present in laundry detergents available in the United States, fragrances and preservatives were most common (eTable).^7,8 Contact allergy to fragrances occurs in approximately 3.5% of the general population⁹ and is detected in as many as 9.2% of patients referred for patch testing in North America.¹⁰ Preservatives commonly found in laundry detergent include isothiazolinones, such as methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI), MI alone, and benzisothiazolinone (BIT). Methylisothiazolinone has gained attention for causing an ACD epidemic beginning in the early 2000s and peaking in Europe between 2013 and 2014 and decreasing thereafter due to consumer personal care product regulatory changes enacted in the European Union.¹¹ In contrast, rates of MI allergy in North America have continued to increase (reaching as high as 15% of patch tested patients in 2017-2018) due to a lack of similar regulation.^10,12 More recently, the prevalence of positive patch tests to BIT has been rising, though it often is difficult to ascertain relevant sources of exposure, and some cases could represent cross-reactions to MCI/MI.^10,13

Other allergens that may be present in laundry detergent include surfactants and propylene glycol. Alkyl glucosides such as decyl glucoside and lauryl glucoside are considered gentle surfactants and often are included in products marketed as safe for sensitive skin,¹⁴ such as “free and gentle” detergents.⁸ However, they actually may pose an increased risk for sensitization in patients with atopic dermatitis.¹⁴ In addition to being allergenic, surfactants and emulsifiers are known irritants.^6,15 Although pathologically distinct, ACD and irritant contact dermatitis can be indistinguishable on clinical presentation.

How Commonly Does Laundry Detergent Cause ACD?

The mere presence of a contact allergen in laundry detergent does not necessarily imply that it is likely to cause ACD. To do so, the chemical in question must exceed the exposure thresholds for primary sensitization (ie, induction of contact allergy) and/or elicitation (ie, development of ACD in sensitized individuals). These depend on a complex interplay of product- and patient-specific factors, among them the concentration of the chemical in the detergent, the method of use, and the amount of detergent residue remaining on clothing after washing.

In the 1990s, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) attempted to determine the prevalence of ACD caused by laundry detergent.¹ Among 738 patients patch tested to aqueous dilutions of granular and liquid laundry detergents, only 5 (0.7%) had a possible allergic patch test reaction. It was unclear what the culprit allergens in the detergents may have been; only 1 of the patients also tested positive to fragrance. Two patients underwent further testing to additional detergent dilutions, and the results called into question whether their initial reactions had truly been allergic (positive) or were actually irritant (negative). The investigators concluded that the prevalence of laundry detergent–associated ACD in this large group of patients was at most 0.7%, and possibly lower.¹

Importantly, patch testing to laundry detergents should not be undertaken in routine clinical practice. Laundry detergents should never be tested “as is” (ie, undiluted) on the skin; they are inherently irritating and have a high likelihood of producing misleading false-positive reactions. Careful dilutions and testing of control subjects are necessary if patch testing with these products is to be appropriately conducted.

The extremely low prevalence of laundry detergent–associated ACD reported by the NACDG was determined prior to the start of the worldwide MI allergy epidemic, raising the possibility that laundry detergents containing isothiazolinones may be associated with ACD. There is no consensus about the minimum level at which isothiazolinones pose no risk to consumers,^16-19 but the US Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety declared that MI is “safe for use in rinse-off cosmetic products at concentrations up to 100 ppm and safe in leave-on cosmetic products when they are formulated to be nonsensitizing.”^18,19 Although ingredient lists do not always reveal when isothiazolinones are present, analyses of commercially available laundry detergents have shown MI concentrations ranging from undetectable to 65.7 ppm.^20-23

Published reports suggest that MCI/MI in laundry detergent can elicit ACD in sensitized individuals. In one case, a 7-year-old girl with chronic truncal dermatitis (atopic history unspecified) was patch tested, revealing a strongly positive reaction to MCI/MI.²⁴ Her laundry detergent was the only personal product found to contain MI. The dermatitis completely resolved after switching detergents and flared after wearing a jacket that had been washed in the implicated detergent, further supporting the relevance of the positive patch test. The investigators suspected initial sensitization to MI from wet wipes used earlier in childhood.²⁴ In another case involving occupational exposure, a 39-year-old nonatopic factory worker was responsible for directly adding MI to laundry detergent.²⁵ Although he wore disposable work gloves, he developed severe hand dermatitis, eczematous pretibial patches, and generalized pruritus. Patch testing revealed positive reactions to MCI/MI and MI, and he experienced improvement when reassigned to different work duties. It was hypothesized that the leg dermatitis and generalized pruritus may have been related to exposure to small concentrations of MI in work clothes washed with an MI-containing detergent.²⁵ Notably, this patient’s level of exposure was much greater than that encountered by individuals in day-to-day life outside of specialized occupational settings.

Regarding other isothiazolinones, a toxicologic study estimated that BIT in laundry detergent would be unlikely to induce sensitization, even at the maximal acceptable concentration, as recommended by preservative manufacturers, and accounting for undiluted detergent spilling directly onto the skin.²⁶Nonetheless, a single European center recently reported that almost half of the 38 patients with positive patch tests to BIT had a potentially relevant exposure attributed to household cleaning products, including laundry detergent.¹³ This emphasizes the need for further examination of sources of exposure to this increasingly common positive patch test allergen.

Does Machine Washing Impact Allergen Concentrations?

Two recent investigations have suggested that machine washing reduces concentrations of isothiazolinones to levels that are likely below clinical relevance. In the first study, 3 fabrics—cotton, polyester, cotton-polyester—were machine washed and line dried.²⁷ A standard detergent was used with MI added at different concentrations: less than 1 ppm, 100 ppm, and 1000 ppm. This process was either performed once or 10 times. Following laundering and line drying, MI was undetectable in all fabrics regardless of MI concentration or number of times washed (detection limit, 0.5 ppm).²⁷ In the second study, 4 fabrics—cotton, wool, polyester, linen—were washed with standard laundry detergent in 1 of 4 ways: handwashing (positive control), standard machine washing, standard machine washing with fabric softener, and standard machine washing with a double rinse.²⁸ After laundering and line drying, concentrations of MI, MCI, and BIT were low or undetectable regardless of fabric type or method of laundering. The highest levels detected were in handwashed garments at a maximum of 0.5 ppm of MI. The study authors postulated that chemical concentrations near these maximum residual levels may pose a risk for eliciting ACD in highly sensitized individuals. Therefore, handwashing can be considered a much higher risk activity for isothiazolinone ACD compared with machine washing.²⁸

It is intriguing that machine washing appears to reduce isothiazolinones to low concentrations that may have limited likelihood of causing ACD. Similar findings have been reported regarding fragrances. A quantitative risk assessment performed on 24 of 26 fragrance allergens regulated by the European Union determined that the amount of fragrance deposited on the skin from laundered garments would be less than the threshold for causing sensitization.²⁹ Although this risk assessment was unable to address the threshold of elicitation, another study conducted in Europe investigated whether fragrance residues present on fabric, such as those deposited from laundry detergent, are present at high enough concentrations to elicit ACD in previously sensitized individuals.³⁰ When 36 individuals were patch tested with increasing concentrations of a fragrance to which they were already sensitized, only 2 (5.6%) had a weakly positive reaction and then only to the highest concentration, which was estimated to be 20-fold higher than the level of skin exposure after normal laundering. No patient reacted at lower concentrations.³⁰

Although machine washing may decrease isothiazolinone and/or fragrance concentrations in laundry detergent to below clinically relevant levels, these findings should not necessarily be extrapolated to all chemicals in laundry detergent. Indeed, a prior study observed that after washing cotton cloths in a detergent solution for 10 minutes, detergent residue was present at concentrations ranging from 139 to 2820 ppm and required a subsequent 20 to 22 washes in water to become undetectable.³¹ Another study produced a mathematical model of the residual concentration of sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS), a surfactant and known irritant, in laundered clothing.³² It was estimated that after machine washing, the residual concentration of SDS on clothes would be too low to cause irritation; however, as the clothes dry (ie, as moisture evaporates but solutes remain), the concentration of SDS on the fabric’s surface would increase to potentially irritating levels. The extensive drying that is possible with electric dryers may further enhance this solute-concentrating effect.

Differential Diagnosis of Laundry Detergent ACD

The propensity for laundry detergent to cause ACD is a question that is nowhere near settled, but the prevalence of allergy likely is far less common than is generally suspected. In our experience, many patients presenting for patch testing have already made the change to “free and clear” detergents without noticeable improvement in their dermatitis, which could possibly relate to the ongoing presence of contact allergens in these “gentle” formulations.⁷ However, to avoid anchoring bias, more frequent causes of dermatitis should be included in the differential diagnosis. Textile ACD presents beneath clothing with accentuation at areas of closest contact with the skin, classically involving the axillary rim but sparing the vault. The most frequently implicated allergens in textile ACD are disperse dyes and less commonly textile resins.^33,34 Between 2017 and 2018, 2.3% of 4882 patients patch tested by the NACDG reacted positively to disperse dye mix.¹⁰ There is evidence to suggest that the actual prevalence of disperse dye allergy might be higher due to inadequacy of screening allergens on baseline patch test series.³⁵ Additional diagnoses that should be distinguished from presumed detergent contact dermatitis include atopic dermatitis and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Final Interpretation

Although many patients and physicians consider laundry detergent to be a major cause of ACD, there is limited high-quality evidence to support this belief. Contact allergy to laundry detergent is probably much less common than is widely supposed. Although laundry detergents can contain common allergens such as fragrances and preservatives, evidence suggests that they are likely reduced to below clinically relevant levels during routine machine washing; however, we cannot assume that we are in the “free and clear,” as uncertainty remains about the impact of these low concentrationson individuals with strong contact allergy, and large studies of patch testing to modern detergents have yet to be carried out.

Laundry detergent, a cleaning agent ubiquitous in the modern household, often is suspected as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). In one North American study, 10.7% of 738 patients undergoing patch testing believed that laundry detergent was a contributing factor, whereas their referring physicians had the same concern less often (in 2.3% of cases).¹Likewise, in a 1992 survey of western US households, more than 20% of 3841 respondents reported skin or health problems attributed to a textile and/or laundry product.² The suspicion of laundry detergent as a causative agent of ACD is perpetuated across popular wellness and beauty websites.^3,4 Does the evidence support this degree of suspicion? Or, similar to the well-meaning parent who misguidedly fixates on foods as the cause of their child’s atopic dermatitis and believes elimination diets are the solution,⁵ could a similar desire for control in the face of the unpredictability of eczema drive consumers and health care providers alike to blame laundry detergent—a familiar and modifiable cause?

We provide a summary of the evidence for the potential allergenicity of laundry detergent, including common allergens present in laundry detergent, the role of machine washing, and the differential diagnosis for laundry detergent–associated ACD.

Allergenic Ingredients in Laundry Detergent

Potential allergens present in laundry detergent include fragrances, preservatives, surfactants, emulsifiers, bleaches, brighteners, enzymes, and dyes.^6-8 In an analysis of allergens present in laundry detergents available in the United States, fragrances and preservatives were most common (eTable).^7,8 Contact allergy to fragrances occurs in approximately 3.5% of the general population⁹ and is detected in as many as 9.2% of patients referred for patch testing in North America.¹⁰ Preservatives commonly found in laundry detergent include isothiazolinones, such as methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI), MI alone, and benzisothiazolinone (BIT). Methylisothiazolinone has gained attention for causing an ACD epidemic beginning in the early 2000s and peaking in Europe between 2013 and 2014 and decreasing thereafter due to consumer personal care product regulatory changes enacted in the European Union.¹¹ In contrast, rates of MI allergy in North America have continued to increase (reaching as high as 15% of patch tested patients in 2017-2018) due to a lack of similar regulation.^10,12 More recently, the prevalence of positive patch tests to BIT has been rising, though it often is difficult to ascertain relevant sources of exposure, and some cases could represent cross-reactions to MCI/MI.^10,13

Other allergens that may be present in laundry detergent include surfactants and propylene glycol. Alkyl glucosides such as decyl glucoside and lauryl glucoside are considered gentle surfactants and often are included in products marketed as safe for sensitive skin,¹⁴ such as “free and gentle” detergents.⁸ However, they actually may pose an increased risk for sensitization in patients with atopic dermatitis.¹⁴ In addition to being allergenic, surfactants and emulsifiers are known irritants.^6,15 Although pathologically distinct, ACD and irritant contact dermatitis can be indistinguishable on clinical presentation.

How Commonly Does Laundry Detergent Cause ACD?

The mere presence of a contact allergen in laundry detergent does not necessarily imply that it is likely to cause ACD. To do so, the chemical in question must exceed the exposure thresholds for primary sensitization (ie, induction of contact allergy) and/or elicitation (ie, development of ACD in sensitized individuals). These depend on a complex interplay of product- and patient-specific factors, among them the concentration of the chemical in the detergent, the method of use, and the amount of detergent residue remaining on clothing after washing.

In the 1990s, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) attempted to determine the prevalence of ACD caused by laundry detergent.¹ Among 738 patients patch tested to aqueous dilutions of granular and liquid laundry detergents, only 5 (0.7%) had a possible allergic patch test reaction. It was unclear what the culprit allergens in the detergents may have been; only 1 of the patients also tested positive to fragrance. Two patients underwent further testing to additional detergent dilutions, and the results called into question whether their initial reactions had truly been allergic (positive) or were actually irritant (negative). The investigators concluded that the prevalence of laundry detergent–associated ACD in this large group of patients was at most 0.7%, and possibly lower.¹

Importantly, patch testing to laundry detergents should not be undertaken in routine clinical practice. Laundry detergents should never be tested “as is” (ie, undiluted) on the skin; they are inherently irritating and have a high likelihood of producing misleading false-positive reactions. Careful dilutions and testing of control subjects are necessary if patch testing with these products is to be appropriately conducted.

The extremely low prevalence of laundry detergent–associated ACD reported by the NACDG was determined prior to the start of the worldwide MI allergy epidemic, raising the possibility that laundry detergents containing isothiazolinones may be associated with ACD. There is no consensus about the minimum level at which isothiazolinones pose no risk to consumers,^16-19 but the US Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety declared that MI is “safe for use in rinse-off cosmetic products at concentrations up to 100 ppm and safe in leave-on cosmetic products when they are formulated to be nonsensitizing.”^18,19 Although ingredient lists do not always reveal when isothiazolinones are present, analyses of commercially available laundry detergents have shown MI concentrations ranging from undetectable to 65.7 ppm.^20-23

Published reports suggest that MCI/MI in laundry detergent can elicit ACD in sensitized individuals. In one case, a 7-year-old girl with chronic truncal dermatitis (atopic history unspecified) was patch tested, revealing a strongly positive reaction to MCI/MI.²⁴ Her laundry detergent was the only personal product found to contain MI. The dermatitis completely resolved after switching detergents and flared after wearing a jacket that had been washed in the implicated detergent, further supporting the relevance of the positive patch test. The investigators suspected initial sensitization to MI from wet wipes used earlier in childhood.²⁴ In another case involving occupational exposure, a 39-year-old nonatopic factory worker was responsible for directly adding MI to laundry detergent.²⁵ Although he wore disposable work gloves, he developed severe hand dermatitis, eczematous pretibial patches, and generalized pruritus. Patch testing revealed positive reactions to MCI/MI and MI, and he experienced improvement when reassigned to different work duties. It was hypothesized that the leg dermatitis and generalized pruritus may have been related to exposure to small concentrations of MI in work clothes washed with an MI-containing detergent.²⁵ Notably, this patient’s level of exposure was much greater than that encountered by individuals in day-to-day life outside of specialized occupational settings.

Regarding other isothiazolinones, a toxicologic study estimated that BIT in laundry detergent would be unlikely to induce sensitization, even at the maximal acceptable concentration, as recommended by preservative manufacturers, and accounting for undiluted detergent spilling directly onto the skin.²⁶Nonetheless, a single European center recently reported that almost half of the 38 patients with positive patch tests to BIT had a potentially relevant exposure attributed to household cleaning products, including laundry detergent.¹³ This emphasizes the need for further examination of sources of exposure to this increasingly common positive patch test allergen.

Does Machine Washing Impact Allergen Concentrations?

Two recent investigations have suggested that machine washing reduces concentrations of isothiazolinones to levels that are likely below clinical relevance. In the first study, 3 fabrics—cotton, polyester, cotton-polyester—were machine washed and line dried.²⁷ A standard detergent was used with MI added at different concentrations: less than 1 ppm, 100 ppm, and 1000 ppm. This process was either performed once or 10 times. Following laundering and line drying, MI was undetectable in all fabrics regardless of MI concentration or number of times washed (detection limit, 0.5 ppm).²⁷ In the second study, 4 fabrics—cotton, wool, polyester, linen—were washed with standard laundry detergent in 1 of 4 ways: handwashing (positive control), standard machine washing, standard machine washing with fabric softener, and standard machine washing with a double rinse.²⁸ After laundering and line drying, concentrations of MI, MCI, and BIT were low or undetectable regardless of fabric type or method of laundering. The highest levels detected were in handwashed garments at a maximum of 0.5 ppm of MI. The study authors postulated that chemical concentrations near these maximum residual levels may pose a risk for eliciting ACD in highly sensitized individuals. Therefore, handwashing can be considered a much higher risk activity for isothiazolinone ACD compared with machine washing.²⁸

It is intriguing that machine washing appears to reduce isothiazolinones to low concentrations that may have limited likelihood of causing ACD. Similar findings have been reported regarding fragrances. A quantitative risk assessment performed on 24 of 26 fragrance allergens regulated by the European Union determined that the amount of fragrance deposited on the skin from laundered garments would be less than the threshold for causing sensitization.²⁹ Although this risk assessment was unable to address the threshold of elicitation, another study conducted in Europe investigated whether fragrance residues present on fabric, such as those deposited from laundry detergent, are present at high enough concentrations to elicit ACD in previously sensitized individuals.³⁰ When 36 individuals were patch tested with increasing concentrations of a fragrance to which they were already sensitized, only 2 (5.6%) had a weakly positive reaction and then only to the highest concentration, which was estimated to be 20-fold higher than the level of skin exposure after normal laundering. No patient reacted at lower concentrations.³⁰

Although machine washing may decrease isothiazolinone and/or fragrance concentrations in laundry detergent to below clinically relevant levels, these findings should not necessarily be extrapolated to all chemicals in laundry detergent. Indeed, a prior study observed that after washing cotton cloths in a detergent solution for 10 minutes, detergent residue was present at concentrations ranging from 139 to 2820 ppm and required a subsequent 20 to 22 washes in water to become undetectable.³¹ Another study produced a mathematical model of the residual concentration of sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS), a surfactant and known irritant, in laundered clothing.³² It was estimated that after machine washing, the residual concentration of SDS on clothes would be too low to cause irritation; however, as the clothes dry (ie, as moisture evaporates but solutes remain), the concentration of SDS on the fabric’s surface would increase to potentially irritating levels. The extensive drying that is possible with electric dryers may further enhance this solute-concentrating effect.

Differential Diagnosis of Laundry Detergent ACD

The propensity for laundry detergent to cause ACD is a question that is nowhere near settled, but the prevalence of allergy likely is far less common than is generally suspected. In our experience, many patients presenting for patch testing have already made the change to “free and clear” detergents without noticeable improvement in their dermatitis, which could possibly relate to the ongoing presence of contact allergens in these “gentle” formulations.⁷ However, to avoid anchoring bias, more frequent causes of dermatitis should be included in the differential diagnosis. Textile ACD presents beneath clothing with accentuation at areas of closest contact with the skin, classically involving the axillary rim but sparing the vault. The most frequently implicated allergens in textile ACD are disperse dyes and less commonly textile resins.^33,34 Between 2017 and 2018, 2.3% of 4882 patients patch tested by the NACDG reacted positively to disperse dye mix.¹⁰ There is evidence to suggest that the actual prevalence of disperse dye allergy might be higher due to inadequacy of screening allergens on baseline patch test series.³⁵ Additional diagnoses that should be distinguished from presumed detergent contact dermatitis include atopic dermatitis and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Final Interpretation

Although many patients and physicians consider laundry detergent to be a major cause of ACD, there is limited high-quality evidence to support this belief. Contact allergy to laundry detergent is probably much less common than is widely supposed. Although laundry detergents can contain common allergens such as fragrances and preservatives, evidence suggests that they are likely reduced to below clinically relevant levels during routine machine washing; however, we cannot assume that we are in the “free and clear,” as uncertainty remains about the impact of these low concentrationson individuals with strong contact allergy, and large studies of patch testing to modern detergents have yet to be carried out.

Laundry detergent, a cleaning agent ubiquitous in the modern household, often is suspected as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). In one North American study, 10.7% of 738 patients undergoing patch testing believed that laundry detergent was a contributing factor, whereas their referring physicians had the same concern less often (in 2.3% of cases).¹Likewise, in a 1992 survey of western US households, more than 20% of 3841 respondents reported skin or health problems attributed to a textile and/or laundry product.² The suspicion of laundry detergent as a causative agent of ACD is perpetuated across popular wellness and beauty websites.^3,4 Does the evidence support this degree of suspicion? Or, similar to the well-meaning parent who misguidedly fixates on foods as the cause of their child’s atopic dermatitis and believes elimination diets are the solution,⁵ could a similar desire for control in the face of the unpredictability of eczema drive consumers and health care providers alike to blame laundry detergent—a familiar and modifiable cause?

We provide a summary of the evidence for the potential allergenicity of laundry detergent, including common allergens present in laundry detergent, the role of machine washing, and the differential diagnosis for laundry detergent–associated ACD.

Allergenic Ingredients in Laundry Detergent

Potential allergens present in laundry detergent include fragrances, preservatives, surfactants, emulsifiers, bleaches, brighteners, enzymes, and dyes.^6-8 In an analysis of allergens present in laundry detergents available in the United States, fragrances and preservatives were most common (eTable).^7,8 Contact allergy to fragrances occurs in approximately 3.5% of the general population⁹ and is detected in as many as 9.2% of patients referred for patch testing in North America.¹⁰ Preservatives commonly found in laundry detergent include isothiazolinones, such as methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI), MI alone, and benzisothiazolinone (BIT). Methylisothiazolinone has gained attention for causing an ACD epidemic beginning in the early 2000s and peaking in Europe between 2013 and 2014 and decreasing thereafter due to consumer personal care product regulatory changes enacted in the European Union.¹¹ In contrast, rates of MI allergy in North America have continued to increase (reaching as high as 15% of patch tested patients in 2017-2018) due to a lack of similar regulation.^10,12 More recently, the prevalence of positive patch tests to BIT has been rising, though it often is difficult to ascertain relevant sources of exposure, and some cases could represent cross-reactions to MCI/MI.^10,13

Other allergens that may be present in laundry detergent include surfactants and propylene glycol. Alkyl glucosides such as decyl glucoside and lauryl glucoside are considered gentle surfactants and often are included in products marketed as safe for sensitive skin,¹⁴ such as “free and gentle” detergents.⁸ However, they actually may pose an increased risk for sensitization in patients with atopic dermatitis.¹⁴ In addition to being allergenic, surfactants and emulsifiers are known irritants.^6,15 Although pathologically distinct, ACD and irritant contact dermatitis can be indistinguishable on clinical presentation.

How Commonly Does Laundry Detergent Cause ACD?

The mere presence of a contact allergen in laundry detergent does not necessarily imply that it is likely to cause ACD. To do so, the chemical in question must exceed the exposure thresholds for primary sensitization (ie, induction of contact allergy) and/or elicitation (ie, development of ACD in sensitized individuals). These depend on a complex interplay of product- and patient-specific factors, among them the concentration of the chemical in the detergent, the method of use, and the amount of detergent residue remaining on clothing after washing.

In the 1990s, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) attempted to determine the prevalence of ACD caused by laundry detergent.¹ Among 738 patients patch tested to aqueous dilutions of granular and liquid laundry detergents, only 5 (0.7%) had a possible allergic patch test reaction. It was unclear what the culprit allergens in the detergents may have been; only 1 of the patients also tested positive to fragrance. Two patients underwent further testing to additional detergent dilutions, and the results called into question whether their initial reactions had truly been allergic (positive) or were actually irritant (negative). The investigators concluded that the prevalence of laundry detergent–associated ACD in this large group of patients was at most 0.7%, and possibly lower.¹

Importantly, patch testing to laundry detergents should not be undertaken in routine clinical practice. Laundry detergents should never be tested “as is” (ie, undiluted) on the skin; they are inherently irritating and have a high likelihood of producing misleading false-positive reactions. Careful dilutions and testing of control subjects are necessary if patch testing with these products is to be appropriately conducted.

The extremely low prevalence of laundry detergent–associated ACD reported by the NACDG was determined prior to the start of the worldwide MI allergy epidemic, raising the possibility that laundry detergents containing isothiazolinones may be associated with ACD. There is no consensus about the minimum level at which isothiazolinones pose no risk to consumers,^16-19 but the US Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety declared that MI is “safe for use in rinse-off cosmetic products at concentrations up to 100 ppm and safe in leave-on cosmetic products when they are formulated to be nonsensitizing.”^18,19 Although ingredient lists do not always reveal when isothiazolinones are present, analyses of commercially available laundry detergents have shown MI concentrations ranging from undetectable to 65.7 ppm.^20-23

Published reports suggest that MCI/MI in laundry detergent can elicit ACD in sensitized individuals. In one case, a 7-year-old girl with chronic truncal dermatitis (atopic history unspecified) was patch tested, revealing a strongly positive reaction to MCI/MI.²⁴ Her laundry detergent was the only personal product found to contain MI. The dermatitis completely resolved after switching detergents and flared after wearing a jacket that had been washed in the implicated detergent, further supporting the relevance of the positive patch test. The investigators suspected initial sensitization to MI from wet wipes used earlier in childhood.²⁴ In another case involving occupational exposure, a 39-year-old nonatopic factory worker was responsible for directly adding MI to laundry detergent.²⁵ Although he wore disposable work gloves, he developed severe hand dermatitis, eczematous pretibial patches, and generalized pruritus. Patch testing revealed positive reactions to MCI/MI and MI, and he experienced improvement when reassigned to different work duties. It was hypothesized that the leg dermatitis and generalized pruritus may have been related to exposure to small concentrations of MI in work clothes washed with an MI-containing detergent.²⁵ Notably, this patient’s level of exposure was much greater than that encountered by individuals in day-to-day life outside of specialized occupational settings.

Regarding other isothiazolinones, a toxicologic study estimated that BIT in laundry detergent would be unlikely to induce sensitization, even at the maximal acceptable concentration, as recommended by preservative manufacturers, and accounting for undiluted detergent spilling directly onto the skin.²⁶Nonetheless, a single European center recently reported that almost half of the 38 patients with positive patch tests to BIT had a potentially relevant exposure attributed to household cleaning products, including laundry detergent.¹³ This emphasizes the need for further examination of sources of exposure to this increasingly common positive patch test allergen.

Does Machine Washing Impact Allergen Concentrations?

Two recent investigations have suggested that machine washing reduces concentrations of isothiazolinones to levels that are likely below clinical relevance. In the first study, 3 fabrics—cotton, polyester, cotton-polyester—were machine washed and line dried.²⁷ A standard detergent was used with MI added at different concentrations: less than 1 ppm, 100 ppm, and 1000 ppm. This process was either performed once or 10 times. Following laundering and line drying, MI was undetectable in all fabrics regardless of MI concentration or number of times washed (detection limit, 0.5 ppm).²⁷ In the second study, 4 fabrics—cotton, wool, polyester, linen—were washed with standard laundry detergent in 1 of 4 ways: handwashing (positive control), standard machine washing, standard machine washing with fabric softener, and standard machine washing with a double rinse.²⁸ After laundering and line drying, concentrations of MI, MCI, and BIT were low or undetectable regardless of fabric type or method of laundering. The highest levels detected were in handwashed garments at a maximum of 0.5 ppm of MI. The study authors postulated that chemical concentrations near these maximum residual levels may pose a risk for eliciting ACD in highly sensitized individuals. Therefore, handwashing can be considered a much higher risk activity for isothiazolinone ACD compared with machine washing.²⁸

It is intriguing that machine washing appears to reduce isothiazolinones to low concentrations that may have limited likelihood of causing ACD. Similar findings have been reported regarding fragrances. A quantitative risk assessment performed on 24 of 26 fragrance allergens regulated by the European Union determined that the amount of fragrance deposited on the skin from laundered garments would be less than the threshold for causing sensitization.²⁹ Although this risk assessment was unable to address the threshold of elicitation, another study conducted in Europe investigated whether fragrance residues present on fabric, such as those deposited from laundry detergent, are present at high enough concentrations to elicit ACD in previously sensitized individuals.³⁰ When 36 individuals were patch tested with increasing concentrations of a fragrance to which they were already sensitized, only 2 (5.6%) had a weakly positive reaction and then only to the highest concentration, which was estimated to be 20-fold higher than the level of skin exposure after normal laundering. No patient reacted at lower concentrations.³⁰

Although machine washing may decrease isothiazolinone and/or fragrance concentrations in laundry detergent to below clinically relevant levels, these findings should not necessarily be extrapolated to all chemicals in laundry detergent. Indeed, a prior study observed that after washing cotton cloths in a detergent solution for 10 minutes, detergent residue was present at concentrations ranging from 139 to 2820 ppm and required a subsequent 20 to 22 washes in water to become undetectable.³¹ Another study produced a mathematical model of the residual concentration of sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS), a surfactant and known irritant, in laundered clothing.³² It was estimated that after machine washing, the residual concentration of SDS on clothes would be too low to cause irritation; however, as the clothes dry (ie, as moisture evaporates but solutes remain), the concentration of SDS on the fabric’s surface would increase to potentially irritating levels. The extensive drying that is possible with electric dryers may further enhance this solute-concentrating effect.

Differential Diagnosis of Laundry Detergent ACD

The propensity for laundry detergent to cause ACD is a question that is nowhere near settled, but the prevalence of allergy likely is far less common than is generally suspected. In our experience, many patients presenting for patch testing have already made the change to “free and clear” detergents without noticeable improvement in their dermatitis, which could possibly relate to the ongoing presence of contact allergens in these “gentle” formulations.⁷ However, to avoid anchoring bias, more frequent causes of dermatitis should be included in the differential diagnosis. Textile ACD presents beneath clothing with accentuation at areas of closest contact with the skin, classically involving the axillary rim but sparing the vault. The most frequently implicated allergens in textile ACD are disperse dyes and less commonly textile resins.^33,34 Between 2017 and 2018, 2.3% of 4882 patients patch tested by the NACDG reacted positively to disperse dye mix.¹⁰ There is evidence to suggest that the actual prevalence of disperse dye allergy might be higher due to inadequacy of screening allergens on baseline patch test series.³⁵ Additional diagnoses that should be distinguished from presumed detergent contact dermatitis include atopic dermatitis and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Final Interpretation

Although many patients and physicians consider laundry detergent to be a major cause of ACD, there is limited high-quality evidence to support this belief. Contact allergy to laundry detergent is probably much less common than is widely supposed. Although laundry detergents can contain common allergens such as fragrances and preservatives, evidence suggests that they are likely reduced to below clinically relevant levels during routine machine washing; however, we cannot assume that we are in the “free and clear,” as uncertainty remains about the impact of these low concentrationson individuals with strong contact allergy, and large studies of patch testing to modern detergents have yet to be carried out.

The lip is commonly affected by skin cancer because of increased sun exposure and actinic damage, with basal cell carcinoma typically occurring on the upper lip and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the lower lip. The risk for metastatic spread of SCC on the lip is higher than cutaneous SCC on other facial locations but lower than SCC of the oral mucosa.^1,2 If the tumor is operable and the patient has no contraindications to surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery is the preferred treatment, as it allows for maximal healthy tissue preservation and has the lowest recurrence rates.^1-3 Once the tumor is removed and margins are confirmed to be negative, one must consider the options for defect closure, including healing by secondary intention, primary/direct closure, full-thickness skin grafts, local flaps, or free flaps.⁴ Secondary intention may lead to wound contracture and suboptimal functional and cosmetic outcomes. Primary wedge closure can be utilized for optimal functional and cosmetic outcomes when the defect involves less than one-third of the horizontal width of the vermilion. For larger defects, the surgeon must consider a flap or graft. Skin grafts are less favorable than local flaps because they may have different skin color, texture, and hair-bearing properties than the recipient area.^3,5 In addition, grafts require a separate donor site, which means more pain, recovery time, and risk for complications for the patient.³ Free flaps similarly utilize tissue and blood supply from a donor site to repair major tissue loss. Radial forearm free flaps commonly are used for large lip defects but are more extensive, risky, and costly compared to local flaps for smaller defects under local anesthesia or nerve blocks.^6,7 With these considerations, a local lip flap often is the most ideal repair method.

When performing a local lip flap, it is important to consider the functional and aesthetic aspects of the lips. The lower face is more susceptible to distortion and wound contraction after defect repair because it lacks a substantial supportive fibrous network. The dynamics of opposing lip elevator and depressor muscles make the lips a visual focal point and a crucial structure for facial expression, mastication, oral continence, speech phonation, and mouth opening and closing.^2,4,8,9 Aesthetics and symmetry of the lips also are a large part of facial recognition and self-image.⁹

Lip defects are classified as partial thickness involving skin and muscle or full thickness involving skin, muscle, and mucosa. Partial-thickness wounds less than one-third the width of the horizontal lip can be repaired with a primary wedge resection or left to heal by secondary intention if the defect only involves the superficial vermilion.² For defects larger than one-third the width of the horizontal lip, local flaps are favored to allow for closely matched skin and lip mucosa to fill in the defect.⁹ Full-thickness defects are further classified based on defect width compared to total lip width (ie, less than one-third, between one-third and two-thirds, and greater than two-thirds) as well as location (ie, medial, lateral, upper lip, lower lip).^2,10

There are several local lip flap reconstruction options available, and choosing one is based on defect size and location. We provide a succinct review of the indications, risks, and benefits of commonly utilized flaps (Table), as well as artist renderings of all of the flaps (Figure).

Courtesy of Brinda Chellappan, MD (Galveston, Texas).

Vermilion Flaps

Vermilion flaps are used to close partial-thickness defects of the vermilion border, an area that poses unique obstacles of repair with blending distant tissues to match the surroundings.⁸ Goldstein¹¹ developed an adjacent ipsilateral vermilion flap utilizing an arterialized myocutaneous flap for reconstruction of vermilion defects.Later, this technique was modified by Sawada et al¹² into a bilateral adjacent advancement flap for closure of central vermilion defects and may be preferred for defects 2 cm in size or larger. Bilateral flaps are smaller and therefore more viable than unilateral or larger flaps, allowing for a more aesthetic alignment of the vermilion border and preservation of muscle activity because muscle fibers are not cut. This technique also allows for more efficient stretching or medial advancement of the tissue while generating less tension on the distal flap portions. Burow triangles can be utilized if necessary for improved aesthetic outcome.¹

Mucosal Advancement and Split Myomucosal Advancement Flap

The mucosal advancement technique can be considered for tumors that do not involve the adjacent cutaneous skin or the orbicularis oris muscle; thus, the reconstruction involves only the superficial vermilion area.^7,13 Mucosal incisions are made at the gingivobuccal sulcus, and the mucosal flap is elevated off the orbicularis oris muscle and advanced into the defect.¹⁰ A plane of dissection is maintained while preserving the labial artery. Undermining effectively advances wet mucosa into the dry mucosal lip to create a neovermilion. However, the reconstructed lip often appears thinner and will possibly be a different shade compared to the adjacent native lip. These discrepancies become more evident with deeper defects.⁷

There is a risk for cosmetic distortion and scar contraction with advancing the entire mucosa. Eirís et al¹³ described a solution—a bilateral mucosal rotation flap in which the primary incision is made along the entire vermilion border and tissue is undermined to allow advancement of the mucosa. Because the wound closure tension lays across the entire lip, there is less risk for scar contraction, even if the flap movement is unequal on either side of the defect.¹³

Although mucosal advancement flaps are a classic choice for reconstruction following a vermilion defect, other techniques, such as primary closure, should be considered in elderly patients and patients taking anticoagulants because of the risks for flap necrosis, swelling, bruising, hematoma, and dysesthesia, as well as a decrease in the anterior-posterior dimension of the lip. These risks can be attributed to trauma of surrounding tissue and stress secondary to longer overall operating times.¹⁴

Split myomucosal advancement flaps are used in similar scenarios as myomucosal advancement flaps but for larger red lip defects that are less than 50% the length of the upper or lower lip. Split myomucosal advancement flaps utilize an axial flap based on the labial artery, which provides robust vascular supply to the reconstructed area. This vascularity, along with lateral motor innervation of the orbicularis oris, allows for split myomucosal advancement flaps to restore the resected volume, preserve lip function, and minimize postoperative microstomia.⁷

V-Y Advancement Flaps

V-Y advancement flaps are based on a subcutaneous tissue pedicle and are optimal for partial- and full-thickness defects larger than 1 cm on the lateral upper lips, whereas bilateral V-Y advancement flaps are recommended for central lip defects.^15-17 Advantages of V-Y advancement flaps are preserved facial symmetry and maintenance of the oral sphincter and facial nerve function. The undermining portions allow for advancement of a skin flap of similar thickness and contour into the upper or lower lip.¹⁵ Disadvantages include facial asymmetry with larger defects involving the melolabial fold as well as paresthesia after closure. However, in one study, no paresthesia was reported more than 12 months postprocedure.⁴ The biggest disadvantage of the V-Y advancement flap is the kite-shaped scar and possible trapdoor deformity.^5,15 When working medially, the addition of the pincer modification helps avoid blunting of the philtrum and recreates a Cupid’s bow by curling the lateral flap edges medially to resemble a teardrop shape.¹⁷ V-Y advancement flaps for defects of skin and adipose tissue less than 5 mm in size have the highest need for revision surgery; thus, defects of this small size should be repaired primarily.⁴

When using a V-Y advancement flap to correct large defects, there are 3 common complications that may arise: fullness medial to the commissure, a depressed vermilion lip, and a standing cutaneous deformity along the trailing edge of the flap where the Y is formed upon closure of the donor site. To decrease the fullness, a skin excision from the inferior border of the flap along the vermiliocutaneous border can be made to debulk the area. A vermilion advancement can be used to optimize the vermiliocutaneous junction. Potential standing cutaneous deformity is addressed by excising a small ellipse of skin oriented along the axis of the relaxed skin tension lines.¹⁵

Abbé-Estlander Flap

The Abbé-Estlander flap (also known as a transoral cross-lip flap) is a full-thickness myocutaneous interpolation flap with blood supply from the labial artery. It is used for lower lip tumors that have deep invasion into muscle and are 30% to 60% of the horizontal lip.^8,9 Abbé transposition flaps are used for defects medial to the oral commissure and are best suited for philtrum reconstruction, whereas Estlander flaps are for defects that involve the oral commissure.^9,18 Interpolation flaps usually are performed in 2 stages, but some dermatologic surgeons have reported success with single-stage procedures.¹ The second-stage division usually is performed 2 to 3 weeks after flap insetting to allow time for neovascularization, which is crucial for pedicle survival.^8,9,19

Advantages of this type of flap are the preservation of orbicularis oris strength and a functional and aesthetic result with minimal change in appearance for defects sized from one-third to two-thirds the width of the lip.²⁰ This aesthetic effect is particularly notable when the donor flap is taken from the mediolateral upper lip, allowing the scarred area to blend into the nasolabial fold.⁸ Disadvantages of this flap are a risk for microstomia, lip vermilion misalignment, and lip adhesion.²¹ It is important that patients are educated on the need for multiple surgeries when using this type of flap, as patients favor single-step procedures.¹ The Abbé flap requires 2 surgeries, whereas the Estlander flap requires only 1. However, patients commonly require commissuroplasty with the Estlander flap alone.²¹

Gillies Fan Flap, Karapandzic Flap, Bernard-Webster Flap, and Bernard-Burrow-Webster Flap

The Gillies fan flap, Karapandzic flap, Bernard-Webster (BW) flap, and modified Bernard-Burrow-Webster flap are the likely choices for repair of lip defects that encompass more than two-thirds of the lip.^9,10,22 The Karapandzic and BW flaps are the 2 most frequently used for reconstruction of larger lower lip defects and only require 1 surgery.

