Clinical Review

Medical professionals are well aware that civil liability (malpractice) may incur when a patient is harmed because of carelessness (negligence). Recent criminal charges against physicians and a nurse, however, have called medical professionals’ attention to the fact that they also may face criminal charges for inappropriate practice.

We cite 2 cases in which criminal liability resulted from bad medical practice. In both instances, there was considerable concern among medical professionals that criminal charges for making a mistake would make it difficult to practice without fear of criminal charges. One concern is that criminal charges could drive good people out of the profession or make them too cautious.¹

We look more closely at those 2 cases in which criminal liability was imposed. These cases are outliers. Relatively few criminal cases against medical professionals are based on the quality of care. (There are, however, more criminal charges related to fraudulent billing and other insurance fraud, kickbacks, Medicare and Medicaid abuse, and the like.²) At the same time, the criminal law does not stop at the front door of a clinic or hospital.³ When medical professionals engage in seriously inappropriate health care conduct that directly harms someone, criminal liability may result.⁴

Anatomy of a crime

Crimes generally require a specific mental state (mens rea) and an act (actus reus). The law specifies the mental state required for conviction. It can range from premeditation—once commonly called “malice aforethought”—to negligence. The mens rea requirement is an essential element of the crime—as we will see in the discussion of the prescription drug cases. A few offenses do not require even negligence, but overwhelmingly, crimes require something more than simple negligence.⁵

The act requirement is generally obvious, such as firing a gun, driving while intoxicated, or recklessly giving inappropriate medication to a patient. It may include “attempts,” crimes where an act was not completed. For example, attempted murder or conspiracy to commit do not require a completed offense, only intent plus overt acts toward carrying out the crime. Similarly, the wrongful act usually has to produce some harm, but again there are exceptions (attempts). To obtain a conviction, the prosecution must prove all of the elements of the crime, including the required mens rea, beyond a reasonable doubt.⁶

With this general background, we turn to the first case, in which the charge was a form of homicide. Please note that the following case description was derived from news descriptions of the case, because juries do not publish opinions concerning their conclusions and court documents are unavailable. The public reports therefore may contain factual gaps and errors.

CASE 1 Patient dies after nurse administers wrong drug

RaDonda Vaught, a 38-year-old experienced registered nurse employed at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) in the intensive care unit (ICU), was providing care for a 76-year-old patient who was admitted to VUMC’s ICU in December 2017 in association with a brain injury. The brain injury involved a fall with resultant subdural hematoma. In preparation for a positron emission tomography (PET) scan to assess the patient’s injury, the physician team prescribed the sedative Versed (midazolam) because of the patient’s claustrophobia. During the course of treatment, Ms. Vaught inadvertently administered the wrong drug, a fatal dose of the muscle relaxant vecuronium, to the patient, which resulted in the patient being unable to breathe. Apparently, Ms. Vaught had been unable to find the midazolam and disengaged a safeguard, proceeding into override mode, and thus vecuronium was dispensed. By the time the error was noticed, the patient was already in cardiac arrest with resultant brain damage (partial brain death). The patient died soon thereafter.

How this medication error occurred

The medication error occurred when Ms. Vaught overrode a computer in the medical system when she could not find the “Versed” entry and typed in “VE,” which was the abbreviation for vecuronium. The prosecutors in the case stated that she failed to distinguish that vecuronium is dispensed as a powder and Versed as a liquid formula. The vecuronium has a red cap, which warns that it is a paralyzing agent. Ms. Vaught ignored these red flags, according to the prosecutors. Furthermore, the lawsuit filing documented her discussion that she was “distracted with something” at the time and admitted to overriding the medication warning.

Continue to: The charges in this case...

The charges revolved around “criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult,” the most notable charge being criminally negligent homicide. Potential consequences were up to an 8 years’ prison sentence.⁷

Furthermore, the Tennessee Board of Nursing revoked Ms. Vaught’s license in July 2021.⁸ The Board also reportedly fined her $3,000.⁹

The criminal proceedings were filed in Davidson County Criminal Court, with Judge Jennifer Smith presiding. Ms. Vaught repeatedly manifested remorse for the event. The patient’s family, including her son Michael and her daughters-in-law, provided tearful testimonies at the hearing. Ms. Vaught repeatedly cried during the testimonies. The nurse did not provide an apology, according to one daughter-in-law. The news media reported that the family did not want jail time for Ms. Vaught.⁷ Nurses across the country were “jolted,” as expressed by the news media.¹⁰

Why the controversy?

The entire issue of medical errors continues to be discussed among both the medical and the legal professions. To have a nursing personnel held to the level of criminal liability is unusual.

It was clear that Ms. Vaught took responsibility for her actions, and neither the prosecutors nor defendant attorneys sensed any evidence of malice on her part. On the other hand, there was enough evidence and concern for District Attorney Glenn Funk to proceed with prosecution-related action. Ms. Vaught was facing years in prison if convicted.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In March 2022, the jury convicted Ms. Vaught of criminally negligent homicide—but not of reckless homicide, a more serious offense.

Judge Smith granted a judicial diversion, that is, the conviction would be expunged from the record if Ms. Vaught completed a 3-year probation. Judge Smith noted the “credible remorse expressed by Nurse Vaught” and went on to state, “this is a terrible, terrible, mistake and there have been consequences to the defendant.” In the courtroom, Ms. Vaught apologized to the patient’s family and conveyed that she will “forever be haunted by her role in the (patient’s) passing.”

Overall, this served as an opportunity for health care workers to address oftentimes poor working conditions, which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Davidson County District Attorney’s office conveyed that this was one case of a careless nurse and not a reflection of the nursing profession. The prosecutors were in accord with a probation verdict. The family felt that their mother, the patient, would not want to see the nurse serve a jail sentence: “Mom was a very forgiving person.”

The patient’s cause of death was listed as “intracerebral hemorrhage and cardiac arrest.” One year later, a new death certificate was issued and noted vecuronium intoxication as the cause of death.

Continue to: The health care institution’s involvement...

The health care institution’s involvement

Approximately 1 year after an apparent anonymous tip was made to health care officials, an unscheduled state and federal investigation, with the threat of possible sanctions, occurred at the VUMC. This was predicated on the criminal indictment related to Ms. Vaught. In the end, her nursing license was revoked, as noted earlier. The family earlier reached an out-of-court settlement with the hospital and there were a number of problems identified at the university medical center.¹¹

Legal principles in the case

Most criminal cases are state cases. Crimes are defined in state statutes, and the trial takes place in state courts. Thus, crimes are defined a little differently from state to state. Ms. Vaught, for example, was tried in Tennessee under the laws of that state.

Homicide involves the killing of a human being. It may not be a crime. For example, there is “justifiable homicide,” such as self-defense. At the other extreme is first-degree murder, an intentional and planned killing. In this case, Ms. Vaught was charged with criminally negligent homicide, which is usually the least serious of criminal homicides but is still a felony. (Some states have misdemeanor manslaughter, which was not an issue in this case.) In some states, criminally negligent homicide is sometimes referred to as involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for involuntary manslaughter is generally recklessness or “criminal negligence.” This crime goes by various names depending on the state, but involuntary manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide are common names.

Ordinary negligence versus criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is usually considered a more serious mistake than ordinary negligence. This is where there is a difference between civil malpractice negligence and criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is somewhat more careless than ordinary negligence. To use a driving example, if Dr. A was driving home from the hospital, missed seeing a red light, and killed Joe Pedestrian, it could be ordinary negligence. If, however, Dr. B was texting or drinking while driving, causing Dr. B to be distracted and miss seeing the red light, killing a pedestrian, it could be criminal negligence and result in the conviction for the homicide. Of course, in either case there could be civil liability for causing the death.

Applying these legal principles to the reported facts in Ms. Vaught’s case, it appears there was more than simple negligence. That is, the nurse was more than careless. Using “VE” for the wrong drug might have been negligent. In addition, however, she disengaged a safeguard meant to prevent wrongful use of the drug, failed to notice that the drug was a powder instead of a liquid, and ignored the red cap warning that the drug was a paralyzing agent. It becomes apparent why the jury could have found aggravated or criminal negligence.

It is worth emphasizing that in this case, the criminal charges were unusual. For years, studies have suggested that many deaths result from medical errors. The Institute of Medicine famously said that the number of deaths from medical errors was equivalent to that of a 747 airplane crashing every day.^12,13 These events result in a relatively small number of malpractice actions but an infinitesimally small number of homicide charges. Among other things, prosecutors are reluctant to pursue such cases regarding acts carried out as part of clinical duties unless there is strong evidence, and grand juries may be reluctant to indict medical professionals.¹⁴

Nonetheless, medical professionals ultimately can be criminally responsible for deaths resulting from intentional, or criminally negligent, careless practice. Such liability should not dissuade nurses or others from medical practice any more than the much more common homicide charges that can occur from driving an automobile carelessly that results in someone’s death. A fundamental purpose of the criminal law is to disincentivize unnecessarily harmful (deadly) conduct, whether it is distracted driving or distracted nursing.

Continue to: The drug-prescribing crimes...

The drug-prescribing crimes

The US Supreme Court considered a much different kind of criminal medical practice in 2 (consolidated) cases in its 2021–2022 Term. Physicians in 2 states were each tried and convicted of federal charges of illegally dispensing or distributing (prescribing) controlled substances.¹⁵ A federal statute makes it a felony for a physician, or others, “except as authorized” to “knowingly or intentionally distribute, or dispense a controlled substance.”¹⁶ Federal regulations clarify the statute. The regulation provides that a prescription is authorized only if a doctor issues it “for a legitimate medical purpose . . . acting in the usual course of professional practice.”¹⁷

CASE 2 Physicians charged with overprescribing controlled substances

In these 2 drug-prescribing cases, the physicians had grossly overprescribed the opioids. One reportedly wrote prescriptions in 2 states in exchange for payments in cash or, infrequently, firearms, approximating the cost of the prescriptions to street drugs. The other had a clinic that, over about 4 years, issued 300,000 prescriptions for controlled substances and was a significant source for some kinds of fentanyl.¹⁸

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In each trial, the juries found the defendant guilty of improper distribution of controlled substances. Although the charges were not homicides, the sentencing judges were much more severe than the court had been in the nursing case discussed above. One physician received a prison term of 20 years, the other, a 25-year term. These undoubtedly reflect both the outrageous conduct and the likely great harm the defendants did.

The Supreme Court heard the cases

The Supreme Court reversed these physicians’ convictions. The Court held that the lower courts had not correctly described for the juries the mens rea required for a conviction under these charges. The Supreme Court held that to be convicted of these offenses, the government had to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [physician] knew that he or she was acting in an unauthorized manner.”¹⁹ Both can be retried and probably will be unless they reach a plea agreement with the federal government. Nonetheless, the Court established a very high standard. Carelessness is not enough, but rather “knowingly” acting in an unauthorized way is required. Although these physicians were prosecuted under federal law, other physicians have been prosecuted under state laws limiting the distribution of controlled substances.²⁰

Some physicians have expressed concern that the Supreme Court, in these cases, made the practice of medicine more dangerous for physicians (the threat of criminal sanctions) and patients (making it more difficult to obtain pain control, for example).^21,22 That view may be overly pessimistic for 2 reasons. First, the Court actually made it more difficult to convict physicians of writing excessive prescriptions. It did so by setting a higher mens rea standard than lower courts were using, that is, the physician had to “knowingly” act in an unauthorized way. Because “knowingly” can be implied by the circumstances, taking guns or cash would be evidence that the physician knowingly misprescribed.

More fundamentally, the actions of these physicians appear to be well outside even a generous legitimate level of controlled substance prescription. These convictions should not be misunderstood as a way of federal courts to crack down on pain medications. However, the original convictions are a warning to the small handful who grossly overprescribe controlled substances.

Lessons about criminal law and the practice of medicine

Medical professionals’ strong reaction to criminal charges is understandable. Criminal charges can result in jail time (the physicians involved in the controlled substance case were sentenced to 20 years or more) and hefty fines; bring social and professional disapprobation; may lead to license discipline; and are terribly disruptive even for those found not guilty. To make matters worse, malpractice insurance ordinarily does not cover criminal charges, so any fines and the cost of defense are likely out of pocket for those charged—and that can be very expensive. Therefore, the strong reaction to the cases we have described is understandable.

At the same time, the probability of criminal charges against medical personnel for their medical treatment is very low compared with, for example, fraudulent billing, their driving habits, or tax avoidance. Criminal charges are much more likely to arise from insurance fraud, Medicare or Medicaid dishonesty, kickbacks, false statements, and similar corruption crimes rather than inadequate practice. In the cases we examined here, there is an enhanced or aggravated negligence in one case and grossly inappropriate prescribing in the others (which the Supreme Court held must be “knowingly” wrong).

Finally, there is an irony. Medical professionals worried about practice-related criminal charges should be thankful for the malpractice system. Civil malpractice is, as a practical matter, an alternative for patients who believe they were mistreated or harmed by physicians or other providers. They have the option of finding a private attorney to file a civil complaint. In the absence of that system, they would be much more likely to take their grievance and complaint to the prosecutor to seek answers and retribution. Criminal law and civil liability are each a way of allowing someone harmed by another to seek redress. Both are intended to deter harmful conduct and provide some individual and social retribution for such behavior. The civil system, of course, also provides the potential for compensation to those injured. An injured patient without the possibility of a civil suit sometimes would turn to the criminal system for satisfaction. This way, the malpractice system is a better alternative to criminal charges. ●

Medical professionals are well aware that civil liability (malpractice) may incur when a patient is harmed because of carelessness (negligence). Recent criminal charges against physicians and a nurse, however, have called medical professionals’ attention to the fact that they also may face criminal charges for inappropriate practice.

We cite 2 cases in which criminal liability resulted from bad medical practice. In both instances, there was considerable concern among medical professionals that criminal charges for making a mistake would make it difficult to practice without fear of criminal charges. One concern is that criminal charges could drive good people out of the profession or make them too cautious.¹

We look more closely at those 2 cases in which criminal liability was imposed. These cases are outliers. Relatively few criminal cases against medical professionals are based on the quality of care. (There are, however, more criminal charges related to fraudulent billing and other insurance fraud, kickbacks, Medicare and Medicaid abuse, and the like.²) At the same time, the criminal law does not stop at the front door of a clinic or hospital.³ When medical professionals engage in seriously inappropriate health care conduct that directly harms someone, criminal liability may result.⁴

Anatomy of a crime

Crimes generally require a specific mental state (mens rea) and an act (actus reus). The law specifies the mental state required for conviction. It can range from premeditation—once commonly called “malice aforethought”—to negligence. The mens rea requirement is an essential element of the crime—as we will see in the discussion of the prescription drug cases. A few offenses do not require even negligence, but overwhelmingly, crimes require something more than simple negligence.⁵

The act requirement is generally obvious, such as firing a gun, driving while intoxicated, or recklessly giving inappropriate medication to a patient. It may include “attempts,” crimes where an act was not completed. For example, attempted murder or conspiracy to commit do not require a completed offense, only intent plus overt acts toward carrying out the crime. Similarly, the wrongful act usually has to produce some harm, but again there are exceptions (attempts). To obtain a conviction, the prosecution must prove all of the elements of the crime, including the required mens rea, beyond a reasonable doubt.⁶

With this general background, we turn to the first case, in which the charge was a form of homicide. Please note that the following case description was derived from news descriptions of the case, because juries do not publish opinions concerning their conclusions and court documents are unavailable. The public reports therefore may contain factual gaps and errors.

CASE 1 Patient dies after nurse administers wrong drug

RaDonda Vaught, a 38-year-old experienced registered nurse employed at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) in the intensive care unit (ICU), was providing care for a 76-year-old patient who was admitted to VUMC’s ICU in December 2017 in association with a brain injury. The brain injury involved a fall with resultant subdural hematoma. In preparation for a positron emission tomography (PET) scan to assess the patient’s injury, the physician team prescribed the sedative Versed (midazolam) because of the patient’s claustrophobia. During the course of treatment, Ms. Vaught inadvertently administered the wrong drug, a fatal dose of the muscle relaxant vecuronium, to the patient, which resulted in the patient being unable to breathe. Apparently, Ms. Vaught had been unable to find the midazolam and disengaged a safeguard, proceeding into override mode, and thus vecuronium was dispensed. By the time the error was noticed, the patient was already in cardiac arrest with resultant brain damage (partial brain death). The patient died soon thereafter.

How this medication error occurred

The medication error occurred when Ms. Vaught overrode a computer in the medical system when she could not find the “Versed” entry and typed in “VE,” which was the abbreviation for vecuronium. The prosecutors in the case stated that she failed to distinguish that vecuronium is dispensed as a powder and Versed as a liquid formula. The vecuronium has a red cap, which warns that it is a paralyzing agent. Ms. Vaught ignored these red flags, according to the prosecutors. Furthermore, the lawsuit filing documented her discussion that she was “distracted with something” at the time and admitted to overriding the medication warning.

Continue to: The charges in this case...

The charges revolved around “criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult,” the most notable charge being criminally negligent homicide. Potential consequences were up to an 8 years’ prison sentence.⁷

Furthermore, the Tennessee Board of Nursing revoked Ms. Vaught’s license in July 2021.⁸ The Board also reportedly fined her $3,000.⁹

The criminal proceedings were filed in Davidson County Criminal Court, with Judge Jennifer Smith presiding. Ms. Vaught repeatedly manifested remorse for the event. The patient’s family, including her son Michael and her daughters-in-law, provided tearful testimonies at the hearing. Ms. Vaught repeatedly cried during the testimonies. The nurse did not provide an apology, according to one daughter-in-law. The news media reported that the family did not want jail time for Ms. Vaught.⁷ Nurses across the country were “jolted,” as expressed by the news media.¹⁰

Why the controversy?

The entire issue of medical errors continues to be discussed among both the medical and the legal professions. To have a nursing personnel held to the level of criminal liability is unusual.

It was clear that Ms. Vaught took responsibility for her actions, and neither the prosecutors nor defendant attorneys sensed any evidence of malice on her part. On the other hand, there was enough evidence and concern for District Attorney Glenn Funk to proceed with prosecution-related action. Ms. Vaught was facing years in prison if convicted.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In March 2022, the jury convicted Ms. Vaught of criminally negligent homicide—but not of reckless homicide, a more serious offense.

Judge Smith granted a judicial diversion, that is, the conviction would be expunged from the record if Ms. Vaught completed a 3-year probation. Judge Smith noted the “credible remorse expressed by Nurse Vaught” and went on to state, “this is a terrible, terrible, mistake and there have been consequences to the defendant.” In the courtroom, Ms. Vaught apologized to the patient’s family and conveyed that she will “forever be haunted by her role in the (patient’s) passing.”

Overall, this served as an opportunity for health care workers to address oftentimes poor working conditions, which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Davidson County District Attorney’s office conveyed that this was one case of a careless nurse and not a reflection of the nursing profession. The prosecutors were in accord with a probation verdict. The family felt that their mother, the patient, would not want to see the nurse serve a jail sentence: “Mom was a very forgiving person.”

The patient’s cause of death was listed as “intracerebral hemorrhage and cardiac arrest.” One year later, a new death certificate was issued and noted vecuronium intoxication as the cause of death.

Continue to: The health care institution’s involvement...

The health care institution’s involvement

Approximately 1 year after an apparent anonymous tip was made to health care officials, an unscheduled state and federal investigation, with the threat of possible sanctions, occurred at the VUMC. This was predicated on the criminal indictment related to Ms. Vaught. In the end, her nursing license was revoked, as noted earlier. The family earlier reached an out-of-court settlement with the hospital and there were a number of problems identified at the university medical center.¹¹

Legal principles in the case

Most criminal cases are state cases. Crimes are defined in state statutes, and the trial takes place in state courts. Thus, crimes are defined a little differently from state to state. Ms. Vaught, for example, was tried in Tennessee under the laws of that state.

Homicide involves the killing of a human being. It may not be a crime. For example, there is “justifiable homicide,” such as self-defense. At the other extreme is first-degree murder, an intentional and planned killing. In this case, Ms. Vaught was charged with criminally negligent homicide, which is usually the least serious of criminal homicides but is still a felony. (Some states have misdemeanor manslaughter, which was not an issue in this case.) In some states, criminally negligent homicide is sometimes referred to as involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for involuntary manslaughter is generally recklessness or “criminal negligence.” This crime goes by various names depending on the state, but involuntary manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide are common names.

Ordinary negligence versus criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is usually considered a more serious mistake than ordinary negligence. This is where there is a difference between civil malpractice negligence and criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is somewhat more careless than ordinary negligence. To use a driving example, if Dr. A was driving home from the hospital, missed seeing a red light, and killed Joe Pedestrian, it could be ordinary negligence. If, however, Dr. B was texting or drinking while driving, causing Dr. B to be distracted and miss seeing the red light, killing a pedestrian, it could be criminal negligence and result in the conviction for the homicide. Of course, in either case there could be civil liability for causing the death.

Applying these legal principles to the reported facts in Ms. Vaught’s case, it appears there was more than simple negligence. That is, the nurse was more than careless. Using “VE” for the wrong drug might have been negligent. In addition, however, she disengaged a safeguard meant to prevent wrongful use of the drug, failed to notice that the drug was a powder instead of a liquid, and ignored the red cap warning that the drug was a paralyzing agent. It becomes apparent why the jury could have found aggravated or criminal negligence.

It is worth emphasizing that in this case, the criminal charges were unusual. For years, studies have suggested that many deaths result from medical errors. The Institute of Medicine famously said that the number of deaths from medical errors was equivalent to that of a 747 airplane crashing every day.^12,13 These events result in a relatively small number of malpractice actions but an infinitesimally small number of homicide charges. Among other things, prosecutors are reluctant to pursue such cases regarding acts carried out as part of clinical duties unless there is strong evidence, and grand juries may be reluctant to indict medical professionals.¹⁴

Nonetheless, medical professionals ultimately can be criminally responsible for deaths resulting from intentional, or criminally negligent, careless practice. Such liability should not dissuade nurses or others from medical practice any more than the much more common homicide charges that can occur from driving an automobile carelessly that results in someone’s death. A fundamental purpose of the criminal law is to disincentivize unnecessarily harmful (deadly) conduct, whether it is distracted driving or distracted nursing.

Continue to: The drug-prescribing crimes...

The drug-prescribing crimes

The US Supreme Court considered a much different kind of criminal medical practice in 2 (consolidated) cases in its 2021–2022 Term. Physicians in 2 states were each tried and convicted of federal charges of illegally dispensing or distributing (prescribing) controlled substances.¹⁵ A federal statute makes it a felony for a physician, or others, “except as authorized” to “knowingly or intentionally distribute, or dispense a controlled substance.”¹⁶ Federal regulations clarify the statute. The regulation provides that a prescription is authorized only if a doctor issues it “for a legitimate medical purpose . . . acting in the usual course of professional practice.”¹⁷

CASE 2 Physicians charged with overprescribing controlled substances

In these 2 drug-prescribing cases, the physicians had grossly overprescribed the opioids. One reportedly wrote prescriptions in 2 states in exchange for payments in cash or, infrequently, firearms, approximating the cost of the prescriptions to street drugs. The other had a clinic that, over about 4 years, issued 300,000 prescriptions for controlled substances and was a significant source for some kinds of fentanyl.¹⁸

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In each trial, the juries found the defendant guilty of improper distribution of controlled substances. Although the charges were not homicides, the sentencing judges were much more severe than the court had been in the nursing case discussed above. One physician received a prison term of 20 years, the other, a 25-year term. These undoubtedly reflect both the outrageous conduct and the likely great harm the defendants did.

The Supreme Court heard the cases

The Supreme Court reversed these physicians’ convictions. The Court held that the lower courts had not correctly described for the juries the mens rea required for a conviction under these charges. The Supreme Court held that to be convicted of these offenses, the government had to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [physician] knew that he or she was acting in an unauthorized manner.”¹⁹ Both can be retried and probably will be unless they reach a plea agreement with the federal government. Nonetheless, the Court established a very high standard. Carelessness is not enough, but rather “knowingly” acting in an unauthorized way is required. Although these physicians were prosecuted under federal law, other physicians have been prosecuted under state laws limiting the distribution of controlled substances.²⁰

Some physicians have expressed concern that the Supreme Court, in these cases, made the practice of medicine more dangerous for physicians (the threat of criminal sanctions) and patients (making it more difficult to obtain pain control, for example).^21,22 That view may be overly pessimistic for 2 reasons. First, the Court actually made it more difficult to convict physicians of writing excessive prescriptions. It did so by setting a higher mens rea standard than lower courts were using, that is, the physician had to “knowingly” act in an unauthorized way. Because “knowingly” can be implied by the circumstances, taking guns or cash would be evidence that the physician knowingly misprescribed.

More fundamentally, the actions of these physicians appear to be well outside even a generous legitimate level of controlled substance prescription. These convictions should not be misunderstood as a way of federal courts to crack down on pain medications. However, the original convictions are a warning to the small handful who grossly overprescribe controlled substances.

Lessons about criminal law and the practice of medicine

Medical professionals’ strong reaction to criminal charges is understandable. Criminal charges can result in jail time (the physicians involved in the controlled substance case were sentenced to 20 years or more) and hefty fines; bring social and professional disapprobation; may lead to license discipline; and are terribly disruptive even for those found not guilty. To make matters worse, malpractice insurance ordinarily does not cover criminal charges, so any fines and the cost of defense are likely out of pocket for those charged—and that can be very expensive. Therefore, the strong reaction to the cases we have described is understandable.

At the same time, the probability of criminal charges against medical personnel for their medical treatment is very low compared with, for example, fraudulent billing, their driving habits, or tax avoidance. Criminal charges are much more likely to arise from insurance fraud, Medicare or Medicaid dishonesty, kickbacks, false statements, and similar corruption crimes rather than inadequate practice. In the cases we examined here, there is an enhanced or aggravated negligence in one case and grossly inappropriate prescribing in the others (which the Supreme Court held must be “knowingly” wrong).

Finally, there is an irony. Medical professionals worried about practice-related criminal charges should be thankful for the malpractice system. Civil malpractice is, as a practical matter, an alternative for patients who believe they were mistreated or harmed by physicians or other providers. They have the option of finding a private attorney to file a civil complaint. In the absence of that system, they would be much more likely to take their grievance and complaint to the prosecutor to seek answers and retribution. Criminal law and civil liability are each a way of allowing someone harmed by another to seek redress. Both are intended to deter harmful conduct and provide some individual and social retribution for such behavior. The civil system, of course, also provides the potential for compensation to those injured. An injured patient without the possibility of a civil suit sometimes would turn to the criminal system for satisfaction. This way, the malpractice system is a better alternative to criminal charges. ●

Medical professionals are well aware that civil liability (malpractice) may incur when a patient is harmed because of carelessness (negligence). Recent criminal charges against physicians and a nurse, however, have called medical professionals’ attention to the fact that they also may face criminal charges for inappropriate practice.

We cite 2 cases in which criminal liability resulted from bad medical practice. In both instances, there was considerable concern among medical professionals that criminal charges for making a mistake would make it difficult to practice without fear of criminal charges. One concern is that criminal charges could drive good people out of the profession or make them too cautious.¹

We look more closely at those 2 cases in which criminal liability was imposed. These cases are outliers. Relatively few criminal cases against medical professionals are based on the quality of care. (There are, however, more criminal charges related to fraudulent billing and other insurance fraud, kickbacks, Medicare and Medicaid abuse, and the like.²) At the same time, the criminal law does not stop at the front door of a clinic or hospital.³ When medical professionals engage in seriously inappropriate health care conduct that directly harms someone, criminal liability may result.⁴

Anatomy of a crime

Crimes generally require a specific mental state (mens rea) and an act (actus reus). The law specifies the mental state required for conviction. It can range from premeditation—once commonly called “malice aforethought”—to negligence. The mens rea requirement is an essential element of the crime—as we will see in the discussion of the prescription drug cases. A few offenses do not require even negligence, but overwhelmingly, crimes require something more than simple negligence.⁵

The act requirement is generally obvious, such as firing a gun, driving while intoxicated, or recklessly giving inappropriate medication to a patient. It may include “attempts,” crimes where an act was not completed. For example, attempted murder or conspiracy to commit do not require a completed offense, only intent plus overt acts toward carrying out the crime. Similarly, the wrongful act usually has to produce some harm, but again there are exceptions (attempts). To obtain a conviction, the prosecution must prove all of the elements of the crime, including the required mens rea, beyond a reasonable doubt.⁶

With this general background, we turn to the first case, in which the charge was a form of homicide. Please note that the following case description was derived from news descriptions of the case, because juries do not publish opinions concerning their conclusions and court documents are unavailable. The public reports therefore may contain factual gaps and errors.

CASE 1 Patient dies after nurse administers wrong drug

RaDonda Vaught, a 38-year-old experienced registered nurse employed at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) in the intensive care unit (ICU), was providing care for a 76-year-old patient who was admitted to VUMC’s ICU in December 2017 in association with a brain injury. The brain injury involved a fall with resultant subdural hematoma. In preparation for a positron emission tomography (PET) scan to assess the patient’s injury, the physician team prescribed the sedative Versed (midazolam) because of the patient’s claustrophobia. During the course of treatment, Ms. Vaught inadvertently administered the wrong drug, a fatal dose of the muscle relaxant vecuronium, to the patient, which resulted in the patient being unable to breathe. Apparently, Ms. Vaught had been unable to find the midazolam and disengaged a safeguard, proceeding into override mode, and thus vecuronium was dispensed. By the time the error was noticed, the patient was already in cardiac arrest with resultant brain damage (partial brain death). The patient died soon thereafter.

How this medication error occurred

The medication error occurred when Ms. Vaught overrode a computer in the medical system when she could not find the “Versed” entry and typed in “VE,” which was the abbreviation for vecuronium. The prosecutors in the case stated that she failed to distinguish that vecuronium is dispensed as a powder and Versed as a liquid formula. The vecuronium has a red cap, which warns that it is a paralyzing agent. Ms. Vaught ignored these red flags, according to the prosecutors. Furthermore, the lawsuit filing documented her discussion that she was “distracted with something” at the time and admitted to overriding the medication warning.

Continue to: The charges in this case...

The charges revolved around “criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult,” the most notable charge being criminally negligent homicide. Potential consequences were up to an 8 years’ prison sentence.⁷

Furthermore, the Tennessee Board of Nursing revoked Ms. Vaught’s license in July 2021.⁸ The Board also reportedly fined her $3,000.⁹

The criminal proceedings were filed in Davidson County Criminal Court, with Judge Jennifer Smith presiding. Ms. Vaught repeatedly manifested remorse for the event. The patient’s family, including her son Michael and her daughters-in-law, provided tearful testimonies at the hearing. Ms. Vaught repeatedly cried during the testimonies. The nurse did not provide an apology, according to one daughter-in-law. The news media reported that the family did not want jail time for Ms. Vaught.⁷ Nurses across the country were “jolted,” as expressed by the news media.¹⁰

Why the controversy?

The entire issue of medical errors continues to be discussed among both the medical and the legal professions. To have a nursing personnel held to the level of criminal liability is unusual.

It was clear that Ms. Vaught took responsibility for her actions, and neither the prosecutors nor defendant attorneys sensed any evidence of malice on her part. On the other hand, there was enough evidence and concern for District Attorney Glenn Funk to proceed with prosecution-related action. Ms. Vaught was facing years in prison if convicted.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In March 2022, the jury convicted Ms. Vaught of criminally negligent homicide—but not of reckless homicide, a more serious offense.

Judge Smith granted a judicial diversion, that is, the conviction would be expunged from the record if Ms. Vaught completed a 3-year probation. Judge Smith noted the “credible remorse expressed by Nurse Vaught” and went on to state, “this is a terrible, terrible, mistake and there have been consequences to the defendant.” In the courtroom, Ms. Vaught apologized to the patient’s family and conveyed that she will “forever be haunted by her role in the (patient’s) passing.”

Overall, this served as an opportunity for health care workers to address oftentimes poor working conditions, which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Davidson County District Attorney’s office conveyed that this was one case of a careless nurse and not a reflection of the nursing profession. The prosecutors were in accord with a probation verdict. The family felt that their mother, the patient, would not want to see the nurse serve a jail sentence: “Mom was a very forgiving person.”

The patient’s cause of death was listed as “intracerebral hemorrhage and cardiac arrest.” One year later, a new death certificate was issued and noted vecuronium intoxication as the cause of death.

Continue to: The health care institution’s involvement...

The health care institution’s involvement

Approximately 1 year after an apparent anonymous tip was made to health care officials, an unscheduled state and federal investigation, with the threat of possible sanctions, occurred at the VUMC. This was predicated on the criminal indictment related to Ms. Vaught. In the end, her nursing license was revoked, as noted earlier. The family earlier reached an out-of-court settlement with the hospital and there were a number of problems identified at the university medical center.¹¹

Legal principles in the case

Most criminal cases are state cases. Crimes are defined in state statutes, and the trial takes place in state courts. Thus, crimes are defined a little differently from state to state. Ms. Vaught, for example, was tried in Tennessee under the laws of that state.

Homicide involves the killing of a human being. It may not be a crime. For example, there is “justifiable homicide,” such as self-defense. At the other extreme is first-degree murder, an intentional and planned killing. In this case, Ms. Vaught was charged with criminally negligent homicide, which is usually the least serious of criminal homicides but is still a felony. (Some states have misdemeanor manslaughter, which was not an issue in this case.) In some states, criminally negligent homicide is sometimes referred to as involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for involuntary manslaughter is generally recklessness or “criminal negligence.” This crime goes by various names depending on the state, but involuntary manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide are common names.

Ordinary negligence versus criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is usually considered a more serious mistake than ordinary negligence. This is where there is a difference between civil malpractice negligence and criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is somewhat more careless than ordinary negligence. To use a driving example, if Dr. A was driving home from the hospital, missed seeing a red light, and killed Joe Pedestrian, it could be ordinary negligence. If, however, Dr. B was texting or drinking while driving, causing Dr. B to be distracted and miss seeing the red light, killing a pedestrian, it could be criminal negligence and result in the conviction for the homicide. Of course, in either case there could be civil liability for causing the death.

Applying these legal principles to the reported facts in Ms. Vaught’s case, it appears there was more than simple negligence. That is, the nurse was more than careless. Using “VE” for the wrong drug might have been negligent. In addition, however, she disengaged a safeguard meant to prevent wrongful use of the drug, failed to notice that the drug was a powder instead of a liquid, and ignored the red cap warning that the drug was a paralyzing agent. It becomes apparent why the jury could have found aggravated or criminal negligence.

It is worth emphasizing that in this case, the criminal charges were unusual. For years, studies have suggested that many deaths result from medical errors. The Institute of Medicine famously said that the number of deaths from medical errors was equivalent to that of a 747 airplane crashing every day.^12,13 These events result in a relatively small number of malpractice actions but an infinitesimally small number of homicide charges. Among other things, prosecutors are reluctant to pursue such cases regarding acts carried out as part of clinical duties unless there is strong evidence, and grand juries may be reluctant to indict medical professionals.¹⁴

Nonetheless, medical professionals ultimately can be criminally responsible for deaths resulting from intentional, or criminally negligent, careless practice. Such liability should not dissuade nurses or others from medical practice any more than the much more common homicide charges that can occur from driving an automobile carelessly that results in someone’s death. A fundamental purpose of the criminal law is to disincentivize unnecessarily harmful (deadly) conduct, whether it is distracted driving or distracted nursing.

Continue to: The drug-prescribing crimes...

The drug-prescribing crimes

The US Supreme Court considered a much different kind of criminal medical practice in 2 (consolidated) cases in its 2021–2022 Term. Physicians in 2 states were each tried and convicted of federal charges of illegally dispensing or distributing (prescribing) controlled substances.¹⁵ A federal statute makes it a felony for a physician, or others, “except as authorized” to “knowingly or intentionally distribute, or dispense a controlled substance.”¹⁶ Federal regulations clarify the statute. The regulation provides that a prescription is authorized only if a doctor issues it “for a legitimate medical purpose . . . acting in the usual course of professional practice.”¹⁷

CASE 2 Physicians charged with overprescribing controlled substances

In these 2 drug-prescribing cases, the physicians had grossly overprescribed the opioids. One reportedly wrote prescriptions in 2 states in exchange for payments in cash or, infrequently, firearms, approximating the cost of the prescriptions to street drugs. The other had a clinic that, over about 4 years, issued 300,000 prescriptions for controlled substances and was a significant source for some kinds of fentanyl.¹⁸

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In each trial, the juries found the defendant guilty of improper distribution of controlled substances. Although the charges were not homicides, the sentencing judges were much more severe than the court had been in the nursing case discussed above. One physician received a prison term of 20 years, the other, a 25-year term. These undoubtedly reflect both the outrageous conduct and the likely great harm the defendants did.

The Supreme Court heard the cases

The Supreme Court reversed these physicians’ convictions. The Court held that the lower courts had not correctly described for the juries the mens rea required for a conviction under these charges. The Supreme Court held that to be convicted of these offenses, the government had to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [physician] knew that he or she was acting in an unauthorized manner.”¹⁹ Both can be retried and probably will be unless they reach a plea agreement with the federal government. Nonetheless, the Court established a very high standard. Carelessness is not enough, but rather “knowingly” acting in an unauthorized way is required. Although these physicians were prosecuted under federal law, other physicians have been prosecuted under state laws limiting the distribution of controlled substances.²⁰

Some physicians have expressed concern that the Supreme Court, in these cases, made the practice of medicine more dangerous for physicians (the threat of criminal sanctions) and patients (making it more difficult to obtain pain control, for example).^21,22 That view may be overly pessimistic for 2 reasons. First, the Court actually made it more difficult to convict physicians of writing excessive prescriptions. It did so by setting a higher mens rea standard than lower courts were using, that is, the physician had to “knowingly” act in an unauthorized way. Because “knowingly” can be implied by the circumstances, taking guns or cash would be evidence that the physician knowingly misprescribed.

More fundamentally, the actions of these physicians appear to be well outside even a generous legitimate level of controlled substance prescription. These convictions should not be misunderstood as a way of federal courts to crack down on pain medications. However, the original convictions are a warning to the small handful who grossly overprescribe controlled substances.

Lessons about criminal law and the practice of medicine

Medical professionals’ strong reaction to criminal charges is understandable. Criminal charges can result in jail time (the physicians involved in the controlled substance case were sentenced to 20 years or more) and hefty fines; bring social and professional disapprobation; may lead to license discipline; and are terribly disruptive even for those found not guilty. To make matters worse, malpractice insurance ordinarily does not cover criminal charges, so any fines and the cost of defense are likely out of pocket for those charged—and that can be very expensive. Therefore, the strong reaction to the cases we have described is understandable.

At the same time, the probability of criminal charges against medical personnel for their medical treatment is very low compared with, for example, fraudulent billing, their driving habits, or tax avoidance. Criminal charges are much more likely to arise from insurance fraud, Medicare or Medicaid dishonesty, kickbacks, false statements, and similar corruption crimes rather than inadequate practice. In the cases we examined here, there is an enhanced or aggravated negligence in one case and grossly inappropriate prescribing in the others (which the Supreme Court held must be “knowingly” wrong).

Finally, there is an irony. Medical professionals worried about practice-related criminal charges should be thankful for the malpractice system. Civil malpractice is, as a practical matter, an alternative for patients who believe they were mistreated or harmed by physicians or other providers. They have the option of finding a private attorney to file a civil complaint. In the absence of that system, they would be much more likely to take their grievance and complaint to the prosecutor to seek answers and retribution. Criminal law and civil liability are each a way of allowing someone harmed by another to seek redress. Both are intended to deter harmful conduct and provide some individual and social retribution for such behavior. The civil system, of course, also provides the potential for compensation to those injured. An injured patient without the possibility of a civil suit sometimes would turn to the criminal system for satisfaction. This way, the malpractice system is a better alternative to criminal charges. ●

On a recent overnight shift, our ObGyn on-call team was urgently paged to the emergency room for a patient who was brought in hemorrhaging after having passed out mid-flight from Texas to Boston. She was 12-weeks pregnant. We rushed her to the operating room for surgical removal of the pregnancy by dilation and curettage to stop her bleeding. Landing in Massachusetts had saved her life.

The significance of this patient’s case was not lost on the multidisciplinary teams caring for her, as the—at the time—impending Roe v Wade decision weighed heavily on our minds. One of many, her story foreshadows the harrowing experiences that we anticipate in the coming months and highlights the danger that the Supreme Court has inflicted on pregnant people nationally.

The Supreme Court decision on Dobbs v Jackson condemns us as a nation in which abortion rights are no longer federally protected under Roe v Wade.¹ Twenty-six states have been poised to ban abortion, and in at least 12 states, abortion is now illegal.^2,3 Political decision making will soon deny pregnant people the right to bodily autonomy, and the United States will lag behind other nations in abortion access.⁴ As ObGyn resident physicians who practice in tertiary referral hospitals in Massachusetts, where the ROE Act protects abortion beyond 24 weeks’ gestational age, we affirm abortion as essential health care that saves lives.⁵

Collectively as physician residents, we have provided an abortion for the patient at 22 weeks with a desired pregnancy who would have otherwise died from high blood pressures, the patient who ended her pregnancy to expedite breast cancer treatment, and the 16-year-old who feared for her life after suffering an assault by her partner for disclosing her pregnancy. With the overturn of Roe v Wade, patients like these will suffer dramatically divergent fates as race, class, and, now more than ever, geography will impact who is able to access abortion care.