Upper lip full-thickness defects that are too big for an Abbé-Estlander flap are closed with the Gillies fan flap.¹⁸ These defects involve 70% to 80% of the horizontal lip.⁹ The Gillies fan flap design redistributes the remaining lip to provide similar tissue quality and texture to fill the large defects.^9,23 Compared to Karapandzic and Bernard flaps, Gillies fan incision closures are hidden well in the nasolabial folds, and the degree of microstomy is decreased because of the rotation of the flaps. However, rotation of medial cheek flaps can distort the orbicular muscular fibers and the anatomy of the commissure, which may require repair with commissurotomy. Drawbacks include a risk for denervation that can result in temporary oral sphincter incompetence.²³ The bilateral Gillies fan flap carries a risk for microstomy as well as misalignment of the lip vermilion and round commissures.²¹

The Karapandzic flap is similar to the Gillies fan flap but only involves the skin and mucosa.⁹ This flap can be used for lateral or medial upper lip defects greater than one-third the width of the entire lip. This single-procedure flap allows for labial continuity, preserved sensation, and motor function; however, microstomia and misalignment of the oral commissure are common.^1,18,21 In a retrospective study by Nicholas et al,⁴ the only flap reported to have a poor functional outcome was the Karapandzic flap, with 3 patients reporting altered sensation and 1 patient reporting persistent stiffness while smiling.

The BW flap can be applied for extensive full-thickness defects greater than one-third the lower lip and for defects with limited residual lip. This flap also can be used in cases where only skin is excised, as the flap does not depend on reminiscent lip tissue for reconstruction of the new lower lip. Sensory function is maintained given adequate visualization and preservation of the local vascular, nervous, and muscular systems. Disadvantages of the BW flap include an incision notch in the region of the lower lip; blunting of the alveolobuccal sulcus; and functional deficits, such as lip incontinence to liquids during the postoperative period.²¹

The Bernard-Burrow-Webster flap is used for large lower lip defects and preserves the oral commissures by advancing adjacent cheek tissue and remaining lip tissue medially.¹⁰ It allows for larger site mobilization, but it is possible to see some resulting oral incontinence.^1,10 The Burow wedge flap is a variant of the advancement flap, with the Burow triangle located lateral to the oral commissure. Caution must be taken to avoid intraoperative bleeding from the labial and angular arteries. In addition, there also may be downward displacement of the vermilion border.⁵

How to Choose a Flap

The orbicularis oris is a circular muscle that surrounds both the upper and lower lips. It is pulled into an oval, allowing for sphincter function by radially oriented muscles, all of which are innervated by the facial nerve. Other key anatomical structures of the lips include the tubercle (vermilion prominence), Cupid’s bow and philtrum, nasolabial folds, white roll, hair-bearing area, and vermilion border. The lips are divided into cutaneous, mucosal, and vermilion parts, with the vermilion area divided into dry/external and wet/internal areas. Sensation to the upper lip is provided by the maxillary division of the trigeminal nerve via the infraorbital nerve. The lower lip is innervated by the mandibular division of the trigeminal nerve via the inferior alveolar nerve. The labial artery, a branch of the facial artery, is responsible for blood supply to the lips.^3,9 Because of the complex anatomy of the lips, careful reconstruction is crucial for functional and aesthetic preservation.

There are a variety of lip defect repairs, but all local flaps aim to preserve aesthetics and function. The Table summarizes the key risks and benefits of each flap. Local flap techniques can be used in combination for more complex defects.³ For example, Nadiminti et al¹⁹ described the combination of the Abbé flap and V-Y advancement flap to restore function and create a new symmetric nasolabial fold. Dermatologic surgeons will determine the most suitable technique based on tumor location, tumor stage or depth of invasion (partial or full thickness), and preservation of function and aesthetics.¹

Other factors to consider when choosing a local flap are the patient’s age, tissue laxity, dentition/need for dentures, and any prior treatments.⁷ Scar revision surgery may be needed after reconstruction, especially with longer vertical scars in areas without other rhytides. In addition, paresthesia is common after Mohs micrographic surgery of the face; however, new neural networks are created postoperatively, and most paresthesia resolves within 1 year of the repair.⁴ Dermabrasion and Z-plasty also may be considered, as they have been shown to be successful in improving final outcomes.⁹ Overall, local flaps have risks for infection, flap necrosis, and bleeding, though the incidence is low in reconstructions of the face.

Final Thoughts

There are several mechanisms to repair upper and lower lip defects resulting from surgical removal of cutaneous cancers. This review of specific flaps used in lip reconstruction provides a comprehensive overview of indications, advantages, and disadvantages of available lip flaps.

The lip is commonly affected by skin cancer because of increased sun exposure and actinic damage, with basal cell carcinoma typically occurring on the upper lip and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the lower lip. The risk for metastatic spread of SCC on the lip is higher than cutaneous SCC on other facial locations but lower than SCC of the oral mucosa.^1,2 If the tumor is operable and the patient has no contraindications to surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery is the preferred treatment, as it allows for maximal healthy tissue preservation and has the lowest recurrence rates.^1-3 Once the tumor is removed and margins are confirmed to be negative, one must consider the options for defect closure, including healing by secondary intention, primary/direct closure, full-thickness skin grafts, local flaps, or free flaps.⁴ Secondary intention may lead to wound contracture and suboptimal functional and cosmetic outcomes. Primary wedge closure can be utilized for optimal functional and cosmetic outcomes when the defect involves less than one-third of the horizontal width of the vermilion. For larger defects, the surgeon must consider a flap or graft. Skin grafts are less favorable than local flaps because they may have different skin color, texture, and hair-bearing properties than the recipient area.^3,5 In addition, grafts require a separate donor site, which means more pain, recovery time, and risk for complications for the patient.³ Free flaps similarly utilize tissue and blood supply from a donor site to repair major tissue loss. Radial forearm free flaps commonly are used for large lip defects but are more extensive, risky, and costly compared to local flaps for smaller defects under local anesthesia or nerve blocks.^6,7 With these considerations, a local lip flap often is the most ideal repair method.

When performing a local lip flap, it is important to consider the functional and aesthetic aspects of the lips. The lower face is more susceptible to distortion and wound contraction after defect repair because it lacks a substantial supportive fibrous network. The dynamics of opposing lip elevator and depressor muscles make the lips a visual focal point and a crucial structure for facial expression, mastication, oral continence, speech phonation, and mouth opening and closing.^2,4,8,9 Aesthetics and symmetry of the lips also are a large part of facial recognition and self-image.⁹

Lip defects are classified as partial thickness involving skin and muscle or full thickness involving skin, muscle, and mucosa. Partial-thickness wounds less than one-third the width of the horizontal lip can be repaired with a primary wedge resection or left to heal by secondary intention if the defect only involves the superficial vermilion.² For defects larger than one-third the width of the horizontal lip, local flaps are favored to allow for closely matched skin and lip mucosa to fill in the defect.⁹ Full-thickness defects are further classified based on defect width compared to total lip width (ie, less than one-third, between one-third and two-thirds, and greater than two-thirds) as well as location (ie, medial, lateral, upper lip, lower lip).^2,10

There are several local lip flap reconstruction options available, and choosing one is based on defect size and location. We provide a succinct review of the indications, risks, and benefits of commonly utilized flaps (Table), as well as artist renderings of all of the flaps (Figure).

Courtesy of Brinda Chellappan, MD (Galveston, Texas).

Vermilion Flaps

Vermilion flaps are used to close partial-thickness defects of the vermilion border, an area that poses unique obstacles of repair with blending distant tissues to match the surroundings.⁸ Goldstein¹¹ developed an adjacent ipsilateral vermilion flap utilizing an arterialized myocutaneous flap for reconstruction of vermilion defects.Later, this technique was modified by Sawada et al¹² into a bilateral adjacent advancement flap for closure of central vermilion defects and may be preferred for defects 2 cm in size or larger. Bilateral flaps are smaller and therefore more viable than unilateral or larger flaps, allowing for a more aesthetic alignment of the vermilion border and preservation of muscle activity because muscle fibers are not cut. This technique also allows for more efficient stretching or medial advancement of the tissue while generating less tension on the distal flap portions. Burow triangles can be utilized if necessary for improved aesthetic outcome.¹

Mucosal Advancement and Split Myomucosal Advancement Flap

The mucosal advancement technique can be considered for tumors that do not involve the adjacent cutaneous skin or the orbicularis oris muscle; thus, the reconstruction involves only the superficial vermilion area.^7,13 Mucosal incisions are made at the gingivobuccal sulcus, and the mucosal flap is elevated off the orbicularis oris muscle and advanced into the defect.¹⁰ A plane of dissection is maintained while preserving the labial artery. Undermining effectively advances wet mucosa into the dry mucosal lip to create a neovermilion. However, the reconstructed lip often appears thinner and will possibly be a different shade compared to the adjacent native lip. These discrepancies become more evident with deeper defects.⁷

There is a risk for cosmetic distortion and scar contraction with advancing the entire mucosa. Eirís et al¹³ described a solution—a bilateral mucosal rotation flap in which the primary incision is made along the entire vermilion border and tissue is undermined to allow advancement of the mucosa. Because the wound closure tension lays across the entire lip, there is less risk for scar contraction, even if the flap movement is unequal on either side of the defect.¹³

Although mucosal advancement flaps are a classic choice for reconstruction following a vermilion defect, other techniques, such as primary closure, should be considered in elderly patients and patients taking anticoagulants because of the risks for flap necrosis, swelling, bruising, hematoma, and dysesthesia, as well as a decrease in the anterior-posterior dimension of the lip. These risks can be attributed to trauma of surrounding tissue and stress secondary to longer overall operating times.¹⁴

Split myomucosal advancement flaps are used in similar scenarios as myomucosal advancement flaps but for larger red lip defects that are less than 50% the length of the upper or lower lip. Split myomucosal advancement flaps utilize an axial flap based on the labial artery, which provides robust vascular supply to the reconstructed area. This vascularity, along with lateral motor innervation of the orbicularis oris, allows for split myomucosal advancement flaps to restore the resected volume, preserve lip function, and minimize postoperative microstomia.⁷

V-Y Advancement Flaps

V-Y advancement flaps are based on a subcutaneous tissue pedicle and are optimal for partial- and full-thickness defects larger than 1 cm on the lateral upper lips, whereas bilateral V-Y advancement flaps are recommended for central lip defects.^15-17 Advantages of V-Y advancement flaps are preserved facial symmetry and maintenance of the oral sphincter and facial nerve function. The undermining portions allow for advancement of a skin flap of similar thickness and contour into the upper or lower lip.¹⁵ Disadvantages include facial asymmetry with larger defects involving the melolabial fold as well as paresthesia after closure. However, in one study, no paresthesia was reported more than 12 months postprocedure.⁴ The biggest disadvantage of the V-Y advancement flap is the kite-shaped scar and possible trapdoor deformity.^5,15 When working medially, the addition of the pincer modification helps avoid blunting of the philtrum and recreates a Cupid’s bow by curling the lateral flap edges medially to resemble a teardrop shape.¹⁷ V-Y advancement flaps for defects of skin and adipose tissue less than 5 mm in size have the highest need for revision surgery; thus, defects of this small size should be repaired primarily.⁴

When using a V-Y advancement flap to correct large defects, there are 3 common complications that may arise: fullness medial to the commissure, a depressed vermilion lip, and a standing cutaneous deformity along the trailing edge of the flap where the Y is formed upon closure of the donor site. To decrease the fullness, a skin excision from the inferior border of the flap along the vermiliocutaneous border can be made to debulk the area. A vermilion advancement can be used to optimize the vermiliocutaneous junction. Potential standing cutaneous deformity is addressed by excising a small ellipse of skin oriented along the axis of the relaxed skin tension lines.¹⁵

Abbé-Estlander Flap

The Abbé-Estlander flap (also known as a transoral cross-lip flap) is a full-thickness myocutaneous interpolation flap with blood supply from the labial artery. It is used for lower lip tumors that have deep invasion into muscle and are 30% to 60% of the horizontal lip.^8,9 Abbé transposition flaps are used for defects medial to the oral commissure and are best suited for philtrum reconstruction, whereas Estlander flaps are for defects that involve the oral commissure.^9,18 Interpolation flaps usually are performed in 2 stages, but some dermatologic surgeons have reported success with single-stage procedures.¹ The second-stage division usually is performed 2 to 3 weeks after flap insetting to allow time for neovascularization, which is crucial for pedicle survival.^8,9,19

Advantages of this type of flap are the preservation of orbicularis oris strength and a functional and aesthetic result with minimal change in appearance for defects sized from one-third to two-thirds the width of the lip.²⁰ This aesthetic effect is particularly notable when the donor flap is taken from the mediolateral upper lip, allowing the scarred area to blend into the nasolabial fold.⁸ Disadvantages of this flap are a risk for microstomia, lip vermilion misalignment, and lip adhesion.²¹ It is important that patients are educated on the need for multiple surgeries when using this type of flap, as patients favor single-step procedures.¹ The Abbé flap requires 2 surgeries, whereas the Estlander flap requires only 1. However, patients commonly require commissuroplasty with the Estlander flap alone.²¹

Gillies Fan Flap, Karapandzic Flap, Bernard-Webster Flap, and Bernard-Burrow-Webster Flap

The Gillies fan flap, Karapandzic flap, Bernard-Webster (BW) flap, and modified Bernard-Burrow-Webster flap are the likely choices for repair of lip defects that encompass more than two-thirds of the lip.^9,10,22 The Karapandzic and BW flaps are the 2 most frequently used for reconstruction of larger lower lip defects and only require 1 surgery.

Upper lip full-thickness defects that are too big for an Abbé-Estlander flap are closed with the Gillies fan flap.¹⁸ These defects involve 70% to 80% of the horizontal lip.⁹ The Gillies fan flap design redistributes the remaining lip to provide similar tissue quality and texture to fill the large defects.^9,23 Compared to Karapandzic and Bernard flaps, Gillies fan incision closures are hidden well in the nasolabial folds, and the degree of microstomy is decreased because of the rotation of the flaps. However, rotation of medial cheek flaps can distort the orbicular muscular fibers and the anatomy of the commissure, which may require repair with commissurotomy. Drawbacks include a risk for denervation that can result in temporary oral sphincter incompetence.²³ The bilateral Gillies fan flap carries a risk for microstomy as well as misalignment of the lip vermilion and round commissures.²¹

The Karapandzic flap is similar to the Gillies fan flap but only involves the skin and mucosa.⁹ This flap can be used for lateral or medial upper lip defects greater than one-third the width of the entire lip. This single-procedure flap allows for labial continuity, preserved sensation, and motor function; however, microstomia and misalignment of the oral commissure are common.^1,18,21 In a retrospective study by Nicholas et al,⁴ the only flap reported to have a poor functional outcome was the Karapandzic flap, with 3 patients reporting altered sensation and 1 patient reporting persistent stiffness while smiling.

The BW flap can be applied for extensive full-thickness defects greater than one-third the lower lip and for defects with limited residual lip. This flap also can be used in cases where only skin is excised, as the flap does not depend on reminiscent lip tissue for reconstruction of the new lower lip. Sensory function is maintained given adequate visualization and preservation of the local vascular, nervous, and muscular systems. Disadvantages of the BW flap include an incision notch in the region of the lower lip; blunting of the alveolobuccal sulcus; and functional deficits, such as lip incontinence to liquids during the postoperative period.²¹

The Bernard-Burrow-Webster flap is used for large lower lip defects and preserves the oral commissures by advancing adjacent cheek tissue and remaining lip tissue medially.¹⁰ It allows for larger site mobilization, but it is possible to see some resulting oral incontinence.^1,10 The Burow wedge flap is a variant of the advancement flap, with the Burow triangle located lateral to the oral commissure. Caution must be taken to avoid intraoperative bleeding from the labial and angular arteries. In addition, there also may be downward displacement of the vermilion border.⁵

How to Choose a Flap

The orbicularis oris is a circular muscle that surrounds both the upper and lower lips. It is pulled into an oval, allowing for sphincter function by radially oriented muscles, all of which are innervated by the facial nerve. Other key anatomical structures of the lips include the tubercle (vermilion prominence), Cupid’s bow and philtrum, nasolabial folds, white roll, hair-bearing area, and vermilion border. The lips are divided into cutaneous, mucosal, and vermilion parts, with the vermilion area divided into dry/external and wet/internal areas. Sensation to the upper lip is provided by the maxillary division of the trigeminal nerve via the infraorbital nerve. The lower lip is innervated by the mandibular division of the trigeminal nerve via the inferior alveolar nerve. The labial artery, a branch of the facial artery, is responsible for blood supply to the lips.^3,9 Because of the complex anatomy of the lips, careful reconstruction is crucial for functional and aesthetic preservation.

There are a variety of lip defect repairs, but all local flaps aim to preserve aesthetics and function. The Table summarizes the key risks and benefits of each flap. Local flap techniques can be used in combination for more complex defects.³ For example, Nadiminti et al¹⁹ described the combination of the Abbé flap and V-Y advancement flap to restore function and create a new symmetric nasolabial fold. Dermatologic surgeons will determine the most suitable technique based on tumor location, tumor stage or depth of invasion (partial or full thickness), and preservation of function and aesthetics.¹

Other factors to consider when choosing a local flap are the patient’s age, tissue laxity, dentition/need for dentures, and any prior treatments.⁷ Scar revision surgery may be needed after reconstruction, especially with longer vertical scars in areas without other rhytides. In addition, paresthesia is common after Mohs micrographic surgery of the face; however, new neural networks are created postoperatively, and most paresthesia resolves within 1 year of the repair.⁴ Dermabrasion and Z-plasty also may be considered, as they have been shown to be successful in improving final outcomes.⁹ Overall, local flaps have risks for infection, flap necrosis, and bleeding, though the incidence is low in reconstructions of the face.

Final Thoughts

There are several mechanisms to repair upper and lower lip defects resulting from surgical removal of cutaneous cancers. This review of specific flaps used in lip reconstruction provides a comprehensive overview of indications, advantages, and disadvantages of available lip flaps.

The lip is commonly affected by skin cancer because of increased sun exposure and actinic damage, with basal cell carcinoma typically occurring on the upper lip and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the lower lip. The risk for metastatic spread of SCC on the lip is higher than cutaneous SCC on other facial locations but lower than SCC of the oral mucosa.^1,2 If the tumor is operable and the patient has no contraindications to surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery is the preferred treatment, as it allows for maximal healthy tissue preservation and has the lowest recurrence rates.^1-3 Once the tumor is removed and margins are confirmed to be negative, one must consider the options for defect closure, including healing by secondary intention, primary/direct closure, full-thickness skin grafts, local flaps, or free flaps.⁴ Secondary intention may lead to wound contracture and suboptimal functional and cosmetic outcomes. Primary wedge closure can be utilized for optimal functional and cosmetic outcomes when the defect involves less than one-third of the horizontal width of the vermilion. For larger defects, the surgeon must consider a flap or graft. Skin grafts are less favorable than local flaps because they may have different skin color, texture, and hair-bearing properties than the recipient area.^3,5 In addition, grafts require a separate donor site, which means more pain, recovery time, and risk for complications for the patient.³ Free flaps similarly utilize tissue and blood supply from a donor site to repair major tissue loss. Radial forearm free flaps commonly are used for large lip defects but are more extensive, risky, and costly compared to local flaps for smaller defects under local anesthesia or nerve blocks.^6,7 With these considerations, a local lip flap often is the most ideal repair method.

When performing a local lip flap, it is important to consider the functional and aesthetic aspects of the lips. The lower face is more susceptible to distortion and wound contraction after defect repair because it lacks a substantial supportive fibrous network. The dynamics of opposing lip elevator and depressor muscles make the lips a visual focal point and a crucial structure for facial expression, mastication, oral continence, speech phonation, and mouth opening and closing.^2,4,8,9 Aesthetics and symmetry of the lips also are a large part of facial recognition and self-image.⁹

Lip defects are classified as partial thickness involving skin and muscle or full thickness involving skin, muscle, and mucosa. Partial-thickness wounds less than one-third the width of the horizontal lip can be repaired with a primary wedge resection or left to heal by secondary intention if the defect only involves the superficial vermilion.² For defects larger than one-third the width of the horizontal lip, local flaps are favored to allow for closely matched skin and lip mucosa to fill in the defect.⁹ Full-thickness defects are further classified based on defect width compared to total lip width (ie, less than one-third, between one-third and two-thirds, and greater than two-thirds) as well as location (ie, medial, lateral, upper lip, lower lip).^2,10

There are several local lip flap reconstruction options available, and choosing one is based on defect size and location. We provide a succinct review of the indications, risks, and benefits of commonly utilized flaps (Table), as well as artist renderings of all of the flaps (Figure).

Courtesy of Brinda Chellappan, MD (Galveston, Texas).

Vermilion Flaps

Vermilion flaps are used to close partial-thickness defects of the vermilion border, an area that poses unique obstacles of repair with blending distant tissues to match the surroundings.⁸ Goldstein¹¹ developed an adjacent ipsilateral vermilion flap utilizing an arterialized myocutaneous flap for reconstruction of vermilion defects.Later, this technique was modified by Sawada et al¹² into a bilateral adjacent advancement flap for closure of central vermilion defects and may be preferred for defects 2 cm in size or larger. Bilateral flaps are smaller and therefore more viable than unilateral or larger flaps, allowing for a more aesthetic alignment of the vermilion border and preservation of muscle activity because muscle fibers are not cut. This technique also allows for more efficient stretching or medial advancement of the tissue while generating less tension on the distal flap portions. Burow triangles can be utilized if necessary for improved aesthetic outcome.¹

Mucosal Advancement and Split Myomucosal Advancement Flap

The mucosal advancement technique can be considered for tumors that do not involve the adjacent cutaneous skin or the orbicularis oris muscle; thus, the reconstruction involves only the superficial vermilion area.^7,13 Mucosal incisions are made at the gingivobuccal sulcus, and the mucosal flap is elevated off the orbicularis oris muscle and advanced into the defect.¹⁰ A plane of dissection is maintained while preserving the labial artery. Undermining effectively advances wet mucosa into the dry mucosal lip to create a neovermilion. However, the reconstructed lip often appears thinner and will possibly be a different shade compared to the adjacent native lip. These discrepancies become more evident with deeper defects.⁷

There is a risk for cosmetic distortion and scar contraction with advancing the entire mucosa. Eirís et al¹³ described a solution—a bilateral mucosal rotation flap in which the primary incision is made along the entire vermilion border and tissue is undermined to allow advancement of the mucosa. Because the wound closure tension lays across the entire lip, there is less risk for scar contraction, even if the flap movement is unequal on either side of the defect.¹³

Although mucosal advancement flaps are a classic choice for reconstruction following a vermilion defect, other techniques, such as primary closure, should be considered in elderly patients and patients taking anticoagulants because of the risks for flap necrosis, swelling, bruising, hematoma, and dysesthesia, as well as a decrease in the anterior-posterior dimension of the lip. These risks can be attributed to trauma of surrounding tissue and stress secondary to longer overall operating times.¹⁴

Split myomucosal advancement flaps are used in similar scenarios as myomucosal advancement flaps but for larger red lip defects that are less than 50% the length of the upper or lower lip. Split myomucosal advancement flaps utilize an axial flap based on the labial artery, which provides robust vascular supply to the reconstructed area. This vascularity, along with lateral motor innervation of the orbicularis oris, allows for split myomucosal advancement flaps to restore the resected volume, preserve lip function, and minimize postoperative microstomia.⁷

V-Y Advancement Flaps

V-Y advancement flaps are based on a subcutaneous tissue pedicle and are optimal for partial- and full-thickness defects larger than 1 cm on the lateral upper lips, whereas bilateral V-Y advancement flaps are recommended for central lip defects.^15-17 Advantages of V-Y advancement flaps are preserved facial symmetry and maintenance of the oral sphincter and facial nerve function. The undermining portions allow for advancement of a skin flap of similar thickness and contour into the upper or lower lip.¹⁵ Disadvantages include facial asymmetry with larger defects involving the melolabial fold as well as paresthesia after closure. However, in one study, no paresthesia was reported more than 12 months postprocedure.⁴ The biggest disadvantage of the V-Y advancement flap is the kite-shaped scar and possible trapdoor deformity.^5,15 When working medially, the addition of the pincer modification helps avoid blunting of the philtrum and recreates a Cupid’s bow by curling the lateral flap edges medially to resemble a teardrop shape.¹⁷ V-Y advancement flaps for defects of skin and adipose tissue less than 5 mm in size have the highest need for revision surgery; thus, defects of this small size should be repaired primarily.⁴

When using a V-Y advancement flap to correct large defects, there are 3 common complications that may arise: fullness medial to the commissure, a depressed vermilion lip, and a standing cutaneous deformity along the trailing edge of the flap where the Y is formed upon closure of the donor site. To decrease the fullness, a skin excision from the inferior border of the flap along the vermiliocutaneous border can be made to debulk the area. A vermilion advancement can be used to optimize the vermiliocutaneous junction. Potential standing cutaneous deformity is addressed by excising a small ellipse of skin oriented along the axis of the relaxed skin tension lines.¹⁵

Abbé-Estlander Flap

The Abbé-Estlander flap (also known as a transoral cross-lip flap) is a full-thickness myocutaneous interpolation flap with blood supply from the labial artery. It is used for lower lip tumors that have deep invasion into muscle and are 30% to 60% of the horizontal lip.^8,9 Abbé transposition flaps are used for defects medial to the oral commissure and are best suited for philtrum reconstruction, whereas Estlander flaps are for defects that involve the oral commissure.^9,18 Interpolation flaps usually are performed in 2 stages, but some dermatologic surgeons have reported success with single-stage procedures.¹ The second-stage division usually is performed 2 to 3 weeks after flap insetting to allow time for neovascularization, which is crucial for pedicle survival.^8,9,19

Advantages of this type of flap are the preservation of orbicularis oris strength and a functional and aesthetic result with minimal change in appearance for defects sized from one-third to two-thirds the width of the lip.²⁰ This aesthetic effect is particularly notable when the donor flap is taken from the mediolateral upper lip, allowing the scarred area to blend into the nasolabial fold.⁸ Disadvantages of this flap are a risk for microstomia, lip vermilion misalignment, and lip adhesion.²¹ It is important that patients are educated on the need for multiple surgeries when using this type of flap, as patients favor single-step procedures.¹ The Abbé flap requires 2 surgeries, whereas the Estlander flap requires only 1. However, patients commonly require commissuroplasty with the Estlander flap alone.²¹

Gillies Fan Flap, Karapandzic Flap, Bernard-Webster Flap, and Bernard-Burrow-Webster Flap

The Gillies fan flap, Karapandzic flap, Bernard-Webster (BW) flap, and modified Bernard-Burrow-Webster flap are the likely choices for repair of lip defects that encompass more than two-thirds of the lip.^9,10,22 The Karapandzic and BW flaps are the 2 most frequently used for reconstruction of larger lower lip defects and only require 1 surgery.

Upper lip full-thickness defects that are too big for an Abbé-Estlander flap are closed with the Gillies fan flap.¹⁸ These defects involve 70% to 80% of the horizontal lip.⁹ The Gillies fan flap design redistributes the remaining lip to provide similar tissue quality and texture to fill the large defects.^9,23 Compared to Karapandzic and Bernard flaps, Gillies fan incision closures are hidden well in the nasolabial folds, and the degree of microstomy is decreased because of the rotation of the flaps. However, rotation of medial cheek flaps can distort the orbicular muscular fibers and the anatomy of the commissure, which may require repair with commissurotomy. Drawbacks include a risk for denervation that can result in temporary oral sphincter incompetence.²³ The bilateral Gillies fan flap carries a risk for microstomy as well as misalignment of the lip vermilion and round commissures.²¹

The Karapandzic flap is similar to the Gillies fan flap but only involves the skin and mucosa.⁹ This flap can be used for lateral or medial upper lip defects greater than one-third the width of the entire lip. This single-procedure flap allows for labial continuity, preserved sensation, and motor function; however, microstomia and misalignment of the oral commissure are common.^1,18,21 In a retrospective study by Nicholas et al,⁴ the only flap reported to have a poor functional outcome was the Karapandzic flap, with 3 patients reporting altered sensation and 1 patient reporting persistent stiffness while smiling.

The BW flap can be applied for extensive full-thickness defects greater than one-third the lower lip and for defects with limited residual lip. This flap also can be used in cases where only skin is excised, as the flap does not depend on reminiscent lip tissue for reconstruction of the new lower lip. Sensory function is maintained given adequate visualization and preservation of the local vascular, nervous, and muscular systems. Disadvantages of the BW flap include an incision notch in the region of the lower lip; blunting of the alveolobuccal sulcus; and functional deficits, such as lip incontinence to liquids during the postoperative period.²¹

The Bernard-Burrow-Webster flap is used for large lower lip defects and preserves the oral commissures by advancing adjacent cheek tissue and remaining lip tissue medially.¹⁰ It allows for larger site mobilization, but it is possible to see some resulting oral incontinence.^1,10 The Burow wedge flap is a variant of the advancement flap, with the Burow triangle located lateral to the oral commissure. Caution must be taken to avoid intraoperative bleeding from the labial and angular arteries. In addition, there also may be downward displacement of the vermilion border.⁵

How to Choose a Flap

The orbicularis oris is a circular muscle that surrounds both the upper and lower lips. It is pulled into an oval, allowing for sphincter function by radially oriented muscles, all of which are innervated by the facial nerve. Other key anatomical structures of the lips include the tubercle (vermilion prominence), Cupid’s bow and philtrum, nasolabial folds, white roll, hair-bearing area, and vermilion border. The lips are divided into cutaneous, mucosal, and vermilion parts, with the vermilion area divided into dry/external and wet/internal areas. Sensation to the upper lip is provided by the maxillary division of the trigeminal nerve via the infraorbital nerve. The lower lip is innervated by the mandibular division of the trigeminal nerve via the inferior alveolar nerve. The labial artery, a branch of the facial artery, is responsible for blood supply to the lips.^3,9 Because of the complex anatomy of the lips, careful reconstruction is crucial for functional and aesthetic preservation.

There are a variety of lip defect repairs, but all local flaps aim to preserve aesthetics and function. The Table summarizes the key risks and benefits of each flap. Local flap techniques can be used in combination for more complex defects.³ For example, Nadiminti et al¹⁹ described the combination of the Abbé flap and V-Y advancement flap to restore function and create a new symmetric nasolabial fold. Dermatologic surgeons will determine the most suitable technique based on tumor location, tumor stage or depth of invasion (partial or full thickness), and preservation of function and aesthetics.¹

Other factors to consider when choosing a local flap are the patient’s age, tissue laxity, dentition/need for dentures, and any prior treatments.⁷ Scar revision surgery may be needed after reconstruction, especially with longer vertical scars in areas without other rhytides. In addition, paresthesia is common after Mohs micrographic surgery of the face; however, new neural networks are created postoperatively, and most paresthesia resolves within 1 year of the repair.⁴ Dermabrasion and Z-plasty also may be considered, as they have been shown to be successful in improving final outcomes.⁹ Overall, local flaps have risks for infection, flap necrosis, and bleeding, though the incidence is low in reconstructions of the face.

Final Thoughts

There are several mechanisms to repair upper and lower lip defects resulting from surgical removal of cutaneous cancers. This review of specific flaps used in lip reconstruction provides a comprehensive overview of indications, advantages, and disadvantages of available lip flaps.

The mpox (monkeypox) virus is a zoonotic orthopox DNA virus that results in a smallpoxlike illness.¹ Vaccination against smallpox protects against other orthopox infections, including mpox; however, unlike smallpox, mpox is notable for a variety of not-yet-confirmed animal reservoirs.² Mpox was first identified in Denmark in 1959 among nonhuman primates imported from Singapore, and the first case of human infection was diagnosed in 1970 in a 9-month-old child in the Democratic Republic of Congo.³ Endemic regions of Africa have had sporadic outbreaks with increasing frequency over time since the cessation of smallpox vaccination in 1980.^2,4 Infections in nonendemic countries have occurred intermittently, including in 2003 in the Midwest United States. This outbreak was traced back to prairie dogs infected by exotic animals imported from the Republic of Ghana.⁵

Two genetic clades of mpox that differ in mortality rates have been identified: clade II (formerly the West African clade) generally is self-limited with an estimated mortality of 1% to 6%, whereas clade I (formerly the Congo Basin clade) is more transmissible, with a mortality of approximately 10%.^2,6,7 Notably, as of May 2, 2022, all polymerase chain reaction–confirmed cases of mpox in nonendemic countries were identified as clade II.⁷ Following the continued international spread of mpox, the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the global outbreak a public health emergency of international concern on July 23, 2022.⁸ As of March 1, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that there have been more than 86,000 cases of laboratory-confirmed mpox worldwide and 105 deaths, 89 of which occurred in nonendemic regions.⁹

Transmission of Mpox

In endemic countries, cases have been largely reported secondary to zoonotic spillover from contact with an infected animal.⁶ However, in nonendemic countries, mpox often results from human-to-human transmission, primarily via skin-to-skin contact with infected skin, but also may occur indirectly via contaminated fomites such as bedding or clothing, respiratory secretions, or vertical transmission.^6,10 The indirect transmission of mpox via contaminated fomites is controversial, though some studies have shown the virus can survive on surfaces for up to 15 days.¹¹ In the current outbreak, human-to-human transmission has been strongly associated with close contact during sexual activity, particularly among men who have sex with men (MSM), with notable physical concentration of initial lesions in the genital region.¹² Anyone can acquire mpox—infections are not exclusive to MSM populations, and cases have been reported in all demographic groups, including women and children. It is important to avoid stigmatization of MSM to prevent the propagation of homophobia as well as a false sense of complacency in non-MSM populations.¹³

Clinical Presentation of Mpox

The incubation period of mpox has been reported to last up to 21 days and is posited to depend on the mode of transmission, with complex invasive exposures having a shorter duration of approximately 9 days compared to noninvasive exposures, which have a duration of approximately 13 days.¹⁴ In a recent report from the Netherlands, the average incubation time was 8.5 days in 18 men with exposure attributed to sexual encounters with men.¹² Following the incubation period, mpox infection typically presents with nonspecific systemic symptoms such as fever, malaise, sore throat, cough, and headache for approximately 2 days, followed by painful generalized or localized lymphadenopathy 1 to 2 days prior to the onset of skin lesions.^1,15 In a recent report from Portugal of more than 20 confirmed cases of mpox, approximately half of patients denied symptoms or had mild systemic symptoms, suggesting that many patients in the current outbreak do not endorse systemic symptoms.¹⁶

Classic cutaneous lesions are the hallmark feature of mpox.¹⁷ Over a period of 1 to 2 weeks, each lesion progresses through morphologic stages of macule, papule (Figure), vesicle, and pustule, which then crusts over, forming a scab that falls off after another 1 to 2 weeks and can result in dyspigmented or pitted scars.^1,15 Lesions may be deep-seated or umbilicated; previously they were noted to typically start on the face and spread centrifugally, but recent cases have been notable for a predominance of anogenital lesions, often with the anogenital area as the sole or primary area of involvement.¹⁸ Given the high proportion of anogenital lesions in 2022, symptoms such as anogenital pain, tenesmus, and diarrhea are not uncommon.¹⁹ A recent study describing 528 international cases of mpox revealed that 95% of patients presented with a rash; nearly 75% had anogenital lesions; and 41%, 25%, and 10% had involvement of mucosae, the face, and palms/soles, respectively. More than half of patients had fewer than 10 lesions, and 10% presented with a single genital lesion.¹⁹

Given the recent predilection of lesions for the anogenital area, the differential diagnosis of mpox should include other common infections localized to these areas. Unlike herpes simplex and varicella-zoster infections, mpox does not exhibit the classic herpetiform clustering of vesicles, and unlike the painless chancre of syphilis, the lesions of mpox are exquisitely painful. Similar to chancroid, mpox presents with painful genital lesions and lymphadenopathy, and the umbilicated papules of molluscum could easily be confused with mpox lesions. Proctitis caused by many sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including chlamydia and gonorrhea, may be difficult to differentiate from proctitis symptoms of mpox. Co-infection with HIV and other STIs is common among patients developing mpox in 2022, which is not surprising given that the primary mechanism of transmission of mpox at this time is through sexual contact, and cases are more common in patients with multiple recent sexual partners.¹⁹ Considering these shared risk factors and similar presentation of multiple STIs, patients suspected of having an mpox infection should be tested for other STIs, including HIV.