Ramifications of the overturn of Roe

History foreshadows the grim impact of repealing Roe. Ohio’s 2011 law that requires the use of the restrictive protocol approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for mifepristone administration deepened existing inequities in abortion access.⁶ Patients with private insurance, higher income, higher level of education, and those who were White were more likely to obtain abortion care.⁷ In Texas, after the implementation of SB8 and other restrictive laws, Hispanic women whose travel distance increased more than 100 miles had the greatest reduction in abortion rates.^8,9 A recent study regarding banning abortion in the United States estimated a 7% increase in pregnancy-related deaths in 1 year, with a 21% increase in subsequent years.¹⁰

Inequities in abortion access subsequently will disparately increase deaths of pregnant individuals in certain populations.^11,12 Communities with the highest rates of unintended pregnancy, medical comorbidities, and lack of access to abortion, as well as historically marginalized populations—including non-Hispanic Black people, LGBTQIA people, those with limited English proficiency, and undocumented persons—will experience the greatest increase in pregnancy-related deaths due to a total abortion ban.^13-15

The US maternal mortality rate is already the highest among developed nations, and it will only climb if ObGyns are not appropriately trained to operate within our full scope of practice and, thus, are unable to provide the highest quality of care.^16,17

Continue: Abortion is a medical treatment that requires resident training...

Abortion is a medical treatment that requires resident training

Abortion care must be protected. Uterine evacuation by medical management, suction curettage, or dilation and evacuation is indicated for undesired pregnancy, regardless of reasoning or life circumstance. Pregnancy carries inherent risks that can at times be deadly.¹⁸ Abortion serves as first-line treatment for certain life-threatening pregnancy risks, including septic miscarriage, maternal hemorrhage, early-onset severe preeclampsia, and certain health conditions.¹⁹ Surgical skills and medical management of abortion are therefore fundamental components of ObGyn care and residency training.²⁰

In choosing to become ObGyns,and particularly in selecting our training program, the ability to provide safe abortion care was a calculated priority. A recent study on the implications of overturning Roe predicted that nearly half of ObGyn residents will likely or certainly lose access to in-state abortion training.²¹ As demonstrated already in states with restrictive abortion laws, we will lose an entire generation of medical professionals skilled in performing this lifesaving procedure.^9,22 While privileged patients may travel across state borders to access care, ObGyn and other medical trainees who are contract bound to residency programs do not have such flexibility to seek out abortion training. Although we hope the reversal of Roe will be fleeting, the consequences of this lost generation are irreparable.^23,24 For physicians like ourselves, who fortunately are trained in surgical abortions and safe management of medical terminations, the discrepancy between evidence-based guidelines and impending political restrictions is distressing. We are forced to imagine refusing patients necessary health care—or face incarceration to save their lives.

The idea of watching a patient die, whether by hemorrhage, sepsis, or suicide, while armed with the tools of safe abortion technique is horrific. As authors with roots in Texas, Michigan, and Georgia, where abortion has or will almost certainly become illegal now that Roe v Wade is overturned, this scene is personal. It affects our future patients, our families, our colleagues, and our ability to return to our home states to live and practice.

Political organizing is critical to protect and restore abortion rights and defend against conservative coercive politics.²⁵ Nearly half of pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and more than half of these end in abortion.^26,27 Threats to abortion access require action from every one of the 59% of Americans who believe abortion should remain legal.²⁸ This is especially important from a social and racial justice perspective as abortion bans will disproportionately affect marginalized groups and further exacerbate inequities in maternal mortality.¹³

Call to action

Now is the time for community action for reproductive justice and human rights. We urge everyone to donate to abortion funds, vote for leaders who support reproductive justice, and petition your state legislators to codify Roe into law. Now is the time to expand legislation to protect abortion providers and our patients. To ObGyns, family medicine physicians, internists, and other reproductive health clinicians, now is the time to maximize your abortion training. Now is the time to act; otherwise, pregnant individuals will die and future generations of physicians will not have the training to save their lives. ●

On a recent overnight shift, our ObGyn on-call team was urgently paged to the emergency room for a patient who was brought in hemorrhaging after having passed out mid-flight from Texas to Boston. She was 12-weeks pregnant. We rushed her to the operating room for surgical removal of the pregnancy by dilation and curettage to stop her bleeding. Landing in Massachusetts had saved her life.

The significance of this patient’s case was not lost on the multidisciplinary teams caring for her, as the—at the time—impending Roe v Wade decision weighed heavily on our minds. One of many, her story foreshadows the harrowing experiences that we anticipate in the coming months and highlights the danger that the Supreme Court has inflicted on pregnant people nationally.

The Supreme Court decision on Dobbs v Jackson condemns us as a nation in which abortion rights are no longer federally protected under Roe v Wade.¹ Twenty-six states have been poised to ban abortion, and in at least 12 states, abortion is now illegal.^2,3 Political decision making will soon deny pregnant people the right to bodily autonomy, and the United States will lag behind other nations in abortion access.⁴ As ObGyn resident physicians who practice in tertiary referral hospitals in Massachusetts, where the ROE Act protects abortion beyond 24 weeks’ gestational age, we affirm abortion as essential health care that saves lives.⁵

Collectively as physician residents, we have provided an abortion for the patient at 22 weeks with a desired pregnancy who would have otherwise died from high blood pressures, the patient who ended her pregnancy to expedite breast cancer treatment, and the 16-year-old who feared for her life after suffering an assault by her partner for disclosing her pregnancy. With the overturn of Roe v Wade, patients like these will suffer dramatically divergent fates as race, class, and, now more than ever, geography will impact who is able to access abortion care.

Ramifications of the overturn of Roe

History foreshadows the grim impact of repealing Roe. Ohio’s 2011 law that requires the use of the restrictive protocol approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for mifepristone administration deepened existing inequities in abortion access.⁶ Patients with private insurance, higher income, higher level of education, and those who were White were more likely to obtain abortion care.⁷ In Texas, after the implementation of SB8 and other restrictive laws, Hispanic women whose travel distance increased more than 100 miles had the greatest reduction in abortion rates.^8,9 A recent study regarding banning abortion in the United States estimated a 7% increase in pregnancy-related deaths in 1 year, with a 21% increase in subsequent years.¹⁰

Inequities in abortion access subsequently will disparately increase deaths of pregnant individuals in certain populations.^11,12 Communities with the highest rates of unintended pregnancy, medical comorbidities, and lack of access to abortion, as well as historically marginalized populations—including non-Hispanic Black people, LGBTQIA people, those with limited English proficiency, and undocumented persons—will experience the greatest increase in pregnancy-related deaths due to a total abortion ban.^13-15

The US maternal mortality rate is already the highest among developed nations, and it will only climb if ObGyns are not appropriately trained to operate within our full scope of practice and, thus, are unable to provide the highest quality of care.^16,17

Continue: Abortion is a medical treatment that requires resident training...

Abortion is a medical treatment that requires resident training

Abortion care must be protected. Uterine evacuation by medical management, suction curettage, or dilation and evacuation is indicated for undesired pregnancy, regardless of reasoning or life circumstance. Pregnancy carries inherent risks that can at times be deadly.¹⁸ Abortion serves as first-line treatment for certain life-threatening pregnancy risks, including septic miscarriage, maternal hemorrhage, early-onset severe preeclampsia, and certain health conditions.¹⁹ Surgical skills and medical management of abortion are therefore fundamental components of ObGyn care and residency training.²⁰

In choosing to become ObGyns,and particularly in selecting our training program, the ability to provide safe abortion care was a calculated priority. A recent study on the implications of overturning Roe predicted that nearly half of ObGyn residents will likely or certainly lose access to in-state abortion training.²¹ As demonstrated already in states with restrictive abortion laws, we will lose an entire generation of medical professionals skilled in performing this lifesaving procedure.^9,22 While privileged patients may travel across state borders to access care, ObGyn and other medical trainees who are contract bound to residency programs do not have such flexibility to seek out abortion training. Although we hope the reversal of Roe will be fleeting, the consequences of this lost generation are irreparable.^23,24 For physicians like ourselves, who fortunately are trained in surgical abortions and safe management of medical terminations, the discrepancy between evidence-based guidelines and impending political restrictions is distressing. We are forced to imagine refusing patients necessary health care—or face incarceration to save their lives.

The idea of watching a patient die, whether by hemorrhage, sepsis, or suicide, while armed with the tools of safe abortion technique is horrific. As authors with roots in Texas, Michigan, and Georgia, where abortion has or will almost certainly become illegal now that Roe v Wade is overturned, this scene is personal. It affects our future patients, our families, our colleagues, and our ability to return to our home states to live and practice.

Political organizing is critical to protect and restore abortion rights and defend against conservative coercive politics.²⁵ Nearly half of pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and more than half of these end in abortion.^26,27 Threats to abortion access require action from every one of the 59% of Americans who believe abortion should remain legal.²⁸ This is especially important from a social and racial justice perspective as abortion bans will disproportionately affect marginalized groups and further exacerbate inequities in maternal mortality.¹³

Call to action

Now is the time for community action for reproductive justice and human rights. We urge everyone to donate to abortion funds, vote for leaders who support reproductive justice, and petition your state legislators to codify Roe into law. Now is the time to expand legislation to protect abortion providers and our patients. To ObGyns, family medicine physicians, internists, and other reproductive health clinicians, now is the time to maximize your abortion training. Now is the time to act; otherwise, pregnant individuals will die and future generations of physicians will not have the training to save their lives. ●

On a recent overnight shift, our ObGyn on-call team was urgently paged to the emergency room for a patient who was brought in hemorrhaging after having passed out mid-flight from Texas to Boston. She was 12-weeks pregnant. We rushed her to the operating room for surgical removal of the pregnancy by dilation and curettage to stop her bleeding. Landing in Massachusetts had saved her life.

The significance of this patient’s case was not lost on the multidisciplinary teams caring for her, as the—at the time—impending Roe v Wade decision weighed heavily on our minds. One of many, her story foreshadows the harrowing experiences that we anticipate in the coming months and highlights the danger that the Supreme Court has inflicted on pregnant people nationally.

The Supreme Court decision on Dobbs v Jackson condemns us as a nation in which abortion rights are no longer federally protected under Roe v Wade.¹ Twenty-six states have been poised to ban abortion, and in at least 12 states, abortion is now illegal.^2,3 Political decision making will soon deny pregnant people the right to bodily autonomy, and the United States will lag behind other nations in abortion access.⁴ As ObGyn resident physicians who practice in tertiary referral hospitals in Massachusetts, where the ROE Act protects abortion beyond 24 weeks’ gestational age, we affirm abortion as essential health care that saves lives.⁵

Collectively as physician residents, we have provided an abortion for the patient at 22 weeks with a desired pregnancy who would have otherwise died from high blood pressures, the patient who ended her pregnancy to expedite breast cancer treatment, and the 16-year-old who feared for her life after suffering an assault by her partner for disclosing her pregnancy. With the overturn of Roe v Wade, patients like these will suffer dramatically divergent fates as race, class, and, now more than ever, geography will impact who is able to access abortion care.

Ramifications of the overturn of Roe

History foreshadows the grim impact of repealing Roe. Ohio’s 2011 law that requires the use of the restrictive protocol approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for mifepristone administration deepened existing inequities in abortion access.⁶ Patients with private insurance, higher income, higher level of education, and those who were White were more likely to obtain abortion care.⁷ In Texas, after the implementation of SB8 and other restrictive laws, Hispanic women whose travel distance increased more than 100 miles had the greatest reduction in abortion rates.^8,9 A recent study regarding banning abortion in the United States estimated a 7% increase in pregnancy-related deaths in 1 year, with a 21% increase in subsequent years.¹⁰

Inequities in abortion access subsequently will disparately increase deaths of pregnant individuals in certain populations.^11,12 Communities with the highest rates of unintended pregnancy, medical comorbidities, and lack of access to abortion, as well as historically marginalized populations—including non-Hispanic Black people, LGBTQIA people, those with limited English proficiency, and undocumented persons—will experience the greatest increase in pregnancy-related deaths due to a total abortion ban.^13-15

The US maternal mortality rate is already the highest among developed nations, and it will only climb if ObGyns are not appropriately trained to operate within our full scope of practice and, thus, are unable to provide the highest quality of care.^16,17

Continue: Abortion is a medical treatment that requires resident training...

Abortion is a medical treatment that requires resident training

Abortion care must be protected. Uterine evacuation by medical management, suction curettage, or dilation and evacuation is indicated for undesired pregnancy, regardless of reasoning or life circumstance. Pregnancy carries inherent risks that can at times be deadly.¹⁸ Abortion serves as first-line treatment for certain life-threatening pregnancy risks, including septic miscarriage, maternal hemorrhage, early-onset severe preeclampsia, and certain health conditions.¹⁹ Surgical skills and medical management of abortion are therefore fundamental components of ObGyn care and residency training.²⁰

In choosing to become ObGyns,and particularly in selecting our training program, the ability to provide safe abortion care was a calculated priority. A recent study on the implications of overturning Roe predicted that nearly half of ObGyn residents will likely or certainly lose access to in-state abortion training.²¹ As demonstrated already in states with restrictive abortion laws, we will lose an entire generation of medical professionals skilled in performing this lifesaving procedure.^9,22 While privileged patients may travel across state borders to access care, ObGyn and other medical trainees who are contract bound to residency programs do not have such flexibility to seek out abortion training. Although we hope the reversal of Roe will be fleeting, the consequences of this lost generation are irreparable.^23,24 For physicians like ourselves, who fortunately are trained in surgical abortions and safe management of medical terminations, the discrepancy between evidence-based guidelines and impending political restrictions is distressing. We are forced to imagine refusing patients necessary health care—or face incarceration to save their lives.

The idea of watching a patient die, whether by hemorrhage, sepsis, or suicide, while armed with the tools of safe abortion technique is horrific. As authors with roots in Texas, Michigan, and Georgia, where abortion has or will almost certainly become illegal now that Roe v Wade is overturned, this scene is personal. It affects our future patients, our families, our colleagues, and our ability to return to our home states to live and practice.

Political organizing is critical to protect and restore abortion rights and defend against conservative coercive politics.²⁵ Nearly half of pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and more than half of these end in abortion.^26,27 Threats to abortion access require action from every one of the 59% of Americans who believe abortion should remain legal.²⁸ This is especially important from a social and racial justice perspective as abortion bans will disproportionately affect marginalized groups and further exacerbate inequities in maternal mortality.¹³

Call to action

Now is the time for community action for reproductive justice and human rights. We urge everyone to donate to abortion funds, vote for leaders who support reproductive justice, and petition your state legislators to codify Roe into law. Now is the time to expand legislation to protect abortion providers and our patients. To ObGyns, family medicine physicians, internists, and other reproductive health clinicians, now is the time to maximize your abortion training. Now is the time to act; otherwise, pregnant individuals will die and future generations of physicians will not have the training to save their lives. ●

For many, the recent Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs v Jackson case that removed the constitutional right to an abortion has introduced outrage, fear, and confusion throughout the country. While the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) clearly has established that abortion is essential health care and has published resources regarding the issue (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential), and many providers know what to do medically, they do not know what they can do legally. In a country where 45% of pregnancies are unplanned and 25% of women will access abortion services in their lifetime, this decision will completely change the landscape of providing and receiving abortion care. This decision will affect every provider and their patients and will affect them differently in each state. The country likely will be divided into 24 destination states that will protect the right to abortion and another 26 states that have or will soon ban abortion or severely restrict access to it.

Regardless of the state you practice in, it is clear that our voices, actions, and advocacy are essential during these challenging times. It can feel difficult to find ways to advocate, especially if you are in a state or have an employer that supports anti-abortion legislation or has been silent after the Dobbs decision was released. We have created a guide to help and encourage all ObGyn providers to find ways to advocate, no matter their zip code.

1. Donate

Many of our patients will need to travel out of state to seek abortion care. The cost of abortion care can be expensive, and travel, child care, and time off of work add to the costs of the procedure itself, making access to abortion care financially out of reach for some. There are many well-established abortion funds throughout the country; consider donating to one of them or organizing a fundraiser in your community. Go to abortionfunds.org/funds to find an abortion fund that will support patients in your community, or donate generally to support them all.

2. Save your stories

We already are hearing the devastating impact abortion bans have on patient care around the country. If you had to deny or delay care because of the new legal landscape surrounding abortion, write down or record the experience. Your stories can be critical in discussing the impact of legislation. If you choose to share on social media, ask the involved patients if they are comfortable with their story being shared online (as long as their identity is protected).

3. Talk about it

Talking about abortion is a critical step in destigmatizing it and supporting our patients as well as our field. These conversations can be challenging, but ACOG has provided an important guide that includes key phrases and statements to help shape the conversation and avoid polarizing language (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/come-prepared). This guide also can be helpful to keep in mind when talking to members of the media.

Continue to: 4. Write about it...

4. Write about it

There are many opportunities to write about the impact of the Dobbs decision, especially locally. As a clinician and trusted member of the community, you can uniquely share your and your patients’ experiences. Your article does not have to appear in a major publication; you can still have an important impact in your local paper. See resources on how to write an op-ed and letter to the editor (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/connect-in-your-community/legislative-rx-op-eds-and-letters-to-the-editor).

5. Teach about it

These legislative changes uniquely impact our ObGyn residents; 44% of residents likely will be in a training program in a state that will ban or severely restrict abortion access. Abortion is health care, and a vast majority of our residents could graduate without important skills to save lives. As we strategize to ensure all ObGyn residents are able to receive this important training, work on incorporating an advocacy curriculum into your residents’ educational experience. Teaching about how to advocate is an important skill for supporting our patients and ensuring critical health policy. ACOG has published guides focused on education and training (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/education-and-training). We also have included our own medical center’s advocacy curriculum (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1STxLzE0j55mlDEbF0_wZbo9O QryAcs6RpfZ47Mwfs4I/edit).

6. Get involved and seek out allies

It’s important that ObGyns be at the table for all discussions surrounding abortion care and reproductive health. Join hospital committees and help influence policy within your own institution. Refer back to those abortion talking points—this will help in some of these challenging conversations.

7. Get on social media

Using social media can be a powerful tool for advocacy. You can help elevate issues and encourage others to get active as well. Using a common hashtag, such as #AbortionisHealthcare, on different platforms can help connect you to other advocates. Share simple and important graphics provided by ACOG on important topics in our field (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state/social-media) and review ACOG’s recommendation for professionalism in social media (https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2019/10/professional-use-of-digital-and-social-media).

8. Get active locally

We have seen the introduction of hundreds of bills in states around the country not only on abortion but also on other legislation that directly impacts the care we provide. It is critical that we get involved in advocating for important reproductive health legislation and against bills that cause harm and interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Stay up to date on legislative issues with your local ACOG and medical chapters (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state). Consider testifying at your State house, providing written or oral testimony. Connect with ACOG or your state medical chapter to help with talking points!

9. Read up

There have been many new policies at the federal level that could impact the care you provide. Take some time to read up on these new changes. Patients also may ask you about self-managed abortion. There are guides and resources (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/practice-management) for patients that may seek medication online, and we want to ensure that patients have the resources to make informed decisions.

10. Hit the Capitol

Consider making time to come to the annual Congressional Leadership Conference in Washington, DC (https://www.acog.org/education-and-events/meetings/acog-congressional-leadership-conference), or other advocacy events offered through the American Medical Association or other subspecialty organizations. When we all come together as an organization, a field, and a community, it sends a powerful message that we are standing up together for our patients and our colleagues.

Make a difference

There is no advocacy too big or too small. It is critical that we continue to use our voices and our platforms to stand up for health care and access to critical services, including abortion care. ●

For many, the recent Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs v Jackson case that removed the constitutional right to an abortion has introduced outrage, fear, and confusion throughout the country. While the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) clearly has established that abortion is essential health care and has published resources regarding the issue (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential), and many providers know what to do medically, they do not know what they can do legally. In a country where 45% of pregnancies are unplanned and 25% of women will access abortion services in their lifetime, this decision will completely change the landscape of providing and receiving abortion care. This decision will affect every provider and their patients and will affect them differently in each state. The country likely will be divided into 24 destination states that will protect the right to abortion and another 26 states that have or will soon ban abortion or severely restrict access to it.

Regardless of the state you practice in, it is clear that our voices, actions, and advocacy are essential during these challenging times. It can feel difficult to find ways to advocate, especially if you are in a state or have an employer that supports anti-abortion legislation or has been silent after the Dobbs decision was released. We have created a guide to help and encourage all ObGyn providers to find ways to advocate, no matter their zip code.

1. Donate

Many of our patients will need to travel out of state to seek abortion care. The cost of abortion care can be expensive, and travel, child care, and time off of work add to the costs of the procedure itself, making access to abortion care financially out of reach for some. There are many well-established abortion funds throughout the country; consider donating to one of them or organizing a fundraiser in your community. Go to abortionfunds.org/funds to find an abortion fund that will support patients in your community, or donate generally to support them all.

2. Save your stories

We already are hearing the devastating impact abortion bans have on patient care around the country. If you had to deny or delay care because of the new legal landscape surrounding abortion, write down or record the experience. Your stories can be critical in discussing the impact of legislation. If you choose to share on social media, ask the involved patients if they are comfortable with their story being shared online (as long as their identity is protected).

3. Talk about it

Talking about abortion is a critical step in destigmatizing it and supporting our patients as well as our field. These conversations can be challenging, but ACOG has provided an important guide that includes key phrases and statements to help shape the conversation and avoid polarizing language (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/come-prepared). This guide also can be helpful to keep in mind when talking to members of the media.

Continue to: 4. Write about it...

4. Write about it

There are many opportunities to write about the impact of the Dobbs decision, especially locally. As a clinician and trusted member of the community, you can uniquely share your and your patients’ experiences. Your article does not have to appear in a major publication; you can still have an important impact in your local paper. See resources on how to write an op-ed and letter to the editor (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/connect-in-your-community/legislative-rx-op-eds-and-letters-to-the-editor).

5. Teach about it

These legislative changes uniquely impact our ObGyn residents; 44% of residents likely will be in a training program in a state that will ban or severely restrict abortion access. Abortion is health care, and a vast majority of our residents could graduate without important skills to save lives. As we strategize to ensure all ObGyn residents are able to receive this important training, work on incorporating an advocacy curriculum into your residents’ educational experience. Teaching about how to advocate is an important skill for supporting our patients and ensuring critical health policy. ACOG has published guides focused on education and training (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/education-and-training). We also have included our own medical center’s advocacy curriculum (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1STxLzE0j55mlDEbF0_wZbo9O QryAcs6RpfZ47Mwfs4I/edit).

6. Get involved and seek out allies

It’s important that ObGyns be at the table for all discussions surrounding abortion care and reproductive health. Join hospital committees and help influence policy within your own institution. Refer back to those abortion talking points—this will help in some of these challenging conversations.

7. Get on social media

Using social media can be a powerful tool for advocacy. You can help elevate issues and encourage others to get active as well. Using a common hashtag, such as #AbortionisHealthcare, on different platforms can help connect you to other advocates. Share simple and important graphics provided by ACOG on important topics in our field (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state/social-media) and review ACOG’s recommendation for professionalism in social media (https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2019/10/professional-use-of-digital-and-social-media).

8. Get active locally

We have seen the introduction of hundreds of bills in states around the country not only on abortion but also on other legislation that directly impacts the care we provide. It is critical that we get involved in advocating for important reproductive health legislation and against bills that cause harm and interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Stay up to date on legislative issues with your local ACOG and medical chapters (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state). Consider testifying at your State house, providing written or oral testimony. Connect with ACOG or your state medical chapter to help with talking points!

9. Read up

There have been many new policies at the federal level that could impact the care you provide. Take some time to read up on these new changes. Patients also may ask you about self-managed abortion. There are guides and resources (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/practice-management) for patients that may seek medication online, and we want to ensure that patients have the resources to make informed decisions.

10. Hit the Capitol

Consider making time to come to the annual Congressional Leadership Conference in Washington, DC (https://www.acog.org/education-and-events/meetings/acog-congressional-leadership-conference), or other advocacy events offered through the American Medical Association or other subspecialty organizations. When we all come together as an organization, a field, and a community, it sends a powerful message that we are standing up together for our patients and our colleagues.

Make a difference

There is no advocacy too big or too small. It is critical that we continue to use our voices and our platforms to stand up for health care and access to critical services, including abortion care. ●

For many, the recent Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs v Jackson case that removed the constitutional right to an abortion has introduced outrage, fear, and confusion throughout the country. While the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) clearly has established that abortion is essential health care and has published resources regarding the issue (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential), and many providers know what to do medically, they do not know what they can do legally. In a country where 45% of pregnancies are unplanned and 25% of women will access abortion services in their lifetime, this decision will completely change the landscape of providing and receiving abortion care. This decision will affect every provider and their patients and will affect them differently in each state. The country likely will be divided into 24 destination states that will protect the right to abortion and another 26 states that have or will soon ban abortion or severely restrict access to it.

Regardless of the state you practice in, it is clear that our voices, actions, and advocacy are essential during these challenging times. It can feel difficult to find ways to advocate, especially if you are in a state or have an employer that supports anti-abortion legislation or has been silent after the Dobbs decision was released. We have created a guide to help and encourage all ObGyn providers to find ways to advocate, no matter their zip code.

1. Donate

Many of our patients will need to travel out of state to seek abortion care. The cost of abortion care can be expensive, and travel, child care, and time off of work add to the costs of the procedure itself, making access to abortion care financially out of reach for some. There are many well-established abortion funds throughout the country; consider donating to one of them or organizing a fundraiser in your community. Go to abortionfunds.org/funds to find an abortion fund that will support patients in your community, or donate generally to support them all.

2. Save your stories

We already are hearing the devastating impact abortion bans have on patient care around the country. If you had to deny or delay care because of the new legal landscape surrounding abortion, write down or record the experience. Your stories can be critical in discussing the impact of legislation. If you choose to share on social media, ask the involved patients if they are comfortable with their story being shared online (as long as their identity is protected).

3. Talk about it

Talking about abortion is a critical step in destigmatizing it and supporting our patients as well as our field. These conversations can be challenging, but ACOG has provided an important guide that includes key phrases and statements to help shape the conversation and avoid polarizing language (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/come-prepared). This guide also can be helpful to keep in mind when talking to members of the media.

Continue to: 4. Write about it...

4. Write about it

There are many opportunities to write about the impact of the Dobbs decision, especially locally. As a clinician and trusted member of the community, you can uniquely share your and your patients’ experiences. Your article does not have to appear in a major publication; you can still have an important impact in your local paper. See resources on how to write an op-ed and letter to the editor (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/connect-in-your-community/legislative-rx-op-eds-and-letters-to-the-editor).

5. Teach about it

These legislative changes uniquely impact our ObGyn residents; 44% of residents likely will be in a training program in a state that will ban or severely restrict abortion access. Abortion is health care, and a vast majority of our residents could graduate without important skills to save lives. As we strategize to ensure all ObGyn residents are able to receive this important training, work on incorporating an advocacy curriculum into your residents’ educational experience. Teaching about how to advocate is an important skill for supporting our patients and ensuring critical health policy. ACOG has published guides focused on education and training (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/education-and-training). We also have included our own medical center’s advocacy curriculum (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1STxLzE0j55mlDEbF0_wZbo9O QryAcs6RpfZ47Mwfs4I/edit).

6. Get involved and seek out allies

It’s important that ObGyns be at the table for all discussions surrounding abortion care and reproductive health. Join hospital committees and help influence policy within your own institution. Refer back to those abortion talking points—this will help in some of these challenging conversations.

7. Get on social media

Using social media can be a powerful tool for advocacy. You can help elevate issues and encourage others to get active as well. Using a common hashtag, such as #AbortionisHealthcare, on different platforms can help connect you to other advocates. Share simple and important graphics provided by ACOG on important topics in our field (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state/social-media) and review ACOG’s recommendation for professionalism in social media (https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2019/10/professional-use-of-digital-and-social-media).

8. Get active locally

We have seen the introduction of hundreds of bills in states around the country not only on abortion but also on other legislation that directly impacts the care we provide. It is critical that we get involved in advocating for important reproductive health legislation and against bills that cause harm and interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Stay up to date on legislative issues with your local ACOG and medical chapters (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state). Consider testifying at your State house, providing written or oral testimony. Connect with ACOG or your state medical chapter to help with talking points!

9. Read up

There have been many new policies at the federal level that could impact the care you provide. Take some time to read up on these new changes. Patients also may ask you about self-managed abortion. There are guides and resources (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/practice-management) for patients that may seek medication online, and we want to ensure that patients have the resources to make informed decisions.

10. Hit the Capitol

Consider making time to come to the annual Congressional Leadership Conference in Washington, DC (https://www.acog.org/education-and-events/meetings/acog-congressional-leadership-conference), or other advocacy events offered through the American Medical Association or other subspecialty organizations. When we all come together as an organization, a field, and a community, it sends a powerful message that we are standing up together for our patients and our colleagues.

Make a difference

There is no advocacy too big or too small. It is critical that we continue to use our voices and our platforms to stand up for health care and access to critical services, including abortion care. ●

The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision on June 24, 2022, which nullified the federal protections of Roe v Wade, resulted in the swift and devastating dissolution of access to abortion care for hundreds of thousands of patients in the United States.¹ Within days of the decision, 11 states in the South and Midwest implemented complete or 6-week abortion bans that, in part, led to the closure of over half the abortion clinics in these states.² Abortion bans, severe restrictions, and clinic closures affect all patients and magnify existing health care inequities. 

Medication abortion is becoming increasingly popular; as of 2020, approximately 50% of US abortions were performed using this method.³ Through a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, medication abortion induces the physiologic process and symptoms similar to those of a miscarriage. Notably, this regimen is also the most effective medical management method for a missed abortion in the first trimester, and therefore, should already be incorporated into any general ObGyn practice.⁴

Although a recent study found that 97% of ObGyn physicians report encountering patients who seek an abortion, only 15% to 25% of them reported providing abortion services.^5,6 Given our expertise, ObGyns are well-positioned to incorporate medication abortion into our practices. For those ObGyn providers who practice in states without extreme abortion bans, this article provides guidance on how to incorporate medication abortion into your practice (FIGURE). Several states now have early gestational limits on abortion, and the abortion-dedicated clinics that remain open are over capacity. Therefore, by incorporating medication abortion into your practice you can contribute to timely abortion access for your patients. 

Medication abortion:  The process

Determine your ability and  patient’s eligibility

Abortion-specific laws for your state have now become the first determinant of your ability to provide medication abortion to your patients. The Guttmacher Institute is one reliable source of specific state laws that your practice can reference and is updated regularly.⁷

From a practice perspective, most ObGyn physicians already have the technical capabilities in place to provide medication abortion. First, you must be able to accurately determine the patient’s gestational age by their last menstrual period, which is often confirmed through ultrasonography.

Medication abortion is safe and routinely used in many practices up to 77 days, or 11 weeks, of gestation. Authors of a recent retrospective cohort study found that medication abortion also may be initiated for a pregnancy of unknown location in patients who are asymptomatic and determined to have low risk for an ectopic pregnancy. In this study, initiation of medication abortion on the day of presentation, with concurrent evaluation for ectopic pregnancy, was associated with a shorter time to a completed abortion, but a lower rate of successful medication abortion when compared with patients who delayed the initiation of medication abortion until a clear intrauterine pregnancy was diagnosed.⁸

Few medical contraindications exist for patients who seek a medication abortion. These contraindications include allergy to or medication interaction with mifepristone or misoprostol, chronic adrenal failure or long-term corticosteroid therapy, acute porphyria, anemia or the use of anticoagulation therapy, or current intrauterine device (IUD) use. 

Continue to: Gather consents and  administer treatment...

Historically, mifepristone has been dispensed directly at an ObGyn physician’s office. However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations requiring this were lifted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and as of December 2021, the inperson dispensing requirement was permanently removed.⁹ To provide mifepristone in a medical practice under current guidelines, a confidential prescriber agreement must be completed once by one person on behalf of the practice. Then each patient must read the manufacturer’s medication guide and sign the patient agreement form as part of the consent process (available on the FDA’s website).¹⁰ These agreement forms must be filled out by a physician and each patient if your practice uses mifepristone for any pregnancy indication, including induction of labor or medical management of miscarriage. Given the multiple evidence-based indications for mifepristone in pregnancy, it is hoped that these agreement forms will become a routine part of most ObGyn practices. Other consent requirements vary by state. 

After signing consent forms, patients receive and often immediately take mifepristone 200 mg orally. Mifepristone is a progesterone receptor antagonist that sensitizes the uterine myometrium to the effects of prostaglandin.¹¹ Rarely, patients may experience symptoms of bleeding or cramping after mifepristone administration alone. 

Patients are discharged home with ibuprofen and an antiemetic for symptom relief to be taken around the time of administration of misoprostol. Misoprostol is a synthetic prostaglandin that causes uterine cramping and expulsion of the pregnancy typically within 4 hours of administration. Patients leave with the pills of misoprostol  800 μg (4 tablets, 200 µg each), which they self-administer buccally 24-48 hours after mifepristone administration. A prescription for misoprostol can be given instead of the actual pills, but geographic distance to the pharmacy and other potential barriers should be considered when evaluating the feasibility and convenience of providing pharmacy-dispensed misoprostol. 

We instruct patients to place 2 tablets buccally between each gum and cheek, dosing all 4 tablets at the same time. Patients are instructed to let the tablets dissolve buccally and, after 30 minutes, to swallow the tablets with water. Administration of an automatic second dose of misoprostol 3-6 hours after the first dose for pregnancies between 9-11 weeks of gestation is recommended to increase success rate at these later gestational ages.^12,13 Several different routes of administration, including buccal, vaginal, and sublingual, have been used for first trimester medication abortion with misoprostol.

Follow up and confirm the results

Patients can safely follow up after their medication abortion in several ways. In our practice, patients are offered 3 possible options. 

1. The first is ultrasound follow-up, whereby the patient returns to the clinic 1 week after their medication abortion for a pelvic ultrasound to confirm the gestational sac has passed. 
2. The second method is to test beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (B-hCG) levels. Patients interested in this option have a baseline B-hCG drawn on the day of presentation and follow up 7-10 days later for a repeat B-hCG test. An 80% drop in B-hCG level is consistent with a successful medication abortion.
3. The third option, a phone checklist that is usually combined with a urine pregnancy test 4-6 weeks after a medication abortion, is an effective patient-centered approach. The COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent compulsory shift to providing medical care via telemedicine highlighted the safety, acceptability, and patient preference for the provision of medication abortion using telehealth platforms.¹⁴ 

Outcomes and complications

Medication abortion using a combined regimen of mifepristone followed by misoprostol is approximately 95% effective at complete expulsion of the pregnancy.^15,16 Complications after a first trimester medication abortion are rare. In a retrospective cohort study of 54,911 abortions, the most common complication was incomplete abortion.¹⁷ Symptoms concerning for incomplete abortion included persistent heavy vaginal bleeding and pelvic cramping. An incomplete or failed abortion should be managed with an additional dose of misoprostol or dilation and evacuation. Other possible complications such as infection are also rare, and prophylactic antibiotics are not encouraged.¹⁸

Future fertility and  pregnancy implications

Patients should be counseled that a medication abortion is not associated with infertility or increased risk for adverse outcomes in future pregnancies.¹⁹ Contraceptive counseling should be provided to all interested patients at the time of a medication abortion and ideally provided to the patient on the day of their visit. Oral contraceptives, the patch, and the ring can be started on the day of misoprostol administration.²⁰ The optimal timing of IUD insertion has been examined in 2 randomized control trials. Results indicated a higher uptake in the group of patients who received their IUD approximately 1 week after medication abortion versus delaying placement for several weeks, with no difference in IUD expulsion rates.^21,22 Patients interested in depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) injection should be counseled on the theoretical decreased efficacy of medication abortion in the setting of concurrent DMPA administration. If possible, a follow-up plan should be made so that the patient can receive DMPA, if desired, at a later date.²³ The etonogestrel implant (Nexplanon), however, can be placed on the day of mifepristone administration and does not affect the efficacy of a medication abortion.^24,25

Summary

During this critical time for reproductive health care, it is essential that ObGyns  consider how their professional position and expertise can assist with the provision of medication abortions. Most ObGyn practices already have the resources in place to effectively care for patients before, during, and after a medication abortion. Integrating abortion health care into your practice promotes patient-centered care, continuity, and patient satisfaction. Furthermore, by improving abortion referrals or offering information on safe, self-procured abortion, you can contribute to destigmatizing abortion care, while playing an integral role in connecting your patients with the care they need and desire. ●

The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision on June 24, 2022, which nullified the federal protections of Roe v Wade, resulted in the swift and devastating dissolution of access to abortion care for hundreds of thousands of patients in the United States.¹ Within days of the decision, 11 states in the South and Midwest implemented complete or 6-week abortion bans that, in part, led to the closure of over half the abortion clinics in these states.² Abortion bans, severe restrictions, and clinic closures affect all patients and magnify existing health care inequities. 

Medication abortion is becoming increasingly popular; as of 2020, approximately 50% of US abortions were performed using this method.³ Through a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, medication abortion induces the physiologic process and symptoms similar to those of a miscarriage. Notably, this regimen is also the most effective medical management method for a missed abortion in the first trimester, and therefore, should already be incorporated into any general ObGyn practice.⁴

Although a recent study found that 97% of ObGyn physicians report encountering patients who seek an abortion, only 15% to 25% of them reported providing abortion services.^5,6 Given our expertise, ObGyns are well-positioned to incorporate medication abortion into our practices. For those ObGyn providers who practice in states without extreme abortion bans, this article provides guidance on how to incorporate medication abortion into your practice (FIGURE). Several states now have early gestational limits on abortion, and the abortion-dedicated clinics that remain open are over capacity. Therefore, by incorporating medication abortion into your practice you can contribute to timely abortion access for your patients. 

Medication abortion:  The process

Determine your ability and  patient’s eligibility

Abortion-specific laws for your state have now become the first determinant of your ability to provide medication abortion to your patients. The Guttmacher Institute is one reliable source of specific state laws that your practice can reference and is updated regularly.⁷

From a practice perspective, most ObGyn physicians already have the technical capabilities in place to provide medication abortion. First, you must be able to accurately determine the patient’s gestational age by their last menstrual period, which is often confirmed through ultrasonography.

Medication abortion is safe and routinely used in many practices up to 77 days, or 11 weeks, of gestation. Authors of a recent retrospective cohort study found that medication abortion also may be initiated for a pregnancy of unknown location in patients who are asymptomatic and determined to have low risk for an ectopic pregnancy. In this study, initiation of medication abortion on the day of presentation, with concurrent evaluation for ectopic pregnancy, was associated with a shorter time to a completed abortion, but a lower rate of successful medication abortion when compared with patients who delayed the initiation of medication abortion until a clear intrauterine pregnancy was diagnosed.⁸

Few medical contraindications exist for patients who seek a medication abortion. These contraindications include allergy to or medication interaction with mifepristone or misoprostol, chronic adrenal failure or long-term corticosteroid therapy, acute porphyria, anemia or the use of anticoagulation therapy, or current intrauterine device (IUD) use. 

Continue to: Gather consents and  administer treatment...

Historically, mifepristone has been dispensed directly at an ObGyn physician’s office. However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations requiring this were lifted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and as of December 2021, the inperson dispensing requirement was permanently removed.⁹ To provide mifepristone in a medical practice under current guidelines, a confidential prescriber agreement must be completed once by one person on behalf of the practice. Then each patient must read the manufacturer’s medication guide and sign the patient agreement form as part of the consent process (available on the FDA’s website).¹⁰ These agreement forms must be filled out by a physician and each patient if your practice uses mifepristone for any pregnancy indication, including induction of labor or medical management of miscarriage. Given the multiple evidence-based indications for mifepristone in pregnancy, it is hoped that these agreement forms will become a routine part of most ObGyn practices. Other consent requirements vary by state. 

After signing consent forms, patients receive and often immediately take mifepristone 200 mg orally. Mifepristone is a progesterone receptor antagonist that sensitizes the uterine myometrium to the effects of prostaglandin.¹¹ Rarely, patients may experience symptoms of bleeding or cramping after mifepristone administration alone. 

Patients are discharged home with ibuprofen and an antiemetic for symptom relief to be taken around the time of administration of misoprostol. Misoprostol is a synthetic prostaglandin that causes uterine cramping and expulsion of the pregnancy typically within 4 hours of administration. Patients leave with the pills of misoprostol  800 μg (4 tablets, 200 µg each), which they self-administer buccally 24-48 hours after mifepristone administration. A prescription for misoprostol can be given instead of the actual pills, but geographic distance to the pharmacy and other potential barriers should be considered when evaluating the feasibility and convenience of providing pharmacy-dispensed misoprostol. 

We instruct patients to place 2 tablets buccally between each gum and cheek, dosing all 4 tablets at the same time. Patients are instructed to let the tablets dissolve buccally and, after 30 minutes, to swallow the tablets with water. Administration of an automatic second dose of misoprostol 3-6 hours after the first dose for pregnancies between 9-11 weeks of gestation is recommended to increase success rate at these later gestational ages.^12,13 Several different routes of administration, including buccal, vaginal, and sublingual, have been used for first trimester medication abortion with misoprostol.

Follow up and confirm the results

Patients can safely follow up after their medication abortion in several ways. In our practice, patients are offered 3 possible options. 