Complications of Mpox

Although mpox generally is characterized by a mild disease course, there is concern for adverse outcomes, particularly in more vulnerable populations, including immunocompromised, pregnant, and pediatric populations. Complications of infection can include sepsis, encephalitis, bronchopneumonia, and ophthalmic complications that can result in loss of vision.^6,17 The most common complications requiring hospitalization in a recent international report of 528 mpox cases were pain management, which was primarily due to severe anogenital pain, followed by soft-tissue superinfection, with other complications including severe pharyngitis limiting oral intake and infection control practices.¹⁹ In addition to severe rectal pain, proctitis and even rectal perforation have been reported.^19,20

Vertical transmission has been described with devastating outcomes in a case series from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where 4 cases of mpox were identified in pregnant women; 3 of these pregnancies resulted in fetal demise.¹⁰ The only fetus to survive was born to a mother with mild infection. In comparison, 2 of 3 mothers with moderate to severe disease experienced spontaneous abortion in the first trimester, and 1 pregnancy ended due to intrauterine demise during the eighteenth week of gestation, likely a complication of mpox. These cases suggest that more severe disease may be linked to worse fetal outcomes.¹⁰ Further epidemiologic studies will be crucial, given the potential implications.

Diagnosis

When considering a diagnosis of mpox, clinicians should inquire about recent travel, living arrangements, sexual history, and recent sick contacts.⁶ A complete skin examination should include the oral and genital areas, given the high prevalence of lesions in these areas. A skin biopsy is not recommended for the diagnosis of mpox, as nonspecific viral changes cannot be differentiated from other viral exanthems, but it often is useful to rule out other differential diagnoses.²¹ Additionally, immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy can be utilized to aid in a histologic diagnosis of mpox.

Polymerase chain reaction detection of orthopox or mpox DNA is the gold standard for diagnosis.⁶ Two swabs should be collected from each lesion by swabbing vigorously using sterile swabs made of a synthetic material such as polyester, nylon, or Dacron and placed into a sterile container or viral transport medium.²² Some laboratories may have different instructions for collection of samples, so clinicians are advised to check for instructions from their local laboratory. Deroofing lesions prior to swabbing is not necessary, and specimens can include lesional material or crust. Collection of specimens from 2 to 3 lesions is recommended, preferably from different body areas or lesions with varying morphologies. Anal or rectal swabs can be considered in patients presenting with anal pain or proctitis with clinical suspicion for mpox based on history.¹⁹

Infection Prevention

Interim guidance from the WHO on November 16, 2022, reiterated the goal of outbreak control primarily via public health measures, which includes targeted use of vaccines for at-risk populations or postexposure prophylactic vaccination within 4 days, but heavily relies on surveillance and containment techniques, such as contact tracing with monitoring of contacts for onset of symptoms and isolation of cases through the complete infectious period.²³ Patients are considered infectious from symptom onset until all cutaneous lesions are re-epithelized and should remain in isolation, including from household contacts and domestic and wildlife animals, for the duration of illness.^24,25 Individuals exposed to humans or animals with confirmed mpox should be monitored for the development of symptoms for 21 days following last known exposure, regardless of vaccination status, and should be instructed to measure their temperature twice daily.²⁶ Pets exposed to mpox should be isolated from other animals and humans for 21 days following last known contact.²⁴ Vaccination strategies for preexposure and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) are discussed below in further detail. Postinfection, the WHO suggests use of condoms for all oral, vaginal, and anal sexual activity for 12 weeks after recovery.⁷

Patients with suspected or confirmed mpox in a hospital should be in a single private room on special droplet and contact precautions.²⁷ No special air handling or negative pressure isolation is needed unless the patient is undergoing an aerosol-generating procedure (eg, intubation, endoscopy, bronchoscopy). When hospitalized, patients should have a dedicated bathroom, if possible, and at-home patients should be isolated from household members until contagion risk resolves; this includes the use of a separate bathroom, when possible. Health care personnel entering the room of a patient should don appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), including a disposable gown, gloves, eye protection, and N95 respirator or equivalent. Recommendations include standard practices for cleaning, with wet cleaning methods preferred over dry methods, using a disinfectant that covers emerging viral pathogens, and avoidance of shaking linens to prevent the spread of infectious particles.²⁷ A variety of Environmental Protection Agency–registered wipes with virucidal activity against emerging viruses, including those with active ingredients such as quaternary ammonium, hydrogen peroxide, and hypochlorous acid, should be used for disinfecting surfaces.²⁸

Vaccination

ACAM2000 (Emergent Bio Solutions) and JYNNEOS (Bavarian Nordic)(also known as Imvamune or Imvanex) are available in the United States for the prevention of mpox infection.²⁹ ACAM2000, a second-generation, replication-competent, live smallpox vaccine administered as a single percutaneous injection, is contraindicated in immunocompromised populations, including patients with HIV or on immunosuppressive or biologic therapy, pregnant individuals, people with a history of atopic dermatitis or other exfoliative skin diseases with impaired barrier function, and patients with a history of cardiac disease due to the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis.³⁰

JYNNEOS is a nonreplicating live vaccine approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention of mpox in individuals older than 18 years administered as 2 subcutaneous doses 4 weeks apart. Patients are considered fully vaccinated 2 weeks after the second dose, and JYNNEOS is available to pediatric patients with a single patient expanded access use authorization from the FDA.^29,30 More recently, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for administration of the vaccine to patients younger than 18 years who are at high risk of infection after exposure.³¹ More importantly, the FDA also issued an EUA for the intradermal administration of JYNNEOS at one-fifth of the subcutaneous dose to expand the current vaccine supply. This EUA is based on research by Frey et al,³² which showed that intradermal administration, even at a lower dose, elicited similar immune responses among study participants as the higher dose administered subcutaneously.

JYNNEOS is the preferred vaccine for the prevention of mpox because of its poor ability to replicate in human cells and resultant safety for use in populations that are immunocompromised, pregnant, or have skin barrier defects such as atopic dermatitis, without the risk of myocarditis or pericarditis. However, current supplies are limited. JYNNEOS was specifically studied in patients with atopic dermatitis and has been shown to be safe and effective in patients with a history of atopic dermatitis and active disease with a SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis) score of 30 or lower.³³ Of note, JYNNEOS is contraindicated in patients allergic to components of the vaccine, including egg, gentamicin, and ciprofloxacin. Although JYNNEOS is safe to administer to persons with immunocompromising conditions, the CDC reports that such persons might be at increased risk for severe disease if an occupational infection occurs, and in the setting of immunocompromise, such persons may be less likely to mount an effective response to vaccination. Therefore, the risk-benefit ratio should be considered to determine if an immunocompromised person should be vaccinated with JYNNEOS.³⁰

The WHO and the CDC do not recommended mass vaccination of the general public for outbreaks of mpox in nonendemic countries, with immunization reserved for appropriate PEP and pre-exposure prophylaxis in intermediate- to high-risk individuals.^23,26 The CDC recommends PEP vaccination for individuals with a high degree of exposure that includes unprotected contact of the skin or mucous membranes of an individual to the skin, lesions, body fluids, or contaminated fomites from a patient with mpox, as well as being within 6 feet of a patient during an aerosolization procedure without proper PPE. Following an intermediate degree of exposure, which includes being within 6 feet for 3 or more hours wearing at minimum a surgical mask or contact with fomites while wearing incomplete PPE, the CDC recommends monitoring and shared decision-making regarding risks and benefits of PEP vaccination. Monitoring without PEP is indicated for low and uncertain degrees of exposure, including entering a room without full PPE such as eye protection, regardless of the duration of contact.^23,26

Postexposure prophylaxis vaccination should be administered within 4 days of a known high-level exposure to mpox to prevent infection.²⁹ If administered within 4 to 14 days postexposure, vaccination may reduce disease severity but will not prevent infection.³⁴

Pre-exposure prophylaxis is recommended for individuals at high risk for exposure to mpox, including health care workers such as laboratory personnel who handle mpox specimens and health care workers who administer ACAM2000 vaccinations or anticipate providing care for many patients with mpox.³⁴

Management

Most cases of mpox are characterized by mild to moderate disease with a self-limited course. Most commonly, medical management of mpox involves supportive care such as fluid resuscitation, supplemental oxygen, and pain management.⁶ Treatment of superinfected skin lesions may require antibiotics. In the event of ophthalmologic involvement, patients should be referred to an ophthalmologist for further management.

Currently, there are no FDA-approved therapies for mpox; however, tecovirimat, cidofovir, brincidofovir, and vaccinia immune globulin intravenous are available under expanded access Investigational New Drug protocols.^6,35 Human data for cidofovir, brincidofovir, and vaccinia immune globulin intravenous in the treatment of mpox are lacking, while cidofovir and brincidofovir have shown efficacy against orthopoxviruses in in vitro and animal studies, but are available therapeutic options.³⁵

Tecovirimat is an antiviral that is FDA approved for smallpox with efficacy data against mpox in animal studies. It is the first-line treatment for patients with severe disease requiring hospitalization or 1 or more complications, including dehydration or secondary skin infections, as well as for populations at risk for severe disease, which includes immunocompromised patients, pediatric patients younger than 8 years, pregnant or breastfeeding individuals, or patients with a history of atopic dermatitis or active exfoliative skin conditions.³⁶ In this current outbreak, both intravenous and oral tecovirimat are weight based in adult and pediatric patients for 14 days, with the intravenous form dosed every 12 hours by infusion over 6 hours, and the oral doses administered every 8 to 12 hours based on patient weight.³⁷ Tecovirimat generally is well tolerated with mild side effects but is notably contraindicated in patients with severe renal impairment with a creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/min, and renal monitoring is indicated in pediatric patients younger than 2 years and in all patients receiving intravenous treatment.

Conclusion

Given that cutaneous lesions are the most specific presenting sign of mpox infection, dermatologists will play an integral role in identifying future cases and managing future outbreaks. Mpox should be considered in the differential diagnosis for all patients presenting with umbilicated or papulovesicular lesions, particularly in an anogenital distribution. The classic presentation of mpox may be more common among patients who are not considered high risk and have not been exposed via sexual activity. All patients with suspicious lesions should be managed following appropriate infection control precautions and should undergo molecular diagnostic assay of swabbed lesions to confirm the diagnosis. JYNNEOS is the only vaccine that is currently being distributed in the United States and is safe to administer to immunocompromised populations. The risks and benefits of vaccination should be considered on an individual basis between a patient and their provider. Taking into consideration that patients with atopic dermatitis are at risk for severe disease if infected with mpox, vaccination should be strongly encouraged if indicated based on patient risk factors. For atopic dermatitis patients treated with dupilumab, shared decision-making is essential given the FDA label, which recommends avoiding the use of live vaccines.³⁸

The mpox epidemic occurring amidst the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic should serve as a wake-up call to the importance of pandemic preparedness and the global health response strategies in the modern era of globalization. Looking forward, widespread vaccination against mpox may be necessary to control the spread of the disease and to protect vulnerable populations, including pregnant individuals. In the current climate of hesitancy surrounding vaccines and the erosion of trust in public health agencies, it is incumbent upon health care providers to educate patients regarding the role of vaccines and public health measures to control this developing global health crisis.

The mpox (monkeypox) virus is a zoonotic orthopox DNA virus that results in a smallpoxlike illness.¹ Vaccination against smallpox protects against other orthopox infections, including mpox; however, unlike smallpox, mpox is notable for a variety of not-yet-confirmed animal reservoirs.² Mpox was first identified in Denmark in 1959 among nonhuman primates imported from Singapore, and the first case of human infection was diagnosed in 1970 in a 9-month-old child in the Democratic Republic of Congo.³ Endemic regions of Africa have had sporadic outbreaks with increasing frequency over time since the cessation of smallpox vaccination in 1980.^2,4 Infections in nonendemic countries have occurred intermittently, including in 2003 in the Midwest United States. This outbreak was traced back to prairie dogs infected by exotic animals imported from the Republic of Ghana.⁵

Two genetic clades of mpox that differ in mortality rates have been identified: clade II (formerly the West African clade) generally is self-limited with an estimated mortality of 1% to 6%, whereas clade I (formerly the Congo Basin clade) is more transmissible, with a mortality of approximately 10%.^2,6,7 Notably, as of May 2, 2022, all polymerase chain reaction–confirmed cases of mpox in nonendemic countries were identified as clade II.⁷ Following the continued international spread of mpox, the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the global outbreak a public health emergency of international concern on July 23, 2022.⁸ As of March 1, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that there have been more than 86,000 cases of laboratory-confirmed mpox worldwide and 105 deaths, 89 of which occurred in nonendemic regions.⁹

Transmission of Mpox

In endemic countries, cases have been largely reported secondary to zoonotic spillover from contact with an infected animal.⁶ However, in nonendemic countries, mpox often results from human-to-human transmission, primarily via skin-to-skin contact with infected skin, but also may occur indirectly via contaminated fomites such as bedding or clothing, respiratory secretions, or vertical transmission.^6,10 The indirect transmission of mpox via contaminated fomites is controversial, though some studies have shown the virus can survive on surfaces for up to 15 days.¹¹ In the current outbreak, human-to-human transmission has been strongly associated with close contact during sexual activity, particularly among men who have sex with men (MSM), with notable physical concentration of initial lesions in the genital region.¹² Anyone can acquire mpox—infections are not exclusive to MSM populations, and cases have been reported in all demographic groups, including women and children. It is important to avoid stigmatization of MSM to prevent the propagation of homophobia as well as a false sense of complacency in non-MSM populations.¹³

Clinical Presentation of Mpox

The incubation period of mpox has been reported to last up to 21 days and is posited to depend on the mode of transmission, with complex invasive exposures having a shorter duration of approximately 9 days compared to noninvasive exposures, which have a duration of approximately 13 days.¹⁴ In a recent report from the Netherlands, the average incubation time was 8.5 days in 18 men with exposure attributed to sexual encounters with men.¹² Following the incubation period, mpox infection typically presents with nonspecific systemic symptoms such as fever, malaise, sore throat, cough, and headache for approximately 2 days, followed by painful generalized or localized lymphadenopathy 1 to 2 days prior to the onset of skin lesions.^1,15 In a recent report from Portugal of more than 20 confirmed cases of mpox, approximately half of patients denied symptoms or had mild systemic symptoms, suggesting that many patients in the current outbreak do not endorse systemic symptoms.¹⁶

Classic cutaneous lesions are the hallmark feature of mpox.¹⁷ Over a period of 1 to 2 weeks, each lesion progresses through morphologic stages of macule, papule (Figure), vesicle, and pustule, which then crusts over, forming a scab that falls off after another 1 to 2 weeks and can result in dyspigmented or pitted scars.^1,15 Lesions may be deep-seated or umbilicated; previously they were noted to typically start on the face and spread centrifugally, but recent cases have been notable for a predominance of anogenital lesions, often with the anogenital area as the sole or primary area of involvement.¹⁸ Given the high proportion of anogenital lesions in 2022, symptoms such as anogenital pain, tenesmus, and diarrhea are not uncommon.¹⁹ A recent study describing 528 international cases of mpox revealed that 95% of patients presented with a rash; nearly 75% had anogenital lesions; and 41%, 25%, and 10% had involvement of mucosae, the face, and palms/soles, respectively. More than half of patients had fewer than 10 lesions, and 10% presented with a single genital lesion.¹⁹

Given the recent predilection of lesions for the anogenital area, the differential diagnosis of mpox should include other common infections localized to these areas. Unlike herpes simplex and varicella-zoster infections, mpox does not exhibit the classic herpetiform clustering of vesicles, and unlike the painless chancre of syphilis, the lesions of mpox are exquisitely painful. Similar to chancroid, mpox presents with painful genital lesions and lymphadenopathy, and the umbilicated papules of molluscum could easily be confused with mpox lesions. Proctitis caused by many sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including chlamydia and gonorrhea, may be difficult to differentiate from proctitis symptoms of mpox. Co-infection with HIV and other STIs is common among patients developing mpox in 2022, which is not surprising given that the primary mechanism of transmission of mpox at this time is through sexual contact, and cases are more common in patients with multiple recent sexual partners.¹⁹ Considering these shared risk factors and similar presentation of multiple STIs, patients suspected of having an mpox infection should be tested for other STIs, including HIV.

Complications of Mpox

Although mpox generally is characterized by a mild disease course, there is concern for adverse outcomes, particularly in more vulnerable populations, including immunocompromised, pregnant, and pediatric populations. Complications of infection can include sepsis, encephalitis, bronchopneumonia, and ophthalmic complications that can result in loss of vision.^6,17 The most common complications requiring hospitalization in a recent international report of 528 mpox cases were pain management, which was primarily due to severe anogenital pain, followed by soft-tissue superinfection, with other complications including severe pharyngitis limiting oral intake and infection control practices.¹⁹ In addition to severe rectal pain, proctitis and even rectal perforation have been reported.^19,20

Vertical transmission has been described with devastating outcomes in a case series from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where 4 cases of mpox were identified in pregnant women; 3 of these pregnancies resulted in fetal demise.¹⁰ The only fetus to survive was born to a mother with mild infection. In comparison, 2 of 3 mothers with moderate to severe disease experienced spontaneous abortion in the first trimester, and 1 pregnancy ended due to intrauterine demise during the eighteenth week of gestation, likely a complication of mpox. These cases suggest that more severe disease may be linked to worse fetal outcomes.¹⁰ Further epidemiologic studies will be crucial, given the potential implications.

Diagnosis

When considering a diagnosis of mpox, clinicians should inquire about recent travel, living arrangements, sexual history, and recent sick contacts.⁶ A complete skin examination should include the oral and genital areas, given the high prevalence of lesions in these areas. A skin biopsy is not recommended for the diagnosis of mpox, as nonspecific viral changes cannot be differentiated from other viral exanthems, but it often is useful to rule out other differential diagnoses.²¹ Additionally, immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy can be utilized to aid in a histologic diagnosis of mpox.

Polymerase chain reaction detection of orthopox or mpox DNA is the gold standard for diagnosis.⁶ Two swabs should be collected from each lesion by swabbing vigorously using sterile swabs made of a synthetic material such as polyester, nylon, or Dacron and placed into a sterile container or viral transport medium.²² Some laboratories may have different instructions for collection of samples, so clinicians are advised to check for instructions from their local laboratory. Deroofing lesions prior to swabbing is not necessary, and specimens can include lesional material or crust. Collection of specimens from 2 to 3 lesions is recommended, preferably from different body areas or lesions with varying morphologies. Anal or rectal swabs can be considered in patients presenting with anal pain or proctitis with clinical suspicion for mpox based on history.¹⁹

Infection Prevention

Interim guidance from the WHO on November 16, 2022, reiterated the goal of outbreak control primarily via public health measures, which includes targeted use of vaccines for at-risk populations or postexposure prophylactic vaccination within 4 days, but heavily relies on surveillance and containment techniques, such as contact tracing with monitoring of contacts for onset of symptoms and isolation of cases through the complete infectious period.²³ Patients are considered infectious from symptom onset until all cutaneous lesions are re-epithelized and should remain in isolation, including from household contacts and domestic and wildlife animals, for the duration of illness.^24,25 Individuals exposed to humans or animals with confirmed mpox should be monitored for the development of symptoms for 21 days following last known exposure, regardless of vaccination status, and should be instructed to measure their temperature twice daily.²⁶ Pets exposed to mpox should be isolated from other animals and humans for 21 days following last known contact.²⁴ Vaccination strategies for preexposure and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) are discussed below in further detail. Postinfection, the WHO suggests use of condoms for all oral, vaginal, and anal sexual activity for 12 weeks after recovery.⁷

Patients with suspected or confirmed mpox in a hospital should be in a single private room on special droplet and contact precautions.²⁷ No special air handling or negative pressure isolation is needed unless the patient is undergoing an aerosol-generating procedure (eg, intubation, endoscopy, bronchoscopy). When hospitalized, patients should have a dedicated bathroom, if possible, and at-home patients should be isolated from household members until contagion risk resolves; this includes the use of a separate bathroom, when possible. Health care personnel entering the room of a patient should don appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), including a disposable gown, gloves, eye protection, and N95 respirator or equivalent. Recommendations include standard practices for cleaning, with wet cleaning methods preferred over dry methods, using a disinfectant that covers emerging viral pathogens, and avoidance of shaking linens to prevent the spread of infectious particles.²⁷ A variety of Environmental Protection Agency–registered wipes with virucidal activity against emerging viruses, including those with active ingredients such as quaternary ammonium, hydrogen peroxide, and hypochlorous acid, should be used for disinfecting surfaces.²⁸

Vaccination

ACAM2000 (Emergent Bio Solutions) and JYNNEOS (Bavarian Nordic)(also known as Imvamune or Imvanex) are available in the United States for the prevention of mpox infection.²⁹ ACAM2000, a second-generation, replication-competent, live smallpox vaccine administered as a single percutaneous injection, is contraindicated in immunocompromised populations, including patients with HIV or on immunosuppressive or biologic therapy, pregnant individuals, people with a history of atopic dermatitis or other exfoliative skin diseases with impaired barrier function, and patients with a history of cardiac disease due to the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis.³⁰

JYNNEOS is a nonreplicating live vaccine approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention of mpox in individuals older than 18 years administered as 2 subcutaneous doses 4 weeks apart. Patients are considered fully vaccinated 2 weeks after the second dose, and JYNNEOS is available to pediatric patients with a single patient expanded access use authorization from the FDA.^29,30 More recently, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for administration of the vaccine to patients younger than 18 years who are at high risk of infection after exposure.³¹ More importantly, the FDA also issued an EUA for the intradermal administration of JYNNEOS at one-fifth of the subcutaneous dose to expand the current vaccine supply. This EUA is based on research by Frey et al,³² which showed that intradermal administration, even at a lower dose, elicited similar immune responses among study participants as the higher dose administered subcutaneously.

JYNNEOS is the preferred vaccine for the prevention of mpox because of its poor ability to replicate in human cells and resultant safety for use in populations that are immunocompromised, pregnant, or have skin barrier defects such as atopic dermatitis, without the risk of myocarditis or pericarditis. However, current supplies are limited. JYNNEOS was specifically studied in patients with atopic dermatitis and has been shown to be safe and effective in patients with a history of atopic dermatitis and active disease with a SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis) score of 30 or lower.³³ Of note, JYNNEOS is contraindicated in patients allergic to components of the vaccine, including egg, gentamicin, and ciprofloxacin. Although JYNNEOS is safe to administer to persons with immunocompromising conditions, the CDC reports that such persons might be at increased risk for severe disease if an occupational infection occurs, and in the setting of immunocompromise, such persons may be less likely to mount an effective response to vaccination. Therefore, the risk-benefit ratio should be considered to determine if an immunocompromised person should be vaccinated with JYNNEOS.³⁰

The WHO and the CDC do not recommended mass vaccination of the general public for outbreaks of mpox in nonendemic countries, with immunization reserved for appropriate PEP and pre-exposure prophylaxis in intermediate- to high-risk individuals.^23,26 The CDC recommends PEP vaccination for individuals with a high degree of exposure that includes unprotected contact of the skin or mucous membranes of an individual to the skin, lesions, body fluids, or contaminated fomites from a patient with mpox, as well as being within 6 feet of a patient during an aerosolization procedure without proper PPE. Following an intermediate degree of exposure, which includes being within 6 feet for 3 or more hours wearing at minimum a surgical mask or contact with fomites while wearing incomplete PPE, the CDC recommends monitoring and shared decision-making regarding risks and benefits of PEP vaccination. Monitoring without PEP is indicated for low and uncertain degrees of exposure, including entering a room without full PPE such as eye protection, regardless of the duration of contact.^23,26

Postexposure prophylaxis vaccination should be administered within 4 days of a known high-level exposure to mpox to prevent infection.²⁹ If administered within 4 to 14 days postexposure, vaccination may reduce disease severity but will not prevent infection.³⁴

Pre-exposure prophylaxis is recommended for individuals at high risk for exposure to mpox, including health care workers such as laboratory personnel who handle mpox specimens and health care workers who administer ACAM2000 vaccinations or anticipate providing care for many patients with mpox.³⁴

Management

Most cases of mpox are characterized by mild to moderate disease with a self-limited course. Most commonly, medical management of mpox involves supportive care such as fluid resuscitation, supplemental oxygen, and pain management.⁶ Treatment of superinfected skin lesions may require antibiotics. In the event of ophthalmologic involvement, patients should be referred to an ophthalmologist for further management.

Currently, there are no FDA-approved therapies for mpox; however, tecovirimat, cidofovir, brincidofovir, and vaccinia immune globulin intravenous are available under expanded access Investigational New Drug protocols.^6,35 Human data for cidofovir, brincidofovir, and vaccinia immune globulin intravenous in the treatment of mpox are lacking, while cidofovir and brincidofovir have shown efficacy against orthopoxviruses in in vitro and animal studies, but are available therapeutic options.³⁵

Tecovirimat is an antiviral that is FDA approved for smallpox with efficacy data against mpox in animal studies. It is the first-line treatment for patients with severe disease requiring hospitalization or 1 or more complications, including dehydration or secondary skin infections, as well as for populations at risk for severe disease, which includes immunocompromised patients, pediatric patients younger than 8 years, pregnant or breastfeeding individuals, or patients with a history of atopic dermatitis or active exfoliative skin conditions.³⁶ In this current outbreak, both intravenous and oral tecovirimat are weight based in adult and pediatric patients for 14 days, with the intravenous form dosed every 12 hours by infusion over 6 hours, and the oral doses administered every 8 to 12 hours based on patient weight.³⁷ Tecovirimat generally is well tolerated with mild side effects but is notably contraindicated in patients with severe renal impairment with a creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/min, and renal monitoring is indicated in pediatric patients younger than 2 years and in all patients receiving intravenous treatment.

Conclusion

Given that cutaneous lesions are the most specific presenting sign of mpox infection, dermatologists will play an integral role in identifying future cases and managing future outbreaks. Mpox should be considered in the differential diagnosis for all patients presenting with umbilicated or papulovesicular lesions, particularly in an anogenital distribution. The classic presentation of mpox may be more common among patients who are not considered high risk and have not been exposed via sexual activity. All patients with suspicious lesions should be managed following appropriate infection control precautions and should undergo molecular diagnostic assay of swabbed lesions to confirm the diagnosis. JYNNEOS is the only vaccine that is currently being distributed in the United States and is safe to administer to immunocompromised populations. The risks and benefits of vaccination should be considered on an individual basis between a patient and their provider. Taking into consideration that patients with atopic dermatitis are at risk for severe disease if infected with mpox, vaccination should be strongly encouraged if indicated based on patient risk factors. For atopic dermatitis patients treated with dupilumab, shared decision-making is essential given the FDA label, which recommends avoiding the use of live vaccines.³⁸

The mpox epidemic occurring amidst the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic should serve as a wake-up call to the importance of pandemic preparedness and the global health response strategies in the modern era of globalization. Looking forward, widespread vaccination against mpox may be necessary to control the spread of the disease and to protect vulnerable populations, including pregnant individuals. In the current climate of hesitancy surrounding vaccines and the erosion of trust in public health agencies, it is incumbent upon health care providers to educate patients regarding the role of vaccines and public health measures to control this developing global health crisis.

The mpox (monkeypox) virus is a zoonotic orthopox DNA virus that results in a smallpoxlike illness.¹ Vaccination against smallpox protects against other orthopox infections, including mpox; however, unlike smallpox, mpox is notable for a variety of not-yet-confirmed animal reservoirs.² Mpox was first identified in Denmark in 1959 among nonhuman primates imported from Singapore, and the first case of human infection was diagnosed in 1970 in a 9-month-old child in the Democratic Republic of Congo.³ Endemic regions of Africa have had sporadic outbreaks with increasing frequency over time since the cessation of smallpox vaccination in 1980.^2,4 Infections in nonendemic countries have occurred intermittently, including in 2003 in the Midwest United States. This outbreak was traced back to prairie dogs infected by exotic animals imported from the Republic of Ghana.⁵

Two genetic clades of mpox that differ in mortality rates have been identified: clade II (formerly the West African clade) generally is self-limited with an estimated mortality of 1% to 6%, whereas clade I (formerly the Congo Basin clade) is more transmissible, with a mortality of approximately 10%.^2,6,7 Notably, as of May 2, 2022, all polymerase chain reaction–confirmed cases of mpox in nonendemic countries were identified as clade II.⁷ Following the continued international spread of mpox, the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the global outbreak a public health emergency of international concern on July 23, 2022.⁸ As of March 1, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that there have been more than 86,000 cases of laboratory-confirmed mpox worldwide and 105 deaths, 89 of which occurred in nonendemic regions.⁹

Transmission of Mpox

In endemic countries, cases have been largely reported secondary to zoonotic spillover from contact with an infected animal.⁶ However, in nonendemic countries, mpox often results from human-to-human transmission, primarily via skin-to-skin contact with infected skin, but also may occur indirectly via contaminated fomites such as bedding or clothing, respiratory secretions, or vertical transmission.^6,10 The indirect transmission of mpox via contaminated fomites is controversial, though some studies have shown the virus can survive on surfaces for up to 15 days.¹¹ In the current outbreak, human-to-human transmission has been strongly associated with close contact during sexual activity, particularly among men who have sex with men (MSM), with notable physical concentration of initial lesions in the genital region.¹² Anyone can acquire mpox—infections are not exclusive to MSM populations, and cases have been reported in all demographic groups, including women and children. It is important to avoid stigmatization of MSM to prevent the propagation of homophobia as well as a false sense of complacency in non-MSM populations.¹³

Clinical Presentation of Mpox

The incubation period of mpox has been reported to last up to 21 days and is posited to depend on the mode of transmission, with complex invasive exposures having a shorter duration of approximately 9 days compared to noninvasive exposures, which have a duration of approximately 13 days.¹⁴ In a recent report from the Netherlands, the average incubation time was 8.5 days in 18 men with exposure attributed to sexual encounters with men.¹² Following the incubation period, mpox infection typically presents with nonspecific systemic symptoms such as fever, malaise, sore throat, cough, and headache for approximately 2 days, followed by painful generalized or localized lymphadenopathy 1 to 2 days prior to the onset of skin lesions.^1,15 In a recent report from Portugal of more than 20 confirmed cases of mpox, approximately half of patients denied symptoms or had mild systemic symptoms, suggesting that many patients in the current outbreak do not endorse systemic symptoms.¹⁶

Classic cutaneous lesions are the hallmark feature of mpox.¹⁷ Over a period of 1 to 2 weeks, each lesion progresses through morphologic stages of macule, papule (Figure), vesicle, and pustule, which then crusts over, forming a scab that falls off after another 1 to 2 weeks and can result in dyspigmented or pitted scars.^1,15 Lesions may be deep-seated or umbilicated; previously they were noted to typically start on the face and spread centrifugally, but recent cases have been notable for a predominance of anogenital lesions, often with the anogenital area as the sole or primary area of involvement.¹⁸ Given the high proportion of anogenital lesions in 2022, symptoms such as anogenital pain, tenesmus, and diarrhea are not uncommon.¹⁹ A recent study describing 528 international cases of mpox revealed that 95% of patients presented with a rash; nearly 75% had anogenital lesions; and 41%, 25%, and 10% had involvement of mucosae, the face, and palms/soles, respectively. More than half of patients had fewer than 10 lesions, and 10% presented with a single genital lesion.¹⁹

Given the recent predilection of lesions for the anogenital area, the differential diagnosis of mpox should include other common infections localized to these areas. Unlike herpes simplex and varicella-zoster infections, mpox does not exhibit the classic herpetiform clustering of vesicles, and unlike the painless chancre of syphilis, the lesions of mpox are exquisitely painful. Similar to chancroid, mpox presents with painful genital lesions and lymphadenopathy, and the umbilicated papules of molluscum could easily be confused with mpox lesions. Proctitis caused by many sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including chlamydia and gonorrhea, may be difficult to differentiate from proctitis symptoms of mpox. Co-infection with HIV and other STIs is common among patients developing mpox in 2022, which is not surprising given that the primary mechanism of transmission of mpox at this time is through sexual contact, and cases are more common in patients with multiple recent sexual partners.¹⁹ Considering these shared risk factors and similar presentation of multiple STIs, patients suspected of having an mpox infection should be tested for other STIs, including HIV.

Complications of Mpox

Although mpox generally is characterized by a mild disease course, there is concern for adverse outcomes, particularly in more vulnerable populations, including immunocompromised, pregnant, and pediatric populations. Complications of infection can include sepsis, encephalitis, bronchopneumonia, and ophthalmic complications that can result in loss of vision.^6,17 The most common complications requiring hospitalization in a recent international report of 528 mpox cases were pain management, which was primarily due to severe anogenital pain, followed by soft-tissue superinfection, with other complications including severe pharyngitis limiting oral intake and infection control practices.¹⁹ In addition to severe rectal pain, proctitis and even rectal perforation have been reported.^19,20

Vertical transmission has been described with devastating outcomes in a case series from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where 4 cases of mpox were identified in pregnant women; 3 of these pregnancies resulted in fetal demise.¹⁰ The only fetus to survive was born to a mother with mild infection. In comparison, 2 of 3 mothers with moderate to severe disease experienced spontaneous abortion in the first trimester, and 1 pregnancy ended due to intrauterine demise during the eighteenth week of gestation, likely a complication of mpox. These cases suggest that more severe disease may be linked to worse fetal outcomes.¹⁰ Further epidemiologic studies will be crucial, given the potential implications.

Diagnosis

When considering a diagnosis of mpox, clinicians should inquire about recent travel, living arrangements, sexual history, and recent sick contacts.⁶ A complete skin examination should include the oral and genital areas, given the high prevalence of lesions in these areas. A skin biopsy is not recommended for the diagnosis of mpox, as nonspecific viral changes cannot be differentiated from other viral exanthems, but it often is useful to rule out other differential diagnoses.²¹ Additionally, immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy can be utilized to aid in a histologic diagnosis of mpox.

Polymerase chain reaction detection of orthopox or mpox DNA is the gold standard for diagnosis.⁶ Two swabs should be collected from each lesion by swabbing vigorously using sterile swabs made of a synthetic material such as polyester, nylon, or Dacron and placed into a sterile container or viral transport medium.²² Some laboratories may have different instructions for collection of samples, so clinicians are advised to check for instructions from their local laboratory. Deroofing lesions prior to swabbing is not necessary, and specimens can include lesional material or crust. Collection of specimens from 2 to 3 lesions is recommended, preferably from different body areas or lesions with varying morphologies. Anal or rectal swabs can be considered in patients presenting with anal pain or proctitis with clinical suspicion for mpox based on history.¹⁹

Infection Prevention

Interim guidance from the WHO on November 16, 2022, reiterated the goal of outbreak control primarily via public health measures, which includes targeted use of vaccines for at-risk populations or postexposure prophylactic vaccination within 4 days, but heavily relies on surveillance and containment techniques, such as contact tracing with monitoring of contacts for onset of symptoms and isolation of cases through the complete infectious period.²³ Patients are considered infectious from symptom onset until all cutaneous lesions are re-epithelized and should remain in isolation, including from household contacts and domestic and wildlife animals, for the duration of illness.^24,25 Individuals exposed to humans or animals with confirmed mpox should be monitored for the development of symptoms for 21 days following last known exposure, regardless of vaccination status, and should be instructed to measure their temperature twice daily.²⁶ Pets exposed to mpox should be isolated from other animals and humans for 21 days following last known contact.²⁴ Vaccination strategies for preexposure and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) are discussed below in further detail. Postinfection, the WHO suggests use of condoms for all oral, vaginal, and anal sexual activity for 12 weeks after recovery.⁷

Patients with suspected or confirmed mpox in a hospital should be in a single private room on special droplet and contact precautions.²⁷ No special air handling or negative pressure isolation is needed unless the patient is undergoing an aerosol-generating procedure (eg, intubation, endoscopy, bronchoscopy). When hospitalized, patients should have a dedicated bathroom, if possible, and at-home patients should be isolated from household members until contagion risk resolves; this includes the use of a separate bathroom, when possible. Health care personnel entering the room of a patient should don appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), including a disposable gown, gloves, eye protection, and N95 respirator or equivalent. Recommendations include standard practices for cleaning, with wet cleaning methods preferred over dry methods, using a disinfectant that covers emerging viral pathogens, and avoidance of shaking linens to prevent the spread of infectious particles.²⁷ A variety of Environmental Protection Agency–registered wipes with virucidal activity against emerging viruses, including those with active ingredients such as quaternary ammonium, hydrogen peroxide, and hypochlorous acid, should be used for disinfecting surfaces.²⁸

Vaccination

ACAM2000 (Emergent Bio Solutions) and JYNNEOS (Bavarian Nordic)(also known as Imvamune or Imvanex) are available in the United States for the prevention of mpox infection.²⁹ ACAM2000, a second-generation, replication-competent, live smallpox vaccine administered as a single percutaneous injection, is contraindicated in immunocompromised populations, including patients with HIV or on immunosuppressive or biologic therapy, pregnant individuals, people with a history of atopic dermatitis or other exfoliative skin diseases with impaired barrier function, and patients with a history of cardiac disease due to the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis.³⁰

JYNNEOS is a nonreplicating live vaccine approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention of mpox in individuals older than 18 years administered as 2 subcutaneous doses 4 weeks apart. Patients are considered fully vaccinated 2 weeks after the second dose, and JYNNEOS is available to pediatric patients with a single patient expanded access use authorization from the FDA.^29,30 More recently, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for administration of the vaccine to patients younger than 18 years who are at high risk of infection after exposure.³¹ More importantly, the FDA also issued an EUA for the intradermal administration of JYNNEOS at one-fifth of the subcutaneous dose to expand the current vaccine supply. This EUA is based on research by Frey et al,³² which showed that intradermal administration, even at a lower dose, elicited similar immune responses among study participants as the higher dose administered subcutaneously.