1. The first is ultrasound follow-up, whereby the patient returns to the clinic 1 week after their medication abortion for a pelvic ultrasound to confirm the gestational sac has passed. 
2. The second method is to test beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (B-hCG) levels. Patients interested in this option have a baseline B-hCG drawn on the day of presentation and follow up 7-10 days later for a repeat B-hCG test. An 80% drop in B-hCG level is consistent with a successful medication abortion.
3. The third option, a phone checklist that is usually combined with a urine pregnancy test 4-6 weeks after a medication abortion, is an effective patient-centered approach. The COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent compulsory shift to providing medical care via telemedicine highlighted the safety, acceptability, and patient preference for the provision of medication abortion using telehealth platforms.¹⁴ 

Outcomes and complications

Medication abortion using a combined regimen of mifepristone followed by misoprostol is approximately 95% effective at complete expulsion of the pregnancy.^15,16 Complications after a first trimester medication abortion are rare. In a retrospective cohort study of 54,911 abortions, the most common complication was incomplete abortion.¹⁷ Symptoms concerning for incomplete abortion included persistent heavy vaginal bleeding and pelvic cramping. An incomplete or failed abortion should be managed with an additional dose of misoprostol or dilation and evacuation. Other possible complications such as infection are also rare, and prophylactic antibiotics are not encouraged.¹⁸

Future fertility and  pregnancy implications

Patients should be counseled that a medication abortion is not associated with infertility or increased risk for adverse outcomes in future pregnancies.¹⁹ Contraceptive counseling should be provided to all interested patients at the time of a medication abortion and ideally provided to the patient on the day of their visit. Oral contraceptives, the patch, and the ring can be started on the day of misoprostol administration.²⁰ The optimal timing of IUD insertion has been examined in 2 randomized control trials. Results indicated a higher uptake in the group of patients who received their IUD approximately 1 week after medication abortion versus delaying placement for several weeks, with no difference in IUD expulsion rates.^21,22 Patients interested in depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) injection should be counseled on the theoretical decreased efficacy of medication abortion in the setting of concurrent DMPA administration. If possible, a follow-up plan should be made so that the patient can receive DMPA, if desired, at a later date.²³ The etonogestrel implant (Nexplanon), however, can be placed on the day of mifepristone administration and does not affect the efficacy of a medication abortion.^24,25

Summary

During this critical time for reproductive health care, it is essential that ObGyns  consider how their professional position and expertise can assist with the provision of medication abortions. Most ObGyn practices already have the resources in place to effectively care for patients before, during, and after a medication abortion. Integrating abortion health care into your practice promotes patient-centered care, continuity, and patient satisfaction. Furthermore, by improving abortion referrals or offering information on safe, self-procured abortion, you can contribute to destigmatizing abortion care, while playing an integral role in connecting your patients with the care they need and desire. ●

The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision on June 24, 2022, which nullified the federal protections of Roe v Wade, resulted in the swift and devastating dissolution of access to abortion care for hundreds of thousands of patients in the United States.¹ Within days of the decision, 11 states in the South and Midwest implemented complete or 6-week abortion bans that, in part, led to the closure of over half the abortion clinics in these states.² Abortion bans, severe restrictions, and clinic closures affect all patients and magnify existing health care inequities. 

Medication abortion is becoming increasingly popular; as of 2020, approximately 50% of US abortions were performed using this method.³ Through a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, medication abortion induces the physiologic process and symptoms similar to those of a miscarriage. Notably, this regimen is also the most effective medical management method for a missed abortion in the first trimester, and therefore, should already be incorporated into any general ObGyn practice.⁴

Although a recent study found that 97% of ObGyn physicians report encountering patients who seek an abortion, only 15% to 25% of them reported providing abortion services.^5,6 Given our expertise, ObGyns are well-positioned to incorporate medication abortion into our practices. For those ObGyn providers who practice in states without extreme abortion bans, this article provides guidance on how to incorporate medication abortion into your practice (FIGURE). Several states now have early gestational limits on abortion, and the abortion-dedicated clinics that remain open are over capacity. Therefore, by incorporating medication abortion into your practice you can contribute to timely abortion access for your patients. 

Medication abortion:  The process

Determine your ability and  patient’s eligibility

Abortion-specific laws for your state have now become the first determinant of your ability to provide medication abortion to your patients. The Guttmacher Institute is one reliable source of specific state laws that your practice can reference and is updated regularly.⁷

From a practice perspective, most ObGyn physicians already have the technical capabilities in place to provide medication abortion. First, you must be able to accurately determine the patient’s gestational age by their last menstrual period, which is often confirmed through ultrasonography.

Medication abortion is safe and routinely used in many practices up to 77 days, or 11 weeks, of gestation. Authors of a recent retrospective cohort study found that medication abortion also may be initiated for a pregnancy of unknown location in patients who are asymptomatic and determined to have low risk for an ectopic pregnancy. In this study, initiation of medication abortion on the day of presentation, with concurrent evaluation for ectopic pregnancy, was associated with a shorter time to a completed abortion, but a lower rate of successful medication abortion when compared with patients who delayed the initiation of medication abortion until a clear intrauterine pregnancy was diagnosed.⁸

Few medical contraindications exist for patients who seek a medication abortion. These contraindications include allergy to or medication interaction with mifepristone or misoprostol, chronic adrenal failure or long-term corticosteroid therapy, acute porphyria, anemia or the use of anticoagulation therapy, or current intrauterine device (IUD) use. 

Continue to: Gather consents and  administer treatment...

Historically, mifepristone has been dispensed directly at an ObGyn physician’s office. However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations requiring this were lifted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and as of December 2021, the inperson dispensing requirement was permanently removed.⁹ To provide mifepristone in a medical practice under current guidelines, a confidential prescriber agreement must be completed once by one person on behalf of the practice. Then each patient must read the manufacturer’s medication guide and sign the patient agreement form as part of the consent process (available on the FDA’s website).¹⁰ These agreement forms must be filled out by a physician and each patient if your practice uses mifepristone for any pregnancy indication, including induction of labor or medical management of miscarriage. Given the multiple evidence-based indications for mifepristone in pregnancy, it is hoped that these agreement forms will become a routine part of most ObGyn practices. Other consent requirements vary by state. 

After signing consent forms, patients receive and often immediately take mifepristone 200 mg orally. Mifepristone is a progesterone receptor antagonist that sensitizes the uterine myometrium to the effects of prostaglandin.¹¹ Rarely, patients may experience symptoms of bleeding or cramping after mifepristone administration alone. 

Patients are discharged home with ibuprofen and an antiemetic for symptom relief to be taken around the time of administration of misoprostol. Misoprostol is a synthetic prostaglandin that causes uterine cramping and expulsion of the pregnancy typically within 4 hours of administration. Patients leave with the pills of misoprostol  800 μg (4 tablets, 200 µg each), which they self-administer buccally 24-48 hours after mifepristone administration. A prescription for misoprostol can be given instead of the actual pills, but geographic distance to the pharmacy and other potential barriers should be considered when evaluating the feasibility and convenience of providing pharmacy-dispensed misoprostol. 

We instruct patients to place 2 tablets buccally between each gum and cheek, dosing all 4 tablets at the same time. Patients are instructed to let the tablets dissolve buccally and, after 30 minutes, to swallow the tablets with water. Administration of an automatic second dose of misoprostol 3-6 hours after the first dose for pregnancies between 9-11 weeks of gestation is recommended to increase success rate at these later gestational ages.^12,13 Several different routes of administration, including buccal, vaginal, and sublingual, have been used for first trimester medication abortion with misoprostol.

Follow up and confirm the results

Patients can safely follow up after their medication abortion in several ways. In our practice, patients are offered 3 possible options. 

1. The first is ultrasound follow-up, whereby the patient returns to the clinic 1 week after their medication abortion for a pelvic ultrasound to confirm the gestational sac has passed. 
2. The second method is to test beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (B-hCG) levels. Patients interested in this option have a baseline B-hCG drawn on the day of presentation and follow up 7-10 days later for a repeat B-hCG test. An 80% drop in B-hCG level is consistent with a successful medication abortion.
3. The third option, a phone checklist that is usually combined with a urine pregnancy test 4-6 weeks after a medication abortion, is an effective patient-centered approach. The COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent compulsory shift to providing medical care via telemedicine highlighted the safety, acceptability, and patient preference for the provision of medication abortion using telehealth platforms.¹⁴ 

Outcomes and complications

Medication abortion using a combined regimen of mifepristone followed by misoprostol is approximately 95% effective at complete expulsion of the pregnancy.^15,16 Complications after a first trimester medication abortion are rare. In a retrospective cohort study of 54,911 abortions, the most common complication was incomplete abortion.¹⁷ Symptoms concerning for incomplete abortion included persistent heavy vaginal bleeding and pelvic cramping. An incomplete or failed abortion should be managed with an additional dose of misoprostol or dilation and evacuation. Other possible complications such as infection are also rare, and prophylactic antibiotics are not encouraged.¹⁸

Future fertility and  pregnancy implications

Patients should be counseled that a medication abortion is not associated with infertility or increased risk for adverse outcomes in future pregnancies.¹⁹ Contraceptive counseling should be provided to all interested patients at the time of a medication abortion and ideally provided to the patient on the day of their visit. Oral contraceptives, the patch, and the ring can be started on the day of misoprostol administration.²⁰ The optimal timing of IUD insertion has been examined in 2 randomized control trials. Results indicated a higher uptake in the group of patients who received their IUD approximately 1 week after medication abortion versus delaying placement for several weeks, with no difference in IUD expulsion rates.^21,22 Patients interested in depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) injection should be counseled on the theoretical decreased efficacy of medication abortion in the setting of concurrent DMPA administration. If possible, a follow-up plan should be made so that the patient can receive DMPA, if desired, at a later date.²³ The etonogestrel implant (Nexplanon), however, can be placed on the day of mifepristone administration and does not affect the efficacy of a medication abortion.^24,25

Summary

During this critical time for reproductive health care, it is essential that ObGyns  consider how their professional position and expertise can assist with the provision of medication abortions. Most ObGyn practices already have the resources in place to effectively care for patients before, during, and after a medication abortion. Integrating abortion health care into your practice promotes patient-centered care, continuity, and patient satisfaction. Furthermore, by improving abortion referrals or offering information on safe, self-procured abortion, you can contribute to destigmatizing abortion care, while playing an integral role in connecting your patients with the care they need and desire. ●

CASE Concern for surgical management after repeat miscarriage

A 34-year-old woman (G3P0030) with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss was recently diagnosed with a 7-week missed abortion. After her second miscarriage, she had an evaluation for recurrent pregnancy loss which was unremarkable. Both prior miscarriages were managed with dilation & curettage (D&C), but cytogenetic testing of the tissue did not yield a result in either case. The karyotype from the first pregnancy resulted as 46, XX but was confirmed to be due to maternal cell contamination, and the karyotype from the second pregnancy resulted in cell culture failure. The patient is interested in surgical management for her current missed abortion to help with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing, she but is concerned about her risk of intrauterine adhesions with repeated uterine instrumentation given 2 prior D&Cs, one of which was complicated by retained products of conception.

How do you approach the surgical management of this patient with recurrent pregnancy loss?

Approximately 1 in every 8 recognized pregnancies results in miscarriage. The risk of loss is lowest in women with no history of miscarriage (11%), and increases by about 10% for each additional miscarriage, reaching 42% in women with 3 or more previous losses. The population prevalence of women who have had 1 miscarriage is 11%, 2 miscarriages is 2%, and 3 or more is <1%.¹ While 90% of miscarriages occur in the first trimester, their etiology can be quite varied.² A woman’s age is the most strongly associated risk factor, with both very young (<20 years) and older age (>35 years) groups at highest risk. This association is largely attributed to an age-related increase in embryonic chromosomal aneuploidies, of which trisomies, particularly trisomy 16, are the most common.³ Maternal anatomic anomalies such as leiomyomas, intrauterine adhesions, Müllerian anomalies, and adenomyosis have been linked to an increased risk of miscarriage in addition to several lifestyle and environmental factor exposures.¹

Regardless of the etiology, women with recurrent miscarriage are exposed to the potential for iatrogenic harm from the management of their pregnancy loss, including intrauterine adhesions and retained products, which may negatively impact future reproductive attempts. The management of patients with recurrent miscarriages demands special attention to reduce the risk of iatrogenic harm, maximize diagnostic evaluation of the products of conception, and improve future reproductive outcomes.

Management strategies

First trimester pregnancy loss may be managed expectantly, medically, or surgically. Approximately 76% of women who opt for expectant management will successfully pass pregnancy tissue, but for 1 out of every 6 women it may take longer than 14 days.⁴ For patients who prefer to expedite this process, medication abortion is a highly effective and safe option. According to Schreiber and colleagues, a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol together resulted in expulsion in approximately 91% of 148 patients, although 9% still required surgical intervention for incomplete passage of tissue.⁵ Both expectant management and medical management strategies are associated with the potential for retained products of conception requiring subsequent instrumentation as well as tissue that is often unsuitable or contaminated for cytogenetic analysis.

The most definitive treatment option is surgical management via manual or electric vacuum aspiration or curettage, with efficacy approaching 99.6% in some series.⁶ While highly effective, even ultrasound-guided evacuation carries with it procedure-related risks that are of particular consequence for patients of reproductive age, including adhesion formation and retained products of conception.

In 1997, Goldenberg and colleagues reported on the use of hysteroscopy for the management of retained products of conception as a strategy to minimize trauma to the uterus and maximize excision of retained tissue, both of which reduce potential for adhesion formation.⁷ Based on these data, several groups have extended the use of hysteroscopic resection for retained tissue to upfront evacuation following pregnancy loss, in lieu of D&C.^8,9 This approach allows for the direct visualization of the focal removal of the implanted pregnancy tissue, which can:

• decrease the risk of intrauterine adhesion formation
• decrease the risk of retained products of conception
• allow for directed tissue sampling to improve the accuracy of cytogenetic testing
• allow for detection of embryo anatomic anomalies that often go undetected on traditional cytogenetic analysis.

For the remainder of this article, we will discuss the advantages of hysteroscopic management of a missed abortion in greater detail.

Continue to: Hysteroscopic management...

Hysteroscopic management

Like aspiration or curettage, hysteroscopic management may be offered once the diagnosis of fetal demise is confirmed on ultrasonography. The procedure may be accomplished in the office setting or in the operative room with either morcellation or resectoscopic instruments. Morcellation allows for improved visibility during the procedure given the ability of continuous suction to manage tissue fragments in the surgical field, while resectoscopic instruments offer the added benefit of electrosurgery should bleeding that is unresponsive to increased distention pressure be encountered. Use of the cold loop of the resectoscope to accomplish evacuation is advocated to avoid the thermal damage to the endometrium with electrosurgery. Regardless of the chosen instrument, there are several potential benefits for a hysteroscopic approach over the traditional ultrasound-guided or blind D&C.

Reducing risk of iatrogenic harm

Intrauterine adhesions form secondary to trauma to the endometrial basalis layer, where a population of adult progenitor stem cells continuously work to regenerate the overlying functionalis layer. Once damaged, adhesions may form and range from thin, filmy adhesions to dense, cavity obliterating bands of scar tissue (FIGURE). The degree of severity and location of the adhesions account for the variable presentation that range from menstrual abnormalities to infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss. While several classification systems exist for scoring severity of adhesions, the American Fertility Society (now American Society for Reproductive Medicine) Classification system from 1988 is still commonly utilized (TABLE 1).

ILLUSTRATIONS: MARCIA HARTSOCK FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Intrauterine adhesions from D&C after pregnancy loss are not uncommon. A 2014 meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies including 912 women reported a pooled prevalence for intrauterine adhesions of 19.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.8–27.5) on hysteroscopic evaluation within 12 months following curettage.¹⁰ Once formed, these adhesions are associated with long-term impairment in reproductive outcomes, regardless of if they were treated or not. In a long-term follow-up study of women with and without adhesions after recurrent D&C for miscarriage, women with treated adhesions reported lower live birth rates, longer time to pregnancy, higher rates of preterm birth and higher rates of peripartum complications compared with those without adhesions.¹¹

Compared with curettage, hysteroscopy affords the surgeon complete visualization of the uterine cavity and tissue to be resected. This, in turn, minimizes trauma to the surrounding uterine cavity, minimizes the potential for post-procedural adhesion formation and their associated sequelae, and maximizes complete resection of tissue. Those treated with D&C appear to be significantly more likely to have adhesions than those treated via a hysteroscopic approach (30% vs 13%).¹²

Retained products of conception. Classically, a “gritty” sensation of the endometrium following evacuation of the uterus with a sharp curette has been used to indicate complete removal of tissue. The evolution from a nonvisualized procedure to ultrasound-guided vacuum aspiration of 1st trimester pregnancy tissue has been associated with a decreased risk of procedural complications and retained products of conception.¹³ However, even with intraoperative imaging, the risk of retained products of conception remains because it can be difficult to distinguish a small blood clot from retained pregnancy tissue on ultrasonography.

Retained pregnancy tissue can result in abnormal or heavy bleeding, require additional medical or surgical intervention, and is associated with endometrial inflammation and infection. Approximately 1 in every 4 women undergoing hysteroscopic resection of retained products are found to have evidence of endometritis in the resected tissue.¹⁴ This number is even higher in women with a diagnosis of recurrent pregnancy loss (62%).¹⁵

These complications from retained products of conception can be avoided with the hysteroscopic approach due to the direct visualization of the tissue removal. This benefit may be particularly beneficial in patients with known abnormal uterine cavities, such as those with Müllerian anomalies, uterine leiomyomas, preexisting adhesions, and history of placenta accreta spectrum disorder.

Continue to: Maximizing diagnostic yield...

Maximizing diagnostic yield

Many patients prefer surgical management of a missed abortion not for the procedural advantages, but to assist with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing of the pregnancy tissue. Given that embryonic chromosomal aneuploidy is implicated in 70% of miscarriages prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, genetic evaluation of the products of conception is commonly performed to identify a potential cause for the miscarriage.¹⁶ G-band karyotype is the most commonly performed genetic evaluation. Karyotype requires culturing of pregnancy tissue for 7-14 days to produce metaphase cells that are then chemically treated to arrest them at their maximally contracted stage. Cytogenetic evaluation is often curtailed when nonviable cells from products of conception fail to culture due to either time elapsed from diagnosis to demise or damage from tissue handling. Careful, directly observed tissue handling via a hysteroscopic approach may alleviate culture failure secondary to tissue damage.

Another concern with cultures of products of conception is the potential for maternal cell contamination. Early studies from the 1970s noted a significant skew toward 46, XX karyotype results in miscarried tissue as compared with 46, XY results. It was not until microsatellite analysis technology was available that it was determined that the result was due to analysis of maternal cells instead of products of conception.¹⁷ A 2014 study by Levy and colleagues and another by Lathi and colleagues that utilized single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray found that maternal cell contamination affected 22% of all miscarriage samples analyzed and over half of karyotypes with a 46, XX result.^18,19

Traditional “blind” suction and curettage may inadvertently collect maternal endometrial tissue and contaminate the culture of fetal cells, limiting the validity of karyotype for products of conception.²⁰ The hysteroscopic approach may provide a higher diagnostic yield for karyotype analysis of fetal tissue by the nature of targeted tissue sampling under direct visualization, minimizing maternal cell contamination. One retrospective study by Cholkeri-Singh and colleagues evaluated rates of fetal chromosome detection without maternal contamination in a total of 264 patients undergoing either suction curettage or hysteroscopic resection. They found that fetal chromosomal detection without contamination was significantly higher in the hysteroscopy group compared with the suction curettage group (88.5 vs 64.8%, P< .001).²¹ Additionally, biopsies of tissue under direct visualization may enable the diagnosis of a true placental mosaicism and the study of the individual karyotype of each embryo in dizygotic twin missed abortions.

Finally, a hysteroscopic approach may afford the opportunity to also perform morphologic evaluation of the intact early fetus furthering the diagnostic utility of the procedure. With hysteroscopy, the gestational sac is identified and carefully entered, allowing for complete visualization of the early fetus and assessment of anatomic malformations that may provide insight into the pregnancy loss (ie, embryoscopy). In one series of 272 patients with missed abortions, while nearly 75% of conceptuses had abnormal karyotypes, 18% were found to have gross morphologic defects with a normal karyotype.²²

Bottom line

When faced with a patient with an early pregnancy loss, physicians should consider the decreased iatrogenic risks and improved diagnostic yield when deciding between D&C versus hysteroscopy for surgical management. There are certain patients with pre-existing risk factors that may stand to benefit the most (TABLE 2). Much like the opening case, those at risk for intrauterine adhesions, retained products of conception, or in whom a successful and accurate cytogenetic analysis is essential are the most likely to benefit from a hysteroscopic approach. The hysteroscopic approach also affords concurrent diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine pathology, such as leiomyomas and uterine septum, which are encountered approximately 12.5% of the time after one miscarriage and 29.4% of the time in patients with a history of more than one miscarriage.¹⁰ In the appropriately counseled patient and clinical setting, clinicians could also perform definitive surgical management during the same hysteroscopy. Finally, evaluation of the morphology of the demised fetus may provide additional information for patient counseling in those with euploid pregnancy losses.

CASE Resolved

Ultimately, our patient underwent complete hysteroscopic resection of the pregnancy tissue, which confirmed both a morphologically abnormal fetus and a 45, X karyotype of the products of conception. ●

CASE Concern for surgical management after repeat miscarriage

A 34-year-old woman (G3P0030) with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss was recently diagnosed with a 7-week missed abortion. After her second miscarriage, she had an evaluation for recurrent pregnancy loss which was unremarkable. Both prior miscarriages were managed with dilation & curettage (D&C), but cytogenetic testing of the tissue did not yield a result in either case. The karyotype from the first pregnancy resulted as 46, XX but was confirmed to be due to maternal cell contamination, and the karyotype from the second pregnancy resulted in cell culture failure. The patient is interested in surgical management for her current missed abortion to help with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing, she but is concerned about her risk of intrauterine adhesions with repeated uterine instrumentation given 2 prior D&Cs, one of which was complicated by retained products of conception.

How do you approach the surgical management of this patient with recurrent pregnancy loss?

Approximately 1 in every 8 recognized pregnancies results in miscarriage. The risk of loss is lowest in women with no history of miscarriage (11%), and increases by about 10% for each additional miscarriage, reaching 42% in women with 3 or more previous losses. The population prevalence of women who have had 1 miscarriage is 11%, 2 miscarriages is 2%, and 3 or more is <1%.¹ While 90% of miscarriages occur in the first trimester, their etiology can be quite varied.² A woman’s age is the most strongly associated risk factor, with both very young (<20 years) and older age (>35 years) groups at highest risk. This association is largely attributed to an age-related increase in embryonic chromosomal aneuploidies, of which trisomies, particularly trisomy 16, are the most common.³ Maternal anatomic anomalies such as leiomyomas, intrauterine adhesions, Müllerian anomalies, and adenomyosis have been linked to an increased risk of miscarriage in addition to several lifestyle and environmental factor exposures.¹

Regardless of the etiology, women with recurrent miscarriage are exposed to the potential for iatrogenic harm from the management of their pregnancy loss, including intrauterine adhesions and retained products, which may negatively impact future reproductive attempts. The management of patients with recurrent miscarriages demands special attention to reduce the risk of iatrogenic harm, maximize diagnostic evaluation of the products of conception, and improve future reproductive outcomes.

Management strategies

First trimester pregnancy loss may be managed expectantly, medically, or surgically. Approximately 76% of women who opt for expectant management will successfully pass pregnancy tissue, but for 1 out of every 6 women it may take longer than 14 days.⁴ For patients who prefer to expedite this process, medication abortion is a highly effective and safe option. According to Schreiber and colleagues, a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol together resulted in expulsion in approximately 91% of 148 patients, although 9% still required surgical intervention for incomplete passage of tissue.⁵ Both expectant management and medical management strategies are associated with the potential for retained products of conception requiring subsequent instrumentation as well as tissue that is often unsuitable or contaminated for cytogenetic analysis.

The most definitive treatment option is surgical management via manual or electric vacuum aspiration or curettage, with efficacy approaching 99.6% in some series.⁶ While highly effective, even ultrasound-guided evacuation carries with it procedure-related risks that are of particular consequence for patients of reproductive age, including adhesion formation and retained products of conception.

In 1997, Goldenberg and colleagues reported on the use of hysteroscopy for the management of retained products of conception as a strategy to minimize trauma to the uterus and maximize excision of retained tissue, both of which reduce potential for adhesion formation.⁷ Based on these data, several groups have extended the use of hysteroscopic resection for retained tissue to upfront evacuation following pregnancy loss, in lieu of D&C.^8,9 This approach allows for the direct visualization of the focal removal of the implanted pregnancy tissue, which can:

• decrease the risk of intrauterine adhesion formation
• decrease the risk of retained products of conception
• allow for directed tissue sampling to improve the accuracy of cytogenetic testing
• allow for detection of embryo anatomic anomalies that often go undetected on traditional cytogenetic analysis.

For the remainder of this article, we will discuss the advantages of hysteroscopic management of a missed abortion in greater detail.

Continue to: Hysteroscopic management...

Hysteroscopic management

Like aspiration or curettage, hysteroscopic management may be offered once the diagnosis of fetal demise is confirmed on ultrasonography. The procedure may be accomplished in the office setting or in the operative room with either morcellation or resectoscopic instruments. Morcellation allows for improved visibility during the procedure given the ability of continuous suction to manage tissue fragments in the surgical field, while resectoscopic instruments offer the added benefit of electrosurgery should bleeding that is unresponsive to increased distention pressure be encountered. Use of the cold loop of the resectoscope to accomplish evacuation is advocated to avoid the thermal damage to the endometrium with electrosurgery. Regardless of the chosen instrument, there are several potential benefits for a hysteroscopic approach over the traditional ultrasound-guided or blind D&C.

Reducing risk of iatrogenic harm

Intrauterine adhesions form secondary to trauma to the endometrial basalis layer, where a population of adult progenitor stem cells continuously work to regenerate the overlying functionalis layer. Once damaged, adhesions may form and range from thin, filmy adhesions to dense, cavity obliterating bands of scar tissue (FIGURE). The degree of severity and location of the adhesions account for the variable presentation that range from menstrual abnormalities to infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss. While several classification systems exist for scoring severity of adhesions, the American Fertility Society (now American Society for Reproductive Medicine) Classification system from 1988 is still commonly utilized (TABLE 1).

ILLUSTRATIONS: MARCIA HARTSOCK FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Intrauterine adhesions from D&C after pregnancy loss are not uncommon. A 2014 meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies including 912 women reported a pooled prevalence for intrauterine adhesions of 19.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.8–27.5) on hysteroscopic evaluation within 12 months following curettage.¹⁰ Once formed, these adhesions are associated with long-term impairment in reproductive outcomes, regardless of if they were treated or not. In a long-term follow-up study of women with and without adhesions after recurrent D&C for miscarriage, women with treated adhesions reported lower live birth rates, longer time to pregnancy, higher rates of preterm birth and higher rates of peripartum complications compared with those without adhesions.¹¹

Compared with curettage, hysteroscopy affords the surgeon complete visualization of the uterine cavity and tissue to be resected. This, in turn, minimizes trauma to the surrounding uterine cavity, minimizes the potential for post-procedural adhesion formation and their associated sequelae, and maximizes complete resection of tissue. Those treated with D&C appear to be significantly more likely to have adhesions than those treated via a hysteroscopic approach (30% vs 13%).¹²

Retained products of conception. Classically, a “gritty” sensation of the endometrium following evacuation of the uterus with a sharp curette has been used to indicate complete removal of tissue. The evolution from a nonvisualized procedure to ultrasound-guided vacuum aspiration of 1st trimester pregnancy tissue has been associated with a decreased risk of procedural complications and retained products of conception.¹³ However, even with intraoperative imaging, the risk of retained products of conception remains because it can be difficult to distinguish a small blood clot from retained pregnancy tissue on ultrasonography.

Retained pregnancy tissue can result in abnormal or heavy bleeding, require additional medical or surgical intervention, and is associated with endometrial inflammation and infection. Approximately 1 in every 4 women undergoing hysteroscopic resection of retained products are found to have evidence of endometritis in the resected tissue.¹⁴ This number is even higher in women with a diagnosis of recurrent pregnancy loss (62%).¹⁵

These complications from retained products of conception can be avoided with the hysteroscopic approach due to the direct visualization of the tissue removal. This benefit may be particularly beneficial in patients with known abnormal uterine cavities, such as those with Müllerian anomalies, uterine leiomyomas, preexisting adhesions, and history of placenta accreta spectrum disorder.

Continue to: Maximizing diagnostic yield...

Maximizing diagnostic yield

Many patients prefer surgical management of a missed abortion not for the procedural advantages, but to assist with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing of the pregnancy tissue. Given that embryonic chromosomal aneuploidy is implicated in 70% of miscarriages prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, genetic evaluation of the products of conception is commonly performed to identify a potential cause for the miscarriage.¹⁶ G-band karyotype is the most commonly performed genetic evaluation. Karyotype requires culturing of pregnancy tissue for 7-14 days to produce metaphase cells that are then chemically treated to arrest them at their maximally contracted stage. Cytogenetic evaluation is often curtailed when nonviable cells from products of conception fail to culture due to either time elapsed from diagnosis to demise or damage from tissue handling. Careful, directly observed tissue handling via a hysteroscopic approach may alleviate culture failure secondary to tissue damage.

Another concern with cultures of products of conception is the potential for maternal cell contamination. Early studies from the 1970s noted a significant skew toward 46, XX karyotype results in miscarried tissue as compared with 46, XY results. It was not until microsatellite analysis technology was available that it was determined that the result was due to analysis of maternal cells instead of products of conception.¹⁷ A 2014 study by Levy and colleagues and another by Lathi and colleagues that utilized single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray found that maternal cell contamination affected 22% of all miscarriage samples analyzed and over half of karyotypes with a 46, XX result.^18,19

Traditional “blind” suction and curettage may inadvertently collect maternal endometrial tissue and contaminate the culture of fetal cells, limiting the validity of karyotype for products of conception.²⁰ The hysteroscopic approach may provide a higher diagnostic yield for karyotype analysis of fetal tissue by the nature of targeted tissue sampling under direct visualization, minimizing maternal cell contamination. One retrospective study by Cholkeri-Singh and colleagues evaluated rates of fetal chromosome detection without maternal contamination in a total of 264 patients undergoing either suction curettage or hysteroscopic resection. They found that fetal chromosomal detection without contamination was significantly higher in the hysteroscopy group compared with the suction curettage group (88.5 vs 64.8%, P< .001).²¹ Additionally, biopsies of tissue under direct visualization may enable the diagnosis of a true placental mosaicism and the study of the individual karyotype of each embryo in dizygotic twin missed abortions.

Finally, a hysteroscopic approach may afford the opportunity to also perform morphologic evaluation of the intact early fetus furthering the diagnostic utility of the procedure. With hysteroscopy, the gestational sac is identified and carefully entered, allowing for complete visualization of the early fetus and assessment of anatomic malformations that may provide insight into the pregnancy loss (ie, embryoscopy). In one series of 272 patients with missed abortions, while nearly 75% of conceptuses had abnormal karyotypes, 18% were found to have gross morphologic defects with a normal karyotype.²²

Bottom line

When faced with a patient with an early pregnancy loss, physicians should consider the decreased iatrogenic risks and improved diagnostic yield when deciding between D&C versus hysteroscopy for surgical management. There are certain patients with pre-existing risk factors that may stand to benefit the most (TABLE 2). Much like the opening case, those at risk for intrauterine adhesions, retained products of conception, or in whom a successful and accurate cytogenetic analysis is essential are the most likely to benefit from a hysteroscopic approach. The hysteroscopic approach also affords concurrent diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine pathology, such as leiomyomas and uterine septum, which are encountered approximately 12.5% of the time after one miscarriage and 29.4% of the time in patients with a history of more than one miscarriage.¹⁰ In the appropriately counseled patient and clinical setting, clinicians could also perform definitive surgical management during the same hysteroscopy. Finally, evaluation of the morphology of the demised fetus may provide additional information for patient counseling in those with euploid pregnancy losses.

CASE Resolved

Ultimately, our patient underwent complete hysteroscopic resection of the pregnancy tissue, which confirmed both a morphologically abnormal fetus and a 45, X karyotype of the products of conception. ●

CASE Concern for surgical management after repeat miscarriage

A 34-year-old woman (G3P0030) with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss was recently diagnosed with a 7-week missed abortion. After her second miscarriage, she had an evaluation for recurrent pregnancy loss which was unremarkable. Both prior miscarriages were managed with dilation & curettage (D&C), but cytogenetic testing of the tissue did not yield a result in either case. The karyotype from the first pregnancy resulted as 46, XX but was confirmed to be due to maternal cell contamination, and the karyotype from the second pregnancy resulted in cell culture failure. The patient is interested in surgical management for her current missed abortion to help with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing, she but is concerned about her risk of intrauterine adhesions with repeated uterine instrumentation given 2 prior D&Cs, one of which was complicated by retained products of conception.

How do you approach the surgical management of this patient with recurrent pregnancy loss?

Approximately 1 in every 8 recognized pregnancies results in miscarriage. The risk of loss is lowest in women with no history of miscarriage (11%), and increases by about 10% for each additional miscarriage, reaching 42% in women with 3 or more previous losses. The population prevalence of women who have had 1 miscarriage is 11%, 2 miscarriages is 2%, and 3 or more is <1%.¹ While 90% of miscarriages occur in the first trimester, their etiology can be quite varied.² A woman’s age is the most strongly associated risk factor, with both very young (<20 years) and older age (>35 years) groups at highest risk. This association is largely attributed to an age-related increase in embryonic chromosomal aneuploidies, of which trisomies, particularly trisomy 16, are the most common.³ Maternal anatomic anomalies such as leiomyomas, intrauterine adhesions, Müllerian anomalies, and adenomyosis have been linked to an increased risk of miscarriage in addition to several lifestyle and environmental factor exposures.¹

Regardless of the etiology, women with recurrent miscarriage are exposed to the potential for iatrogenic harm from the management of their pregnancy loss, including intrauterine adhesions and retained products, which may negatively impact future reproductive attempts. The management of patients with recurrent miscarriages demands special attention to reduce the risk of iatrogenic harm, maximize diagnostic evaluation of the products of conception, and improve future reproductive outcomes.

Management strategies

First trimester pregnancy loss may be managed expectantly, medically, or surgically. Approximately 76% of women who opt for expectant management will successfully pass pregnancy tissue, but for 1 out of every 6 women it may take longer than 14 days.⁴ For patients who prefer to expedite this process, medication abortion is a highly effective and safe option. According to Schreiber and colleagues, a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol together resulted in expulsion in approximately 91% of 148 patients, although 9% still required surgical intervention for incomplete passage of tissue.⁵ Both expectant management and medical management strategies are associated with the potential for retained products of conception requiring subsequent instrumentation as well as tissue that is often unsuitable or contaminated for cytogenetic analysis.

The most definitive treatment option is surgical management via manual or electric vacuum aspiration or curettage, with efficacy approaching 99.6% in some series.⁶ While highly effective, even ultrasound-guided evacuation carries with it procedure-related risks that are of particular consequence for patients of reproductive age, including adhesion formation and retained products of conception.

In 1997, Goldenberg and colleagues reported on the use of hysteroscopy for the management of retained products of conception as a strategy to minimize trauma to the uterus and maximize excision of retained tissue, both of which reduce potential for adhesion formation.⁷ Based on these data, several groups have extended the use of hysteroscopic resection for retained tissue to upfront evacuation following pregnancy loss, in lieu of D&C.^8,9 This approach allows for the direct visualization of the focal removal of the implanted pregnancy tissue, which can:

• decrease the risk of intrauterine adhesion formation
• decrease the risk of retained products of conception
• allow for directed tissue sampling to improve the accuracy of cytogenetic testing
• allow for detection of embryo anatomic anomalies that often go undetected on traditional cytogenetic analysis.

For the remainder of this article, we will discuss the advantages of hysteroscopic management of a missed abortion in greater detail.

Continue to: Hysteroscopic management...

Hysteroscopic management

Like aspiration or curettage, hysteroscopic management may be offered once the diagnosis of fetal demise is confirmed on ultrasonography. The procedure may be accomplished in the office setting or in the operative room with either morcellation or resectoscopic instruments. Morcellation allows for improved visibility during the procedure given the ability of continuous suction to manage tissue fragments in the surgical field, while resectoscopic instruments offer the added benefit of electrosurgery should bleeding that is unresponsive to increased distention pressure be encountered. Use of the cold loop of the resectoscope to accomplish evacuation is advocated to avoid the thermal damage to the endometrium with electrosurgery. Regardless of the chosen instrument, there are several potential benefits for a hysteroscopic approach over the traditional ultrasound-guided or blind D&C.

Reducing risk of iatrogenic harm

Intrauterine adhesions form secondary to trauma to the endometrial basalis layer, where a population of adult progenitor stem cells continuously work to regenerate the overlying functionalis layer. Once damaged, adhesions may form and range from thin, filmy adhesions to dense, cavity obliterating bands of scar tissue (FIGURE). The degree of severity and location of the adhesions account for the variable presentation that range from menstrual abnormalities to infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss. While several classification systems exist for scoring severity of adhesions, the American Fertility Society (now American Society for Reproductive Medicine) Classification system from 1988 is still commonly utilized (TABLE 1).

ILLUSTRATIONS: MARCIA HARTSOCK FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Intrauterine adhesions from D&C after pregnancy loss are not uncommon. A 2014 meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies including 912 women reported a pooled prevalence for intrauterine adhesions of 19.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.8–27.5) on hysteroscopic evaluation within 12 months following curettage.¹⁰ Once formed, these adhesions are associated with long-term impairment in reproductive outcomes, regardless of if they were treated or not. In a long-term follow-up study of women with and without adhesions after recurrent D&C for miscarriage, women with treated adhesions reported lower live birth rates, longer time to pregnancy, higher rates of preterm birth and higher rates of peripartum complications compared with those without adhesions.¹¹

Compared with curettage, hysteroscopy affords the surgeon complete visualization of the uterine cavity and tissue to be resected. This, in turn, minimizes trauma to the surrounding uterine cavity, minimizes the potential for post-procedural adhesion formation and their associated sequelae, and maximizes complete resection of tissue. Those treated with D&C appear to be significantly more likely to have adhesions than those treated via a hysteroscopic approach (30% vs 13%).¹²

Retained products of conception. Classically, a “gritty” sensation of the endometrium following evacuation of the uterus with a sharp curette has been used to indicate complete removal of tissue. The evolution from a nonvisualized procedure to ultrasound-guided vacuum aspiration of 1st trimester pregnancy tissue has been associated with a decreased risk of procedural complications and retained products of conception.¹³ However, even with intraoperative imaging, the risk of retained products of conception remains because it can be difficult to distinguish a small blood clot from retained pregnancy tissue on ultrasonography.

Retained pregnancy tissue can result in abnormal or heavy bleeding, require additional medical or surgical intervention, and is associated with endometrial inflammation and infection. Approximately 1 in every 4 women undergoing hysteroscopic resection of retained products are found to have evidence of endometritis in the resected tissue.¹⁴ This number is even higher in women with a diagnosis of recurrent pregnancy loss (62%).¹⁵

These complications from retained products of conception can be avoided with the hysteroscopic approach due to the direct visualization of the tissue removal. This benefit may be particularly beneficial in patients with known abnormal uterine cavities, such as those with Müllerian anomalies, uterine leiomyomas, preexisting adhesions, and history of placenta accreta spectrum disorder.

Continue to: Maximizing diagnostic yield...

Maximizing diagnostic yield

Many patients prefer surgical management of a missed abortion not for the procedural advantages, but to assist with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing of the pregnancy tissue. Given that embryonic chromosomal aneuploidy is implicated in 70% of miscarriages prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, genetic evaluation of the products of conception is commonly performed to identify a potential cause for the miscarriage.¹⁶ G-band karyotype is the most commonly performed genetic evaluation. Karyotype requires culturing of pregnancy tissue for 7-14 days to produce metaphase cells that are then chemically treated to arrest them at their maximally contracted stage. Cytogenetic evaluation is often curtailed when nonviable cells from products of conception fail to culture due to either time elapsed from diagnosis to demise or damage from tissue handling. Careful, directly observed tissue handling via a hysteroscopic approach may alleviate culture failure secondary to tissue damage.

Another concern with cultures of products of conception is the potential for maternal cell contamination. Early studies from the 1970s noted a significant skew toward 46, XX karyotype results in miscarried tissue as compared with 46, XY results. It was not until microsatellite analysis technology was available that it was determined that the result was due to analysis of maternal cells instead of products of conception.¹⁷ A 2014 study by Levy and colleagues and another by Lathi and colleagues that utilized single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray found that maternal cell contamination affected 22% of all miscarriage samples analyzed and over half of karyotypes with a 46, XX result.^18,19

Traditional “blind” suction and curettage may inadvertently collect maternal endometrial tissue and contaminate the culture of fetal cells, limiting the validity of karyotype for products of conception.²⁰ The hysteroscopic approach may provide a higher diagnostic yield for karyotype analysis of fetal tissue by the nature of targeted tissue sampling under direct visualization, minimizing maternal cell contamination. One retrospective study by Cholkeri-Singh and colleagues evaluated rates of fetal chromosome detection without maternal contamination in a total of 264 patients undergoing either suction curettage or hysteroscopic resection. They found that fetal chromosomal detection without contamination was significantly higher in the hysteroscopy group compared with the suction curettage group (88.5 vs 64.8%, P< .001).²¹ Additionally, biopsies of tissue under direct visualization may enable the diagnosis of a true placental mosaicism and the study of the individual karyotype of each embryo in dizygotic twin missed abortions.