JYNNEOS is the preferred vaccine for the prevention of mpox because of its poor ability to replicate in human cells and resultant safety for use in populations that are immunocompromised, pregnant, or have skin barrier defects such as atopic dermatitis, without the risk of myocarditis or pericarditis. However, current supplies are limited. JYNNEOS was specifically studied in patients with atopic dermatitis and has been shown to be safe and effective in patients with a history of atopic dermatitis and active disease with a SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis) score of 30 or lower.³³ Of note, JYNNEOS is contraindicated in patients allergic to components of the vaccine, including egg, gentamicin, and ciprofloxacin. Although JYNNEOS is safe to administer to persons with immunocompromising conditions, the CDC reports that such persons might be at increased risk for severe disease if an occupational infection occurs, and in the setting of immunocompromise, such persons may be less likely to mount an effective response to vaccination. Therefore, the risk-benefit ratio should be considered to determine if an immunocompromised person should be vaccinated with JYNNEOS.³⁰

The WHO and the CDC do not recommended mass vaccination of the general public for outbreaks of mpox in nonendemic countries, with immunization reserved for appropriate PEP and pre-exposure prophylaxis in intermediate- to high-risk individuals.^23,26 The CDC recommends PEP vaccination for individuals with a high degree of exposure that includes unprotected contact of the skin or mucous membranes of an individual to the skin, lesions, body fluids, or contaminated fomites from a patient with mpox, as well as being within 6 feet of a patient during an aerosolization procedure without proper PPE. Following an intermediate degree of exposure, which includes being within 6 feet for 3 or more hours wearing at minimum a surgical mask or contact with fomites while wearing incomplete PPE, the CDC recommends monitoring and shared decision-making regarding risks and benefits of PEP vaccination. Monitoring without PEP is indicated for low and uncertain degrees of exposure, including entering a room without full PPE such as eye protection, regardless of the duration of contact.^23,26

Postexposure prophylaxis vaccination should be administered within 4 days of a known high-level exposure to mpox to prevent infection.²⁹ If administered within 4 to 14 days postexposure, vaccination may reduce disease severity but will not prevent infection.³⁴

Pre-exposure prophylaxis is recommended for individuals at high risk for exposure to mpox, including health care workers such as laboratory personnel who handle mpox specimens and health care workers who administer ACAM2000 vaccinations or anticipate providing care for many patients with mpox.³⁴

Management

Most cases of mpox are characterized by mild to moderate disease with a self-limited course. Most commonly, medical management of mpox involves supportive care such as fluid resuscitation, supplemental oxygen, and pain management.⁶ Treatment of superinfected skin lesions may require antibiotics. In the event of ophthalmologic involvement, patients should be referred to an ophthalmologist for further management.

Currently, there are no FDA-approved therapies for mpox; however, tecovirimat, cidofovir, brincidofovir, and vaccinia immune globulin intravenous are available under expanded access Investigational New Drug protocols.^6,35 Human data for cidofovir, brincidofovir, and vaccinia immune globulin intravenous in the treatment of mpox are lacking, while cidofovir and brincidofovir have shown efficacy against orthopoxviruses in in vitro and animal studies, but are available therapeutic options.³⁵

Tecovirimat is an antiviral that is FDA approved for smallpox with efficacy data against mpox in animal studies. It is the first-line treatment for patients with severe disease requiring hospitalization or 1 or more complications, including dehydration or secondary skin infections, as well as for populations at risk for severe disease, which includes immunocompromised patients, pediatric patients younger than 8 years, pregnant or breastfeeding individuals, or patients with a history of atopic dermatitis or active exfoliative skin conditions.³⁶ In this current outbreak, both intravenous and oral tecovirimat are weight based in adult and pediatric patients for 14 days, with the intravenous form dosed every 12 hours by infusion over 6 hours, and the oral doses administered every 8 to 12 hours based on patient weight.³⁷ Tecovirimat generally is well tolerated with mild side effects but is notably contraindicated in patients with severe renal impairment with a creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/min, and renal monitoring is indicated in pediatric patients younger than 2 years and in all patients receiving intravenous treatment.

Conclusion

Given that cutaneous lesions are the most specific presenting sign of mpox infection, dermatologists will play an integral role in identifying future cases and managing future outbreaks. Mpox should be considered in the differential diagnosis for all patients presenting with umbilicated or papulovesicular lesions, particularly in an anogenital distribution. The classic presentation of mpox may be more common among patients who are not considered high risk and have not been exposed via sexual activity. All patients with suspicious lesions should be managed following appropriate infection control precautions and should undergo molecular diagnostic assay of swabbed lesions to confirm the diagnosis. JYNNEOS is the only vaccine that is currently being distributed in the United States and is safe to administer to immunocompromised populations. The risks and benefits of vaccination should be considered on an individual basis between a patient and their provider. Taking into consideration that patients with atopic dermatitis are at risk for severe disease if infected with mpox, vaccination should be strongly encouraged if indicated based on patient risk factors. For atopic dermatitis patients treated with dupilumab, shared decision-making is essential given the FDA label, which recommends avoiding the use of live vaccines.³⁸

The mpox epidemic occurring amidst the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic should serve as a wake-up call to the importance of pandemic preparedness and the global health response strategies in the modern era of globalization. Looking forward, widespread vaccination against mpox may be necessary to control the spread of the disease and to protect vulnerable populations, including pregnant individuals. In the current climate of hesitancy surrounding vaccines and the erosion of trust in public health agencies, it is incumbent upon health care providers to educate patients regarding the role of vaccines and public health measures to control this developing global health crisis.

Total fertility rate and fertility care: Demographic shifts and changing demands

Vollset SE, Goren E, Yuan C-W, et al. Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2020;396:1285-1306.

The total fertility rate (TFR) globally is decreasing rapidly, and in the United States it is now 1.8 births per woman, well below the required replacement rate of 2.1 that maintains the population.¹ These reduced TFRs result in significant demographic shifts that affect the economy, workforce, society, health care needs, environment, and geopolitical standing of every country. These changes also will shift demands for the volume and type of services delivered by women’s health care clinicians.

In addition to the TFR, mortality rates and migration rates play essential roles in determining a country’s population.² Anticipation and planning for these population and health care service changes by each country’s government, business, professionals, and other stakeholders are imperative to manage their impact and optimize quality of life.

Illustration: Kimberly Martens for OBG Management

US standings in projected population and economic growth

The US population is predicted to peak at 364 million in 2062 and decrease to 336 million in 2100, at which time it will be the fourth largest country in the world, according to a forecasting analysis by Vollset and colleagues.¹ China is expected to become the biggest economy in the world in 2035, but this is predicted to change because of its decreasing population so that by 2098 the United States will again be the country with the largest economy (FIGURE 1).¹

For the United States to maintain its economic and geopolitical standing, it is important to have policies that promote families. Other countries, especially in northern Europe, have implemented such policies. These include education of the population,economic incentives to create families, extended day care, and favorable tax policies.³ They also include increased access to family-forming fertility care. Such policies in Denmark have resulted in approximately 10% of all children being born from assisted reproductive technology (ART), compared with about 1.5% in the United States. Other countries have similar policies and success in increasing the number of children born from ART.

In the United States, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), RESOLVE: the National Infertility Association, the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA), and others are promoting the need for increased access to fertility care and family-forming resources, primarily through family-forming benefits provided by companies.⁴ Such benefits are critical since the primary reason most people do not undergo fertility care is a lack of affordability. Only 1 person in 4 in the United States who needs fertility care receives treatment. Increased access would result in more babies being born to help address the reduced TFR.

Educational access, contraceptive goals, and access to fertility care

Continued trends in women’s educational attainment and access to contraception will hasten declines in the fertility rate and slow population growth (TABLE).¹ These educational and contraceptive goals also must be pursued so that every person can achieve their individual reproductive life goals of having a family if and when they want to have a family. In addition to helping address the decreasing TFR, there is a fundamental right to found a family, as stated in the United Nations charter. It is a matter of social justice and equity that everyone who wants to have a family can access reproductive care on a nondiscriminatory basis when needed.

While the need for more and better insurance coverage for infertility has been well documented for many years, the decreasing TFR in the United States is an additional compelling reason that government, business, and other stakeholders should continue to increase access to fertility benefits and care. Women’s health care clinicians are encouraged to support these initiatives that also improve quality of life, equity, and social justice.

Continue to: A new comprehensive ovulatory disorders classification system developed by FIGO...

Munro MG, Balen AH, Cho S, et al; FIGO Committee on Menstrual Disorders and Related Health Impacts, and FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, Endocrinology, and Infertility. The FIGO ovulatory disorders classification system. Fertil Steril. 2022;118:768-786.

Ovulatory disorders are well-recognized and common causes of infertility and abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). Ovulatory disorders occur on a spectrum, with the most severe form being anovulation, and comprise a heterogeneous group that has been classically categorized based on an initial monograph published by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1973. That classification was based on gonadotropin levels and categorized these disorders into 3 groups: 1) hypogonadotropic (such as hypothalamic amenorrhea), 2) eugonadotropic (such as polycystic ovary syndrome [PCOS]), and 3) hypergonadotropic (such as primary ovarian insufficiency). This initial classification was the subject of several subsequent iterations and modifications over the past 50 years; for example, at one point, ovulatory disorder caused by hyperprolactinemia was added as a separate fourth category. However, due to advances in endocrine assays, imaging technology, and genetics, our understanding of ovulatory disorders has expanded remarkably over the past several decades.

Previous FIGO classifications

Considering the emergent complexity of these disorders and the limitations of the original WHO classification to capture these subtleties adequately, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) recently developed and published a new classification system for ovulatory disorders.⁵ This new system was designed using a meticulously followed Delphi process with inputs from a diverse group of national and international professional organizations, subspecialty societies, specialty journals, recognized experts in the field, and lay individuals interested in the subject matter.

Of note, FIGO had previously published classification systems for nongestational normal and abnormal uterine bleeding in the reproductive years (FIGO AUB System 1),as well as a subsequent classification system that described potential causes of AUB symptoms (FIGO AUB System 2), with the 9 categories arranged under the acronym PALM-COEIN (Polyp, Adenomyosis, Leiomyoma, Malignancy–Coagulopathy, Ovulatory dysfunction, Endometrial disorders, Iatrogenic, and Not otherwise classified). This new FIGO classification of ovulatory disorders can be viewed as a continuation of the previous initiatives and aims to further categorize the subgroup of AUB-O (AUB with ovulatory disorders). However, it is important to recognize that while most ovulatory disorders manifest with the symptoms of AUB, the absence of AUB symptoms does not necessarily preclude ovulatory disorders.

New system uses a 3-tier approach

The new FIGO classification system for ovulatory disorders has adopted a 3-tier system.

The first tier is based on the anatomic components of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian (HPO) axis and is referred to with the acronym HyPO, for Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Ovarian. Recognizing that PCOS refers to a distinct spectrum of conditions that share a variable combination of signs and symptoms caused to varying degrees by different pathophysiologic mechanisms that involve inherent ovarian follicular dysfunction, neuroendocrine dysfunction, insulin resistance, and androgen excess, it is categorized in a separate class of its own in the first tier, referred to with the letter P.

Adding PCOS to the anatomical categories referred to by HyPO, the first tier is overall referred to with the acronym HyPO-P (FIGURE 2).⁵

The second tier of stratification provides further etiologic details for any of the primary 3 anatomic classifications of hypothalamic, pituitary, and ovarian. These etiologies are arranged in 10 distinct groups under the mnemonic GAIN-FIT-PIE, which stands for Genetic, Autoimmune, Iatrogenic, Neoplasm; Functional, Infectious/inflammatory, Trauma and vascular; and Physiological, Idiopathic, Endocrine.

The third tier of the system refers to the specific clinical diagnosis. For example, an individual with Kallmann syndrome would be categorized as having type I (hypothalamic), Genetic, Kallmann syndrome, and an individual with PCOS would be categorized simply as having type IV, PCOS.

Continue to: Live birth rate with conventional IVF shown noninferior to that with PGT-A...

Yan J, Qin Y, Zhao H, et al. Live birth with or without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:2047-2058.

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) is increasingly used in many in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles in the United States. Based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 43.8% of embryo transfers in the United States in 2019 included at least 1 PGT-A–tested embryo.⁶ Despite this widespread use, however, there are still no robust clinical data for PGT-A’s efficacy and safety, and the guidelines published by the ASRM do not recommend its routine use in all IVF cycles.⁷ In the past 2 to 3 years, several large studies have raised questions about the reported benefit of this technology.^8,9

Details of the trial

In a multicenter, controlled, noninferiority trial conducted by Yan and colleagues, 1,212 subfertile women were randomly assigned to either conventional IVF with embryo selection based on morphology or embryo selection based on PGT-A with next-generation sequencing. Inclusion criteria were the diagnosis of subfertility, undergoing their first IVF cycle, female age of 20 to 37, and the availability of 3 or more good-quality blastocysts.

On day 5 of embryo culture, patients with 3 or more blastocysts were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the PGT-A group or conventional IVF. All embryos were then frozen, and patients subsequently underwent frozen embryo transfer of a single blastocyst, selected based on either morphology or euploid result by PGT-A. If the initial transfer did not result in a live birth, and there were remaining transferable embryos (either a euploid embryo in the PGT-A group or a morphologically transferable embryo in the conventional IVF group), patients underwent successive frozen embryo transfers until either there was a live birth or no more embryos were available for transfer.

The study’s primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate per randomly assigned patient that resulted from up to 3 frozen embryo transfer cycles within 1 year. There were 606 patients randomly assigned to the PGT-A group and 606 randomly assigned to the conventional IVF group.

In the PGT-A group, 468 women (77.2%) had live births; in the conventional IVF group, 496 women (81.8%) had live births. Women in the PGT-A group had a lower incidence of pregnancy loss compared with the conventional IVF group: 8.7% versus 12.6% (absolute difference of -3.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.5 to -0.2). There was no difference in obstetric and neonatal outcomes between the 2 groups. The authors concluded that among women with 3 or more good-quality blastocysts, conventional IVF resulted in a cumulative live birth rate that was noninferior to that of the PGT-A group.

Some benefit shown with PGT-A

Although the study by Yan and colleagues did not show any benefit, and even a possible reduction, with regard to cumulative live birth rate for PGT-A, it did show a 4% reduction in clinical pregnancy loss when PGT-A was used. Furthermore, the study design has been criticized for performing PGT-A on only 3 blastocysts in the PGT-A group. It is quite conceivable that the PGT-A group would have had more euploid embryos available for transfer if the study design had included all the available embryos instead of only 3. On the other hand, one could argue that if the authors had extended the study to include all the available embryos, the conventional group would have also had more embryos for transfer and, therefore, more chances for pregnancy and live birth.

It is also important to recognize that only patients who had at least 3 embryos available for biopsy were included in this study, and therefore the results of this study cannot be extended to patients with fewer embryos, such as those with diminished ovarian reserve.

In summary, based on this study’s results, we may conclude that for the good-prognosis patients in the age group of 20 to 37 who have at least 3 embryos available for biopsy, PGT-A may reduce the miscarriage rate by about 4%, but this benefit comes at the expense of about a 4% reduction in the cumulative live birth rate. ●

Total fertility rate and fertility care: Demographic shifts and changing demands

Vollset SE, Goren E, Yuan C-W, et al. Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2020;396:1285-1306.

The total fertility rate (TFR) globally is decreasing rapidly, and in the United States it is now 1.8 births per woman, well below the required replacement rate of 2.1 that maintains the population.¹ These reduced TFRs result in significant demographic shifts that affect the economy, workforce, society, health care needs, environment, and geopolitical standing of every country. These changes also will shift demands for the volume and type of services delivered by women’s health care clinicians.

In addition to the TFR, mortality rates and migration rates play essential roles in determining a country’s population.² Anticipation and planning for these population and health care service changes by each country’s government, business, professionals, and other stakeholders are imperative to manage their impact and optimize quality of life.

Illustration: Kimberly Martens for OBG Management

US standings in projected population and economic growth

The US population is predicted to peak at 364 million in 2062 and decrease to 336 million in 2100, at which time it will be the fourth largest country in the world, according to a forecasting analysis by Vollset and colleagues.¹ China is expected to become the biggest economy in the world in 2035, but this is predicted to change because of its decreasing population so that by 2098 the United States will again be the country with the largest economy (FIGURE 1).¹

For the United States to maintain its economic and geopolitical standing, it is important to have policies that promote families. Other countries, especially in northern Europe, have implemented such policies. These include education of the population,economic incentives to create families, extended day care, and favorable tax policies.³ They also include increased access to family-forming fertility care. Such policies in Denmark have resulted in approximately 10% of all children being born from assisted reproductive technology (ART), compared with about 1.5% in the United States. Other countries have similar policies and success in increasing the number of children born from ART.

In the United States, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), RESOLVE: the National Infertility Association, the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA), and others are promoting the need for increased access to fertility care and family-forming resources, primarily through family-forming benefits provided by companies.⁴ Such benefits are critical since the primary reason most people do not undergo fertility care is a lack of affordability. Only 1 person in 4 in the United States who needs fertility care receives treatment. Increased access would result in more babies being born to help address the reduced TFR.

Educational access, contraceptive goals, and access to fertility care

Continued trends in women’s educational attainment and access to contraception will hasten declines in the fertility rate and slow population growth (TABLE).¹ These educational and contraceptive goals also must be pursued so that every person can achieve their individual reproductive life goals of having a family if and when they want to have a family. In addition to helping address the decreasing TFR, there is a fundamental right to found a family, as stated in the United Nations charter. It is a matter of social justice and equity that everyone who wants to have a family can access reproductive care on a nondiscriminatory basis when needed.

While the need for more and better insurance coverage for infertility has been well documented for many years, the decreasing TFR in the United States is an additional compelling reason that government, business, and other stakeholders should continue to increase access to fertility benefits and care. Women’s health care clinicians are encouraged to support these initiatives that also improve quality of life, equity, and social justice.

Continue to: A new comprehensive ovulatory disorders classification system developed by FIGO...

Munro MG, Balen AH, Cho S, et al; FIGO Committee on Menstrual Disorders and Related Health Impacts, and FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, Endocrinology, and Infertility. The FIGO ovulatory disorders classification system. Fertil Steril. 2022;118:768-786.

Ovulatory disorders are well-recognized and common causes of infertility and abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). Ovulatory disorders occur on a spectrum, with the most severe form being anovulation, and comprise a heterogeneous group that has been classically categorized based on an initial monograph published by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1973. That classification was based on gonadotropin levels and categorized these disorders into 3 groups: 1) hypogonadotropic (such as hypothalamic amenorrhea), 2) eugonadotropic (such as polycystic ovary syndrome [PCOS]), and 3) hypergonadotropic (such as primary ovarian insufficiency). This initial classification was the subject of several subsequent iterations and modifications over the past 50 years; for example, at one point, ovulatory disorder caused by hyperprolactinemia was added as a separate fourth category. However, due to advances in endocrine assays, imaging technology, and genetics, our understanding of ovulatory disorders has expanded remarkably over the past several decades.

Previous FIGO classifications

Considering the emergent complexity of these disorders and the limitations of the original WHO classification to capture these subtleties adequately, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) recently developed and published a new classification system for ovulatory disorders.⁵ This new system was designed using a meticulously followed Delphi process with inputs from a diverse group of national and international professional organizations, subspecialty societies, specialty journals, recognized experts in the field, and lay individuals interested in the subject matter.

Of note, FIGO had previously published classification systems for nongestational normal and abnormal uterine bleeding in the reproductive years (FIGO AUB System 1),as well as a subsequent classification system that described potential causes of AUB symptoms (FIGO AUB System 2), with the 9 categories arranged under the acronym PALM-COEIN (Polyp, Adenomyosis, Leiomyoma, Malignancy–Coagulopathy, Ovulatory dysfunction, Endometrial disorders, Iatrogenic, and Not otherwise classified). This new FIGO classification of ovulatory disorders can be viewed as a continuation of the previous initiatives and aims to further categorize the subgroup of AUB-O (AUB with ovulatory disorders). However, it is important to recognize that while most ovulatory disorders manifest with the symptoms of AUB, the absence of AUB symptoms does not necessarily preclude ovulatory disorders.

New system uses a 3-tier approach

The new FIGO classification system for ovulatory disorders has adopted a 3-tier system.

The first tier is based on the anatomic components of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian (HPO) axis and is referred to with the acronym HyPO, for Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Ovarian. Recognizing that PCOS refers to a distinct spectrum of conditions that share a variable combination of signs and symptoms caused to varying degrees by different pathophysiologic mechanisms that involve inherent ovarian follicular dysfunction, neuroendocrine dysfunction, insulin resistance, and androgen excess, it is categorized in a separate class of its own in the first tier, referred to with the letter P.

Adding PCOS to the anatomical categories referred to by HyPO, the first tier is overall referred to with the acronym HyPO-P (FIGURE 2).⁵

The second tier of stratification provides further etiologic details for any of the primary 3 anatomic classifications of hypothalamic, pituitary, and ovarian. These etiologies are arranged in 10 distinct groups under the mnemonic GAIN-FIT-PIE, which stands for Genetic, Autoimmune, Iatrogenic, Neoplasm; Functional, Infectious/inflammatory, Trauma and vascular; and Physiological, Idiopathic, Endocrine.

The third tier of the system refers to the specific clinical diagnosis. For example, an individual with Kallmann syndrome would be categorized as having type I (hypothalamic), Genetic, Kallmann syndrome, and an individual with PCOS would be categorized simply as having type IV, PCOS.

Continue to: Live birth rate with conventional IVF shown noninferior to that with PGT-A...

Yan J, Qin Y, Zhao H, et al. Live birth with or without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:2047-2058.

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) is increasingly used in many in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles in the United States. Based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 43.8% of embryo transfers in the United States in 2019 included at least 1 PGT-A–tested embryo.⁶ Despite this widespread use, however, there are still no robust clinical data for PGT-A’s efficacy and safety, and the guidelines published by the ASRM do not recommend its routine use in all IVF cycles.⁷ In the past 2 to 3 years, several large studies have raised questions about the reported benefit of this technology.^8,9

Details of the trial

In a multicenter, controlled, noninferiority trial conducted by Yan and colleagues, 1,212 subfertile women were randomly assigned to either conventional IVF with embryo selection based on morphology or embryo selection based on PGT-A with next-generation sequencing. Inclusion criteria were the diagnosis of subfertility, undergoing their first IVF cycle, female age of 20 to 37, and the availability of 3 or more good-quality blastocysts.

On day 5 of embryo culture, patients with 3 or more blastocysts were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the PGT-A group or conventional IVF. All embryos were then frozen, and patients subsequently underwent frozen embryo transfer of a single blastocyst, selected based on either morphology or euploid result by PGT-A. If the initial transfer did not result in a live birth, and there were remaining transferable embryos (either a euploid embryo in the PGT-A group or a morphologically transferable embryo in the conventional IVF group), patients underwent successive frozen embryo transfers until either there was a live birth or no more embryos were available for transfer.

The study’s primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate per randomly assigned patient that resulted from up to 3 frozen embryo transfer cycles within 1 year. There were 606 patients randomly assigned to the PGT-A group and 606 randomly assigned to the conventional IVF group.

In the PGT-A group, 468 women (77.2%) had live births; in the conventional IVF group, 496 women (81.8%) had live births. Women in the PGT-A group had a lower incidence of pregnancy loss compared with the conventional IVF group: 8.7% versus 12.6% (absolute difference of -3.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.5 to -0.2). There was no difference in obstetric and neonatal outcomes between the 2 groups. The authors concluded that among women with 3 or more good-quality blastocysts, conventional IVF resulted in a cumulative live birth rate that was noninferior to that of the PGT-A group.

Some benefit shown with PGT-A

Although the study by Yan and colleagues did not show any benefit, and even a possible reduction, with regard to cumulative live birth rate for PGT-A, it did show a 4% reduction in clinical pregnancy loss when PGT-A was used. Furthermore, the study design has been criticized for performing PGT-A on only 3 blastocysts in the PGT-A group. It is quite conceivable that the PGT-A group would have had more euploid embryos available for transfer if the study design had included all the available embryos instead of only 3. On the other hand, one could argue that if the authors had extended the study to include all the available embryos, the conventional group would have also had more embryos for transfer and, therefore, more chances for pregnancy and live birth.

It is also important to recognize that only patients who had at least 3 embryos available for biopsy were included in this study, and therefore the results of this study cannot be extended to patients with fewer embryos, such as those with diminished ovarian reserve.

In summary, based on this study’s results, we may conclude that for the good-prognosis patients in the age group of 20 to 37 who have at least 3 embryos available for biopsy, PGT-A may reduce the miscarriage rate by about 4%, but this benefit comes at the expense of about a 4% reduction in the cumulative live birth rate. ●

Total fertility rate and fertility care: Demographic shifts and changing demands

Vollset SE, Goren E, Yuan C-W, et al. Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2020;396:1285-1306.

The total fertility rate (TFR) globally is decreasing rapidly, and in the United States it is now 1.8 births per woman, well below the required replacement rate of 2.1 that maintains the population.¹ These reduced TFRs result in significant demographic shifts that affect the economy, workforce, society, health care needs, environment, and geopolitical standing of every country. These changes also will shift demands for the volume and type of services delivered by women’s health care clinicians.

In addition to the TFR, mortality rates and migration rates play essential roles in determining a country’s population.² Anticipation and planning for these population and health care service changes by each country’s government, business, professionals, and other stakeholders are imperative to manage their impact and optimize quality of life.

Illustration: Kimberly Martens for OBG Management

US standings in projected population and economic growth

The US population is predicted to peak at 364 million in 2062 and decrease to 336 million in 2100, at which time it will be the fourth largest country in the world, according to a forecasting analysis by Vollset and colleagues.¹ China is expected to become the biggest economy in the world in 2035, but this is predicted to change because of its decreasing population so that by 2098 the United States will again be the country with the largest economy (FIGURE 1).¹

For the United States to maintain its economic and geopolitical standing, it is important to have policies that promote families. Other countries, especially in northern Europe, have implemented such policies. These include education of the population,economic incentives to create families, extended day care, and favorable tax policies.³ They also include increased access to family-forming fertility care. Such policies in Denmark have resulted in approximately 10% of all children being born from assisted reproductive technology (ART), compared with about 1.5% in the United States. Other countries have similar policies and success in increasing the number of children born from ART.

In the United States, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), RESOLVE: the National Infertility Association, the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA), and others are promoting the need for increased access to fertility care and family-forming resources, primarily through family-forming benefits provided by companies.⁴ Such benefits are critical since the primary reason most people do not undergo fertility care is a lack of affordability. Only 1 person in 4 in the United States who needs fertility care receives treatment. Increased access would result in more babies being born to help address the reduced TFR.

Educational access, contraceptive goals, and access to fertility care

Continued trends in women’s educational attainment and access to contraception will hasten declines in the fertility rate and slow population growth (TABLE).¹ These educational and contraceptive goals also must be pursued so that every person can achieve their individual reproductive life goals of having a family if and when they want to have a family. In addition to helping address the decreasing TFR, there is a fundamental right to found a family, as stated in the United Nations charter. It is a matter of social justice and equity that everyone who wants to have a family can access reproductive care on a nondiscriminatory basis when needed.

While the need for more and better insurance coverage for infertility has been well documented for many years, the decreasing TFR in the United States is an additional compelling reason that government, business, and other stakeholders should continue to increase access to fertility benefits and care. Women’s health care clinicians are encouraged to support these initiatives that also improve quality of life, equity, and social justice.

Continue to: A new comprehensive ovulatory disorders classification system developed by FIGO...

Munro MG, Balen AH, Cho S, et al; FIGO Committee on Menstrual Disorders and Related Health Impacts, and FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, Endocrinology, and Infertility. The FIGO ovulatory disorders classification system. Fertil Steril. 2022;118:768-786.

Ovulatory disorders are well-recognized and common causes of infertility and abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). Ovulatory disorders occur on a spectrum, with the most severe form being anovulation, and comprise a heterogeneous group that has been classically categorized based on an initial monograph published by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1973. That classification was based on gonadotropin levels and categorized these disorders into 3 groups: 1) hypogonadotropic (such as hypothalamic amenorrhea), 2) eugonadotropic (such as polycystic ovary syndrome [PCOS]), and 3) hypergonadotropic (such as primary ovarian insufficiency). This initial classification was the subject of several subsequent iterations and modifications over the past 50 years; for example, at one point, ovulatory disorder caused by hyperprolactinemia was added as a separate fourth category. However, due to advances in endocrine assays, imaging technology, and genetics, our understanding of ovulatory disorders has expanded remarkably over the past several decades.

Previous FIGO classifications

Considering the emergent complexity of these disorders and the limitations of the original WHO classification to capture these subtleties adequately, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) recently developed and published a new classification system for ovulatory disorders.⁵ This new system was designed using a meticulously followed Delphi process with inputs from a diverse group of national and international professional organizations, subspecialty societies, specialty journals, recognized experts in the field, and lay individuals interested in the subject matter.

Of note, FIGO had previously published classification systems for nongestational normal and abnormal uterine bleeding in the reproductive years (FIGO AUB System 1),as well as a subsequent classification system that described potential causes of AUB symptoms (FIGO AUB System 2), with the 9 categories arranged under the acronym PALM-COEIN (Polyp, Adenomyosis, Leiomyoma, Malignancy–Coagulopathy, Ovulatory dysfunction, Endometrial disorders, Iatrogenic, and Not otherwise classified). This new FIGO classification of ovulatory disorders can be viewed as a continuation of the previous initiatives and aims to further categorize the subgroup of AUB-O (AUB with ovulatory disorders). However, it is important to recognize that while most ovulatory disorders manifest with the symptoms of AUB, the absence of AUB symptoms does not necessarily preclude ovulatory disorders.

New system uses a 3-tier approach

The new FIGO classification system for ovulatory disorders has adopted a 3-tier system.

The first tier is based on the anatomic components of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian (HPO) axis and is referred to with the acronym HyPO, for Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Ovarian. Recognizing that PCOS refers to a distinct spectrum of conditions that share a variable combination of signs and symptoms caused to varying degrees by different pathophysiologic mechanisms that involve inherent ovarian follicular dysfunction, neuroendocrine dysfunction, insulin resistance, and androgen excess, it is categorized in a separate class of its own in the first tier, referred to with the letter P.

Adding PCOS to the anatomical categories referred to by HyPO, the first tier is overall referred to with the acronym HyPO-P (FIGURE 2).⁵

The second tier of stratification provides further etiologic details for any of the primary 3 anatomic classifications of hypothalamic, pituitary, and ovarian. These etiologies are arranged in 10 distinct groups under the mnemonic GAIN-FIT-PIE, which stands for Genetic, Autoimmune, Iatrogenic, Neoplasm; Functional, Infectious/inflammatory, Trauma and vascular; and Physiological, Idiopathic, Endocrine.

The third tier of the system refers to the specific clinical diagnosis. For example, an individual with Kallmann syndrome would be categorized as having type I (hypothalamic), Genetic, Kallmann syndrome, and an individual with PCOS would be categorized simply as having type IV, PCOS.

Continue to: Live birth rate with conventional IVF shown noninferior to that with PGT-A...

Yan J, Qin Y, Zhao H, et al. Live birth with or without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:2047-2058.

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) is increasingly used in many in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles in the United States. Based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 43.8% of embryo transfers in the United States in 2019 included at least 1 PGT-A–tested embryo.⁶ Despite this widespread use, however, there are still no robust clinical data for PGT-A’s efficacy and safety, and the guidelines published by the ASRM do not recommend its routine use in all IVF cycles.⁷ In the past 2 to 3 years, several large studies have raised questions about the reported benefit of this technology.^8,9

Details of the trial

In a multicenter, controlled, noninferiority trial conducted by Yan and colleagues, 1,212 subfertile women were randomly assigned to either conventional IVF with embryo selection based on morphology or embryo selection based on PGT-A with next-generation sequencing. Inclusion criteria were the diagnosis of subfertility, undergoing their first IVF cycle, female age of 20 to 37, and the availability of 3 or more good-quality blastocysts.

On day 5 of embryo culture, patients with 3 or more blastocysts were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the PGT-A group or conventional IVF. All embryos were then frozen, and patients subsequently underwent frozen embryo transfer of a single blastocyst, selected based on either morphology or euploid result by PGT-A. If the initial transfer did not result in a live birth, and there were remaining transferable embryos (either a euploid embryo in the PGT-A group or a morphologically transferable embryo in the conventional IVF group), patients underwent successive frozen embryo transfers until either there was a live birth or no more embryos were available for transfer.

The study’s primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate per randomly assigned patient that resulted from up to 3 frozen embryo transfer cycles within 1 year. There were 606 patients randomly assigned to the PGT-A group and 606 randomly assigned to the conventional IVF group.

In the PGT-A group, 468 women (77.2%) had live births; in the conventional IVF group, 496 women (81.8%) had live births. Women in the PGT-A group had a lower incidence of pregnancy loss compared with the conventional IVF group: 8.7% versus 12.6% (absolute difference of -3.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.5 to -0.2). There was no difference in obstetric and neonatal outcomes between the 2 groups. The authors concluded that among women with 3 or more good-quality blastocysts, conventional IVF resulted in a cumulative live birth rate that was noninferior to that of the PGT-A group.

Some benefit shown with PGT-A

Although the study by Yan and colleagues did not show any benefit, and even a possible reduction, with regard to cumulative live birth rate for PGT-A, it did show a 4% reduction in clinical pregnancy loss when PGT-A was used. Furthermore, the study design has been criticized for performing PGT-A on only 3 blastocysts in the PGT-A group. It is quite conceivable that the PGT-A group would have had more euploid embryos available for transfer if the study design had included all the available embryos instead of only 3. On the other hand, one could argue that if the authors had extended the study to include all the available embryos, the conventional group would have also had more embryos for transfer and, therefore, more chances for pregnancy and live birth.

It is also important to recognize that only patients who had at least 3 embryos available for biopsy were included in this study, and therefore the results of this study cannot be extended to patients with fewer embryos, such as those with diminished ovarian reserve.

In summary, based on this study’s results, we may conclude that for the good-prognosis patients in the age group of 20 to 37 who have at least 3 embryos available for biopsy, PGT-A may reduce the miscarriage rate by about 4%, but this benefit comes at the expense of about a 4% reduction in the cumulative live birth rate. ●

Due to an increasing incidence of colon cancer among men and women aged 45 and younger, in 2018 the American Cancer Society, and in 2021 the US Preventive Services Task Force, recommended that screening for colon cancer begin at age 45 rather than age 50. More than half of the US population reports being up to date with these screening guidelines.

Source: Barbieri R. Colorectal cancer screening, 2021: An update. OBG Manag. 2021;33:9-11, 15. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0119.

Due to an increasing incidence of colon cancer among men and women aged 45 and younger, in 2018 the American Cancer Society, and in 2021 the US Preventive Services Task Force, recommended that screening for colon cancer begin at age 45 rather than age 50. More than half of the US population reports being up to date with these screening guidelines.

Source: Barbieri R. Colorectal cancer screening, 2021: An update. OBG Manag. 2021;33:9-11, 15. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0119.

Due to an increasing incidence of colon cancer among men and women aged 45 and younger, in 2018 the American Cancer Society, and in 2021 the US Preventive Services Task Force, recommended that screening for colon cancer begin at age 45 rather than age 50. More than half of the US population reports being up to date with these screening guidelines.

Source: Barbieri R. Colorectal cancer screening, 2021: An update. OBG Manag. 2021;33:9-11, 15. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0119.

CASE Patient inquires about new technology to detect cancer

A 51-year-old woman (para 2) presents to your clinic for a routine gynecology exam. She is up to date on her screening mammogram and Pap testing. She has her first colonoscopy scheduled for next month. She has a 10-year remote smoking history, but she stopped smoking in her late twenties. Her cousin was recently diagnosed with skin cancer, her father had prostate cancer and is now in remission, and her paternal grandmother died of ovarian cancer. She knows ovarian cancer does not have an effective screening test, and she recently heard on the news about a new blood test that can detect cancer before symptoms start. She would like to know more about this test. Could it replace her next Pap, mammogram, and future colonoscopies? She also wants to know—How can a simple blood test detect cancer?

The power of genomics in cancer care

Since the first human genome was sequenced in 2000, the power of genomics has been evident across many aspects of medicine, including cancer care.¹ Whereas the first human genome to be sequenced took more than 10 years to sequence and cost over  $1 billion, sequencing of your entire genome can now be obtained for less than $400—with results in a week.²

Genomics is now an integral part of cancer care, with results having implications for both cancer risk and prevention as well as more individualized treatment. For example, a healthy 42-year-old patient with a strong family history of breast cancer may undergo genetic testing and discover she has a mutation in the tumor suppression gene BRCA1, which carries a 39% to 58% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer.³ By undergoing a risk-reducing bilateral salpingooophorectomy she will lower her ovarian cancer risk by up to 96%.^4,5 A 67-year-old with a new diagnosis of stage III ovarian cancer and a BRCA2 mutation may be in remission for 5+ years due to her BRCA2 mutation, which makes her eligible for the use of the poly(ADPribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib.⁶ Genetic testing as illustrated above has led to decreased cancer-related mortality and prolonged survival.⁷ However, many women with such germline mutations are faced with difficult choices about surgical risk reduction, with the potential harms of early menopause and quality of life concerns. Having a test that does not just predict cancer risk but in fact quantifies that risk for the individual would greatly help in these decisions. Furthermore, more than 75% of ovarian cancers occur without a germline mutation. 

Advances in genetic testing technology also have led to the ability to obtain genetic information from a simple blood test. For example, cell-free DNA (cfDNA), which is DNA fragments that are normally found to be circulating in the bloodstream, is routinely used as a screening tool for prenatal genetic testing to detect chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus.⁸ This technology relies on analyzing fetal free (non-cellular) DNA that is naturally found circulating in maternal blood. More recently, similar technology using cfDNA has been applied for the screening and characterization of certain cancers.⁹ This powerful technology can detect cancer before symptoms begin—all from a simple blood test, often referred to as a “liquid biopsy.” However, understanding the utility, supporting data, and target population for these tests is important before employing them as part of routine clinical practice. 

Continue to: Current methods of cancer screening are limited...

Current methods of cancer screening are limited 

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide, with nearly 10 million cancer-related deaths annually, and it may surpass cardiovascular disease as the leading cause over the course of the century.^10,11 Many cancer deaths are in part due to late-stage diagnosis, when the cancer has already metastasized.¹² Early detection of cancer improves outcomes and survival rates, but it is often difficult to detect early due to the lack of early symptoms with many cancers, which can limit cancer screening and issues with access to care.¹³

 Currently, there are only 5 cancers: cervical, prostate, breast, colon, and lung (for high-risk adults) that are screened for in the general population (see "Cancer screening has helped save countless lives" at the end of this article).¹⁴ The Pap test to screen for cervical cancer, developed in the 1940s, has saved millions of women’s lives and reduced the mortality of cervical cancer by 70%.¹⁵ Coupled with the availability and implementation of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, cervical cancer rates are decreasing at substantial rates.¹⁶ However, there are no validated screening tests for uterine cancer, the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States, or ovarian cancer, the most lethal. 

Screening tests for cervical, prostate, breast, colon, and lung cancer have helped save millions of lives; however, these tests also come with high false-positive rates and the potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment. For example, half of women undergoing mammograms will receive a false-positive result over a 10-year time period,¹⁷ and up to 50% of men undergoing prostate cancer screening have a positive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test result when they do not actually have prostate cancer.¹⁸ Additionally, the positive predictive value of the current standard-of-care screening tests can be as low as <5%. Most diagnoses of cancer are made from a surgical biopsy, but these types of procedures can be difficult depending on the location or size of the tumor.¹⁹ 

The liquid biopsy. Given the limitations of current cancer screening and diagnostic tests, there is a great need for a more sensitive test that also can detect cancer from multiple organ sites. Liquid biopsy-based biomarkers can include circulating tumor cells, exosomes, microRNAs, and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). With advances in next-generation sequencing, ctDNA techniques remain the most promising.²⁰ 

Methylation-based MCED testing: A new way of  cancer screening 

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) technology was developed to address the need for better cancer screening and has the potential to detect up to 50 cancers with a simple blood test. This new technology opens the possibility for early detection of multiple cancers before symptoms even begin. MCED testing is sometimes referred to as “GRAIL” testing, after the American biotechnology company that developed the first commercially available MCED test, called the Galleri test (Galleri, Menlo Park, California). Although other biotechnology companies are developing similar technology (Exact Sciences, Madison, Wisconsin, and Freenome, South San Francisco, California, for example), this is the first test of its kind available to the public.²¹

The MCED test works by detecting the cfDNA fragments that are released into the blood passively by necrotic or apoptotic cells or secreted actively from tumor cells. The DNA from tumor cells is also known as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). CtDNA is found in much lower quantities in the blood stream compared with cfDNA from cells, making it difficult to distinguish a cancer versus a noncancer cell and to determine the tumor site of origin.²²

Through innovation, the first example of detecting cancer through this method in fact came as a surprise result from an abnormal cfDNA test. A pregnant 37-yearold woman had a cfDNA result suggestive of aneuploidy for chromosomes 18 and 13; however, she gave birth to a normal male fetus. Shortly thereafter, a vaginal biopsy confirmed small-cell carcinoma with alterations in chromosomes 18 and 13.²³ GRAIL testing for this patient was subsequently able to optimize their methods of detecting both the presence of cancer cells and the tumor site of origin by utilizing next-generation genomic sequencing and methylation. Their development of a methylation-based assay combined with 46 machine-learning allowed the test to determine, first, if there is cancer present or not, and second, the tissue of origin prediction. It is important to note that these tests are meant to be used in addition to standard-of-care screening tests, not as an alternative, and this is emphasized throughout the company’s website and the medical literature.²⁴ 

Continue to: The process to develop and validate GRAIL’s blood-based cancer screening test...

The process to develop and validate GRAIL’s blood-based cancer screening test includes 4 large clinical trials of more than 180,000 participants, including those with cancer and those without. The Circulating Cell-Free Genome Atlas (CCGA) Study, was a prospective, case-controlled, observational study enrolling approximately 15,000 participants with 3 prespecified sub-studies. The first sub-study developed the machine-learning classifier for both early detection and tumor of origin detection.^25,26 

The highest performing assay from the first sub-study then went on to be further validated in the 2nd and 3rd sub-studies. The 3rd sub-study, published in the Annals of Oncology in 2021 looked at a cohort of 4,077 participants with and without cancer, and found the specificity of cancer signal detection to be 99.5% and the overall sensitivity to be 51.5%, with increasing sensitivity by cancer stage (stage I - 17%, stage II - 40%, stage III - 77%, and stage IV - 90.1%).²⁴ The false-positive rate was low, at 0.7%, and the true positive rate was 88.7%. Notably, the test was able to correctly identify the tumor of origin for 93% of samples.²⁴ The study overall demonstrated high specificity and accuracy of tumor site of origin and supported the use of this blood-based MCED assay. 

The PATHFINDER study was another prospective, multicenter clinical trial that enrolled more than 6,000 participants in the United States. The participants were aged >50 years with or without additional cancer risk factors. The goal of this study was to determine the extent of testing required to achieve diagnosis after a “cancer signal detected” result. The study results found that, when MCED testing was added to the standard-of-care screening, the number of cancers detected doubled when compared with standard cancer screening alone.^27,28 Of the 92 participants with positive cancer signals, 35 were diagnosed with cancer, and 71% of these cancer types did not have standard-ofcare screening. The tumor site of origin was correctly detected in 97% of cases, and there were less than 1% of false positives. Overall, the test led to diagnostic evaluation of 1.4% of patients and a cancer diagnosis in 0.5%. 

Currently, there are 2 ongoing clinical trials to further evaluate the Galleri MCED test. The STRIVE trial that aims to prospectively validate the MCED test in a population of nearly 100,000 women undergoing mammography,²⁹ and the SUMMIT trial,³⁰ which is similarly aiming to validate the test in a group of individuals, half of whom have a significantly elevated risk of lung cancer. 

With the promising results described above, the Galleri test became the first MCED test available for commercial use starting in 2022. It is only available for use in people who are aged 50 and older, have a family history of cancer, or are at an increased risk for cancer (although GRAIL does not elaborate on what constitutes increased risk). However, the Galleri test is only available through prescription—therefore, if interested, patients must ask their health care provider to register with GRAIL and order the test (https://www .galleri.com/hcp/the-galleri-test/ordering). Additionally, the test will cost the patient $949 and is not yet covered by insurances. Currently, several large health care groups such as the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Cleveland Clinic, and Mercy hospitals have partnered with GRAIL to offer their test to certain patients for use as part of clinical trials. Currently, no MCED test, including the Galleri, is approved by the US Food and  Drug Administration. 

Incorporating MCED testing into clinical practice

The Galleri MCED test has promising potential to make multi-cancer screening feasible and obtainable, which could ultimately reduce late-stage cancer diagnosis and decrease mortality from all cancers. The compelling data from large cohorts and numerous clinical trials demonstrate its accuracy, reliability, reproducibility, and specificity. It can detect up to 50 different types of cancers, including cancers that affect our gynecologic patients, including breast, cervical, ovarian, and uterine. Additionally, its novel methylation-based assay accurately identifies the tumor site of origin in 97% of cases.²⁸ Ongoing and future clinical trials will continue to validate and refine these methods and improve the sensitivity and positive-predictive value of this assay. As mentioned, although it has been incorporated into various large health care systems, it is not FDA approved and has not been validated in the general population. Additionally, it should not be used as a replacement for recommended screening. 

CASE Resolved

The patient is eligible for the Galleri MCED test if ordered by her physician. However, she will need to pay for the test out-of-pocket. Due to her family history, she should consider germline genetic testing (either for herself, or if possible, for her father, who should meet criteria based on his prostate cancer).³ Panel testing for germline mutations has become much more accessible, and until MCED testing is ready for prime time, it remains one of the best ways to predict and prevent cancers. Additionally, she should continue to undergo routine screening for cervical, breast, and colon cancer as indicated. ●

CASE Patient inquires about new technology to detect cancer

A 51-year-old woman (para 2) presents to your clinic for a routine gynecology exam. She is up to date on her screening mammogram and Pap testing. She has her first colonoscopy scheduled for next month. She has a 10-year remote smoking history, but she stopped smoking in her late twenties. Her cousin was recently diagnosed with skin cancer, her father had prostate cancer and is now in remission, and her paternal grandmother died of ovarian cancer. She knows ovarian cancer does not have an effective screening test, and she recently heard on the news about a new blood test that can detect cancer before symptoms start. She would like to know more about this test. Could it replace her next Pap, mammogram, and future colonoscopies? She also wants to know—How can a simple blood test detect cancer?

The power of genomics in cancer care

Since the first human genome was sequenced in 2000, the power of genomics has been evident across many aspects of medicine, including cancer care.¹ Whereas the first human genome to be sequenced took more than 10 years to sequence and cost over  $1 billion, sequencing of your entire genome can now be obtained for less than $400—with results in a week.²

Genomics is now an integral part of cancer care, with results having implications for both cancer risk and prevention as well as more individualized treatment. For example, a healthy 42-year-old patient with a strong family history of breast cancer may undergo genetic testing and discover she has a mutation in the tumor suppression gene BRCA1, which carries a 39% to 58% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer.³ By undergoing a risk-reducing bilateral salpingooophorectomy she will lower her ovarian cancer risk by up to 96%.^4,5 A 67-year-old with a new diagnosis of stage III ovarian cancer and a BRCA2 mutation may be in remission for 5+ years due to her BRCA2 mutation, which makes her eligible for the use of the poly(ADPribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib.⁶ Genetic testing as illustrated above has led to decreased cancer-related mortality and prolonged survival.⁷ However, many women with such germline mutations are faced with difficult choices about surgical risk reduction, with the potential harms of early menopause and quality of life concerns. Having a test that does not just predict cancer risk but in fact quantifies that risk for the individual would greatly help in these decisions. Furthermore, more than 75% of ovarian cancers occur without a germline mutation. 

Advances in genetic testing technology also have led to the ability to obtain genetic information from a simple blood test. For example, cell-free DNA (cfDNA), which is DNA fragments that are normally found to be circulating in the bloodstream, is routinely used as a screening tool for prenatal genetic testing to detect chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus.⁸ This technology relies on analyzing fetal free (non-cellular) DNA that is naturally found circulating in maternal blood. More recently, similar technology using cfDNA has been applied for the screening and characterization of certain cancers.⁹ This powerful technology can detect cancer before symptoms begin—all from a simple blood test, often referred to as a “liquid biopsy.” However, understanding the utility, supporting data, and target population for these tests is important before employing them as part of routine clinical practice. 

Continue to: Current methods of cancer screening are limited...

Current methods of cancer screening are limited 

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide, with nearly 10 million cancer-related deaths annually, and it may surpass cardiovascular disease as the leading cause over the course of the century.^10,11 Many cancer deaths are in part due to late-stage diagnosis, when the cancer has already metastasized.¹² Early detection of cancer improves outcomes and survival rates, but it is often difficult to detect early due to the lack of early symptoms with many cancers, which can limit cancer screening and issues with access to care.¹³

 Currently, there are only 5 cancers: cervical, prostate, breast, colon, and lung (for high-risk adults) that are screened for in the general population (see "Cancer screening has helped save countless lives" at the end of this article).¹⁴ The Pap test to screen for cervical cancer, developed in the 1940s, has saved millions of women’s lives and reduced the mortality of cervical cancer by 70%.¹⁵ Coupled with the availability and implementation of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, cervical cancer rates are decreasing at substantial rates.¹⁶ However, there are no validated screening tests for uterine cancer, the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States, or ovarian cancer, the most lethal. 

Screening tests for cervical, prostate, breast, colon, and lung cancer have helped save millions of lives; however, these tests also come with high false-positive rates and the potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment. For example, half of women undergoing mammograms will receive a false-positive result over a 10-year time period,¹⁷ and up to 50% of men undergoing prostate cancer screening have a positive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test result when they do not actually have prostate cancer.¹⁸ Additionally, the positive predictive value of the current standard-of-care screening tests can be as low as <5%. Most diagnoses of cancer are made from a surgical biopsy, but these types of procedures can be difficult depending on the location or size of the tumor.¹⁹ 

The liquid biopsy. Given the limitations of current cancer screening and diagnostic tests, there is a great need for a more sensitive test that also can detect cancer from multiple organ sites. Liquid biopsy-based biomarkers can include circulating tumor cells, exosomes, microRNAs, and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). With advances in next-generation sequencing, ctDNA techniques remain the most promising.²⁰ 

Methylation-based MCED testing: A new way of  cancer screening 

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) technology was developed to address the need for better cancer screening and has the potential to detect up to 50 cancers with a simple blood test. This new technology opens the possibility for early detection of multiple cancers before symptoms even begin. MCED testing is sometimes referred to as “GRAIL” testing, after the American biotechnology company that developed the first commercially available MCED test, called the Galleri test (Galleri, Menlo Park, California). Although other biotechnology companies are developing similar technology (Exact Sciences, Madison, Wisconsin, and Freenome, South San Francisco, California, for example), this is the first test of its kind available to the public.²¹

The MCED test works by detecting the cfDNA fragments that are released into the blood passively by necrotic or apoptotic cells or secreted actively from tumor cells. The DNA from tumor cells is also known as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). CtDNA is found in much lower quantities in the blood stream compared with cfDNA from cells, making it difficult to distinguish a cancer versus a noncancer cell and to determine the tumor site of origin.²²

Through innovation, the first example of detecting cancer through this method in fact came as a surprise result from an abnormal cfDNA test. A pregnant 37-yearold woman had a cfDNA result suggestive of aneuploidy for chromosomes 18 and 13; however, she gave birth to a normal male fetus. Shortly thereafter, a vaginal biopsy confirmed small-cell carcinoma with alterations in chromosomes 18 and 13.²³ GRAIL testing for this patient was subsequently able to optimize their methods of detecting both the presence of cancer cells and the tumor site of origin by utilizing next-generation genomic sequencing and methylation. Their development of a methylation-based assay combined with 46 machine-learning allowed the test to determine, first, if there is cancer present or not, and second, the tissue of origin prediction. It is important to note that these tests are meant to be used in addition to standard-of-care screening tests, not as an alternative, and this is emphasized throughout the company’s website and the medical literature.²⁴ 

Continue to: The process to develop and validate GRAIL’s blood-based cancer screening test...

The process to develop and validate GRAIL’s blood-based cancer screening test includes 4 large clinical trials of more than 180,000 participants, including those with cancer and those without. The Circulating Cell-Free Genome Atlas (CCGA) Study, was a prospective, case-controlled, observational study enrolling approximately 15,000 participants with 3 prespecified sub-studies. The first sub-study developed the machine-learning classifier for both early detection and tumor of origin detection.^25,26 

The highest performing assay from the first sub-study then went on to be further validated in the 2nd and 3rd sub-studies. The 3rd sub-study, published in the Annals of Oncology in 2021 looked at a cohort of 4,077 participants with and without cancer, and found the specificity of cancer signal detection to be 99.5% and the overall sensitivity to be 51.5%, with increasing sensitivity by cancer stage (stage I - 17%, stage II - 40%, stage III - 77%, and stage IV - 90.1%).²⁴ The false-positive rate was low, at 0.7%, and the true positive rate was 88.7%. Notably, the test was able to correctly identify the tumor of origin for 93% of samples.²⁴ The study overall demonstrated high specificity and accuracy of tumor site of origin and supported the use of this blood-based MCED assay. 

The PATHFINDER study was another prospective, multicenter clinical trial that enrolled more than 6,000 participants in the United States. The participants were aged >50 years with or without additional cancer risk factors. The goal of this study was to determine the extent of testing required to achieve diagnosis after a “cancer signal detected” result. The study results found that, when MCED testing was added to the standard-of-care screening, the number of cancers detected doubled when compared with standard cancer screening alone.^27,28 Of the 92 participants with positive cancer signals, 35 were diagnosed with cancer, and 71% of these cancer types did not have standard-ofcare screening. The tumor site of origin was correctly detected in 97% of cases, and there were less than 1% of false positives. Overall, the test led to diagnostic evaluation of 1.4% of patients and a cancer diagnosis in 0.5%. 

Currently, there are 2 ongoing clinical trials to further evaluate the Galleri MCED test. The STRIVE trial that aims to prospectively validate the MCED test in a population of nearly 100,000 women undergoing mammography,²⁹ and the SUMMIT trial,³⁰ which is similarly aiming to validate the test in a group of individuals, half of whom have a significantly elevated risk of lung cancer. 

With the promising results described above, the Galleri test became the first MCED test available for commercial use starting in 2022. It is only available for use in people who are aged 50 and older, have a family history of cancer, or are at an increased risk for cancer (although GRAIL does not elaborate on what constitutes increased risk). However, the Galleri test is only available through prescription—therefore, if interested, patients must ask their health care provider to register with GRAIL and order the test (https://www .galleri.com/hcp/the-galleri-test/ordering). Additionally, the test will cost the patient $949 and is not yet covered by insurances. Currently, several large health care groups such as the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Cleveland Clinic, and Mercy hospitals have partnered with GRAIL to offer their test to certain patients for use as part of clinical trials. Currently, no MCED test, including the Galleri, is approved by the US Food and  Drug Administration. 

Incorporating MCED testing into clinical practice

The Galleri MCED test has promising potential to make multi-cancer screening feasible and obtainable, which could ultimately reduce late-stage cancer diagnosis and decrease mortality from all cancers. The compelling data from large cohorts and numerous clinical trials demonstrate its accuracy, reliability, reproducibility, and specificity. It can detect up to 50 different types of cancers, including cancers that affect our gynecologic patients, including breast, cervical, ovarian, and uterine. Additionally, its novel methylation-based assay accurately identifies the tumor site of origin in 97% of cases.²⁸ Ongoing and future clinical trials will continue to validate and refine these methods and improve the sensitivity and positive-predictive value of this assay. As mentioned, although it has been incorporated into various large health care systems, it is not FDA approved and has not been validated in the general population. Additionally, it should not be used as a replacement for recommended screening. 

CASE Resolved

The patient is eligible for the Galleri MCED test if ordered by her physician. However, she will need to pay for the test out-of-pocket. Due to her family history, she should consider germline genetic testing (either for herself, or if possible, for her father, who should meet criteria based on his prostate cancer).³ Panel testing for germline mutations has become much more accessible, and until MCED testing is ready for prime time, it remains one of the best ways to predict and prevent cancers. Additionally, she should continue to undergo routine screening for cervical, breast, and colon cancer as indicated. ●

CASE Patient inquires about new technology to detect cancer

A 51-year-old woman (para 2) presents to your clinic for a routine gynecology exam. She is up to date on her screening mammogram and Pap testing. She has her first colonoscopy scheduled for next month. She has a 10-year remote smoking history, but she stopped smoking in her late twenties. Her cousin was recently diagnosed with skin cancer, her father had prostate cancer and is now in remission, and her paternal grandmother died of ovarian cancer. She knows ovarian cancer does not have an effective screening test, and she recently heard on the news about a new blood test that can detect cancer before symptoms start. She would like to know more about this test. Could it replace her next Pap, mammogram, and future colonoscopies? She also wants to know—How can a simple blood test detect cancer?

The power of genomics in cancer care

Since the first human genome was sequenced in 2000, the power of genomics has been evident across many aspects of medicine, including cancer care.¹ Whereas the first human genome to be sequenced took more than 10 years to sequence and cost over  $1 billion, sequencing of your entire genome can now be obtained for less than $400—with results in a week.²

Genomics is now an integral part of cancer care, with results having implications for both cancer risk and prevention as well as more individualized treatment. For example, a healthy 42-year-old patient with a strong family history of breast cancer may undergo genetic testing and discover she has a mutation in the tumor suppression gene BRCA1, which carries a 39% to 58% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer.³ By undergoing a risk-reducing bilateral salpingooophorectomy she will lower her ovarian cancer risk by up to 96%.^4,5 A 67-year-old with a new diagnosis of stage III ovarian cancer and a BRCA2 mutation may be in remission for 5+ years due to her BRCA2 mutation, which makes her eligible for the use of the poly(ADPribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib.⁶ Genetic testing as illustrated above has led to decreased cancer-related mortality and prolonged survival.⁷ However, many women with such germline mutations are faced with difficult choices about surgical risk reduction, with the potential harms of early menopause and quality of life concerns. Having a test that does not just predict cancer risk but in fact quantifies that risk for the individual would greatly help in these decisions. Furthermore, more than 75% of ovarian cancers occur without a germline mutation. 

Advances in genetic testing technology also have led to the ability to obtain genetic information from a simple blood test. For example, cell-free DNA (cfDNA), which is DNA fragments that are normally found to be circulating in the bloodstream, is routinely used as a screening tool for prenatal genetic testing to detect chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus.⁸ This technology relies on analyzing fetal free (non-cellular) DNA that is naturally found circulating in maternal blood. More recently, similar technology using cfDNA has been applied for the screening and characterization of certain cancers.⁹ This powerful technology can detect cancer before symptoms begin—all from a simple blood test, often referred to as a “liquid biopsy.” However, understanding the utility, supporting data, and target population for these tests is important before employing them as part of routine clinical practice. 

Continue to: Current methods of cancer screening are limited...

Current methods of cancer screening are limited 

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide, with nearly 10 million cancer-related deaths annually, and it may surpass cardiovascular disease as the leading cause over the course of the century.^10,11 Many cancer deaths are in part due to late-stage diagnosis, when the cancer has already metastasized.¹² Early detection of cancer improves outcomes and survival rates, but it is often difficult to detect early due to the lack of early symptoms with many cancers, which can limit cancer screening and issues with access to care.¹³

 Currently, there are only 5 cancers: cervical, prostate, breast, colon, and lung (for high-risk adults) that are screened for in the general population (see "Cancer screening has helped save countless lives" at the end of this article).¹⁴ The Pap test to screen for cervical cancer, developed in the 1940s, has saved millions of women’s lives and reduced the mortality of cervical cancer by 70%.¹⁵ Coupled with the availability and implementation of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, cervical cancer rates are decreasing at substantial rates.¹⁶ However, there are no validated screening tests for uterine cancer, the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States, or ovarian cancer, the most lethal. 

Screening tests for cervical, prostate, breast, colon, and lung cancer have helped save millions of lives; however, these tests also come with high false-positive rates and the potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment. For example, half of women undergoing mammograms will receive a false-positive result over a 10-year time period,¹⁷ and up to 50% of men undergoing prostate cancer screening have a positive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test result when they do not actually have prostate cancer.¹⁸ Additionally, the positive predictive value of the current standard-of-care screening tests can be as low as <5%. Most diagnoses of cancer are made from a surgical biopsy, but these types of procedures can be difficult depending on the location or size of the tumor.¹⁹ 

The liquid biopsy. Given the limitations of current cancer screening and diagnostic tests, there is a great need for a more sensitive test that also can detect cancer from multiple organ sites. Liquid biopsy-based biomarkers can include circulating tumor cells, exosomes, microRNAs, and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). With advances in next-generation sequencing, ctDNA techniques remain the most promising.²⁰ 

Methylation-based MCED testing: A new way of  cancer screening 

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) technology was developed to address the need for better cancer screening and has the potential to detect up to 50 cancers with a simple blood test. This new technology opens the possibility for early detection of multiple cancers before symptoms even begin. MCED testing is sometimes referred to as “GRAIL” testing, after the American biotechnology company that developed the first commercially available MCED test, called the Galleri test (Galleri, Menlo Park, California). Although other biotechnology companies are developing similar technology (Exact Sciences, Madison, Wisconsin, and Freenome, South San Francisco, California, for example), this is the first test of its kind available to the public.²¹

The MCED test works by detecting the cfDNA fragments that are released into the blood passively by necrotic or apoptotic cells or secreted actively from tumor cells. The DNA from tumor cells is also known as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). CtDNA is found in much lower quantities in the blood stream compared with cfDNA from cells, making it difficult to distinguish a cancer versus a noncancer cell and to determine the tumor site of origin.²²

Through innovation, the first example of detecting cancer through this method in fact came as a surprise result from an abnormal cfDNA test. A pregnant 37-yearold woman had a cfDNA result suggestive of aneuploidy for chromosomes 18 and 13; however, she gave birth to a normal male fetus. Shortly thereafter, a vaginal biopsy confirmed small-cell carcinoma with alterations in chromosomes 18 and 13.²³ GRAIL testing for this patient was subsequently able to optimize their methods of detecting both the presence of cancer cells and the tumor site of origin by utilizing next-generation genomic sequencing and methylation. Their development of a methylation-based assay combined with 46 machine-learning allowed the test to determine, first, if there is cancer present or not, and second, the tissue of origin prediction. It is important to note that these tests are meant to be used in addition to standard-of-care screening tests, not as an alternative, and this is emphasized throughout the company’s website and the medical literature.²⁴ 

Continue to: The process to develop and validate GRAIL’s blood-based cancer screening test...

The process to develop and validate GRAIL’s blood-based cancer screening test includes 4 large clinical trials of more than 180,000 participants, including those with cancer and those without. The Circulating Cell-Free Genome Atlas (CCGA) Study, was a prospective, case-controlled, observational study enrolling approximately 15,000 participants with 3 prespecified sub-studies. The first sub-study developed the machine-learning classifier for both early detection and tumor of origin detection.^25,26 

The highest performing assay from the first sub-study then went on to be further validated in the 2nd and 3rd sub-studies. The 3rd sub-study, published in the Annals of Oncology in 2021 looked at a cohort of 4,077 participants with and without cancer, and found the specificity of cancer signal detection to be 99.5% and the overall sensitivity to be 51.5%, with increasing sensitivity by cancer stage (stage I - 17%, stage II - 40%, stage III - 77%, and stage IV - 90.1%).²⁴ The false-positive rate was low, at 0.7%, and the true positive rate was 88.7%. Notably, the test was able to correctly identify the tumor of origin for 93% of samples.²⁴ The study overall demonstrated high specificity and accuracy of tumor site of origin and supported the use of this blood-based MCED assay. 

The PATHFINDER study was another prospective, multicenter clinical trial that enrolled more than 6,000 participants in the United States. The participants were aged >50 years with or without additional cancer risk factors. The goal of this study was to determine the extent of testing required to achieve diagnosis after a “cancer signal detected” result. The study results found that, when MCED testing was added to the standard-of-care screening, the number of cancers detected doubled when compared with standard cancer screening alone.^27,28 Of the 92 participants with positive cancer signals, 35 were diagnosed with cancer, and 71% of these cancer types did not have standard-ofcare screening. The tumor site of origin was correctly detected in 97% of cases, and there were less than 1% of false positives. Overall, the test led to diagnostic evaluation of 1.4% of patients and a cancer diagnosis in 0.5%. 

Currently, there are 2 ongoing clinical trials to further evaluate the Galleri MCED test. The STRIVE trial that aims to prospectively validate the MCED test in a population of nearly 100,000 women undergoing mammography,²⁹ and the SUMMIT trial,³⁰ which is similarly aiming to validate the test in a group of individuals, half of whom have a significantly elevated risk of lung cancer. 

With the promising results described above, the Galleri test became the first MCED test available for commercial use starting in 2022. It is only available for use in people who are aged 50 and older, have a family history of cancer, or are at an increased risk for cancer (although GRAIL does not elaborate on what constitutes increased risk). However, the Galleri test is only available through prescription—therefore, if interested, patients must ask their health care provider to register with GRAIL and order the test (https://www .galleri.com/hcp/the-galleri-test/ordering). Additionally, the test will cost the patient $949 and is not yet covered by insurances. Currently, several large health care groups such as the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Cleveland Clinic, and Mercy hospitals have partnered with GRAIL to offer their test to certain patients for use as part of clinical trials. Currently, no MCED test, including the Galleri, is approved by the US Food and  Drug Administration. 

Incorporating MCED testing into clinical practice

The Galleri MCED test has promising potential to make multi-cancer screening feasible and obtainable, which could ultimately reduce late-stage cancer diagnosis and decrease mortality from all cancers. The compelling data from large cohorts and numerous clinical trials demonstrate its accuracy, reliability, reproducibility, and specificity. It can detect up to 50 different types of cancers, including cancers that affect our gynecologic patients, including breast, cervical, ovarian, and uterine. Additionally, its novel methylation-based assay accurately identifies the tumor site of origin in 97% of cases.²⁸ Ongoing and future clinical trials will continue to validate and refine these methods and improve the sensitivity and positive-predictive value of this assay. As mentioned, although it has been incorporated into various large health care systems, it is not FDA approved and has not been validated in the general population. Additionally, it should not be used as a replacement for recommended screening. 

CASE Resolved

The patient is eligible for the Galleri MCED test if ordered by her physician. However, she will need to pay for the test out-of-pocket. Due to her family history, she should consider germline genetic testing (either for herself, or if possible, for her father, who should meet criteria based on his prostate cancer).³ Panel testing for germline mutations has become much more accessible, and until MCED testing is ready for prime time, it remains one of the best ways to predict and prevent cancers. Additionally, she should continue to undergo routine screening for cervical, breast, and colon cancer as indicated. ●

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization removed federal protections for abortion that previously had been codified in Roe v Wade. Since this removal, most abortions have been banned in at least 13 states, and about half of states are expected to attempt to ban or heavily restrict abortion.^1,2 These laws banning abortion are having effects on patient care far beyond abortion, leading to uncertainty and fear among providers and denied or delayed care for patients.^3,4 It is critical that research documents the harmful effects of this policy change.

Patients that are pregnant with fetuses with severe malformations have had to travel long distances to other states to obtain care.⁵ Others have faced delays in obtaining treatment for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, and even for other conditions that use medications that could potentially cause an abortion.^6,7 These cases have the potential to result in serious harm or death of the patient with altered care. There is a published report from Texas showing how the change in practice due to the 6-week abortion ban imposed in 2021 was associated with a doubling of severe morbidity for patients presenting with preterm premature rupture of membranes and other complications before 22 weeks’ gestation.⁸

While these cases have been highlighted in the media, there has not been a resource that comprehensively documents the changes in care that clinicians have been forced to make because of abortion bans as well as the consequences for their patients’ health. The media also may not be the most desirable platform for sharing cases of substandard care if providers feel their confidentiality may be breached as they are told by their employers to avoid speaking with reporters.⁹ Bearing this in mind, our team of researchers at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California San Francisco and the Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas at Austin has launched a project aiming to collect stories of poor quality care post-Roe from health care professionals across the United States. The aim of the study is to document examples of the challenges in patient care that have arisen since the Dobbs decision.

The study website CarePostRoe.com was launched in October 2022 to collect narratives from health care providers who participated in the care of a patient whose management was different from the usual standard due to a need to comply with new restrictions on abortion since the Dobbs decision. These providers can include physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, midwives, physician assistants, social workers, pharmacists, psychologists, or other allied health professionals. Clinicians can share information about a case through a brief survey linked on the website that will allow them to either submit a written narrative or a voice memo. The submissions are anonymous, and providers are not asked to submit any protected health information. If the submitter would like to share more information about the case via telephone interview, they will be taken to a separate survey which is not linked to the narrative submission to give contact information to participate in an interview.

Since October, more than 40 cases have been submitted that document patient cases from over half of the states with abortion bans. Clinicians describe pregnant patients with severe fetal malformations who have had to overcome financial and logistical barriers to travel to access abortion care. Several cases of patients with cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies have been submitted, including cases that are being followed expectantly, which is inconsistent with the standard of care.¹⁰ We also have received several submissions about cases of preterm premature rupture of membranes in the second trimester where the patient was sent home and presented several days later with a severe infection requiring management in the intensive care unit. Cases of early pregnancy loss that could have been treated safely and routinely also were delayed, increasing the risk to patients who, in addition to receiving substandard medical care, had the trauma of fearing they could be prosecuted for receiving treatment.

We hope these data will be useful to document the impact of the Court’s decision and to improve patient care as health care institutions work to update their policies and protocols to reduce delays in care in the face of legal ambiguities. If you have been involved in such a case since June 2022, including caring for a patient who traveled from another state, please consider submitting it at CarePostRoe.com, and please spread the word through your networks. ●

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization removed federal protections for abortion that previously had been codified in Roe v Wade. Since this removal, most abortions have been banned in at least 13 states, and about half of states are expected to attempt to ban or heavily restrict abortion.^1,2 These laws banning abortion are having effects on patient care far beyond abortion, leading to uncertainty and fear among providers and denied or delayed care for patients.^3,4 It is critical that research documents the harmful effects of this policy change.

Patients that are pregnant with fetuses with severe malformations have had to travel long distances to other states to obtain care.⁵ Others have faced delays in obtaining treatment for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, and even for other conditions that use medications that could potentially cause an abortion.^6,7 These cases have the potential to result in serious harm or death of the patient with altered care. There is a published report from Texas showing how the change in practice due to the 6-week abortion ban imposed in 2021 was associated with a doubling of severe morbidity for patients presenting with preterm premature rupture of membranes and other complications before 22 weeks’ gestation.⁸

While these cases have been highlighted in the media, there has not been a resource that comprehensively documents the changes in care that clinicians have been forced to make because of abortion bans as well as the consequences for their patients’ health. The media also may not be the most desirable platform for sharing cases of substandard care if providers feel their confidentiality may be breached as they are told by their employers to avoid speaking with reporters.⁹ Bearing this in mind, our team of researchers at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California San Francisco and the Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas at Austin has launched a project aiming to collect stories of poor quality care post-Roe from health care professionals across the United States. The aim of the study is to document examples of the challenges in patient care that have arisen since the Dobbs decision.

The study website CarePostRoe.com was launched in October 2022 to collect narratives from health care providers who participated in the care of a patient whose management was different from the usual standard due to a need to comply with new restrictions on abortion since the Dobbs decision. These providers can include physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, midwives, physician assistants, social workers, pharmacists, psychologists, or other allied health professionals. Clinicians can share information about a case through a brief survey linked on the website that will allow them to either submit a written narrative or a voice memo. The submissions are anonymous, and providers are not asked to submit any protected health information. If the submitter would like to share more information about the case via telephone interview, they will be taken to a separate survey which is not linked to the narrative submission to give contact information to participate in an interview.

Since October, more than 40 cases have been submitted that document patient cases from over half of the states with abortion bans. Clinicians describe pregnant patients with severe fetal malformations who have had to overcome financial and logistical barriers to travel to access abortion care. Several cases of patients with cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies have been submitted, including cases that are being followed expectantly, which is inconsistent with the standard of care.¹⁰ We also have received several submissions about cases of preterm premature rupture of membranes in the second trimester where the patient was sent home and presented several days later with a severe infection requiring management in the intensive care unit. Cases of early pregnancy loss that could have been treated safely and routinely also were delayed, increasing the risk to patients who, in addition to receiving substandard medical care, had the trauma of fearing they could be prosecuted for receiving treatment.

We hope these data will be useful to document the impact of the Court’s decision and to improve patient care as health care institutions work to update their policies and protocols to reduce delays in care in the face of legal ambiguities. If you have been involved in such a case since June 2022, including caring for a patient who traveled from another state, please consider submitting it at CarePostRoe.com, and please spread the word through your networks. ●

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization removed federal protections for abortion that previously had been codified in Roe v Wade. Since this removal, most abortions have been banned in at least 13 states, and about half of states are expected to attempt to ban or heavily restrict abortion.^1,2 These laws banning abortion are having effects on patient care far beyond abortion, leading to uncertainty and fear among providers and denied or delayed care for patients.^3,4 It is critical that research documents the harmful effects of this policy change.

Patients that are pregnant with fetuses with severe malformations have had to travel long distances to other states to obtain care.⁵ Others have faced delays in obtaining treatment for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, and even for other conditions that use medications that could potentially cause an abortion.^6,7 These cases have the potential to result in serious harm or death of the patient with altered care. There is a published report from Texas showing how the change in practice due to the 6-week abortion ban imposed in 2021 was associated with a doubling of severe morbidity for patients presenting with preterm premature rupture of membranes and other complications before 22 weeks’ gestation.⁸

While these cases have been highlighted in the media, there has not been a resource that comprehensively documents the changes in care that clinicians have been forced to make because of abortion bans as well as the consequences for their patients’ health. The media also may not be the most desirable platform for sharing cases of substandard care if providers feel their confidentiality may be breached as they are told by their employers to avoid speaking with reporters.⁹ Bearing this in mind, our team of researchers at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California San Francisco and the Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas at Austin has launched a project aiming to collect stories of poor quality care post-Roe from health care professionals across the United States. The aim of the study is to document examples of the challenges in patient care that have arisen since the Dobbs decision.

The study website CarePostRoe.com was launched in October 2022 to collect narratives from health care providers who participated in the care of a patient whose management was different from the usual standard due to a need to comply with new restrictions on abortion since the Dobbs decision. These providers can include physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, midwives, physician assistants, social workers, pharmacists, psychologists, or other allied health professionals. Clinicians can share information about a case through a brief survey linked on the website that will allow them to either submit a written narrative or a voice memo. The submissions are anonymous, and providers are not asked to submit any protected health information. If the submitter would like to share more information about the case via telephone interview, they will be taken to a separate survey which is not linked to the narrative submission to give contact information to participate in an interview.

Since October, more than 40 cases have been submitted that document patient cases from over half of the states with abortion bans. Clinicians describe pregnant patients with severe fetal malformations who have had to overcome financial and logistical barriers to travel to access abortion care. Several cases of patients with cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies have been submitted, including cases that are being followed expectantly, which is inconsistent with the standard of care.¹⁰ We also have received several submissions about cases of preterm premature rupture of membranes in the second trimester where the patient was sent home and presented several days later with a severe infection requiring management in the intensive care unit. Cases of early pregnancy loss that could have been treated safely and routinely also were delayed, increasing the risk to patients who, in addition to receiving substandard medical care, had the trauma of fearing they could be prosecuted for receiving treatment.

We hope these data will be useful to document the impact of the Court’s decision and to improve patient care as health care institutions work to update their policies and protocols to reduce delays in care in the face of legal ambiguities. If you have been involved in such a case since June 2022, including caring for a patient who traveled from another state, please consider submitting it at CarePostRoe.com, and please spread the word through your networks. ●

CASE Intervention approaches for decreasing the risk of cervical cancer

A 25-year-old woman presents to your practice for routine examination. She has never undergone cervical cancer screening or received the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine series. The patient has had 3 lifetime sexual partners and currently uses condoms as contraception. What interventions are appropriate to offer this patient to decrease her risk of cervical cancer? Choose as many that may apply:

1. cervical cytology with reflex HPV testing

2. cervical cytology with HPV cotesting

3. primary HPV testing

4. HPV vaccine series (3 doses)

5. all of the above

The answer is number 5, all of the above.

Choices 1, 2, and 3 are acceptable methods of cervical cancer screening for this patient. Catch-up HPV vaccination should be offered as well.