Finally, a hysteroscopic approach may afford the opportunity to also perform morphologic evaluation of the intact early fetus furthering the diagnostic utility of the procedure. With hysteroscopy, the gestational sac is identified and carefully entered, allowing for complete visualization of the early fetus and assessment of anatomic malformations that may provide insight into the pregnancy loss (ie, embryoscopy). In one series of 272 patients with missed abortions, while nearly 75% of conceptuses had abnormal karyotypes, 18% were found to have gross morphologic defects with a normal karyotype.²²

Bottom line

When faced with a patient with an early pregnancy loss, physicians should consider the decreased iatrogenic risks and improved diagnostic yield when deciding between D&C versus hysteroscopy for surgical management. There are certain patients with pre-existing risk factors that may stand to benefit the most (TABLE 2). Much like the opening case, those at risk for intrauterine adhesions, retained products of conception, or in whom a successful and accurate cytogenetic analysis is essential are the most likely to benefit from a hysteroscopic approach. The hysteroscopic approach also affords concurrent diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine pathology, such as leiomyomas and uterine septum, which are encountered approximately 12.5% of the time after one miscarriage and 29.4% of the time in patients with a history of more than one miscarriage.¹⁰ In the appropriately counseled patient and clinical setting, clinicians could also perform definitive surgical management during the same hysteroscopy. Finally, evaluation of the morphology of the demised fetus may provide additional information for patient counseling in those with euploid pregnancy losses.

CASE Resolved

Ultimately, our patient underwent complete hysteroscopic resection of the pregnancy tissue, which confirmed both a morphologically abnormal fetus and a 45, X karyotype of the products of conception. ●

Knowledge of the latest evidence on the management of pelvic floor disorders is essential for all practicing ObGyns. In this Update, we review long-term outcomes for a polyacrylamide hydrogel urethral bulking agent for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) that presents a viable alternative to the gold standard, midurethral sling. We review the new recommendations from the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) regarding the administration of anticholinergics, highlighting a paradigm shift in the management of overactive bladder (OAB). In addition, we present data on a proposed threshold glycosylated hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) level for patients undergoing pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery that may help reduce the risk of perioperative complications. Finally, we consider new evidence on the long-term efficacy and safety of transvaginal mesh for repair of POP.

Periurethral injection with  polyacrylamide hydrogel is a  long-term durable and safe  option for women with SUI

Brosche T, Kuhn A, Lobodasch K, et al. Seven-year efficacy and safety outcomes of Bulkamid for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2021;40:502-508. doi:10.1002/nau.24589.

Urethral bulking agents are a less invasive management option for women with SUI compared with the gold standard, midurethral sling. Treatment with a polyacrylamide hydrogel (PAHG; Bulkamid)—a nonparticulate hydrogel bulking agent—showed long-term efficacy and a favorable safety profile at 7 years’ follow-up.

Study details

Brosche and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that included women with SUI or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) who underwent transurethral PAHG injections for primary treatment of their incontinence symptoms. The study objective was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of PAHG based on patient satisfaction. Treatment safety was a secondary outcome.

Pad counts and validated questionnaires were used to determine treatment effectiveness. Additional data on reinjection rates, perioperative complications, and postoperative complications also were collected.

Long-term outcomes favorable

During the study time period, 1,200 patients were treated with PAHG, and 7-year data were available for 553 women. Of the 553 patients, 67% reported improvement or cure of their SUI symptoms when PAHG was performed as a primary procedure, consistent with previously published 12-month data. There were no perioperative complications. Postoperative complications were transient. Short-term subjective prolonged bladder emptying was the most common complication and occurred in 15% of patients.

Continue to: New society guidance...

New society guidance on the use  of anticholinergic medications  for the treatment of OAB

AUGS Clinical Consensus Statement: Association of anticholinergic medication use and cognition in women with overactive bladder. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021;27:69-71. doi:10.1097/ SPV.0000000000001008.

In 2021, AUGS updated its consensus statement on the use of anticholinergic medications for the treatment of OAB. This action was in response to growing evidence that supports the association of anticholinergic medications with long-term cognitive adverse effects, including cognitive impairment, dementia, and Alzheimer disease.

Here, we summarize the most recent modifications, which differentiate the updated statement from the preceding consensus document published in 2017.

Updated AUGS recommendations

• If considering anticholinergic medications, counsel patients about the risk of cognitive adverse effects and weigh these risks against the potential benefits to their quality of life and overall health.
• Use the lowest possible dose when prescribing anticholinergics and consider alternatives such as β3 agonists (for example, mirabegron or vibegron).
• Avoid using anticholinergic medications in women older than age 70. However, if an anticholinergic must be used, consider a medication that has low potential to cross the blood-brain barrier (for example, trospium).

 HbA_1c levels > 8% may increase complications risk in urogyn surgery

Ringel NE, de Winter KL, Siddique M, et al. Surgical outcomes in urogynecology—assessment of perioperative and postoperative complications relative to preoperative hemoglobin A1c—a Fellows Pelvic Research Network study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2022;28:7-13. doi:10.1097/ SPV.0000000000001057.

Diabetes mellitus is a known risk factor for complications following surgery. Adoption of an HbA_1c level threshold for risk stratification before urogynecologic surgery may help improve patient outcomes.

Study details

Ringel and colleagues conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study that included women with diabetes mellitus who underwent prolapse and/or SUI surgery between 2013 and 2018. The aim of the study was to identify a hemoglobin A_1C threshold that would help predict increased risk for perioperative complications in women undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery. Demographics, preoperative HbA_1c levels, and surgical data were collected.

Complication risks correlated with higher HbA_1c threshold

The study included 807 women with HbA_1c values that ranged from 5% to 12%. The overall complication rate was 44%. Sensitivity analysis was performed to compare complication rates between patients with varying HbA_1c levels and determine a threshold HbA_1c value with the greatest difference in complication rates.

The authors concluded that women with an HbA_1c level ≥ 8% showed the greatest increase of perioperative complications. Patients with an HbA_1c ≥ 8%, compared with those who had an HbA_1c < 8%, had a statistically significantly increased rate of overall (58% vs 42%, P = .002) and severe (27% vs 13%, P< .001) perioperative complications.

After multivariate logistic regression, the risk of overall complications remained elevated, with a 1.9-times higher risk of perioperative complications for women with an HbA_1c ≥ 8%.

Continue to:  Success is similar for TV mesh  and native tissue repair...

Success is similar for TV mesh  and native tissue repair

Kahn B, Varner RE, Murphy M, et al. Transvaginal mesh compared with native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:975-985. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004794.

The distribution of vaginal mesh kits for the repair of POP was halted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019. However, concerns have been raised about the measures used by the FDA to justify pulling these devices from the market. A cohort study compared 36-month outcomes between women who underwent prolapse repair with newer generation transvaginal mesh versus native tissue repair.

Study details

In a nonrandomized prospective multicenter cohort study, Kahn and colleagues compared outcomes in women with POP who underwent native tissue repair or transvaginal mesh repair with the Uphold LITE vaginal support system. The study’s objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of native tissue and transvaginal mesh prolapse repairs at 36 months postoperatively.

Treatment success was measured based on composite and individual measures of anatomic and subjective success, need for retreatment, and the occurrence of adverse events. Quality of life (QoL) measures also were obtained using validated questionnaires. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed.

Composite success rate was higher for mesh repair

A total of 710 patients were screened for eligibility (225 received transvaginal mesh and 485 received native tissue repair). Transvaginal mesh placement was found to be significantly superior to native tissue repair for composite success (84% vs 73%, P = .009) when prolapse within the hymen (that is, Ba and/or C < 0 on the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System) was used to define anatomic success.

Adverse events were similar between transvaginal mesh and native tissue repair groups, with most adverse events occurring within the first 6 months. The mesh exposure rate was 4.9%. Of the 13 incidents of mesh exposure, 4 patients required surgical intervention and 1 incident was considered a serious adverse event. QoL measures demonstrated improvement without any statistically significant differences between the treatment cohorts. ●

Knowledge of the latest evidence on the management of pelvic floor disorders is essential for all practicing ObGyns. In this Update, we review long-term outcomes for a polyacrylamide hydrogel urethral bulking agent for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) that presents a viable alternative to the gold standard, midurethral sling. We review the new recommendations from the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) regarding the administration of anticholinergics, highlighting a paradigm shift in the management of overactive bladder (OAB). In addition, we present data on a proposed threshold glycosylated hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) level for patients undergoing pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery that may help reduce the risk of perioperative complications. Finally, we consider new evidence on the long-term efficacy and safety of transvaginal mesh for repair of POP.

Periurethral injection with  polyacrylamide hydrogel is a  long-term durable and safe  option for women with SUI

Brosche T, Kuhn A, Lobodasch K, et al. Seven-year efficacy and safety outcomes of Bulkamid for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2021;40:502-508. doi:10.1002/nau.24589.

Urethral bulking agents are a less invasive management option for women with SUI compared with the gold standard, midurethral sling. Treatment with a polyacrylamide hydrogel (PAHG; Bulkamid)—a nonparticulate hydrogel bulking agent—showed long-term efficacy and a favorable safety profile at 7 years’ follow-up.

Study details

Brosche and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that included women with SUI or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) who underwent transurethral PAHG injections for primary treatment of their incontinence symptoms. The study objective was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of PAHG based on patient satisfaction. Treatment safety was a secondary outcome.

Pad counts and validated questionnaires were used to determine treatment effectiveness. Additional data on reinjection rates, perioperative complications, and postoperative complications also were collected.

Long-term outcomes favorable

During the study time period, 1,200 patients were treated with PAHG, and 7-year data were available for 553 women. Of the 553 patients, 67% reported improvement or cure of their SUI symptoms when PAHG was performed as a primary procedure, consistent with previously published 12-month data. There were no perioperative complications. Postoperative complications were transient. Short-term subjective prolonged bladder emptying was the most common complication and occurred in 15% of patients.

Continue to: New society guidance...

New society guidance on the use  of anticholinergic medications  for the treatment of OAB

AUGS Clinical Consensus Statement: Association of anticholinergic medication use and cognition in women with overactive bladder. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021;27:69-71. doi:10.1097/ SPV.0000000000001008.

In 2021, AUGS updated its consensus statement on the use of anticholinergic medications for the treatment of OAB. This action was in response to growing evidence that supports the association of anticholinergic medications with long-term cognitive adverse effects, including cognitive impairment, dementia, and Alzheimer disease.

Here, we summarize the most recent modifications, which differentiate the updated statement from the preceding consensus document published in 2017.

Updated AUGS recommendations

• If considering anticholinergic medications, counsel patients about the risk of cognitive adverse effects and weigh these risks against the potential benefits to their quality of life and overall health.
• Use the lowest possible dose when prescribing anticholinergics and consider alternatives such as β3 agonists (for example, mirabegron or vibegron).
• Avoid using anticholinergic medications in women older than age 70. However, if an anticholinergic must be used, consider a medication that has low potential to cross the blood-brain barrier (for example, trospium).

 HbA_1c levels > 8% may increase complications risk in urogyn surgery

Ringel NE, de Winter KL, Siddique M, et al. Surgical outcomes in urogynecology—assessment of perioperative and postoperative complications relative to preoperative hemoglobin A1c—a Fellows Pelvic Research Network study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2022;28:7-13. doi:10.1097/ SPV.0000000000001057.

Diabetes mellitus is a known risk factor for complications following surgery. Adoption of an HbA_1c level threshold for risk stratification before urogynecologic surgery may help improve patient outcomes.

Study details

Ringel and colleagues conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study that included women with diabetes mellitus who underwent prolapse and/or SUI surgery between 2013 and 2018. The aim of the study was to identify a hemoglobin A_1C threshold that would help predict increased risk for perioperative complications in women undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery. Demographics, preoperative HbA_1c levels, and surgical data were collected.

Complication risks correlated with higher HbA_1c threshold

The study included 807 women with HbA_1c values that ranged from 5% to 12%. The overall complication rate was 44%. Sensitivity analysis was performed to compare complication rates between patients with varying HbA_1c levels and determine a threshold HbA_1c value with the greatest difference in complication rates.

The authors concluded that women with an HbA_1c level ≥ 8% showed the greatest increase of perioperative complications. Patients with an HbA_1c ≥ 8%, compared with those who had an HbA_1c < 8%, had a statistically significantly increased rate of overall (58% vs 42%, P = .002) and severe (27% vs 13%, P< .001) perioperative complications.

After multivariate logistic regression, the risk of overall complications remained elevated, with a 1.9-times higher risk of perioperative complications for women with an HbA_1c ≥ 8%.

Continue to:  Success is similar for TV mesh  and native tissue repair...

Success is similar for TV mesh  and native tissue repair

Kahn B, Varner RE, Murphy M, et al. Transvaginal mesh compared with native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:975-985. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004794.

The distribution of vaginal mesh kits for the repair of POP was halted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019. However, concerns have been raised about the measures used by the FDA to justify pulling these devices from the market. A cohort study compared 36-month outcomes between women who underwent prolapse repair with newer generation transvaginal mesh versus native tissue repair.

Study details

In a nonrandomized prospective multicenter cohort study, Kahn and colleagues compared outcomes in women with POP who underwent native tissue repair or transvaginal mesh repair with the Uphold LITE vaginal support system. The study’s objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of native tissue and transvaginal mesh prolapse repairs at 36 months postoperatively.

Treatment success was measured based on composite and individual measures of anatomic and subjective success, need for retreatment, and the occurrence of adverse events. Quality of life (QoL) measures also were obtained using validated questionnaires. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed.

Composite success rate was higher for mesh repair

A total of 710 patients were screened for eligibility (225 received transvaginal mesh and 485 received native tissue repair). Transvaginal mesh placement was found to be significantly superior to native tissue repair for composite success (84% vs 73%, P = .009) when prolapse within the hymen (that is, Ba and/or C < 0 on the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System) was used to define anatomic success.

Adverse events were similar between transvaginal mesh and native tissue repair groups, with most adverse events occurring within the first 6 months. The mesh exposure rate was 4.9%. Of the 13 incidents of mesh exposure, 4 patients required surgical intervention and 1 incident was considered a serious adverse event. QoL measures demonstrated improvement without any statistically significant differences between the treatment cohorts. ●

Knowledge of the latest evidence on the management of pelvic floor disorders is essential for all practicing ObGyns. In this Update, we review long-term outcomes for a polyacrylamide hydrogel urethral bulking agent for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) that presents a viable alternative to the gold standard, midurethral sling. We review the new recommendations from the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) regarding the administration of anticholinergics, highlighting a paradigm shift in the management of overactive bladder (OAB). In addition, we present data on a proposed threshold glycosylated hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) level for patients undergoing pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery that may help reduce the risk of perioperative complications. Finally, we consider new evidence on the long-term efficacy and safety of transvaginal mesh for repair of POP.

Periurethral injection with  polyacrylamide hydrogel is a  long-term durable and safe  option for women with SUI

Brosche T, Kuhn A, Lobodasch K, et al. Seven-year efficacy and safety outcomes of Bulkamid for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2021;40:502-508. doi:10.1002/nau.24589.

Urethral bulking agents are a less invasive management option for women with SUI compared with the gold standard, midurethral sling. Treatment with a polyacrylamide hydrogel (PAHG; Bulkamid)—a nonparticulate hydrogel bulking agent—showed long-term efficacy and a favorable safety profile at 7 years’ follow-up.

Study details

Brosche and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that included women with SUI or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) who underwent transurethral PAHG injections for primary treatment of their incontinence symptoms. The study objective was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of PAHG based on patient satisfaction. Treatment safety was a secondary outcome.

Pad counts and validated questionnaires were used to determine treatment effectiveness. Additional data on reinjection rates, perioperative complications, and postoperative complications also were collected.

Long-term outcomes favorable

During the study time period, 1,200 patients were treated with PAHG, and 7-year data were available for 553 women. Of the 553 patients, 67% reported improvement or cure of their SUI symptoms when PAHG was performed as a primary procedure, consistent with previously published 12-month data. There were no perioperative complications. Postoperative complications were transient. Short-term subjective prolonged bladder emptying was the most common complication and occurred in 15% of patients.

Continue to: New society guidance...

New society guidance on the use  of anticholinergic medications  for the treatment of OAB

AUGS Clinical Consensus Statement: Association of anticholinergic medication use and cognition in women with overactive bladder. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021;27:69-71. doi:10.1097/ SPV.0000000000001008.

In 2021, AUGS updated its consensus statement on the use of anticholinergic medications for the treatment of OAB. This action was in response to growing evidence that supports the association of anticholinergic medications with long-term cognitive adverse effects, including cognitive impairment, dementia, and Alzheimer disease.

Here, we summarize the most recent modifications, which differentiate the updated statement from the preceding consensus document published in 2017.

Updated AUGS recommendations

• If considering anticholinergic medications, counsel patients about the risk of cognitive adverse effects and weigh these risks against the potential benefits to their quality of life and overall health.
• Use the lowest possible dose when prescribing anticholinergics and consider alternatives such as β3 agonists (for example, mirabegron or vibegron).
• Avoid using anticholinergic medications in women older than age 70. However, if an anticholinergic must be used, consider a medication that has low potential to cross the blood-brain barrier (for example, trospium).

 HbA_1c levels > 8% may increase complications risk in urogyn surgery

Ringel NE, de Winter KL, Siddique M, et al. Surgical outcomes in urogynecology—assessment of perioperative and postoperative complications relative to preoperative hemoglobin A1c—a Fellows Pelvic Research Network study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2022;28:7-13. doi:10.1097/ SPV.0000000000001057.

Diabetes mellitus is a known risk factor for complications following surgery. Adoption of an HbA_1c level threshold for risk stratification before urogynecologic surgery may help improve patient outcomes.

Study details

Ringel and colleagues conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study that included women with diabetes mellitus who underwent prolapse and/or SUI surgery between 2013 and 2018. The aim of the study was to identify a hemoglobin A_1C threshold that would help predict increased risk for perioperative complications in women undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery. Demographics, preoperative HbA_1c levels, and surgical data were collected.

Complication risks correlated with higher HbA_1c threshold

The study included 807 women with HbA_1c values that ranged from 5% to 12%. The overall complication rate was 44%. Sensitivity analysis was performed to compare complication rates between patients with varying HbA_1c levels and determine a threshold HbA_1c value with the greatest difference in complication rates.

The authors concluded that women with an HbA_1c level ≥ 8% showed the greatest increase of perioperative complications. Patients with an HbA_1c ≥ 8%, compared with those who had an HbA_1c < 8%, had a statistically significantly increased rate of overall (58% vs 42%, P = .002) and severe (27% vs 13%, P< .001) perioperative complications.

After multivariate logistic regression, the risk of overall complications remained elevated, with a 1.9-times higher risk of perioperative complications for women with an HbA_1c ≥ 8%.

Continue to:  Success is similar for TV mesh  and native tissue repair...

Success is similar for TV mesh  and native tissue repair

Kahn B, Varner RE, Murphy M, et al. Transvaginal mesh compared with native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:975-985. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004794.

The distribution of vaginal mesh kits for the repair of POP was halted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019. However, concerns have been raised about the measures used by the FDA to justify pulling these devices from the market. A cohort study compared 36-month outcomes between women who underwent prolapse repair with newer generation transvaginal mesh versus native tissue repair.

Study details

In a nonrandomized prospective multicenter cohort study, Kahn and colleagues compared outcomes in women with POP who underwent native tissue repair or transvaginal mesh repair with the Uphold LITE vaginal support system. The study’s objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of native tissue and transvaginal mesh prolapse repairs at 36 months postoperatively.

Treatment success was measured based on composite and individual measures of anatomic and subjective success, need for retreatment, and the occurrence of adverse events. Quality of life (QoL) measures also were obtained using validated questionnaires. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed.

Composite success rate was higher for mesh repair

A total of 710 patients were screened for eligibility (225 received transvaginal mesh and 485 received native tissue repair). Transvaginal mesh placement was found to be significantly superior to native tissue repair for composite success (84% vs 73%, P = .009) when prolapse within the hymen (that is, Ba and/or C < 0 on the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System) was used to define anatomic success.

Adverse events were similar between transvaginal mesh and native tissue repair groups, with most adverse events occurring within the first 6 months. The mesh exposure rate was 4.9%. Of the 13 incidents of mesh exposure, 4 patients required surgical intervention and 1 incident was considered a serious adverse event. QoL measures demonstrated improvement without any statistically significant differences between the treatment cohorts. ●

ILLUSTRATION: KATERYNA KON/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY

Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) is a common cause of vaginitis and gynecologic morbidity in the United States and globally.¹ RVVC is defined as at least 3 laboratory-confirmed (for example, culture, nucleic acid amplification test [NAAT]) symptomatic episodes in the previous 12 months.² Common symptoms include vulvar pruritus, erythema, local skin and mucosal irritation, and abnormal discharge that may be thick and white or thin and watery.