Equitable preventive care is needed

Cervical cancer is a unique cancer because it has a known preventative strategy. HPV vaccination, paired with cervical screening and management of abnormal results, has contributed to decreased rates of cervical cancer in the United States, from 13,914 cases in 1999 to 12,795 cases in 2019.¹ In less-developed countries, however, cervical cancer continues to be a leading cause of mortality, with 90% of cervical cancer deaths in 2020 occurring in low- and middle-income countries.²

Disparate outcomes in cervical cancer are often a reflection of disparities in health access. Within the United States, Black women have a higher incidence of cervical cancer, advanced-stage disease, and mortality from cervical cancer than White women.^3,4 Furthermore, the incidence of cervical cancer increased among American Indian and Alaska Native people between 2000 and 2019.⁵ The rate for patients who are overdue for cervical cancer screening is higher among Asian and Hispanic patients compared with non-Hispanic White patients (31.4% vs 20.1%; P=.01) and among patients who identify as LGBTQ+ compared with patients who identify as heterosexual (32.0% vs 22.2%; P<.001).⁶ Younger patients have a significantly higher rate for overdue screening compared with their older counterparts (29.1% vs 21.1%; P<.001), as do uninsured patients compared with those who are privately insured (41.7% vs 18.1%; P<.001). Overall, the proportion of women without up-to-date screening increased significantly from 2005 to 2019 (14.4% vs 23.0%; P<.001).⁶

Unfortunately, despite a known strategy to eliminate cervical cancer, we are not accomplishing equitable preventative care. Barriers to care can include patient-centered issues, such as fear of cancer or of painful evaluations, lack of trust in the health care system, and inadequate understanding of the benefits of cancer prevention, in addition to systemic and structural barriers. As we assess new technologies, one of our most important goals is to consider how such innovations can increase health access—whether through increasing ease and acceptability of testing or by creating more effective screening tests.

Updates to cervical screening guidance

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines to start screening at age 25 years with the “preferred” strategy of HPV primary testing every 5 years.⁷ By contrast, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) continues to recommend 1 of 3 methods: cytology alone every 3 years; cytology alone every 3 years between ages 21 and 29 followed by cytology and HPV cotesting every 5 years at age 30 or older; or high-risk HPV testing alone every 5 years (TABLE).⁸

To successfully prevent cervical cancer, abnormal results are managed by performing either colposcopy with biopsy, immediate treatment, or close surveillance based on the risk of developing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3 or worse. A patient’s risk is determined based on both current and prior test results. The ASCCP (American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology) transitioned to risk-based management guidelines in 2019 and has both an app and a web-based risk assessment tool available for clinicians (https://www.asccp.org).⁹

All organizations recommend stopping screening after age 65 provided there has been a history of adequate screening in the prior 10 years (defined as 2 normal cotests or 3 normal cytology tests, with the most recent test within 5 years) and no history of CIN 2 or worse within the prior 25 years.^10,11 Recent studies that examined the rate of cervical cancer diagnosed in patients older than 65 years have questioned whether patients should continue screening beyond 65.¹⁰ In the United States, 20% of cervical cancer still occurs in women older than age 65.¹¹ One reason may be that many women have not met the requirement for adequate and normal prior screening and may still need ongoing testing.¹²

Continue to: Primary HPV screening...

Primary HPV testing means that an HPV test is performed first, and if it is positive for high-risk HPV, further testing is performed to determine next steps. This contrasts with the currently used method of obtaining cytology (Pap) first with either concurrent HPV testing or reflex HPV testing. The first HPV primary screening test was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014.¹³

Multiple randomized controlled trials in Europe have demonstrated the accuracy of HPV-based screening compared with cytology in the detection of cervical cancer and its precursors.^14-17 The HPV FOCAL trial demonstrated increased efficacy of primary HPV screening in the detection of CIN 2+ lesions.¹⁸ This trial recruited a total of 19,000 women, ages 25 to 65, in Canada and randomly assigned them to receive primary HPV testing or liquid-based cytology. If primary HPV testing was negative, participants would return in 48 months for cytology and HPV cotesting. If primary liquid-based cytology testing was negative, participants would return at 24 months for cytology testing alone and at 48 months for cytology and HPV cotesting. Both groups had similar incidences of CIN 2+ over the study period. HPV testing was shown to detect CIN 2+ at higher rates at the time of initial screen (risk ratio [RR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24–2.09) and then significantly lower rates at the time of exit screening at 48 months (RR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24–0.54).¹⁸ These results demonstrated that primary HPV testing detects CIN 2+ earlier than cytology alone. In follow-up analyses, primary HPV screening missed fewer CIN 2+ diagnoses than cytology screening.¹⁹

While not as many studies have compared primary HPV testing to cytology with an HPV cotest, the current most common practice in the United States, one study performed in the United States found that a negative cytology result did not further decrease the risk of CIN 3 for HPV-negative patients (risk of CIN 3+ at 5 years: 0.16% vs 0.17%; P=0.8) and concluded that a negative HPV test was enough reassurance for a low risk of CIN 3+.²⁰

Another study, the ATHENA trial, evaluated more than 42,000 women who were 25 years and older over a 3-year period.²¹ Patients underwent either primary HPV testing or combination cytology and reflex HPV (if ages 25–29) or HPV cotesting (if age 30 or older). Primary HPV testing was found to have a sensitivity and specificity of 76.1% and 93.5%, respectively, compared with 61.7% and 94.6% for cytology with HPV cotesting, but it also increased the total number of colposcopies performed.²¹

Subsequent management of a primary HPV-positive result can be triaged using genotyping, cytology, or a combination of both. FDA-approved HPV screening tests provide genotyping and current management guidelines use genotyping to triage positive HPV results into HPV 16, 18, or 1 of 12 other high-risk HPV genotypes.

In the ATHENA trial, the 3-year incidence of CIN 3+ for HPV 16/18-positive results was 21.16% (95% CI, 18.39%–24.01%) compared with 5.4% (95% CI, 4.5%–6.4%) among patients with an HPV test positive for 1 of the other HPV genotypes.²¹ While a patient with an HPV result positive for HPV 16/18 should directly undergo colposcopy, clinical guidance for an HPV-positive result for one of the other genotypes suggests using reflex cytology to triage patients. The ASCCP recommended management of primary HPV testing is included in the FIGURE.²²

Many barriers remain to transitioning to primary HPV testing, including laboratory test availability as well as patient and provider acceptance. At present, 2 FDA-approved primary HPV screening tests are available: the Cobas HPV test (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc) and the BD Onclarity HPV assay (Becton, Dickinson and Company). Changes to screening recommendations need to be accompanied by patient and provider outreach and education.

In a survey of more than 500 US women in 2015 after guidelines allowed for increased screening intervals after negative results, a majority of women (55.6%; 95% CI, 51.4%–59.8%) were aware that screening recommendations had changed; however, 74.1% (95% CI, 70.3%–77.7%) still believed that women should be screened annually.²³ By contrast, participants in the HPV FOCAL trial, who were able to learn more about HPV-based screening, were surveyed about their willingness to undergo primary HPV testing rather than Pap testing at the conclusion of the trial.²⁴ Of the participants, 63% were comfortable with primary HPV testing, and 54% were accepting of an extended screening interval of 4 to 5 years.²⁴

Continue to: p16/Ki-67 dual-stain cytology...

An additional tool for triaging HPV-positive patients is the p16/Ki-67 dual stain test (CINtec Plus Cytology; Roche), which was FDA approved in March 2020. A tumor suppressor protein, p16 is found to be overexpressed by HPV oncogenic activity, and Ki-67 is a marker of cellular proliferation. Coexpression of p16 and Ki-67 indicates a loss of cell cycle regulation and is a hallmark of neoplastic transformation. When positive, this test is supportive of active HPV infection and of a high-grade lesion. While the dual stain test is not yet formally incorporated into triage algorithms by national guidelines, it has demonstrated efficacy in detecting CIN 3+

In the IMPACT trial, nearly 5,000 HPV-positive patients underwent p16/Ki-67 dual stain testing compared with cytology and HPV genotyping.²⁵ The sensitivity of dual stain for CIN 3+ was 91.9% (95% CI, 86.1%–95.4%) in HPV 16/18–positive and 86.0% (95% CI, 77.5%–91.6%) in the 12 other genotypes. Using dual stain testing alone to triage HPV-positive results showed significantly higher sensitivity but lower specificity than using cytology alone to triage HPV-positive results. Importantly, triage with dual stain testing alone would have referred significantly fewer women to colposcopy than HPV 16/18 genotyping with cytology triage for the 12 other genotypes (48.6% vs 56.0%; P< .0001).

Self-sampling methods: An approach for potentially improving access to screening

One technology that may help bridge gaps in access to cervical cancer screening is self-collected HPV testing, which would preclude the need for a clinician-performed pelvic exam. At present, no self-sampling method is approved by the FDA. However, many studies have examined the efficacy and safety of various self-sampling kits.²⁶

One randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands compared sensitivity and specificity of CIN 2+ detection in patient-collected versus clinician-collected swabs.²⁷ After a median follow-up of 20 months, the sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing did not differ between the patient-collected and the clinician-collected groups (specificity 100%; 95% CI, 0.91–1.08; sensitivity 96%; 95% CI, 0.90–1.03).²⁷ This analysis did not include patients who did not return their self-collected sample, which leaves the question of whether self-sampling may exacerbate issues with patients who are lost to follow-up.

In a study performed in the United States, 16,590 patients who were overdue for cervical cancer screening were randomly assigned to usual care reminders (annual mailed reminders and phone calls from clinics) or to the addition of a mailed HPV self-sampling test kit.²⁸ While the study did not demonstrate significant difference in the detection of overall CIN 2+ between the 2 groups, screening uptake was higher in the self-sampling kit group than in the usual care reminders group (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.43–1.60), and the number of abnormal screens that warranted colposcopy referral was similar between the 2 groups (36.4% vs 36.8%).²⁸ In qualitative interviews of the participants of this trial, patients who were sent at-home self-sampling kits found that the convenience of at-home testing lowered barriers to scheduling an in-office appointment.²⁹ The hope is that self-sampling methods will expand access of cervical cancer screening to vulnerable populations that face significant barriers to having an in-office pelvic exam.

It is important to note that self-collection and self-sample testing requires multidisciplinary systems for processing results and assuring necessary patient follow-up. Implementing and disseminating such a program has been well tested only in developed countries^27,30 with universal health care systems or within an integrated care delivery system. Bringing such technology broadly to the United States and less developed countries will require continued commitment to increasing laboratory capacity, a central electronic health record or system for monitoring results, educational materials for clinicians and patients, and expanding insurance reimbursement for such testing.

HPV vaccination rates must increase

While we continue to investigate which screening methods will most improve our secondary prevention of cervical cancer, our path to increasing primary prevention of cervical cancer is clear: We must increase rates of HPV vaccination. The 9-valent HPV vaccine is FDA approved for use in all patients aged 9 to 45 years.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other organizations recommend HPV vaccination between the ages of 9 and 13, and a “catch-up period” from ages 13 to 26 in which patients previously not vaccinated should receive the vaccine.³¹ Initiation of the vaccine course earlier (ages 9–10) compared with later (ages 11–12) is correlated with higher overall completion rates by age 15 and has been suggested to be associated with a stronger immune response.³²

A study from Sweden found that HPV vaccination before age 17 was most strongly correlated with the lowest rates of cervical cancer, although vaccination between ages 17 and 30 still significantly decreased the risk of cervical cancer compared with those who were unvaccinated.³³

Overall HPV vaccination rates in the United States continue to improve, with 58.6%³⁴ of US adolescents having completed vaccination in 2020. However, these rates still are significantly lower than those in many other developed countries, including Australia, which had a complete vaccination rate of 80.5% in 2020.³⁵ Continued disparities in vaccination rates could be contributing to the rise in cervical cancer among certain groups, such as American Indian and Alaska Native populations.⁵

Work—and innovations—must continue

In conclusion, the incidence of cervical cancer in the United States continues to decrease, although at disparate rates among marginalized populations. To ensure that we are working toward eliminating cervical cancer for all patients, we must continue efforts to eliminate disparities in health access. Continued innovations, including primary HPV testing and self-collection samples, may contribute to lowering barriers to all patients being able to access the preventative care they need. ●

CASE Intervention approaches for decreasing the risk of cervical cancer

A 25-year-old woman presents to your practice for routine examination. She has never undergone cervical cancer screening or received the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine series. The patient has had 3 lifetime sexual partners and currently uses condoms as contraception. What interventions are appropriate to offer this patient to decrease her risk of cervical cancer? Choose as many that may apply:

1. cervical cytology with reflex HPV testing

2. cervical cytology with HPV cotesting

3. primary HPV testing

4. HPV vaccine series (3 doses)

5. all of the above

The answer is number 5, all of the above.

Choices 1, 2, and 3 are acceptable methods of cervical cancer screening for this patient. Catch-up HPV vaccination should be offered as well.

Equitable preventive care is needed

Cervical cancer is a unique cancer because it has a known preventative strategy. HPV vaccination, paired with cervical screening and management of abnormal results, has contributed to decreased rates of cervical cancer in the United States, from 13,914 cases in 1999 to 12,795 cases in 2019.¹ In less-developed countries, however, cervical cancer continues to be a leading cause of mortality, with 90% of cervical cancer deaths in 2020 occurring in low- and middle-income countries.²

Disparate outcomes in cervical cancer are often a reflection of disparities in health access. Within the United States, Black women have a higher incidence of cervical cancer, advanced-stage disease, and mortality from cervical cancer than White women.^3,4 Furthermore, the incidence of cervical cancer increased among American Indian and Alaska Native people between 2000 and 2019.⁵ The rate for patients who are overdue for cervical cancer screening is higher among Asian and Hispanic patients compared with non-Hispanic White patients (31.4% vs 20.1%; P=.01) and among patients who identify as LGBTQ+ compared with patients who identify as heterosexual (32.0% vs 22.2%; P<.001).⁶ Younger patients have a significantly higher rate for overdue screening compared with their older counterparts (29.1% vs 21.1%; P<.001), as do uninsured patients compared with those who are privately insured (41.7% vs 18.1%; P<.001). Overall, the proportion of women without up-to-date screening increased significantly from 2005 to 2019 (14.4% vs 23.0%; P<.001).⁶

Unfortunately, despite a known strategy to eliminate cervical cancer, we are not accomplishing equitable preventative care. Barriers to care can include patient-centered issues, such as fear of cancer or of painful evaluations, lack of trust in the health care system, and inadequate understanding of the benefits of cancer prevention, in addition to systemic and structural barriers. As we assess new technologies, one of our most important goals is to consider how such innovations can increase health access—whether through increasing ease and acceptability of testing or by creating more effective screening tests.

Updates to cervical screening guidance

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines to start screening at age 25 years with the “preferred” strategy of HPV primary testing every 5 years.⁷ By contrast, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) continues to recommend 1 of 3 methods: cytology alone every 3 years; cytology alone every 3 years between ages 21 and 29 followed by cytology and HPV cotesting every 5 years at age 30 or older; or high-risk HPV testing alone every 5 years (TABLE).⁸

To successfully prevent cervical cancer, abnormal results are managed by performing either colposcopy with biopsy, immediate treatment, or close surveillance based on the risk of developing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3 or worse. A patient’s risk is determined based on both current and prior test results. The ASCCP (American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology) transitioned to risk-based management guidelines in 2019 and has both an app and a web-based risk assessment tool available for clinicians (https://www.asccp.org).⁹

All organizations recommend stopping screening after age 65 provided there has been a history of adequate screening in the prior 10 years (defined as 2 normal cotests or 3 normal cytology tests, with the most recent test within 5 years) and no history of CIN 2 or worse within the prior 25 years.^10,11 Recent studies that examined the rate of cervical cancer diagnosed in patients older than 65 years have questioned whether patients should continue screening beyond 65.¹⁰ In the United States, 20% of cervical cancer still occurs in women older than age 65.¹¹ One reason may be that many women have not met the requirement for adequate and normal prior screening and may still need ongoing testing.¹²

Continue to: Primary HPV screening...

Primary HPV testing means that an HPV test is performed first, and if it is positive for high-risk HPV, further testing is performed to determine next steps. This contrasts with the currently used method of obtaining cytology (Pap) first with either concurrent HPV testing or reflex HPV testing. The first HPV primary screening test was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014.¹³

Multiple randomized controlled trials in Europe have demonstrated the accuracy of HPV-based screening compared with cytology in the detection of cervical cancer and its precursors.^14-17 The HPV FOCAL trial demonstrated increased efficacy of primary HPV screening in the detection of CIN 2+ lesions.¹⁸ This trial recruited a total of 19,000 women, ages 25 to 65, in Canada and randomly assigned them to receive primary HPV testing or liquid-based cytology. If primary HPV testing was negative, participants would return in 48 months for cytology and HPV cotesting. If primary liquid-based cytology testing was negative, participants would return at 24 months for cytology testing alone and at 48 months for cytology and HPV cotesting. Both groups had similar incidences of CIN 2+ over the study period. HPV testing was shown to detect CIN 2+ at higher rates at the time of initial screen (risk ratio [RR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24–2.09) and then significantly lower rates at the time of exit screening at 48 months (RR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24–0.54).¹⁸ These results demonstrated that primary HPV testing detects CIN 2+ earlier than cytology alone. In follow-up analyses, primary HPV screening missed fewer CIN 2+ diagnoses than cytology screening.¹⁹

While not as many studies have compared primary HPV testing to cytology with an HPV cotest, the current most common practice in the United States, one study performed in the United States found that a negative cytology result did not further decrease the risk of CIN 3 for HPV-negative patients (risk of CIN 3+ at 5 years: 0.16% vs 0.17%; P=0.8) and concluded that a negative HPV test was enough reassurance for a low risk of CIN 3+.²⁰

Another study, the ATHENA trial, evaluated more than 42,000 women who were 25 years and older over a 3-year period.²¹ Patients underwent either primary HPV testing or combination cytology and reflex HPV (if ages 25–29) or HPV cotesting (if age 30 or older). Primary HPV testing was found to have a sensitivity and specificity of 76.1% and 93.5%, respectively, compared with 61.7% and 94.6% for cytology with HPV cotesting, but it also increased the total number of colposcopies performed.²¹

Subsequent management of a primary HPV-positive result can be triaged using genotyping, cytology, or a combination of both. FDA-approved HPV screening tests provide genotyping and current management guidelines use genotyping to triage positive HPV results into HPV 16, 18, or 1 of 12 other high-risk HPV genotypes.

In the ATHENA trial, the 3-year incidence of CIN 3+ for HPV 16/18-positive results was 21.16% (95% CI, 18.39%–24.01%) compared with 5.4% (95% CI, 4.5%–6.4%) among patients with an HPV test positive for 1 of the other HPV genotypes.²¹ While a patient with an HPV result positive for HPV 16/18 should directly undergo colposcopy, clinical guidance for an HPV-positive result for one of the other genotypes suggests using reflex cytology to triage patients. The ASCCP recommended management of primary HPV testing is included in the FIGURE.²²

Many barriers remain to transitioning to primary HPV testing, including laboratory test availability as well as patient and provider acceptance. At present, 2 FDA-approved primary HPV screening tests are available: the Cobas HPV test (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc) and the BD Onclarity HPV assay (Becton, Dickinson and Company). Changes to screening recommendations need to be accompanied by patient and provider outreach and education.

In a survey of more than 500 US women in 2015 after guidelines allowed for increased screening intervals after negative results, a majority of women (55.6%; 95% CI, 51.4%–59.8%) were aware that screening recommendations had changed; however, 74.1% (95% CI, 70.3%–77.7%) still believed that women should be screened annually.²³ By contrast, participants in the HPV FOCAL trial, who were able to learn more about HPV-based screening, were surveyed about their willingness to undergo primary HPV testing rather than Pap testing at the conclusion of the trial.²⁴ Of the participants, 63% were comfortable with primary HPV testing, and 54% were accepting of an extended screening interval of 4 to 5 years.²⁴

Continue to: p16/Ki-67 dual-stain cytology...

An additional tool for triaging HPV-positive patients is the p16/Ki-67 dual stain test (CINtec Plus Cytology; Roche), which was FDA approved in March 2020. A tumor suppressor protein, p16 is found to be overexpressed by HPV oncogenic activity, and Ki-67 is a marker of cellular proliferation. Coexpression of p16 and Ki-67 indicates a loss of cell cycle regulation and is a hallmark of neoplastic transformation. When positive, this test is supportive of active HPV infection and of a high-grade lesion. While the dual stain test is not yet formally incorporated into triage algorithms by national guidelines, it has demonstrated efficacy in detecting CIN 3+

In the IMPACT trial, nearly 5,000 HPV-positive patients underwent p16/Ki-67 dual stain testing compared with cytology and HPV genotyping.²⁵ The sensitivity of dual stain for CIN 3+ was 91.9% (95% CI, 86.1%–95.4%) in HPV 16/18–positive and 86.0% (95% CI, 77.5%–91.6%) in the 12 other genotypes. Using dual stain testing alone to triage HPV-positive results showed significantly higher sensitivity but lower specificity than using cytology alone to triage HPV-positive results. Importantly, triage with dual stain testing alone would have referred significantly fewer women to colposcopy than HPV 16/18 genotyping with cytology triage for the 12 other genotypes (48.6% vs 56.0%; P< .0001).

Self-sampling methods: An approach for potentially improving access to screening

One technology that may help bridge gaps in access to cervical cancer screening is self-collected HPV testing, which would preclude the need for a clinician-performed pelvic exam. At present, no self-sampling method is approved by the FDA. However, many studies have examined the efficacy and safety of various self-sampling kits.²⁶

One randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands compared sensitivity and specificity of CIN 2+ detection in patient-collected versus clinician-collected swabs.²⁷ After a median follow-up of 20 months, the sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing did not differ between the patient-collected and the clinician-collected groups (specificity 100%; 95% CI, 0.91–1.08; sensitivity 96%; 95% CI, 0.90–1.03).²⁷ This analysis did not include patients who did not return their self-collected sample, which leaves the question of whether self-sampling may exacerbate issues with patients who are lost to follow-up.

In a study performed in the United States, 16,590 patients who were overdue for cervical cancer screening were randomly assigned to usual care reminders (annual mailed reminders and phone calls from clinics) or to the addition of a mailed HPV self-sampling test kit.²⁸ While the study did not demonstrate significant difference in the detection of overall CIN 2+ between the 2 groups, screening uptake was higher in the self-sampling kit group than in the usual care reminders group (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.43–1.60), and the number of abnormal screens that warranted colposcopy referral was similar between the 2 groups (36.4% vs 36.8%).²⁸ In qualitative interviews of the participants of this trial, patients who were sent at-home self-sampling kits found that the convenience of at-home testing lowered barriers to scheduling an in-office appointment.²⁹ The hope is that self-sampling methods will expand access of cervical cancer screening to vulnerable populations that face significant barriers to having an in-office pelvic exam.

It is important to note that self-collection and self-sample testing requires multidisciplinary systems for processing results and assuring necessary patient follow-up. Implementing and disseminating such a program has been well tested only in developed countries^27,30 with universal health care systems or within an integrated care delivery system. Bringing such technology broadly to the United States and less developed countries will require continued commitment to increasing laboratory capacity, a central electronic health record or system for monitoring results, educational materials for clinicians and patients, and expanding insurance reimbursement for such testing.

HPV vaccination rates must increase

While we continue to investigate which screening methods will most improve our secondary prevention of cervical cancer, our path to increasing primary prevention of cervical cancer is clear: We must increase rates of HPV vaccination. The 9-valent HPV vaccine is FDA approved for use in all patients aged 9 to 45 years.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other organizations recommend HPV vaccination between the ages of 9 and 13, and a “catch-up period” from ages 13 to 26 in which patients previously not vaccinated should receive the vaccine.³¹ Initiation of the vaccine course earlier (ages 9–10) compared with later (ages 11–12) is correlated with higher overall completion rates by age 15 and has been suggested to be associated with a stronger immune response.³²

A study from Sweden found that HPV vaccination before age 17 was most strongly correlated with the lowest rates of cervical cancer, although vaccination between ages 17 and 30 still significantly decreased the risk of cervical cancer compared with those who were unvaccinated.³³

Overall HPV vaccination rates in the United States continue to improve, with 58.6%³⁴ of US adolescents having completed vaccination in 2020. However, these rates still are significantly lower than those in many other developed countries, including Australia, which had a complete vaccination rate of 80.5% in 2020.³⁵ Continued disparities in vaccination rates could be contributing to the rise in cervical cancer among certain groups, such as American Indian and Alaska Native populations.⁵

Work—and innovations—must continue

In conclusion, the incidence of cervical cancer in the United States continues to decrease, although at disparate rates among marginalized populations. To ensure that we are working toward eliminating cervical cancer for all patients, we must continue efforts to eliminate disparities in health access. Continued innovations, including primary HPV testing and self-collection samples, may contribute to lowering barriers to all patients being able to access the preventative care they need. ●

CASE Intervention approaches for decreasing the risk of cervical cancer

A 25-year-old woman presents to your practice for routine examination. She has never undergone cervical cancer screening or received the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine series. The patient has had 3 lifetime sexual partners and currently uses condoms as contraception. What interventions are appropriate to offer this patient to decrease her risk of cervical cancer? Choose as many that may apply:

1. cervical cytology with reflex HPV testing

2. cervical cytology with HPV cotesting

3. primary HPV testing

4. HPV vaccine series (3 doses)

5. all of the above

The answer is number 5, all of the above.

Choices 1, 2, and 3 are acceptable methods of cervical cancer screening for this patient. Catch-up HPV vaccination should be offered as well.

Equitable preventive care is needed

Cervical cancer is a unique cancer because it has a known preventative strategy. HPV vaccination, paired with cervical screening and management of abnormal results, has contributed to decreased rates of cervical cancer in the United States, from 13,914 cases in 1999 to 12,795 cases in 2019.¹ In less-developed countries, however, cervical cancer continues to be a leading cause of mortality, with 90% of cervical cancer deaths in 2020 occurring in low- and middle-income countries.²

Disparate outcomes in cervical cancer are often a reflection of disparities in health access. Within the United States, Black women have a higher incidence of cervical cancer, advanced-stage disease, and mortality from cervical cancer than White women.^3,4 Furthermore, the incidence of cervical cancer increased among American Indian and Alaska Native people between 2000 and 2019.⁵ The rate for patients who are overdue for cervical cancer screening is higher among Asian and Hispanic patients compared with non-Hispanic White patients (31.4% vs 20.1%; P=.01) and among patients who identify as LGBTQ+ compared with patients who identify as heterosexual (32.0% vs 22.2%; P<.001).⁶ Younger patients have a significantly higher rate for overdue screening compared with their older counterparts (29.1% vs 21.1%; P<.001), as do uninsured patients compared with those who are privately insured (41.7% vs 18.1%; P<.001). Overall, the proportion of women without up-to-date screening increased significantly from 2005 to 2019 (14.4% vs 23.0%; P<.001).⁶

Unfortunately, despite a known strategy to eliminate cervical cancer, we are not accomplishing equitable preventative care. Barriers to care can include patient-centered issues, such as fear of cancer or of painful evaluations, lack of trust in the health care system, and inadequate understanding of the benefits of cancer prevention, in addition to systemic and structural barriers. As we assess new technologies, one of our most important goals is to consider how such innovations can increase health access—whether through increasing ease and acceptability of testing or by creating more effective screening tests.

Updates to cervical screening guidance

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines to start screening at age 25 years with the “preferred” strategy of HPV primary testing every 5 years.⁷ By contrast, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) continues to recommend 1 of 3 methods: cytology alone every 3 years; cytology alone every 3 years between ages 21 and 29 followed by cytology and HPV cotesting every 5 years at age 30 or older; or high-risk HPV testing alone every 5 years (TABLE).⁸

To successfully prevent cervical cancer, abnormal results are managed by performing either colposcopy with biopsy, immediate treatment, or close surveillance based on the risk of developing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3 or worse. A patient’s risk is determined based on both current and prior test results. The ASCCP (American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology) transitioned to risk-based management guidelines in 2019 and has both an app and a web-based risk assessment tool available for clinicians (https://www.asccp.org).⁹

All organizations recommend stopping screening after age 65 provided there has been a history of adequate screening in the prior 10 years (defined as 2 normal cotests or 3 normal cytology tests, with the most recent test within 5 years) and no history of CIN 2 or worse within the prior 25 years.^10,11 Recent studies that examined the rate of cervical cancer diagnosed in patients older than 65 years have questioned whether patients should continue screening beyond 65.¹⁰ In the United States, 20% of cervical cancer still occurs in women older than age 65.¹¹ One reason may be that many women have not met the requirement for adequate and normal prior screening and may still need ongoing testing.¹²

Continue to: Primary HPV screening...

Primary HPV testing means that an HPV test is performed first, and if it is positive for high-risk HPV, further testing is performed to determine next steps. This contrasts with the currently used method of obtaining cytology (Pap) first with either concurrent HPV testing or reflex HPV testing. The first HPV primary screening test was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014.¹³

Multiple randomized controlled trials in Europe have demonstrated the accuracy of HPV-based screening compared with cytology in the detection of cervical cancer and its precursors.^14-17 The HPV FOCAL trial demonstrated increased efficacy of primary HPV screening in the detection of CIN 2+ lesions.¹⁸ This trial recruited a total of 19,000 women, ages 25 to 65, in Canada and randomly assigned them to receive primary HPV testing or liquid-based cytology. If primary HPV testing was negative, participants would return in 48 months for cytology and HPV cotesting. If primary liquid-based cytology testing was negative, participants would return at 24 months for cytology testing alone and at 48 months for cytology and HPV cotesting. Both groups had similar incidences of CIN 2+ over the study period. HPV testing was shown to detect CIN 2+ at higher rates at the time of initial screen (risk ratio [RR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24–2.09) and then significantly lower rates at the time of exit screening at 48 months (RR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24–0.54).¹⁸ These results demonstrated that primary HPV testing detects CIN 2+ earlier than cytology alone. In follow-up analyses, primary HPV screening missed fewer CIN 2+ diagnoses than cytology screening.¹⁹

While not as many studies have compared primary HPV testing to cytology with an HPV cotest, the current most common practice in the United States, one study performed in the United States found that a negative cytology result did not further decrease the risk of CIN 3 for HPV-negative patients (risk of CIN 3+ at 5 years: 0.16% vs 0.17%; P=0.8) and concluded that a negative HPV test was enough reassurance for a low risk of CIN 3+.²⁰

Another study, the ATHENA trial, evaluated more than 42,000 women who were 25 years and older over a 3-year period.²¹ Patients underwent either primary HPV testing or combination cytology and reflex HPV (if ages 25–29) or HPV cotesting (if age 30 or older). Primary HPV testing was found to have a sensitivity and specificity of 76.1% and 93.5%, respectively, compared with 61.7% and 94.6% for cytology with HPV cotesting, but it also increased the total number of colposcopies performed.²¹

Subsequent management of a primary HPV-positive result can be triaged using genotyping, cytology, or a combination of both. FDA-approved HPV screening tests provide genotyping and current management guidelines use genotyping to triage positive HPV results into HPV 16, 18, or 1 of 12 other high-risk HPV genotypes.

In the ATHENA trial, the 3-year incidence of CIN 3+ for HPV 16/18-positive results was 21.16% (95% CI, 18.39%–24.01%) compared with 5.4% (95% CI, 4.5%–6.4%) among patients with an HPV test positive for 1 of the other HPV genotypes.²¹ While a patient with an HPV result positive for HPV 16/18 should directly undergo colposcopy, clinical guidance for an HPV-positive result for one of the other genotypes suggests using reflex cytology to triage patients. The ASCCP recommended management of primary HPV testing is included in the FIGURE.²²

Many barriers remain to transitioning to primary HPV testing, including laboratory test availability as well as patient and provider acceptance. At present, 2 FDA-approved primary HPV screening tests are available: the Cobas HPV test (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc) and the BD Onclarity HPV assay (Becton, Dickinson and Company). Changes to screening recommendations need to be accompanied by patient and provider outreach and education.

In a survey of more than 500 US women in 2015 after guidelines allowed for increased screening intervals after negative results, a majority of women (55.6%; 95% CI, 51.4%–59.8%) were aware that screening recommendations had changed; however, 74.1% (95% CI, 70.3%–77.7%) still believed that women should be screened annually.²³ By contrast, participants in the HPV FOCAL trial, who were able to learn more about HPV-based screening, were surveyed about their willingness to undergo primary HPV testing rather than Pap testing at the conclusion of the trial.²⁴ Of the participants, 63% were comfortable with primary HPV testing, and 54% were accepting of an extended screening interval of 4 to 5 years.²⁴

Continue to: p16/Ki-67 dual-stain cytology...

An additional tool for triaging HPV-positive patients is the p16/Ki-67 dual stain test (CINtec Plus Cytology; Roche), which was FDA approved in March 2020. A tumor suppressor protein, p16 is found to be overexpressed by HPV oncogenic activity, and Ki-67 is a marker of cellular proliferation. Coexpression of p16 and Ki-67 indicates a loss of cell cycle regulation and is a hallmark of neoplastic transformation. When positive, this test is supportive of active HPV infection and of a high-grade lesion. While the dual stain test is not yet formally incorporated into triage algorithms by national guidelines, it has demonstrated efficacy in detecting CIN 3+

In the IMPACT trial, nearly 5,000 HPV-positive patients underwent p16/Ki-67 dual stain testing compared with cytology and HPV genotyping.²⁵ The sensitivity of dual stain for CIN 3+ was 91.9% (95% CI, 86.1%–95.4%) in HPV 16/18–positive and 86.0% (95% CI, 77.5%–91.6%) in the 12 other genotypes. Using dual stain testing alone to triage HPV-positive results showed significantly higher sensitivity but lower specificity than using cytology alone to triage HPV-positive results. Importantly, triage with dual stain testing alone would have referred significantly fewer women to colposcopy than HPV 16/18 genotyping with cytology triage for the 12 other genotypes (48.6% vs 56.0%; P< .0001).

Self-sampling methods: An approach for potentially improving access to screening

One technology that may help bridge gaps in access to cervical cancer screening is self-collected HPV testing, which would preclude the need for a clinician-performed pelvic exam. At present, no self-sampling method is approved by the FDA. However, many studies have examined the efficacy and safety of various self-sampling kits.²⁶

One randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands compared sensitivity and specificity of CIN 2+ detection in patient-collected versus clinician-collected swabs.²⁷ After a median follow-up of 20 months, the sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing did not differ between the patient-collected and the clinician-collected groups (specificity 100%; 95% CI, 0.91–1.08; sensitivity 96%; 95% CI, 0.90–1.03).²⁷ This analysis did not include patients who did not return their self-collected sample, which leaves the question of whether self-sampling may exacerbate issues with patients who are lost to follow-up.

In a study performed in the United States, 16,590 patients who were overdue for cervical cancer screening were randomly assigned to usual care reminders (annual mailed reminders and phone calls from clinics) or to the addition of a mailed HPV self-sampling test kit.²⁸ While the study did not demonstrate significant difference in the detection of overall CIN 2+ between the 2 groups, screening uptake was higher in the self-sampling kit group than in the usual care reminders group (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.43–1.60), and the number of abnormal screens that warranted colposcopy referral was similar between the 2 groups (36.4% vs 36.8%).²⁸ In qualitative interviews of the participants of this trial, patients who were sent at-home self-sampling kits found that the convenience of at-home testing lowered barriers to scheduling an in-office appointment.²⁹ The hope is that self-sampling methods will expand access of cervical cancer screening to vulnerable populations that face significant barriers to having an in-office pelvic exam.

It is important to note that self-collection and self-sample testing requires multidisciplinary systems for processing results and assuring necessary patient follow-up. Implementing and disseminating such a program has been well tested only in developed countries^27,30 with universal health care systems or within an integrated care delivery system. Bringing such technology broadly to the United States and less developed countries will require continued commitment to increasing laboratory capacity, a central electronic health record or system for monitoring results, educational materials for clinicians and patients, and expanding insurance reimbursement for such testing.

HPV vaccination rates must increase

While we continue to investigate which screening methods will most improve our secondary prevention of cervical cancer, our path to increasing primary prevention of cervical cancer is clear: We must increase rates of HPV vaccination. The 9-valent HPV vaccine is FDA approved for use in all patients aged 9 to 45 years.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other organizations recommend HPV vaccination between the ages of 9 and 13, and a “catch-up period” from ages 13 to 26 in which patients previously not vaccinated should receive the vaccine.³¹ Initiation of the vaccine course earlier (ages 9–10) compared with later (ages 11–12) is correlated with higher overall completion rates by age 15 and has been suggested to be associated with a stronger immune response.³²

A study from Sweden found that HPV vaccination before age 17 was most strongly correlated with the lowest rates of cervical cancer, although vaccination between ages 17 and 30 still significantly decreased the risk of cervical cancer compared with those who were unvaccinated.³³

Overall HPV vaccination rates in the United States continue to improve, with 58.6%³⁴ of US adolescents having completed vaccination in 2020. However, these rates still are significantly lower than those in many other developed countries, including Australia, which had a complete vaccination rate of 80.5% in 2020.³⁵ Continued disparities in vaccination rates could be contributing to the rise in cervical cancer among certain groups, such as American Indian and Alaska Native populations.⁵

Work—and innovations—must continue

In conclusion, the incidence of cervical cancer in the United States continues to decrease, although at disparate rates among marginalized populations. To ensure that we are working toward eliminating cervical cancer for all patients, we must continue efforts to eliminate disparities in health access. Continued innovations, including primary HPV testing and self-collection samples, may contribute to lowering barriers to all patients being able to access the preventative care they need. ●

A few years ago, my partner emailed me about a consult.
 

“Dr. Carter, I had the pleasure of seeing Mrs. Smith today for a preconception consult for chronic hypertension. As a high-risk Black woman, she wants to know what we’re going to do to make sure that she doesn’t die in pregnancy or childbirth. I told her that you’re better equipped to answer this question.”

I was early in my career, and the only thing I could assume that equipped me to answer this question over my partners was my identity as a Black woman living in America.

Mrs. Smith was copied on the message and replied with a long list of follow-up questions and a request for an in-person meeting with me. I was conflicted. As a friend, daughter, and mother, I understood her fear and wanted to be there for her. As a newly appointed assistant professor on the tenure track with 20% clinical time, my clinical responsibilities easily exceeded 50% (in part, because I failed to set boundaries). I spent countless hours of uncompensated time serving on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and mentoring and volunteering for multiple community organizations; I was acutely aware that I would be measured against colleagues who rise through the ranks, unencumbered by these social, moral, and ethical responsibilities, collectively known as the “Black tax.”¹

I knew from prior experiences and the tone of Mrs. Smith’s email that it would be a tough, long meeting that would set a precedent of concierge level care that only promised to intensify once she became pregnant. I agonized over my reply. How could I balance providing compassionate care for this patient with my young research program, which I hoped to nurture so that it would one day grow to have population-level impact?

It took me 2 days to finally reply to the message with a kind, but firm, email stating that I would be happy to see her for a follow-up preconception visit. It was my attempt to balance accessibility with boundaries. She did not reply.

Did I fail her?

The fact that I still think of Mrs. Smith may indicate that I did the wrong thing. In fact, writing the first draft of this letter was a therapeutic experience, and I addressed it to Mrs. Smith. As I shared the experience and letter with friends in the field, however, everyone had similar stories. The letter continued to pass between colleagues, who each made it infinitely better. This collective process created the beautiful love letter to Black birthing people that we share here.

We call upon all of our obstetric clinician colleagues to educate themselves to be equally, ethically, and equitably equipped to care for and serve historically marginalized women and birthing people. We hope that this letter will aid in the journey, and we encourage you to share it with patients to open conversations that are too often left closed.

Continue to: Our love letter to Black women and birthing people...

Our love letter to Black women and birthing people

We see you, we hear you, we know you are scared, and we are you. In recent years, the press has amplified gross inequities in maternal care and outcomes that we, as Black birth workers, midwives, and physicians, already knew to be true. We grieve, along with you regarding the recently reported pregnancy-related deaths of Mrs. Kira Johnson,² Dr. Shalon Irving,³ Dr. Chaniece Wallace,⁴ and so many other names we do not know because their stories did not receive national attention, but we know that they represented the best of us, and they are gone too soon. As Black birth workers, midwives, physicians, and more, we have a front-row seat to the United States’ serious obstetric racism, manifested in biased clinical interactions, unjust hospital policies, and an inequitable health care system that leads to disparities in maternal morbidity and mortality for Black women.

Unfortunately, this is not anything new, and the legacy dates back to slavery and the disregard for Black people in this country. What has changed is our increased awareness of these health injustices. This collective consciousness of the risk that is carried with our pregnancies casts a shadow of fear over a period that should be full of the joy and promise of new life. We fear that our personhood will be disregarded, our pain will be ignored, and our voices silenced by a medical system that has sought to dominate our bodies and experiment on them without our permission.⁵ While this history is reprehensible, and our collective risk as Black people is disproportionately high, our purpose in writing this letter is to help Black birthing people recapture the joy and celebration that should be theirs in pregnancy and in the journey to parenthood.

As Black birth workers, we see Black pregnant patients desperately seeking safety, security, and breaking down barriers to find us for their pregnancy care. Often, they are terrified and looking for kinship and community in our offices. In rural areas patients may drive up to 4 hours in distance for an appointment, and during appointments entrust us with their stories of feeling unheard in the medical system. When we anecdotally asked about what they feared about pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period and thought was their risk of dying during pregnancy or childbirth, answers ranged from 1% to 60%. Our actual risk of dying from a pregnancy-related cause, as a Black woman, is 0.0414% (41.4 Black maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).⁶ To put that in perspective, our risk of dying is higher walking down the street or driving a car.⁷

What is the source of the fear? Based on past and present injustices inflicted on people with historically marginalized identities, we have every right to be scared; but, make no mistake that fear comes at a cost, and Black birthing people are the ones paying the bill! Stress and chronic worry are associated with poor pregnancy outcomes, and so this completely justifiable fear, at the population level, is not serving us well personally.⁸ Unfortunately, lost in the messaging about racial inequities in maternal mortality is the reality that the vast majority of Black people and babies will survive, thrive, and have healthy pregnancy outcomes, despite the terrifying population-level statistics and horrific stories of discrimination and neglect that make us feel like our pregnancies and personal peril are synonymous.

While it is true that our absolute individual, personal risk is lower than population-level statistics convey, let us be clear: We are furious about what is happening to Black people! It is immoral that Black patients in the richest country in the world are 3-4 times more likely to die of a pregnancy-related cause than White women,⁹ and we are more likely to experience pregnancy complications and “near misses” when death is narrowly avoided. Research has done an excellent job defining reproductive health disparities in this country, but prioritizing and funding meaningful strategies, policies, and programs to close this gap have not taken precedence—especially initiatives and research that are headed by Black women.^10–12 This is largely because researchers and health care systems continue evaluating strategies that focus on behavior change and narratives that identify individual responsibility as a sole cause of inequity.

Let us be clear, Black people and our behaviors are not the problem.¹³ The problems are White supremacy, classism, sexism, heteropatriarchy, and obstetric racism.^1-21 These must be recognized and addressed across all levels of power. We endorse systems-level changes that are at the root of promoting health equity in our reproductive outcomes. These changes include paid parental leave, Medicaid expansion/extension, reimbursement for doula and lactation services, increased access to perinatal mental health and wellness services, and so much more. (See the Black Mamas Matter Alliance Toolkit: https://blackmamas matter.org/our-work/toolkits/.)

Continue to: Pearls for reassurance...

Pearls for reassurance

While the inequities and their solutions are grounded in the need for systemic change,²² we realize that these population-level solutions feel abstract when our sisters and siblings ask us, “So what can I do to advocate for myself and my baby, right now in this pregnancy?” To be clear, no amount of personal hypervigilance on our part as Black pregnancy-capable people is going to fix these problems, which are systemic; however, we want to provide a few pearls that may be helpful for patient self-advocacy and reassurance:

1. Seek culturally and ethnically congruent care. We intuitively want to find a clinician who looks like us, but sadly, in the United States only 5% of physicians and 2% of midwives are Black. Demand exceeds supply for Black patients who are seeking racially congruent care. Nonetheless, it is critical that you find a physician or midwife who centers you and  provides support and care that affirms the strengths and assets of you, your family, and your community when cultural and ethnic congruency are not possible for you and your pregnancy. 
2. Ask how your clinicians are actively working to ensure optimal and equitable experiences for Black birthing individuals. We recommend asking your clinician and/or hospital what, if anything, they are doing to address health care inequities, obstetric racism, or implicit bias in their pregnancy and postpartum care. Many groups (including some authors of this letter) are working on measures to address obstetric racism. An acknowledgement of initiatives to mitigate inequities is a meaningful first step. You can suggest that they look into it while you explore your options, as this work is rapidly emerging in many areas of the country. 
3. Plan for well-person care. The best time to optimize pregnancy and birth outcomes is before you get pregnant. Set up an appointment with a midwife, ObGyn, or your primary care physician before you get pregnant. Discuss your concerns about pregnancy and use this time to optimize your health. This also provides an opportunity to build a relationship with your physician/ midwife and their group to evaluate whether they curate an environment where you feel seen, heard, and valued when you go for annual exams or problem visits. If you do not get that sense after a couple of visits, find a place where you do. 
4. Advocate for a second opinion. If something does not sound right to you or you have questions that were not adequately answered, it is your prerogative to seek a second opinion; a clinician should never be offended by this. 
5. Consider these factors, for those who deliver in a hospital (by choice or necessity): 

   a. 24/7 access to obstetricians and dedicated anesthesiologists in the hospital

   b. trauma-informed medical/mental health/social services

   c. lactation consultation

   d. supportive trial of labor after cesarean delivery policy

   e. massive blood transfusion  protocol. 

6. Seek doula support! It always helps to have another set of eyes and ears to help advocate for you, especially when you are in pain during pregnancy, childbirth, or in the postpartum period, or are having difficulty advocating for yourself. There is also evidence that women supported by doulas have better pregnancy-related outcomes and experiences.²³ Many major cities in the United States have started to provide race-concordant doula care for Black birthing people  for free.²⁴
7.  Don’t forget about your mental health. As stated, chronic stress from racism impacts birth outcomes. Having a mental health clinician is a great way to mitigate adverse effects of prolonged tension.^25–27
8. Ask your clinician, hospital, or insurance company about participating in group prenatal care and/or nurse home visiting models²⁸ because both are associated with improved birth outcomes.²⁹ Many institutions are implementing group care that provides race-concordant care.^30,31 
9. Ask your clinician, hospital, or local health department for recommendations to a lactation consultant or educator who can support your efforts in breast/ chest/body-feeding. 

We invite you to consider this truth

You, alone, do not carry the entire population-level risk of Black birthing people on your shoulders. We all carry a piece of it. We, along with many allies, advocates, and activists, are outraged and angered by generations of racism and mistreatment of Black birthing people in our health systems and hospitals. We are channeling our frustration and disgust to demand substantive and sustainable change.

Our purpose here is to provide love and reassurance to our sisters and siblings who are going through their pregnancies with thoughts about our nation’s past and present failures to promote health equity for us and our babies. Our purpose is neither to minimize the public health crisis of Black infant and maternal morbidity and mortality nor is it to absolve clinicians, health systems, or governments from taking responsibility for these shameful outcomes or making meaningful changes to address them. In fact, we love taking care of our community by providing the best clinical care we can to our patients. We call upon all of our clinical colleagues to educate themselves to be ethically and equitably equipped to provide health care for Black pregnant patients. Finally, to birthing Black families, please remember this: If you choose to have a baby, the outcome and experience must align with what is right for you and your baby to survive and thrive. So much of the joys of pregnancy have been stolen, but we will recapture the celebration that should be ours in pregnancy and the journey to parenthood.

Sincerely,

Ebony B. Carter, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Karen A. Scott, MD, MPH
Birthing Cultural Rigor, LLC
Nashville, Tennessee

Andrea Jackson, MD, MAS
ObGyn
University of California,
San Francisco

Sara Whetstone, MD, MHS
ObGyn
University of California, 
San Francisco

Traci Johnson, MD
ObGyn
University of Missouri 
School of Medicine
Kansas City, Missouri

Sarahn Wheeler, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Duke University School of Medicine
Durham, North Carolina

Asmara Gebre, CNM
Midwife
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

Joia Crear-Perry, MD
ObGyn
National Birth Equity Collaborative
New Orleans, Louisiana

Dineo Khabele, MD
Gynecologic Oncology
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Judette Louis, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
University of South Florida College of Medicine
Tampa, Florida

Yvonne Smith, MSN, RN
Director
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Laura Riley, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Weill Cornell Medicine
New York, New York

Antoinette Liddell, MSN, RN
Care Coordinator
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Columbia University Irving Medical Center
New York, New York

Rasheda Pippens, MSN, RN
Nurse Educator
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Ayaba Worjoloh-Clemens, MD
ObGyn
Atlanta, Georgia

Allison Bryant, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts

Sheri L. Foote, CNM
Midwife
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

J. Lindsay Sillas, MD
ObGyn
Bella OB/GYN
Houston, Texas

Cynthia Rogers, MD
Psychiatrist
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Audra R. Meadows, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of California, San Diego

AeuMuro G. Lake, MD
Urogynecologist
Urogynecology and Healing Arts
Seattle, Washington

Nancy Moore, MSN, RN, WHNP-BC
Nurse Practitioner
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Zoë Julian, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of Alabama at Birmingham

Janice M. Tinsley, MN, RNC-OB
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

Jamila B. Perritt, MD, MPH
ObGyn
Washington, DC

Joy A. Cooper, MD, MSc
ObGyn
Culture Care
Oakland, California

Arthurine K. Zakama, MD
ObGyn
University of California,San Francisco

Alissa Erogbogbo, MD
OB Hospitalist
Los Altos, California

Sanithia L. Williams, MD
ObGyn
Huntsville, Alabama

Audra Williams, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of Alabama, Birmingham

Hedwige “Didi” Saint Louis, MD, MPH
OB Hospitalist
Morehouse School of Medicine
Atlanta, Georgia

Cherise Cokley, MD
OB Hospitalist
Community Hospital
Munster, Indiana

J’Leise Sosa, MD, MPH
ObGyn
Buffalo, New York

A few years ago, my partner emailed me about a consult.
 

“Dr. Carter, I had the pleasure of seeing Mrs. Smith today for a preconception consult for chronic hypertension. As a high-risk Black woman, she wants to know what we’re going to do to make sure that she doesn’t die in pregnancy or childbirth. I told her that you’re better equipped to answer this question.”

I was early in my career, and the only thing I could assume that equipped me to answer this question over my partners was my identity as a Black woman living in America.

Mrs. Smith was copied on the message and replied with a long list of follow-up questions and a request for an in-person meeting with me. I was conflicted. As a friend, daughter, and mother, I understood her fear and wanted to be there for her. As a newly appointed assistant professor on the tenure track with 20% clinical time, my clinical responsibilities easily exceeded 50% (in part, because I failed to set boundaries). I spent countless hours of uncompensated time serving on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and mentoring and volunteering for multiple community organizations; I was acutely aware that I would be measured against colleagues who rise through the ranks, unencumbered by these social, moral, and ethical responsibilities, collectively known as the “Black tax.”¹

I knew from prior experiences and the tone of Mrs. Smith’s email that it would be a tough, long meeting that would set a precedent of concierge level care that only promised to intensify once she became pregnant. I agonized over my reply. How could I balance providing compassionate care for this patient with my young research program, which I hoped to nurture so that it would one day grow to have population-level impact?

It took me 2 days to finally reply to the message with a kind, but firm, email stating that I would be happy to see her for a follow-up preconception visit. It was my attempt to balance accessibility with boundaries. She did not reply.

Did I fail her?

The fact that I still think of Mrs. Smith may indicate that I did the wrong thing. In fact, writing the first draft of this letter was a therapeutic experience, and I addressed it to Mrs. Smith. As I shared the experience and letter with friends in the field, however, everyone had similar stories. The letter continued to pass between colleagues, who each made it infinitely better. This collective process created the beautiful love letter to Black birthing people that we share here.

We call upon all of our obstetric clinician colleagues to educate themselves to be equally, ethically, and equitably equipped to care for and serve historically marginalized women and birthing people. We hope that this letter will aid in the journey, and we encourage you to share it with patients to open conversations that are too often left closed.

Continue to: Our love letter to Black women and birthing people...

Our love letter to Black women and birthing people

We see you, we hear you, we know you are scared, and we are you. In recent years, the press has amplified gross inequities in maternal care and outcomes that we, as Black birth workers, midwives, and physicians, already knew to be true. We grieve, along with you regarding the recently reported pregnancy-related deaths of Mrs. Kira Johnson,² Dr. Shalon Irving,³ Dr. Chaniece Wallace,⁴ and so many other names we do not know because their stories did not receive national attention, but we know that they represented the best of us, and they are gone too soon. As Black birth workers, midwives, physicians, and more, we have a front-row seat to the United States’ serious obstetric racism, manifested in biased clinical interactions, unjust hospital policies, and an inequitable health care system that leads to disparities in maternal morbidity and mortality for Black women.

Unfortunately, this is not anything new, and the legacy dates back to slavery and the disregard for Black people in this country. What has changed is our increased awareness of these health injustices. This collective consciousness of the risk that is carried with our pregnancies casts a shadow of fear over a period that should be full of the joy and promise of new life. We fear that our personhood will be disregarded, our pain will be ignored, and our voices silenced by a medical system that has sought to dominate our bodies and experiment on them without our permission.⁵ While this history is reprehensible, and our collective risk as Black people is disproportionately high, our purpose in writing this letter is to help Black birthing people recapture the joy and celebration that should be theirs in pregnancy and in the journey to parenthood.

As Black birth workers, we see Black pregnant patients desperately seeking safety, security, and breaking down barriers to find us for their pregnancy care. Often, they are terrified and looking for kinship and community in our offices. In rural areas patients may drive up to 4 hours in distance for an appointment, and during appointments entrust us with their stories of feeling unheard in the medical system. When we anecdotally asked about what they feared about pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period and thought was their risk of dying during pregnancy or childbirth, answers ranged from 1% to 60%. Our actual risk of dying from a pregnancy-related cause, as a Black woman, is 0.0414% (41.4 Black maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).⁶ To put that in perspective, our risk of dying is higher walking down the street or driving a car.⁷

What is the source of the fear? Based on past and present injustices inflicted on people with historically marginalized identities, we have every right to be scared; but, make no mistake that fear comes at a cost, and Black birthing people are the ones paying the bill! Stress and chronic worry are associated with poor pregnancy outcomes, and so this completely justifiable fear, at the population level, is not serving us well personally.⁸ Unfortunately, lost in the messaging about racial inequities in maternal mortality is the reality that the vast majority of Black people and babies will survive, thrive, and have healthy pregnancy outcomes, despite the terrifying population-level statistics and horrific stories of discrimination and neglect that make us feel like our pregnancies and personal peril are synonymous.

While it is true that our absolute individual, personal risk is lower than population-level statistics convey, let us be clear: We are furious about what is happening to Black people! It is immoral that Black patients in the richest country in the world are 3-4 times more likely to die of a pregnancy-related cause than White women,⁹ and we are more likely to experience pregnancy complications and “near misses” when death is narrowly avoided. Research has done an excellent job defining reproductive health disparities in this country, but prioritizing and funding meaningful strategies, policies, and programs to close this gap have not taken precedence—especially initiatives and research that are headed by Black women.^10–12 This is largely because researchers and health care systems continue evaluating strategies that focus on behavior change and narratives that identify individual responsibility as a sole cause of inequity.

Let us be clear, Black people and our behaviors are not the problem.¹³ The problems are White supremacy, classism, sexism, heteropatriarchy, and obstetric racism.^1-21 These must be recognized and addressed across all levels of power. We endorse systems-level changes that are at the root of promoting health equity in our reproductive outcomes. These changes include paid parental leave, Medicaid expansion/extension, reimbursement for doula and lactation services, increased access to perinatal mental health and wellness services, and so much more. (See the Black Mamas Matter Alliance Toolkit: https://blackmamas matter.org/our-work/toolkits/.)

Continue to: Pearls for reassurance...

Pearls for reassurance

While the inequities and their solutions are grounded in the need for systemic change,²² we realize that these population-level solutions feel abstract when our sisters and siblings ask us, “So what can I do to advocate for myself and my baby, right now in this pregnancy?” To be clear, no amount of personal hypervigilance on our part as Black pregnancy-capable people is going to fix these problems, which are systemic; however, we want to provide a few pearls that may be helpful for patient self-advocacy and reassurance:

1. Seek culturally and ethnically congruent care. We intuitively want to find a clinician who looks like us, but sadly, in the United States only 5% of physicians and 2% of midwives are Black. Demand exceeds supply for Black patients who are seeking racially congruent care. Nonetheless, it is critical that you find a physician or midwife who centers you and  provides support and care that affirms the strengths and assets of you, your family, and your community when cultural and ethnic congruency are not possible for you and your pregnancy. 
2. Ask how your clinicians are actively working to ensure optimal and equitable experiences for Black birthing individuals. We recommend asking your clinician and/or hospital what, if anything, they are doing to address health care inequities, obstetric racism, or implicit bias in their pregnancy and postpartum care. Many groups (including some authors of this letter) are working on measures to address obstetric racism. An acknowledgement of initiatives to mitigate inequities is a meaningful first step. You can suggest that they look into it while you explore your options, as this work is rapidly emerging in many areas of the country. 
3. Plan for well-person care. The best time to optimize pregnancy and birth outcomes is before you get pregnant. Set up an appointment with a midwife, ObGyn, or your primary care physician before you get pregnant. Discuss your concerns about pregnancy and use this time to optimize your health. This also provides an opportunity to build a relationship with your physician/ midwife and their group to evaluate whether they curate an environment where you feel seen, heard, and valued when you go for annual exams or problem visits. If you do not get that sense after a couple of visits, find a place where you do. 
4. Advocate for a second opinion. If something does not sound right to you or you have questions that were not adequately answered, it is your prerogative to seek a second opinion; a clinician should never be offended by this. 
5. Consider these factors, for those who deliver in a hospital (by choice or necessity): 

   a. 24/7 access to obstetricians and dedicated anesthesiologists in the hospital

   b. trauma-informed medical/mental health/social services

   c. lactation consultation

   d. supportive trial of labor after cesarean delivery policy

   e. massive blood transfusion  protocol. 

6. Seek doula support! It always helps to have another set of eyes and ears to help advocate for you, especially when you are in pain during pregnancy, childbirth, or in the postpartum period, or are having difficulty advocating for yourself. There is also evidence that women supported by doulas have better pregnancy-related outcomes and experiences.²³ Many major cities in the United States have started to provide race-concordant doula care for Black birthing people  for free.²⁴
7.  Don’t forget about your mental health. As stated, chronic stress from racism impacts birth outcomes. Having a mental health clinician is a great way to mitigate adverse effects of prolonged tension.^25–27
8. Ask your clinician, hospital, or insurance company about participating in group prenatal care and/or nurse home visiting models²⁸ because both are associated with improved birth outcomes.²⁹ Many institutions are implementing group care that provides race-concordant care.^30,31 
9. Ask your clinician, hospital, or local health department for recommendations to a lactation consultant or educator who can support your efforts in breast/ chest/body-feeding. 

We invite you to consider this truth

You, alone, do not carry the entire population-level risk of Black birthing people on your shoulders. We all carry a piece of it. We, along with many allies, advocates, and activists, are outraged and angered by generations of racism and mistreatment of Black birthing people in our health systems and hospitals. We are channeling our frustration and disgust to demand substantive and sustainable change.

Our purpose here is to provide love and reassurance to our sisters and siblings who are going through their pregnancies with thoughts about our nation’s past and present failures to promote health equity for us and our babies. Our purpose is neither to minimize the public health crisis of Black infant and maternal morbidity and mortality nor is it to absolve clinicians, health systems, or governments from taking responsibility for these shameful outcomes or making meaningful changes to address them. In fact, we love taking care of our community by providing the best clinical care we can to our patients. We call upon all of our clinical colleagues to educate themselves to be ethically and equitably equipped to provide health care for Black pregnant patients. Finally, to birthing Black families, please remember this: If you choose to have a baby, the outcome and experience must align with what is right for you and your baby to survive and thrive. So much of the joys of pregnancy have been stolen, but we will recapture the celebration that should be ours in pregnancy and the journey to parenthood.

Sincerely,

Ebony B. Carter, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Karen A. Scott, MD, MPH
Birthing Cultural Rigor, LLC
Nashville, Tennessee

Andrea Jackson, MD, MAS
ObGyn
University of California,
San Francisco

Sara Whetstone, MD, MHS
ObGyn
University of California, 
San Francisco

Traci Johnson, MD
ObGyn
University of Missouri 
School of Medicine
Kansas City, Missouri

Sarahn Wheeler, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Duke University School of Medicine
Durham, North Carolina

Asmara Gebre, CNM
Midwife
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

Joia Crear-Perry, MD
ObGyn
National Birth Equity Collaborative
New Orleans, Louisiana

Dineo Khabele, MD
Gynecologic Oncology
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Judette Louis, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
University of South Florida College of Medicine
Tampa, Florida

Yvonne Smith, MSN, RN
Director
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Laura Riley, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Weill Cornell Medicine
New York, New York

Antoinette Liddell, MSN, RN
Care Coordinator
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Columbia University Irving Medical Center
New York, New York

Rasheda Pippens, MSN, RN
Nurse Educator
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Ayaba Worjoloh-Clemens, MD
ObGyn
Atlanta, Georgia

Allison Bryant, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts

Sheri L. Foote, CNM
Midwife
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

J. Lindsay Sillas, MD
ObGyn
Bella OB/GYN
Houston, Texas

Cynthia Rogers, MD
Psychiatrist
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Audra R. Meadows, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of California, San Diego

AeuMuro G. Lake, MD
Urogynecologist
Urogynecology and Healing Arts
Seattle, Washington

Nancy Moore, MSN, RN, WHNP-BC
Nurse Practitioner
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Zoë Julian, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of Alabama at Birmingham

Janice M. Tinsley, MN, RNC-OB
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

Jamila B. Perritt, MD, MPH
ObGyn
Washington, DC

Joy A. Cooper, MD, MSc
ObGyn
Culture Care
Oakland, California

Arthurine K. Zakama, MD
ObGyn
University of California,San Francisco

Alissa Erogbogbo, MD
OB Hospitalist
Los Altos, California

Sanithia L. Williams, MD
ObGyn
Huntsville, Alabama

Audra Williams, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of Alabama, Birmingham

Hedwige “Didi” Saint Louis, MD, MPH
OB Hospitalist
Morehouse School of Medicine
Atlanta, Georgia

Cherise Cokley, MD
OB Hospitalist
Community Hospital
Munster, Indiana

J’Leise Sosa, MD, MPH
ObGyn
Buffalo, New York

A few years ago, my partner emailed me about a consult.
 

“Dr. Carter, I had the pleasure of seeing Mrs. Smith today for a preconception consult for chronic hypertension. As a high-risk Black woman, she wants to know what we’re going to do to make sure that she doesn’t die in pregnancy or childbirth. I told her that you’re better equipped to answer this question.”

I was early in my career, and the only thing I could assume that equipped me to answer this question over my partners was my identity as a Black woman living in America.

Mrs. Smith was copied on the message and replied with a long list of follow-up questions and a request for an in-person meeting with me. I was conflicted. As a friend, daughter, and mother, I understood her fear and wanted to be there for her. As a newly appointed assistant professor on the tenure track with 20% clinical time, my clinical responsibilities easily exceeded 50% (in part, because I failed to set boundaries). I spent countless hours of uncompensated time serving on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and mentoring and volunteering for multiple community organizations; I was acutely aware that I would be measured against colleagues who rise through the ranks, unencumbered by these social, moral, and ethical responsibilities, collectively known as the “Black tax.”¹

I knew from prior experiences and the tone of Mrs. Smith’s email that it would be a tough, long meeting that would set a precedent of concierge level care that only promised to intensify once she became pregnant. I agonized over my reply. How could I balance providing compassionate care for this patient with my young research program, which I hoped to nurture so that it would one day grow to have population-level impact?

It took me 2 days to finally reply to the message with a kind, but firm, email stating that I would be happy to see her for a follow-up preconception visit. It was my attempt to balance accessibility with boundaries. She did not reply.

Did I fail her?

The fact that I still think of Mrs. Smith may indicate that I did the wrong thing. In fact, writing the first draft of this letter was a therapeutic experience, and I addressed it to Mrs. Smith. As I shared the experience and letter with friends in the field, however, everyone had similar stories. The letter continued to pass between colleagues, who each made it infinitely better. This collective process created the beautiful love letter to Black birthing people that we share here.

We call upon all of our obstetric clinician colleagues to educate themselves to be equally, ethically, and equitably equipped to care for and serve historically marginalized women and birthing people. We hope that this letter will aid in the journey, and we encourage you to share it with patients to open conversations that are too often left closed.

Continue to: Our love letter to Black women and birthing people...

Our love letter to Black women and birthing people

We see you, we hear you, we know you are scared, and we are you. In recent years, the press has amplified gross inequities in maternal care and outcomes that we, as Black birth workers, midwives, and physicians, already knew to be true. We grieve, along with you regarding the recently reported pregnancy-related deaths of Mrs. Kira Johnson,² Dr. Shalon Irving,³ Dr. Chaniece Wallace,⁴ and so many other names we do not know because their stories did not receive national attention, but we know that they represented the best of us, and they are gone too soon. As Black birth workers, midwives, physicians, and more, we have a front-row seat to the United States’ serious obstetric racism, manifested in biased clinical interactions, unjust hospital policies, and an inequitable health care system that leads to disparities in maternal morbidity and mortality for Black women.

Unfortunately, this is not anything new, and the legacy dates back to slavery and the disregard for Black people in this country. What has changed is our increased awareness of these health injustices. This collective consciousness of the risk that is carried with our pregnancies casts a shadow of fear over a period that should be full of the joy and promise of new life. We fear that our personhood will be disregarded, our pain will be ignored, and our voices silenced by a medical system that has sought to dominate our bodies and experiment on them without our permission.⁵ While this history is reprehensible, and our collective risk as Black people is disproportionately high, our purpose in writing this letter is to help Black birthing people recapture the joy and celebration that should be theirs in pregnancy and in the journey to parenthood.

As Black birth workers, we see Black pregnant patients desperately seeking safety, security, and breaking down barriers to find us for their pregnancy care. Often, they are terrified and looking for kinship and community in our offices. In rural areas patients may drive up to 4 hours in distance for an appointment, and during appointments entrust us with their stories of feeling unheard in the medical system. When we anecdotally asked about what they feared about pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period and thought was their risk of dying during pregnancy or childbirth, answers ranged from 1% to 60%. Our actual risk of dying from a pregnancy-related cause, as a Black woman, is 0.0414% (41.4 Black maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).⁶ To put that in perspective, our risk of dying is higher walking down the street or driving a car.⁷

What is the source of the fear? Based on past and present injustices inflicted on people with historically marginalized identities, we have every right to be scared; but, make no mistake that fear comes at a cost, and Black birthing people are the ones paying the bill! Stress and chronic worry are associated with poor pregnancy outcomes, and so this completely justifiable fear, at the population level, is not serving us well personally.⁸ Unfortunately, lost in the messaging about racial inequities in maternal mortality is the reality that the vast majority of Black people and babies will survive, thrive, and have healthy pregnancy outcomes, despite the terrifying population-level statistics and horrific stories of discrimination and neglect that make us feel like our pregnancies and personal peril are synonymous.

While it is true that our absolute individual, personal risk is lower than population-level statistics convey, let us be clear: We are furious about what is happening to Black people! It is immoral that Black patients in the richest country in the world are 3-4 times more likely to die of a pregnancy-related cause than White women,⁹ and we are more likely to experience pregnancy complications and “near misses” when death is narrowly avoided. Research has done an excellent job defining reproductive health disparities in this country, but prioritizing and funding meaningful strategies, policies, and programs to close this gap have not taken precedence—especially initiatives and research that are headed by Black women.^10–12 This is largely because researchers and health care systems continue evaluating strategies that focus on behavior change and narratives that identify individual responsibility as a sole cause of inequity.

Let us be clear, Black people and our behaviors are not the problem.¹³ The problems are White supremacy, classism, sexism, heteropatriarchy, and obstetric racism.^1-21 These must be recognized and addressed across all levels of power. We endorse systems-level changes that are at the root of promoting health equity in our reproductive outcomes. These changes include paid parental leave, Medicaid expansion/extension, reimbursement for doula and lactation services, increased access to perinatal mental health and wellness services, and so much more. (See the Black Mamas Matter Alliance Toolkit: https://blackmamas matter.org/our-work/toolkits/.)

Continue to: Pearls for reassurance...

Pearls for reassurance

While the inequities and their solutions are grounded in the need for systemic change,²² we realize that these population-level solutions feel abstract when our sisters and siblings ask us, “So what can I do to advocate for myself and my baby, right now in this pregnancy?” To be clear, no amount of personal hypervigilance on our part as Black pregnancy-capable people is going to fix these problems, which are systemic; however, we want to provide a few pearls that may be helpful for patient self-advocacy and reassurance:

1. Seek culturally and ethnically congruent care. We intuitively want to find a clinician who looks like us, but sadly, in the United States only 5% of physicians and 2% of midwives are Black. Demand exceeds supply for Black patients who are seeking racially congruent care. Nonetheless, it is critical that you find a physician or midwife who centers you and  provides support and care that affirms the strengths and assets of you, your family, and your community when cultural and ethnic congruency are not possible for you and your pregnancy. 
2. Ask how your clinicians are actively working to ensure optimal and equitable experiences for Black birthing individuals. We recommend asking your clinician and/or hospital what, if anything, they are doing to address health care inequities, obstetric racism, or implicit bias in their pregnancy and postpartum care. Many groups (including some authors of this letter) are working on measures to address obstetric racism. An acknowledgement of initiatives to mitigate inequities is a meaningful first step. You can suggest that they look into it while you explore your options, as this work is rapidly emerging in many areas of the country. 
3. Plan for well-person care. The best time to optimize pregnancy and birth outcomes is before you get pregnant. Set up an appointment with a midwife, ObGyn, or your primary care physician before you get pregnant. Discuss your concerns about pregnancy and use this time to optimize your health. This also provides an opportunity to build a relationship with your physician/ midwife and their group to evaluate whether they curate an environment where you feel seen, heard, and valued when you go for annual exams or problem visits. If you do not get that sense after a couple of visits, find a place where you do. 
4. Advocate for a second opinion. If something does not sound right to you or you have questions that were not adequately answered, it is your prerogative to seek a second opinion; a clinician should never be offended by this. 
5. Consider these factors, for those who deliver in a hospital (by choice or necessity): 

   a. 24/7 access to obstetricians and dedicated anesthesiologists in the hospital

   b. trauma-informed medical/mental health/social services

   c. lactation consultation

   d. supportive trial of labor after cesarean delivery policy

   e. massive blood transfusion  protocol. 

6. Seek doula support! It always helps to have another set of eyes and ears to help advocate for you, especially when you are in pain during pregnancy, childbirth, or in the postpartum period, or are having difficulty advocating for yourself. There is also evidence that women supported by doulas have better pregnancy-related outcomes and experiences.²³ Many major cities in the United States have started to provide race-concordant doula care for Black birthing people  for free.²⁴
7.  Don’t forget about your mental health. As stated, chronic stress from racism impacts birth outcomes. Having a mental health clinician is a great way to mitigate adverse effects of prolonged tension.^25–27
8. Ask your clinician, hospital, or insurance company about participating in group prenatal care and/or nurse home visiting models²⁸ because both are associated with improved birth outcomes.²⁹ Many institutions are implementing group care that provides race-concordant care.^30,31 
9. Ask your clinician, hospital, or local health department for recommendations to a lactation consultant or educator who can support your efforts in breast/ chest/body-feeding. 

We invite you to consider this truth

You, alone, do not carry the entire population-level risk of Black birthing people on your shoulders. We all carry a piece of it. We, along with many allies, advocates, and activists, are outraged and angered by generations of racism and mistreatment of Black birthing people in our health systems and hospitals. We are channeling our frustration and disgust to demand substantive and sustainable change.

Our purpose here is to provide love and reassurance to our sisters and siblings who are going through their pregnancies with thoughts about our nation’s past and present failures to promote health equity for us and our babies. Our purpose is neither to minimize the public health crisis of Black infant and maternal morbidity and mortality nor is it to absolve clinicians, health systems, or governments from taking responsibility for these shameful outcomes or making meaningful changes to address them. In fact, we love taking care of our community by providing the best clinical care we can to our patients. We call upon all of our clinical colleagues to educate themselves to be ethically and equitably equipped to provide health care for Black pregnant patients. Finally, to birthing Black families, please remember this: If you choose to have a baby, the outcome and experience must align with what is right for you and your baby to survive and thrive. So much of the joys of pregnancy have been stolen, but we will recapture the celebration that should be ours in pregnancy and the journey to parenthood.

Sincerely,

Ebony B. Carter, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Karen A. Scott, MD, MPH
Birthing Cultural Rigor, LLC
Nashville, Tennessee

Andrea Jackson, MD, MAS
ObGyn
University of California,
San Francisco

Sara Whetstone, MD, MHS
ObGyn
University of California, 
San Francisco

Traci Johnson, MD
ObGyn
University of Missouri 
School of Medicine
Kansas City, Missouri

Sarahn Wheeler, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Duke University School of Medicine
Durham, North Carolina

Asmara Gebre, CNM
Midwife
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

Joia Crear-Perry, MD
ObGyn
National Birth Equity Collaborative
New Orleans, Louisiana

Dineo Khabele, MD
Gynecologic Oncology
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Judette Louis, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
University of South Florida College of Medicine
Tampa, Florida

Yvonne Smith, MSN, RN
Director
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Laura Riley, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Weill Cornell Medicine
New York, New York

Antoinette Liddell, MSN, RN
Care Coordinator
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Columbia University Irving Medical Center
New York, New York

Rasheda Pippens, MSN, RN
Nurse Educator
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Ayaba Worjoloh-Clemens, MD
ObGyn
Atlanta, Georgia

Allison Bryant, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts

Sheri L. Foote, CNM
Midwife
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

J. Lindsay Sillas, MD
ObGyn
Bella OB/GYN
Houston, Texas

Cynthia Rogers, MD
Psychiatrist
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Audra R. Meadows, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of California, San Diego

AeuMuro G. Lake, MD
Urogynecologist
Urogynecology and Healing Arts
Seattle, Washington

Nancy Moore, MSN, RN, WHNP-BC
Nurse Practitioner
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Zoë Julian, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of Alabama at Birmingham

Janice M. Tinsley, MN, RNC-OB
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

Jamila B. Perritt, MD, MPH
ObGyn
Washington, DC

Joy A. Cooper, MD, MSc
ObGyn
Culture Care
Oakland, California

Arthurine K. Zakama, MD
ObGyn
University of California,San Francisco

Alissa Erogbogbo, MD
OB Hospitalist
Los Altos, California

Sanithia L. Williams, MD
ObGyn
Huntsville, Alabama

Audra Williams, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of Alabama, Birmingham

Hedwige “Didi” Saint Louis, MD, MPH
OB Hospitalist
Morehouse School of Medicine
Atlanta, Georgia

Cherise Cokley, MD
OB Hospitalist
Community Hospital
Munster, Indiana

J’Leise Sosa, MD, MPH
ObGyn
Buffalo, New York

Recurrent episodic blood loss from normal menstruation is not expected to result in anemia. But without treatment, chronic heavy periods will progress through the stages of low iron stores to iron deficiency and then to anemia. When iron storage levels are low, the bone marrow’s blood cell factory cannot keep up with continued losses. Every patient with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) or prolonged menstrual episodes should be tested and treated for iron deficiency and anemia.^1,2

Particular attention should be paid to assessment of iron storage levels with serum ferritin, recognizing that low iron levels progress to anemia once the storage is depleted. Recovery from anemia is much slower in individuals with iron deficiency, so assessment for iron storage also should be included in preoperative assessments and following a diagnosis of acute blood loss anemia.

The mechanics of erythropoiesis, hemoglobin, and oxygen transport

Red blood cells (erythrocytes) have a short life cycle and require constant replacement. Erythrocytes are generated on demand in erythropoiesis by a hormonal signaling process, regardless of whether sufficient components are available.³ Hemoglobin, the main intracellular component of erythrocytes, is comprised of 4 globin chains, which each contain 1 iron atom bound to a heme molecule. After erythrocytes are assembled, they are sent out into circulation for approximately 120 days. A hemoglobin level measures the oxygen-carrying capacity of erythrocytes, and anemia is defined as hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL.

Unless erythrocytes are lost from bleeding, they are decommissioned—that is, the heme molecule is metabolized into bilirubin and excreted, and the iron atoms are recycled back to the bone marrow or to storage.⁴ Ferritin is the storage molecule that binds to iron, a glycoprotein with numerous subunits around a core that can contain about 4,000 iron atoms. Most ferritin is intracellular, but a small proportion is present in serum, where it can be measured.

Serum ferritin is a good marker for the iron supply in healthy individuals because it has high correlation to iron in the bone marrow and correlates to total intracellular storage unless there is inflammation, when mobilization to serum increases. The ferritin level at which the iron supply is deficient to meet demand, defined as iron deficiency, is hotly debated and ranges from less than 15 to 50 ng/mL in menstruating individuals, with higher thresholds based on onset of erythropoiesis signaling and the lower threshold being the World Health Organization recommendation.^5-7 When iron atoms are in short supply, erythrocytes still are generated but they have lower amounts of intracellular hemoglobin, which makes them thinner, smaller, and paler—and less effective at oxygen transport.

CASE Patient seeks treatment for HMB-associated symptoms

A 17-year-old patient presents with HMB, fatigue, and difficulty with concentration. She reports that her periods have been regular and lasting 7 days since menarche at age 13. While they are manageable, they seem to be getting heavier, soaking pads in 2 to 3 hours. The patient reports that she would like to start treatment for her progressively heavy bleeding and prefers lighter scheduled bleeding; she currently does not desire contraception. The patient has no family history of bleeding problems and self-reports no personal history of epistaxis or bleeding with tooth extraction or tonsillectomy. Laboratory tests confirm iron deficiency with a hemoglobin level of 12.5 g/dL (reference range, 12.0–17.5 g/dL) and a serum ferritin level of 8 ng/mL (reference range, 50–420 ng/mL). Results from a coagulopathy panel are normal, as are von Willebrand factor levels.

Untreated iron deficiency will progress to anemia

This patient has iron deficiency without anemia, which warrants significant attention in HMB because without treatment it eventually will progress to anemia. The prevalence of iron deficiency, which makes up half of all causes of anemia, is at least double that of iron deficiency anemia.³

Adult bodies usually contain about 3 to 4 g of iron, with two-thirds in erythrocytes as hemoglobin.⁸ Approximately 40 to 60 mg of iron is recycled daily, 1 to 2 mg/day is lost from sloughed cells and sweat, and at least 1 mg/day is lost during normal menstruation. These losses are balanced with gastrointestinal uptake of 1 to 2 mg/day until bleeding exceeds about 10 mL/day. In this 17-year-old patient, iron stores have likely been on a progressive decline since menarche.

For normally menstruating individuals to maintain iron homeostasis, the daily dietary iron requirement is 18 mg/day. Iron requirements also increase during periods of illness or inflammation due to hormonal signaling in the iron absorption and transport pathway, in athletes due to sweating, foot strike hemolysis and bruising, and during growth spurts.⁹

Continue to: Managing iron deficiency and anemia...

Management of iron deficiency and iron deficiency anemia in the setting of HMB includes:

• workup for the etiology of the abnormal uterine bleeding (TABLE)
• reducing the source of blood loss, and
• iron supplementation to correct the iron deficiency state.

In most cases, workup, reduction, and repletion can occur simultaneously. The goal is not always complete cessation of menstrual bleeding; even short-term therapy can allow time to replenish iron storage. Use a shared decision-making process to assess what is important to the patient, and provide information about relative amounts of bleeding cessation that can be expected with various therapies.¹⁰

Treatment options

Medical treatments to decrease menstrual iron losses are recommended prior to proceeding with surgical interventions.¹¹ Hormonal treatments are the most consistently recommended, with many guidelines citing the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG IUD) as first-line treatment due to its substantial reduction in the amount of bleeding, HMB treatment indication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and evidence of success in those with HMB.¹²

Any progestin or combined hormonal medication with estrogen and a progestin will result in an approximately 60% to 90% bleeding reduction, thus providing many effective options for blood loss while considering patient preferences for bleeding pattern, route of administration, and concomitant benefits. While only 1 oral product (estradiol valerate/dienogest) is FDA approved for managementof HMB, use of any of the commercially available contraceptive products will provide substantial benefit.^11,13

Nonhormonal options, such as antifibrinolytics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tend to be listed as second-line therapies or for those who want to avoid hormonal medications. Antifibrinolytics, such as tranexamic acid, require frequent dosing of large pills and result in approximately 40% blood loss reduction, but they are a very successful and well-tolerated method for those seeking on-demand therapy.¹⁴ NSAIDs may result in a slight bleeding reduction, but they are far less effective than other therapies.¹⁵ Antifibrinolytics have a theoretical risk of thrombosis and a contraindication to use with hormonal contraceptives; therefore, concomitant use with estrogen-containing medications is reserved for patients with refractory heavy bleeding or for heavy bleeding days during the hormone-free interval, when benefits likely outweigh potential risk.^16,17

Guidelines for medical management of acute HMB typically cite 3 small comparative studies with high-dose regimens of parenteral conjugated estrogen, combined ethinyl estradiol and progestin, or oral medroxyprogesterone acetate.^18,19 Dosing recommendations for the oral medications include a loading dose followed by a taper regimen that is poorly tolerated and for which there is no evidence of superior effectiveness over the standard dose.^20,21In most cases, initiation of the preferred long-term hormonal medication plan will reduce bleeding significantly within 2 to 3 days. Many clinicians who commonly treat acute HMB prescribe norethindrone acetate 5 mg daily (up to 3 times daily, if needed) for effective and safe menstrual suppression.²²

Iron replenishment: Dosing frequency, dietary iron, and multivitamins

Iron repletion is usually via the oral route unless surgery is imminent, anemia is severe, or the oral route is not tolerated or effective.²³ Oral iron has substantial adverse effects that limit tolerance, including nausea, epigastric pain, diarrhea, and constipation. Fortunately, evidence supports lower oral iron doses than previously used.⁴

Iron homeostasis is controlled by the peptide hormone hepcidin, produced by the liver, which controls mobilization of iron from the gut and spleen and aids iron absorption from the diet and supplements.²⁴ Hepcidin levels decrease in response to high circulating levels of iron, so the ideal iron repletion dose in iron-deficient nonanemic women was determined by assessing the dose response of hepcidin. Researchers compared iron 60 mg daily for 14 days versus every other day for 28 days and found that iron absorption was greater in the every-other-day group (21.8% vs 16.3%).²⁵They concluded that changing iron administration to 60 mg or more in a single dose every other day is most efficient in those with iron deficiency without anemia. Since study participants did not have anemia, research is pending on whether different strategies (such as daily dosing) are more effective for more severe cases. The bottom line is that conventional high-dose divided daily oral iron administration results in reduced iron bioavailability compared with alternate-day dosing.

Increasing dietary iron is insufficient to treat low iron storage, iron deficiency, and iron deficiency anemia. Likewise, multivitamins, which contain very little elemental iron, are not recommended for repletion. Any iron salt with 60 to 120 mg of elemental iron can be used (for examples, ferrous sulfate, ferrous gluconate).²⁵ Once ingested, stomach and pancreatic acids release elemental iron from its bound form. For that reason, absorption may be improved by administering iron at least 1 hour before a meal and avoiding antacids, including milk. Meat proteins and ascorbic acid help maintain the soluble ferrous form and also aid absorption. Tea, coffee, and tannins prevent absorption when polyphenol compounds form an insoluble complex with iron (see box at end of article). Gastrointestinal adverse effects can be minimized by decreasing the dose and taking after meals, although with reduced efficacy.

Intravenous iron treatment raises hemoglobin levels significantly faster than oral administration but is limited by cost and availability, so it is reserved for individuals with a hemoglobin level less than 9 g/dL, prior gastrointestinal or bariatric surgery, imminent surgery, and intolerance, poor adherence, or nonresponse to oral iron therapy. Several approved formulations are available, all with equivalent effectiveness and similar safety profiles. Lower-dose formulations (such as iron sucrose) may require several infusions, but higher-dose intravenous iron products (ferric carboxymaltose, low-molecular weight iron dextran, etc) have a stable carbohydrate shell that inhibits free iron release and improves safety, allowing a single administration.²⁶

Common adverse effects of intravenous iron treatment include a metallic taste and headache during administration. More serious adverse effects, such as hypotension, arthralgia, malaise, and nausea, are usually self-limited. With mild infusion reactions (1 in 200), the infusion can be stopped until symptoms improve and can be resumed at a slower rate.²⁷

Continue to: The role of blood transfusion...

The role of blood transfusion

Blood transfusion is expensive and potentially hazardous, so its use is limited to treatment of acute blood loss or severe anemia.

A one-time red blood cell transfusion does not impact diagnostic criteria to assess for iron deficiency with ferritin, and it does not improve underlying iron deficiency.²⁸Patients with acute blood loss anemia superimposed on chronic blood loss should be screened and treated for iron deficiency even after receiving a transfusion.

Since ferritin levels can rise significantly as an acute phase reactant, even following a hemorrhage, iron deficiency during inflammation is defined as ferritin less than 70 ng/mL.

The potential for iron overload

Since iron is never metabolized or excreted, it is possible to have iron overload following accidental overdose, transfusion dependency, and disorders of iron transport, such as hemochromatosis and thalassemia.

While a low ferritin level always indicates iron deficiency, high ferritin levels can be an acute phase reactant. Ferritin levels greater than 150 ng/mL in healthy menstruating individuals and greater than 500 ng/mL in unhealthy individuals should raise concern for excess iron and should prompt discontinuation of iron intake or workup for conditions at risk for overload.⁵

Oral iron supplements should be stored away from small children, who are at particular risk of toxicity.

How long to treat?

Treatment duration depends on the individual’s degree of iron deficiency, whether anemia is present, and the amount of ongoing blood loss. The main treatment goal is normalization and maintenance of serum ferritin.

Successful treatment should be confirmed with a complete blood count and ferritin level. Hemoglobin levels improve 2 g/dL after 3 weeks of oral iron therapy, but repletion may take 4 to 6 months.^23,29 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends 3 to 6 months of continued iron therapy after resolution of HMB.¹⁹

In a comparative study of treatment for HMB with the 52-mg LNG IUD versus hysterectomy, hemoglobin levels increased in both treatment groups but stayed lower in those with initial anemia.⁸ Ferritin levels normalized only after 5 years and were still lower in individuals with initial anemia.

Increase in hemoglobin is faster after intravenous iron administration but is equivalent to oral therapy by 12 weeks. If management to reduce menstrual losses is discontinued, periodic or maintenance iron repletion will be necessary.

CASE Management plan initiated

This 17-year-old patient with iron deficiency resulting from HMB requests management to reduce menstrual iron losses with a preference for predictable menses. We have already completed a basic workup, which could also include assessment for hypermobility with a Beighton score, as connective tissue disorders also are associated with HMB.³⁰ We discuss the options of cyclic hormonal therapy, antifibrinolytic treatment, and an LNG IUD. The patient is concerned about adherence and wants to avoid unscheduled bleeding, so she opts for a trial of tranexamic acid 1,300 mg 3 times daily for 5 days during menses. This regimen results in a 50% reduction in bleeding amount, which the patient finds satisfactory. Iron repletion with oral ferrous sulfate 325 mg (containing 65 mg of elemental iron) is administered on alternating days with vitamin C taken 1 hour prior to dinner. Repeat laboratory test results at 3 weeks show improvement to a hemoglobin level of 14.2 g/dL and a ferritin level of 12 ng/mL. By 3 months, her ferritin levels are greater than 30 ng/mL and oral iron is administered only during menses.

Summing up

Chronic HMB results in a progressive net loss of iron and eventual anemia. Screening with complete blood count and ferritin and early treatment of low iron storage when ferritin is less than 30 ng/mL will help avoid symptoms. Any amount of reduction of menstrual blood loss can be beneficial, allowing a variety of effective hormonal and nonhormonal treatment options. ●

Recurrent episodic blood loss from normal menstruation is not expected to result in anemia. But without treatment, chronic heavy periods will progress through the stages of low iron stores to iron deficiency and then to anemia. When iron storage levels are low, the bone marrow’s blood cell factory cannot keep up with continued losses. Every patient with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) or prolonged menstrual episodes should be tested and treated for iron deficiency and anemia.^1,2

Particular attention should be paid to assessment of iron storage levels with serum ferritin, recognizing that low iron levels progress to anemia once the storage is depleted. Recovery from anemia is much slower in individuals with iron deficiency, so assessment for iron storage also should be included in preoperative assessments and following a diagnosis of acute blood loss anemia.

The mechanics of erythropoiesis, hemoglobin, and oxygen transport

Red blood cells (erythrocytes) have a short life cycle and require constant replacement. Erythrocytes are generated on demand in erythropoiesis by a hormonal signaling process, regardless of whether sufficient components are available.³ Hemoglobin, the main intracellular component of erythrocytes, is comprised of 4 globin chains, which each contain 1 iron atom bound to a heme molecule. After erythrocytes are assembled, they are sent out into circulation for approximately 120 days. A hemoglobin level measures the oxygen-carrying capacity of erythrocytes, and anemia is defined as hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL.

Unless erythrocytes are lost from bleeding, they are decommissioned—that is, the heme molecule is metabolized into bilirubin and excreted, and the iron atoms are recycled back to the bone marrow or to storage.⁴ Ferritin is the storage molecule that binds to iron, a glycoprotein with numerous subunits around a core that can contain about 4,000 iron atoms. Most ferritin is intracellular, but a small proportion is present in serum, where it can be measured.

Serum ferritin is a good marker for the iron supply in healthy individuals because it has high correlation to iron in the bone marrow and correlates to total intracellular storage unless there is inflammation, when mobilization to serum increases. The ferritin level at which the iron supply is deficient to meet demand, defined as iron deficiency, is hotly debated and ranges from less than 15 to 50 ng/mL in menstruating individuals, with higher thresholds based on onset of erythropoiesis signaling and the lower threshold being the World Health Organization recommendation.^5-7 When iron atoms are in short supply, erythrocytes still are generated but they have lower amounts of intracellular hemoglobin, which makes them thinner, smaller, and paler—and less effective at oxygen transport.

CASE Patient seeks treatment for HMB-associated symptoms

A 17-year-old patient presents with HMB, fatigue, and difficulty with concentration. She reports that her periods have been regular and lasting 7 days since menarche at age 13. While they are manageable, they seem to be getting heavier, soaking pads in 2 to 3 hours. The patient reports that she would like to start treatment for her progressively heavy bleeding and prefers lighter scheduled bleeding; she currently does not desire contraception. The patient has no family history of bleeding problems and self-reports no personal history of epistaxis or bleeding with tooth extraction or tonsillectomy. Laboratory tests confirm iron deficiency with a hemoglobin level of 12.5 g/dL (reference range, 12.0–17.5 g/dL) and a serum ferritin level of 8 ng/mL (reference range, 50–420 ng/mL). Results from a coagulopathy panel are normal, as are von Willebrand factor levels.

Untreated iron deficiency will progress to anemia

This patient has iron deficiency without anemia, which warrants significant attention in HMB because without treatment it eventually will progress to anemia. The prevalence of iron deficiency, which makes up half of all causes of anemia, is at least double that of iron deficiency anemia.³

Adult bodies usually contain about 3 to 4 g of iron, with two-thirds in erythrocytes as hemoglobin.⁸ Approximately 40 to 60 mg of iron is recycled daily, 1 to 2 mg/day is lost from sloughed cells and sweat, and at least 1 mg/day is lost during normal menstruation. These losses are balanced with gastrointestinal uptake of 1 to 2 mg/day until bleeding exceeds about 10 mL/day. In this 17-year-old patient, iron stores have likely been on a progressive decline since menarche.

For normally menstruating individuals to maintain iron homeostasis, the daily dietary iron requirement is 18 mg/day. Iron requirements also increase during periods of illness or inflammation due to hormonal signaling in the iron absorption and transport pathway, in athletes due to sweating, foot strike hemolysis and bruising, and during growth spurts.⁹

Continue to: Managing iron deficiency and anemia...

Management of iron deficiency and iron deficiency anemia in the setting of HMB includes:

• workup for the etiology of the abnormal uterine bleeding (TABLE)
• reducing the source of blood loss, and
• iron supplementation to correct the iron deficiency state.

In most cases, workup, reduction, and repletion can occur simultaneously. The goal is not always complete cessation of menstrual bleeding; even short-term therapy can allow time to replenish iron storage. Use a shared decision-making process to assess what is important to the patient, and provide information about relative amounts of bleeding cessation that can be expected with various therapies.¹⁰

Treatment options

Medical treatments to decrease menstrual iron losses are recommended prior to proceeding with surgical interventions.¹¹ Hormonal treatments are the most consistently recommended, with many guidelines citing the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG IUD) as first-line treatment due to its substantial reduction in the amount of bleeding, HMB treatment indication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and evidence of success in those with HMB.¹²

Any progestin or combined hormonal medication with estrogen and a progestin will result in an approximately 60% to 90% bleeding reduction, thus providing many effective options for blood loss while considering patient preferences for bleeding pattern, route of administration, and concomitant benefits. While only 1 oral product (estradiol valerate/dienogest) is FDA approved for managementof HMB, use of any of the commercially available contraceptive products will provide substantial benefit.^11,13

Nonhormonal options, such as antifibrinolytics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tend to be listed as second-line therapies or for those who want to avoid hormonal medications. Antifibrinolytics, such as tranexamic acid, require frequent dosing of large pills and result in approximately 40% blood loss reduction, but they are a very successful and well-tolerated method for those seeking on-demand therapy.¹⁴ NSAIDs may result in a slight bleeding reduction, but they are far less effective than other therapies.¹⁵ Antifibrinolytics have a theoretical risk of thrombosis and a contraindication to use with hormonal contraceptives; therefore, concomitant use with estrogen-containing medications is reserved for patients with refractory heavy bleeding or for heavy bleeding days during the hormone-free interval, when benefits likely outweigh potential risk.^16,17

Guidelines for medical management of acute HMB typically cite 3 small comparative studies with high-dose regimens of parenteral conjugated estrogen, combined ethinyl estradiol and progestin, or oral medroxyprogesterone acetate.^18,19 Dosing recommendations for the oral medications include a loading dose followed by a taper regimen that is poorly tolerated and for which there is no evidence of superior effectiveness over the standard dose.^20,21In most cases, initiation of the preferred long-term hormonal medication plan will reduce bleeding significantly within 2 to 3 days. Many clinicians who commonly treat acute HMB prescribe norethindrone acetate 5 mg daily (up to 3 times daily, if needed) for effective and safe menstrual suppression.²²

Iron replenishment: Dosing frequency, dietary iron, and multivitamins

Iron repletion is usually via the oral route unless surgery is imminent, anemia is severe, or the oral route is not tolerated or effective.²³ Oral iron has substantial adverse effects that limit tolerance, including nausea, epigastric pain, diarrhea, and constipation. Fortunately, evidence supports lower oral iron doses than previously used.⁴

Iron homeostasis is controlled by the peptide hormone hepcidin, produced by the liver, which controls mobilization of iron from the gut and spleen and aids iron absorption from the diet and supplements.²⁴ Hepcidin levels decrease in response to high circulating levels of iron, so the ideal iron repletion dose in iron-deficient nonanemic women was determined by assessing the dose response of hepcidin. Researchers compared iron 60 mg daily for 14 days versus every other day for 28 days and found that iron absorption was greater in the every-other-day group (21.8% vs 16.3%).²⁵They concluded that changing iron administration to 60 mg or more in a single dose every other day is most efficient in those with iron deficiency without anemia. Since study participants did not have anemia, research is pending on whether different strategies (such as daily dosing) are more effective for more severe cases. The bottom line is that conventional high-dose divided daily oral iron administration results in reduced iron bioavailability compared with alternate-day dosing.

Increasing dietary iron is insufficient to treat low iron storage, iron deficiency, and iron deficiency anemia. Likewise, multivitamins, which contain very little elemental iron, are not recommended for repletion. Any iron salt with 60 to 120 mg of elemental iron can be used (for examples, ferrous sulfate, ferrous gluconate).²⁵ Once ingested, stomach and pancreatic acids release elemental iron from its bound form. For that reason, absorption may be improved by administering iron at least 1 hour before a meal and avoiding antacids, including milk. Meat proteins and ascorbic acid help maintain the soluble ferrous form and also aid absorption. Tea, coffee, and tannins prevent absorption when polyphenol compounds form an insoluble complex with iron (see box at end of article). Gastrointestinal adverse effects can be minimized by decreasing the dose and taking after meals, although with reduced efficacy.

Intravenous iron treatment raises hemoglobin levels significantly faster than oral administration but is limited by cost and availability, so it is reserved for individuals with a hemoglobin level less than 9 g/dL, prior gastrointestinal or bariatric surgery, imminent surgery, and intolerance, poor adherence, or nonresponse to oral iron therapy. Several approved formulations are available, all with equivalent effectiveness and similar safety profiles. Lower-dose formulations (such as iron sucrose) may require several infusions, but higher-dose intravenous iron products (ferric carboxymaltose, low-molecular weight iron dextran, etc) have a stable carbohydrate shell that inhibits free iron release and improves safety, allowing a single administration.²⁶

Common adverse effects of intravenous iron treatment include a metallic taste and headache during administration. More serious adverse effects, such as hypotension, arthralgia, malaise, and nausea, are usually self-limited. With mild infusion reactions (1 in 200), the infusion can be stopped until symptoms improve and can be resumed at a slower rate.²⁷

Continue to: The role of blood transfusion...

The role of blood transfusion

Blood transfusion is expensive and potentially hazardous, so its use is limited to treatment of acute blood loss or severe anemia.

A one-time red blood cell transfusion does not impact diagnostic criteria to assess for iron deficiency with ferritin, and it does not improve underlying iron deficiency.²⁸Patients with acute blood loss anemia superimposed on chronic blood loss should be screened and treated for iron deficiency even after receiving a transfusion.

Since ferritin levels can rise significantly as an acute phase reactant, even following a hemorrhage, iron deficiency during inflammation is defined as ferritin less than 70 ng/mL.

The potential for iron overload

Since iron is never metabolized or excreted, it is possible to have iron overload following accidental overdose, transfusion dependency, and disorders of iron transport, such as hemochromatosis and thalassemia.

While a low ferritin level always indicates iron deficiency, high ferritin levels can be an acute phase reactant. Ferritin levels greater than 150 ng/mL in healthy menstruating individuals and greater than 500 ng/mL in unhealthy individuals should raise concern for excess iron and should prompt discontinuation of iron intake or workup for conditions at risk for overload.⁵

Oral iron supplements should be stored away from small children, who are at particular risk of toxicity.

How long to treat?

Treatment duration depends on the individual’s degree of iron deficiency, whether anemia is present, and the amount of ongoing blood loss. The main treatment goal is normalization and maintenance of serum ferritin.

Successful treatment should be confirmed with a complete blood count and ferritin level. Hemoglobin levels improve 2 g/dL after 3 weeks of oral iron therapy, but repletion may take 4 to 6 months.^23,29 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends 3 to 6 months of continued iron therapy after resolution of HMB.¹⁹

In a comparative study of treatment for HMB with the 52-mg LNG IUD versus hysterectomy, hemoglobin levels increased in both treatment groups but stayed lower in those with initial anemia.⁸ Ferritin levels normalized only after 5 years and were still lower in individuals with initial anemia.

Increase in hemoglobin is faster after intravenous iron administration but is equivalent to oral therapy by 12 weeks. If management to reduce menstrual losses is discontinued, periodic or maintenance iron repletion will be necessary.

CASE Management plan initiated

This 17-year-old patient with iron deficiency resulting from HMB requests management to reduce menstrual iron losses with a preference for predictable menses. We have already completed a basic workup, which could also include assessment for hypermobility with a Beighton score, as connective tissue disorders also are associated with HMB.³⁰ We discuss the options of cyclic hormonal therapy, antifibrinolytic treatment, and an LNG IUD. The patient is concerned about adherence and wants to avoid unscheduled bleeding, so she opts for a trial of tranexamic acid 1,300 mg 3 times daily for 5 days during menses. This regimen results in a 50% reduction in bleeding amount, which the patient finds satisfactory. Iron repletion with oral ferrous sulfate 325 mg (containing 65 mg of elemental iron) is administered on alternating days with vitamin C taken 1 hour prior to dinner. Repeat laboratory test results at 3 weeks show improvement to a hemoglobin level of 14.2 g/dL and a ferritin level of 12 ng/mL. By 3 months, her ferritin levels are greater than 30 ng/mL and oral iron is administered only during menses.

Summing up

Chronic HMB results in a progressive net loss of iron and eventual anemia. Screening with complete blood count and ferritin and early treatment of low iron storage when ferritin is less than 30 ng/mL will help avoid symptoms. Any amount of reduction of menstrual blood loss can be beneficial, allowing a variety of effective hormonal and nonhormonal treatment options. ●

Recurrent episodic blood loss from normal menstruation is not expected to result in anemia. But without treatment, chronic heavy periods will progress through the stages of low iron stores to iron deficiency and then to anemia. When iron storage levels are low, the bone marrow’s blood cell factory cannot keep up with continued losses. Every patient with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) or prolonged menstrual episodes should be tested and treated for iron deficiency and anemia.^1,2

Particular attention should be paid to assessment of iron storage levels with serum ferritin, recognizing that low iron levels progress to anemia once the storage is depleted. Recovery from anemia is much slower in individuals with iron deficiency, so assessment for iron storage also should be included in preoperative assessments and following a diagnosis of acute blood loss anemia.

The mechanics of erythropoiesis, hemoglobin, and oxygen transport

Red blood cells (erythrocytes) have a short life cycle and require constant replacement. Erythrocytes are generated on demand in erythropoiesis by a hormonal signaling process, regardless of whether sufficient components are available.³ Hemoglobin, the main intracellular component of erythrocytes, is comprised of 4 globin chains, which each contain 1 iron atom bound to a heme molecule. After erythrocytes are assembled, they are sent out into circulation for approximately 120 days. A hemoglobin level measures the oxygen-carrying capacity of erythrocytes, and anemia is defined as hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL.

Unless erythrocytes are lost from bleeding, they are decommissioned—that is, the heme molecule is metabolized into bilirubin and excreted, and the iron atoms are recycled back to the bone marrow or to storage.⁴ Ferritin is the storage molecule that binds to iron, a glycoprotein with numerous subunits around a core that can contain about 4,000 iron atoms. Most ferritin is intracellular, but a small proportion is present in serum, where it can be measured.

Serum ferritin is a good marker for the iron supply in healthy individuals because it has high correlation to iron in the bone marrow and correlates to total intracellular storage unless there is inflammation, when mobilization to serum increases. The ferritin level at which the iron supply is deficient to meet demand, defined as iron deficiency, is hotly debated and ranges from less than 15 to 50 ng/mL in menstruating individuals, with higher thresholds based on onset of erythropoiesis signaling and the lower threshold being the World Health Organization recommendation.^5-7 When iron atoms are in short supply, erythrocytes still are generated but they have lower amounts of intracellular hemoglobin, which makes them thinner, smaller, and paler—and less effective at oxygen transport.

CASE Patient seeks treatment for HMB-associated symptoms

A 17-year-old patient presents with HMB, fatigue, and difficulty with concentration. She reports that her periods have been regular and lasting 7 days since menarche at age 13. While they are manageable, they seem to be getting heavier, soaking pads in 2 to 3 hours. The patient reports that she would like to start treatment for her progressively heavy bleeding and prefers lighter scheduled bleeding; she currently does not desire contraception. The patient has no family history of bleeding problems and self-reports no personal history of epistaxis or bleeding with tooth extraction or tonsillectomy. Laboratory tests confirm iron deficiency with a hemoglobin level of 12.5 g/dL (reference range, 12.0–17.5 g/dL) and a serum ferritin level of 8 ng/mL (reference range, 50–420 ng/mL). Results from a coagulopathy panel are normal, as are von Willebrand factor levels.

Untreated iron deficiency will progress to anemia

This patient has iron deficiency without anemia, which warrants significant attention in HMB because without treatment it eventually will progress to anemia. The prevalence of iron deficiency, which makes up half of all causes of anemia, is at least double that of iron deficiency anemia.³

Adult bodies usually contain about 3 to 4 g of iron, with two-thirds in erythrocytes as hemoglobin.⁸ Approximately 40 to 60 mg of iron is recycled daily, 1 to 2 mg/day is lost from sloughed cells and sweat, and at least 1 mg/day is lost during normal menstruation. These losses are balanced with gastrointestinal uptake of 1 to 2 mg/day until bleeding exceeds about 10 mL/day. In this 17-year-old patient, iron stores have likely been on a progressive decline since menarche.

For normally menstruating individuals to maintain iron homeostasis, the daily dietary iron requirement is 18 mg/day. Iron requirements also increase during periods of illness or inflammation due to hormonal signaling in the iron absorption and transport pathway, in athletes due to sweating, foot strike hemolysis and bruising, and during growth spurts.⁹

Continue to: Managing iron deficiency and anemia...

Management of iron deficiency and iron deficiency anemia in the setting of HMB includes:

• workup for the etiology of the abnormal uterine bleeding (TABLE)
• reducing the source of blood loss, and
• iron supplementation to correct the iron deficiency state.

In most cases, workup, reduction, and repletion can occur simultaneously. The goal is not always complete cessation of menstrual bleeding; even short-term therapy can allow time to replenish iron storage. Use a shared decision-making process to assess what is important to the patient, and provide information about relative amounts of bleeding cessation that can be expected with various therapies.¹⁰

Treatment options

Medical treatments to decrease menstrual iron losses are recommended prior to proceeding with surgical interventions.¹¹ Hormonal treatments are the most consistently recommended, with many guidelines citing the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG IUD) as first-line treatment due to its substantial reduction in the amount of bleeding, HMB treatment indication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and evidence of success in those with HMB.¹²

Any progestin or combined hormonal medication with estrogen and a progestin will result in an approximately 60% to 90% bleeding reduction, thus providing many effective options for blood loss while considering patient preferences for bleeding pattern, route of administration, and concomitant benefits. While only 1 oral product (estradiol valerate/dienogest) is FDA approved for managementof HMB, use of any of the commercially available contraceptive products will provide substantial benefit.^11,13

Nonhormonal options, such as antifibrinolytics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tend to be listed as second-line therapies or for those who want to avoid hormonal medications. Antifibrinolytics, such as tranexamic acid, require frequent dosing of large pills and result in approximately 40% blood loss reduction, but they are a very successful and well-tolerated method for those seeking on-demand therapy.¹⁴ NSAIDs may result in a slight bleeding reduction, but they are far less effective than other therapies.¹⁵ Antifibrinolytics have a theoretical risk of thrombosis and a contraindication to use with hormonal contraceptives; therefore, concomitant use with estrogen-containing medications is reserved for patients with refractory heavy bleeding or for heavy bleeding days during the hormone-free interval, when benefits likely outweigh potential risk.^16,17

Guidelines for medical management of acute HMB typically cite 3 small comparative studies with high-dose regimens of parenteral conjugated estrogen, combined ethinyl estradiol and progestin, or oral medroxyprogesterone acetate.^18,19 Dosing recommendations for the oral medications include a loading dose followed by a taper regimen that is poorly tolerated and for which there is no evidence of superior effectiveness over the standard dose.^20,21In most cases, initiation of the preferred long-term hormonal medication plan will reduce bleeding significantly within 2 to 3 days. Many clinicians who commonly treat acute HMB prescribe norethindrone acetate 5 mg daily (up to 3 times daily, if needed) for effective and safe menstrual suppression.²²

Iron replenishment: Dosing frequency, dietary iron, and multivitamins

Iron repletion is usually via the oral route unless surgery is imminent, anemia is severe, or the oral route is not tolerated or effective.²³ Oral iron has substantial adverse effects that limit tolerance, including nausea, epigastric pain, diarrhea, and constipation. Fortunately, evidence supports lower oral iron doses than previously used.⁴

Iron homeostasis is controlled by the peptide hormone hepcidin, produced by the liver, which controls mobilization of iron from the gut and spleen and aids iron absorption from the diet and supplements.²⁴ Hepcidin levels decrease in response to high circulating levels of iron, so the ideal iron repletion dose in iron-deficient nonanemic women was determined by assessing the dose response of hepcidin. Researchers compared iron 60 mg daily for 14 days versus every other day for 28 days and found that iron absorption was greater in the every-other-day group (21.8% vs 16.3%).²⁵They concluded that changing iron administration to 60 mg or more in a single dose every other day is most efficient in those with iron deficiency without anemia. Since study participants did not have anemia, research is pending on whether different strategies (such as daily dosing) are more effective for more severe cases. The bottom line is that conventional high-dose divided daily oral iron administration results in reduced iron bioavailability compared with alternate-day dosing.

Increasing dietary iron is insufficient to treat low iron storage, iron deficiency, and iron deficiency anemia. Likewise, multivitamins, which contain very little elemental iron, are not recommended for repletion. Any iron salt with 60 to 120 mg of elemental iron can be used (for examples, ferrous sulfate, ferrous gluconate).²⁵ Once ingested, stomach and pancreatic acids release elemental iron from its bound form. For that reason, absorption may be improved by administering iron at least 1 hour before a meal and avoiding antacids, including milk. Meat proteins and ascorbic acid help maintain the soluble ferrous form and also aid absorption. Tea, coffee, and tannins prevent absorption when polyphenol compounds form an insoluble complex with iron (see box at end of article). Gastrointestinal adverse effects can be minimized by decreasing the dose and taking after meals, although with reduced efficacy.

Intravenous iron treatment raises hemoglobin levels significantly faster than oral administration but is limited by cost and availability, so it is reserved for individuals with a hemoglobin level less than 9 g/dL, prior gastrointestinal or bariatric surgery, imminent surgery, and intolerance, poor adherence, or nonresponse to oral iron therapy. Several approved formulations are available, all with equivalent effectiveness and similar safety profiles. Lower-dose formulations (such as iron sucrose) may require several infusions, but higher-dose intravenous iron products (ferric carboxymaltose, low-molecular weight iron dextran, etc) have a stable carbohydrate shell that inhibits free iron release and improves safety, allowing a single administration.²⁶

Common adverse effects of intravenous iron treatment include a metallic taste and headache during administration. More serious adverse effects, such as hypotension, arthralgia, malaise, and nausea, are usually self-limited. With mild infusion reactions (1 in 200), the infusion can be stopped until symptoms improve and can be resumed at a slower rate.²⁷

Continue to: The role of blood transfusion...

The role of blood transfusion

Blood transfusion is expensive and potentially hazardous, so its use is limited to treatment of acute blood loss or severe anemia.

A one-time red blood cell transfusion does not impact diagnostic criteria to assess for iron deficiency with ferritin, and it does not improve underlying iron deficiency.²⁸Patients with acute blood loss anemia superimposed on chronic blood loss should be screened and treated for iron deficiency even after receiving a transfusion.

Since ferritin levels can rise significantly as an acute phase reactant, even following a hemorrhage, iron deficiency during inflammation is defined as ferritin less than 70 ng/mL.

The potential for iron overload

Since iron is never metabolized or excreted, it is possible to have iron overload following accidental overdose, transfusion dependency, and disorders of iron transport, such as hemochromatosis and thalassemia.

While a low ferritin level always indicates iron deficiency, high ferritin levels can be an acute phase reactant. Ferritin levels greater than 150 ng/mL in healthy menstruating individuals and greater than 500 ng/mL in unhealthy individuals should raise concern for excess iron and should prompt discontinuation of iron intake or workup for conditions at risk for overload.⁵

Oral iron supplements should be stored away from small children, who are at particular risk of toxicity.

How long to treat?

Treatment duration depends on the individual’s degree of iron deficiency, whether anemia is present, and the amount of ongoing blood loss. The main treatment goal is normalization and maintenance of serum ferritin.

Successful treatment should be confirmed with a complete blood count and ferritin level. Hemoglobin levels improve 2 g/dL after 3 weeks of oral iron therapy, but repletion may take 4 to 6 months.^23,29 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends 3 to 6 months of continued iron therapy after resolution of HMB.¹⁹

In a comparative study of treatment for HMB with the 52-mg LNG IUD versus hysterectomy, hemoglobin levels increased in both treatment groups but stayed lower in those with initial anemia.⁸ Ferritin levels normalized only after 5 years and were still lower in individuals with initial anemia.

Increase in hemoglobin is faster after intravenous iron administration but is equivalent to oral therapy by 12 weeks. If management to reduce menstrual losses is discontinued, periodic or maintenance iron repletion will be necessary.

CASE Management plan initiated

This 17-year-old patient with iron deficiency resulting from HMB requests management to reduce menstrual iron losses with a preference for predictable menses. We have already completed a basic workup, which could also include assessment for hypermobility with a Beighton score, as connective tissue disorders also are associated with HMB.³⁰ We discuss the options of cyclic hormonal therapy, antifibrinolytic treatment, and an LNG IUD. The patient is concerned about adherence and wants to avoid unscheduled bleeding, so she opts for a trial of tranexamic acid 1,300 mg 3 times daily for 5 days during menses. This regimen results in a 50% reduction in bleeding amount, which the patient finds satisfactory. Iron repletion with oral ferrous sulfate 325 mg (containing 65 mg of elemental iron) is administered on alternating days with vitamin C taken 1 hour prior to dinner. Repeat laboratory test results at 3 weeks show improvement to a hemoglobin level of 14.2 g/dL and a ferritin level of 12 ng/mL. By 3 months, her ferritin levels are greater than 30 ng/mL and oral iron is administered only during menses.

Summing up

Chronic HMB results in a progressive net loss of iron and eventual anemia. Screening with complete blood count and ferritin and early treatment of low iron storage when ferritin is less than 30 ng/mL will help avoid symptoms. Any amount of reduction of menstrual blood loss can be beneficial, allowing a variety of effective hormonal and nonhormonal treatment options. ●