The true incidence of RVVC is difficult to determine due to clinical diagnostic inaccuracy that results in over- and underdiagnosis of VVC and the general availability of over-the-counter topical antifungal medications that individuals who self-diagnose use to treat VVC.³

Causative organisms

Vulvovaginal yeast infections are caused by Candida species, a family of ubiquitous fungi that are a part of normal genitourinary and gastrointestinal flora.⁴ As such, these infections are commonly termed VVC. The presence of Candida species in the vagina without evidence of inflammation is not considered an infection but rather is more consistent with vaginal colonization. Inflammation in the setting of Candida species is what characterizes a true VVC infection.⁴

Candida albicans is responsible for the vast majority of VVC cases in the United States, with Candida glabrata accounting for most of the remaining infections.⁵ The majority of RVVC infections that are caused by C albicans are due to azole-sensitive strains (85%–95% of infections).²C glabrata, by contrast, is intrinsically resistant to azoles, which is thought primarily to be due to overexpression of drug efflux pumps that remove active drug from the cell.^6,7

Why does VVC reoccur?

The pathogenesis of RVVC is not well understood. Predisposing factors may include frequent or recent antibiotic use, poorly controlled diabetes, immunodeficiency, and other host factors. However, many cases of RVVC are idiopathic and no predisposing or underlying conditions are identified.⁷

The role of genetic factors in predisposing to or triggering RVVC is unclear and is an area of ongoing investigation.² Longitudinal DNA-typing studies suggest that recurrent disease is usually due to relapse from a persistent vaginal reservoir of organisms (that is, vaginal colonization) or endogenous reinfection with identical strains of susceptible C albicans.^8,9 Symptomatic VVC likely results when the symbiotic balance between yeast and the normal vaginal microbiota is disrupted (by either Candida species overgrowth or changes in host immune factors).² Less commonly, “recurrent” infections may in fact be due to azole-resistant Candida and non-Candida species.²

Clinical aspects and diagnosis of VVC

Signs and symptoms suggestive of VVC include vulvovaginal erythema, edema, vaginal discharge, vulvovaginal pruritus, and irritation. Given the lack of specificity of individual clinical findings in diagnosing VVC, or for distinguishing between other common causes of vaginitis (such as bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis), laboratory testing (that is, microscopy) should be performed in combination with a clinical exam in order to make a confident diagnosis of VVC.¹⁰ Self-diagnosis of VVC is inaccurate and is not recommended, as misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment is cost ineffective, delays accurate diagnoses, and may contribute to growing azole resistance.

In patients with signs and symptoms of VVC, saline and potassium hydroxide microscopy should be performed.⁷ TABLE 1 summarizes other major diagnostic techniques for VVC.

Diagnostic considerations

Non-albicans Candida species, such as C glabrata, may be associated with minimally symptomatic or completely asymptomatic infections and may not be identified easily on wet mount as it does not form pseudohyphae or hyphae.¹¹ Therefore, culture and susceptibility or NAAT testing is highly recommended for patients who remain symptomatic and/or have a nondiagnostic microscopy and a normal vaginal pH.⁷

Treatment options

Prior to May 2022, there had been no drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat RVVC. The mainstay of treatment is long-term maintenance therapy to achieve mycologic remission (TABLE 2).

In general, recurrent episodes of VVC should be treated with a longer duration of therapy (for example, oral fluconazole 150 mg every 72 hours for a total of 3 doses or topical azole for 7–14 days).⁷ If recurrent maintenance/suppressive therapy is started, the induction phase should be longer as well, at least 10 to 14 days with a topical or oral azole followed by a 6-month or longer course of weekly oral or topical azole therapy (such as 6–12 months).^12,13

Patients with underlying immunodeficiency (such as poorly controlled diabetes, chronic corticosteroid treatment) may need prolonged courses of therapy. Correction of modifiable conditions and optimization of comorbidities should be prioritized—for example, optimized glucose control, weight loss, durable viral suppression, and so on. Of note, symptomatic VVC is more frequent among individuals with HIV and correlates with severity of immunodeficiency. Pharmacologic options for RVVC for individuals with HIV do not differ from standard recommendations.¹⁴

Fluconazole

Fluconazole is a safe, affordable, and convenient prescription oral medication that can be used for initial and maintenance/suppressive therapy.² Fluconazole levels in vaginal secretions remain at therapeutic concentrations for at least 72 hours after a 150-mg dose.¹⁵ Induction therapy consists of oral fluconazole 150 mg every 72 hours for a total of 3 doses, followed by a maintenance regimen of a once-weekly dose of oral fluconazole 150 mg for a total of 6 months. Unfortunately, up to 55% of patients will experience a relapse in symptoms.¹²

Routine liver function test monitoring is not indicated for fluconazole maintenance therapy, but it should be performed if patients are treated with daily or long-term alternative oral azole medications, such as ketoconazole and itraconazole.

During pregnancy, only topical azole therapy is recommended for use, given the potential risk for adverse fetal outcomes, such as spontaneous abortion and congenital malformations, with fetal exposure to oral fluconazole ingested by the pregnant person.¹⁶ Fluconazole is present in breast milk, but it is safe to use during lactation when used at recommended doses.¹⁷

Continue to: Options for fluconazole-resistant C albicans infection...

Options for fluconazole-resistant C albicans infection

Patients who have RVVC with frequent and/or prolonged use of fluconazole are at risk for developing azole-resistant isolates of C albicans.¹² For patients found to have azole-resistant infections, treatment options include increasing the azole dose based on isolate minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to various antifungals, therapy with a non-fluconazole azole regimen, or switching to a different therapeutic drug class altogether.⁷

Options for non- albicans Candida species infection

Given the intrinsic resistance to azole therapy in some non-albicans Candida species (specifically C glabrata and Candida krusei), boric acid or nystatin regimens can be used. An induction course of vaginal boric acid is given as 600 mg per vagina daily for up to 14 days and is associated with a 70% rate of mycologic control.⁷ Boric acid is known to cause local irritation and dermatitis for both the patient and any sexual partners. If ingested orally, boric acid is associated with significant toxicity and even death.⁷

Vaginal nystatin also may be considered, with an induction course of 100,000 U for 14 days, with a similar regimen recommended for maintenance therapy. However, data are limited on maintenance regimens for RVVC due to non-albicans Candida species.²

Gentian violet

Gentian violet is a topical antiseptic agent that is available over the counter. Use of this agent is uncommon given the availability of highly effective azole-based therapy. Although useful due to its antipruritic properties, gentian violet can be messy to use and tends to stain clothing permanently.

Gentian violet use may be considered in cases of refractory RVVC with or without azole-resistant infections; it is applied as a 1% or 2% solution directly to affected areas for 10 to 14 days.¹⁸

Lactobacilli probiotics and dietary changes

Data that support the oral and/or vaginal use of probiotics that contain live lactobacilli are conflicting. In the absence of conclusive evidence to support probiotic use to treat and prevent RVVC, as well as variable quality of available products, use of these agents is not recommended.¹⁹

No controlled studies have evaluated the role of various diets in preventing RVVC; thus, no specific dietary changes are recommended.

Behavioral therapy

Available evidence does not support the treatment of sexual partners of patients with RVVC.⁷

Continue to: What’s new in treatment?...

Until recently, the main standard of care for RVVC has been oral fluconazole-based therapy. For patients whose symptoms do not respond to oral fluconazole therapy, oteseconazole is now available as a noninferior treatment option to fluconazole for both induction and maintenance therapy. Like other azoles, oteseconazole works by inhibiting a fungal enzyme (CYP51) that is essential in fungal cell membrane integrity and fungal growth.²⁰ Oteseconazole is a more selective inhibitor of the fungal CYP51 enzyme and has demonstrated excellent potency against Candida species in in vitro pharmacologic studies.²¹

In a phase 3 study that evaluated the safety and efficacy of oteseconazole in the treatment and prevention of RVVC, oteseconazole was found to be both safe and efficacious in both the induction and maintenance phases of treatment for RVVC.²⁰ In this trial, induction and maintenance with oteseconazole was compared with induction with fluconazole and placebo maintenance. Among the 185 participants with culture-verified RVVC, the oteseconazole regimen (n = 123) was associated with fewer recurrences of culture-verified VVC infections than was the fluconazole induction/placebo maintenance regimen (n = 62) during the 48-week maintenance phase of therapy (5% vs 42%).²⁰

Single- and dual-drug dosing regimens of oteseconazole are recommended based on previous trial data that compared safety and efficacy of oteseconazole versus fluconazole induction therapy and oteseconazole versus placebo maintenance therapy.²² However, widespread use of oteseconazole regimens are limited due to its higher costs and limited access to the drug outside of a research setting.²⁰

Single-drug induction therapy with oteseconazole consists of a single 600-mg oral dose on day 1 followed by a second dose of 450 mg orally on day 2. Starting on day 14, maintenance therapy starts with a single oral dose of 150 mg and is continued weekly for 11 weeks.²²

Dual-drug induction therapy consists of oral fluconazole 150 mg on days 1, 4, and 7 followed by daily dosing of oral oteseconazole 150 mg on days 14 through 20. Then, starting on day 28, weekly dosing of oral oteseconazole 150 mg is continued for 11 weeks.²²

Effects on pregnancy and lactation. Concerns of oteseconazole’s fetal teratogenicity are based on animal reproduction studies that reported ocular abnormalities from in utero exposure. Human data are insufficient to determine if oteseconazole is excreted in breast milk or what its effects are on milk production. Among breastfed infants whose mothers were exposed to oteseconazole during lactation, no adverse outcomes were reported, but follow up of oteseconazole-exposed infants was limited. ²² Therefore, use of oteseconazole among pregnant and/or lactating persons with RVVC is contraindicated at this time. The long-half life (approximately 138 days) of oteseconazole may preclude use among persons attempting pregnancy. ²²

Other therapies. The other common classes of antifungal therapy used in the treatment of RVVC include the polyenes (for example, amphotericin B) and echinocandins (such as caspofungin) drug classes. Emerging azole-resistance among Candida species has been recognized as a significant concern from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ⁷ Echinocandins, which are generally better tolerated and have a lower adverse side effect profile than polyenes, are a promising therapeutic class, but currently they are limited to intravenous options. SCY-078, a novel oral echinocandin in development, has shown in vitro fungicidal activity against multiple albicans and non-albicans Candida species in pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies.²³

Continued development of alternative, non-azole-based therapies for Candida species is needed.●

ILLUSTRATION: KATERYNA KON/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY

Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) is a common cause of vaginitis and gynecologic morbidity in the United States and globally.¹ RVVC is defined as at least 3 laboratory-confirmed (for example, culture, nucleic acid amplification test [NAAT]) symptomatic episodes in the previous 12 months.² Common symptoms include vulvar pruritus, erythema, local skin and mucosal irritation, and abnormal discharge that may be thick and white or thin and watery.

The true incidence of RVVC is difficult to determine due to clinical diagnostic inaccuracy that results in over- and underdiagnosis of VVC and the general availability of over-the-counter topical antifungal medications that individuals who self-diagnose use to treat VVC.³

Causative organisms

Vulvovaginal yeast infections are caused by Candida species, a family of ubiquitous fungi that are a part of normal genitourinary and gastrointestinal flora.⁴ As such, these infections are commonly termed VVC. The presence of Candida species in the vagina without evidence of inflammation is not considered an infection but rather is more consistent with vaginal colonization. Inflammation in the setting of Candida species is what characterizes a true VVC infection.⁴

Candida albicans is responsible for the vast majority of VVC cases in the United States, with Candida glabrata accounting for most of the remaining infections.⁵ The majority of RVVC infections that are caused by C albicans are due to azole-sensitive strains (85%–95% of infections).²C glabrata, by contrast, is intrinsically resistant to azoles, which is thought primarily to be due to overexpression of drug efflux pumps that remove active drug from the cell.^6,7

Why does VVC reoccur?

The pathogenesis of RVVC is not well understood. Predisposing factors may include frequent or recent antibiotic use, poorly controlled diabetes, immunodeficiency, and other host factors. However, many cases of RVVC are idiopathic and no predisposing or underlying conditions are identified.⁷

The role of genetic factors in predisposing to or triggering RVVC is unclear and is an area of ongoing investigation.² Longitudinal DNA-typing studies suggest that recurrent disease is usually due to relapse from a persistent vaginal reservoir of organisms (that is, vaginal colonization) or endogenous reinfection with identical strains of susceptible C albicans.^8,9 Symptomatic VVC likely results when the symbiotic balance between yeast and the normal vaginal microbiota is disrupted (by either Candida species overgrowth or changes in host immune factors).² Less commonly, “recurrent” infections may in fact be due to azole-resistant Candida and non-Candida species.²

Clinical aspects and diagnosis of VVC

Signs and symptoms suggestive of VVC include vulvovaginal erythema, edema, vaginal discharge, vulvovaginal pruritus, and irritation. Given the lack of specificity of individual clinical findings in diagnosing VVC, or for distinguishing between other common causes of vaginitis (such as bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis), laboratory testing (that is, microscopy) should be performed in combination with a clinical exam in order to make a confident diagnosis of VVC.¹⁰ Self-diagnosis of VVC is inaccurate and is not recommended, as misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment is cost ineffective, delays accurate diagnoses, and may contribute to growing azole resistance.

In patients with signs and symptoms of VVC, saline and potassium hydroxide microscopy should be performed.⁷ TABLE 1 summarizes other major diagnostic techniques for VVC.

Diagnostic considerations

Non-albicans Candida species, such as C glabrata, may be associated with minimally symptomatic or completely asymptomatic infections and may not be identified easily on wet mount as it does not form pseudohyphae or hyphae.¹¹ Therefore, culture and susceptibility or NAAT testing is highly recommended for patients who remain symptomatic and/or have a nondiagnostic microscopy and a normal vaginal pH.⁷

Treatment options

Prior to May 2022, there had been no drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat RVVC. The mainstay of treatment is long-term maintenance therapy to achieve mycologic remission (TABLE 2).

In general, recurrent episodes of VVC should be treated with a longer duration of therapy (for example, oral fluconazole 150 mg every 72 hours for a total of 3 doses or topical azole for 7–14 days).⁷ If recurrent maintenance/suppressive therapy is started, the induction phase should be longer as well, at least 10 to 14 days with a topical or oral azole followed by a 6-month or longer course of weekly oral or topical azole therapy (such as 6–12 months).^12,13

Patients with underlying immunodeficiency (such as poorly controlled diabetes, chronic corticosteroid treatment) may need prolonged courses of therapy. Correction of modifiable conditions and optimization of comorbidities should be prioritized—for example, optimized glucose control, weight loss, durable viral suppression, and so on. Of note, symptomatic VVC is more frequent among individuals with HIV and correlates with severity of immunodeficiency. Pharmacologic options for RVVC for individuals with HIV do not differ from standard recommendations.¹⁴

Fluconazole

Fluconazole is a safe, affordable, and convenient prescription oral medication that can be used for initial and maintenance/suppressive therapy.² Fluconazole levels in vaginal secretions remain at therapeutic concentrations for at least 72 hours after a 150-mg dose.¹⁵ Induction therapy consists of oral fluconazole 150 mg every 72 hours for a total of 3 doses, followed by a maintenance regimen of a once-weekly dose of oral fluconazole 150 mg for a total of 6 months. Unfortunately, up to 55% of patients will experience a relapse in symptoms.¹²

Routine liver function test monitoring is not indicated for fluconazole maintenance therapy, but it should be performed if patients are treated with daily or long-term alternative oral azole medications, such as ketoconazole and itraconazole.

During pregnancy, only topical azole therapy is recommended for use, given the potential risk for adverse fetal outcomes, such as spontaneous abortion and congenital malformations, with fetal exposure to oral fluconazole ingested by the pregnant person.¹⁶ Fluconazole is present in breast milk, but it is safe to use during lactation when used at recommended doses.¹⁷

Continue to: Options for fluconazole-resistant C albicans infection...

Options for fluconazole-resistant C albicans infection

Patients who have RVVC with frequent and/or prolonged use of fluconazole are at risk for developing azole-resistant isolates of C albicans.¹² For patients found to have azole-resistant infections, treatment options include increasing the azole dose based on isolate minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to various antifungals, therapy with a non-fluconazole azole regimen, or switching to a different therapeutic drug class altogether.⁷

Options for non- albicans Candida species infection

Given the intrinsic resistance to azole therapy in some non-albicans Candida species (specifically C glabrata and Candida krusei), boric acid or nystatin regimens can be used. An induction course of vaginal boric acid is given as 600 mg per vagina daily for up to 14 days and is associated with a 70% rate of mycologic control.⁷ Boric acid is known to cause local irritation and dermatitis for both the patient and any sexual partners. If ingested orally, boric acid is associated with significant toxicity and even death.⁷

Vaginal nystatin also may be considered, with an induction course of 100,000 U for 14 days, with a similar regimen recommended for maintenance therapy. However, data are limited on maintenance regimens for RVVC due to non-albicans Candida species.²

Gentian violet

Gentian violet is a topical antiseptic agent that is available over the counter. Use of this agent is uncommon given the availability of highly effective azole-based therapy. Although useful due to its antipruritic properties, gentian violet can be messy to use and tends to stain clothing permanently.

Gentian violet use may be considered in cases of refractory RVVC with or without azole-resistant infections; it is applied as a 1% or 2% solution directly to affected areas for 10 to 14 days.¹⁸

Lactobacilli probiotics and dietary changes

Data that support the oral and/or vaginal use of probiotics that contain live lactobacilli are conflicting. In the absence of conclusive evidence to support probiotic use to treat and prevent RVVC, as well as variable quality of available products, use of these agents is not recommended.¹⁹

No controlled studies have evaluated the role of various diets in preventing RVVC; thus, no specific dietary changes are recommended.

Behavioral therapy

Available evidence does not support the treatment of sexual partners of patients with RVVC.⁷

Continue to: What’s new in treatment?...

Until recently, the main standard of care for RVVC has been oral fluconazole-based therapy. For patients whose symptoms do not respond to oral fluconazole therapy, oteseconazole is now available as a noninferior treatment option to fluconazole for both induction and maintenance therapy. Like other azoles, oteseconazole works by inhibiting a fungal enzyme (CYP51) that is essential in fungal cell membrane integrity and fungal growth.²⁰ Oteseconazole is a more selective inhibitor of the fungal CYP51 enzyme and has demonstrated excellent potency against Candida species in in vitro pharmacologic studies.²¹

In a phase 3 study that evaluated the safety and efficacy of oteseconazole in the treatment and prevention of RVVC, oteseconazole was found to be both safe and efficacious in both the induction and maintenance phases of treatment for RVVC.²⁰ In this trial, induction and maintenance with oteseconazole was compared with induction with fluconazole and placebo maintenance. Among the 185 participants with culture-verified RVVC, the oteseconazole regimen (n = 123) was associated with fewer recurrences of culture-verified VVC infections than was the fluconazole induction/placebo maintenance regimen (n = 62) during the 48-week maintenance phase of therapy (5% vs 42%).²⁰

Single- and dual-drug dosing regimens of oteseconazole are recommended based on previous trial data that compared safety and efficacy of oteseconazole versus fluconazole induction therapy and oteseconazole versus placebo maintenance therapy.²² However, widespread use of oteseconazole regimens are limited due to its higher costs and limited access to the drug outside of a research setting.²⁰

Single-drug induction therapy with oteseconazole consists of a single 600-mg oral dose on day 1 followed by a second dose of 450 mg orally on day 2. Starting on day 14, maintenance therapy starts with a single oral dose of 150 mg and is continued weekly for 11 weeks.²²

Dual-drug induction therapy consists of oral fluconazole 150 mg on days 1, 4, and 7 followed by daily dosing of oral oteseconazole 150 mg on days 14 through 20. Then, starting on day 28, weekly dosing of oral oteseconazole 150 mg is continued for 11 weeks.²²

Effects on pregnancy and lactation. Concerns of oteseconazole’s fetal teratogenicity are based on animal reproduction studies that reported ocular abnormalities from in utero exposure. Human data are insufficient to determine if oteseconazole is excreted in breast milk or what its effects are on milk production. Among breastfed infants whose mothers were exposed to oteseconazole during lactation, no adverse outcomes were reported, but follow up of oteseconazole-exposed infants was limited. ²² Therefore, use of oteseconazole among pregnant and/or lactating persons with RVVC is contraindicated at this time. The long-half life (approximately 138 days) of oteseconazole may preclude use among persons attempting pregnancy. ²²

Other therapies. The other common classes of antifungal therapy used in the treatment of RVVC include the polyenes (for example, amphotericin B) and echinocandins (such as caspofungin) drug classes. Emerging azole-resistance among Candida species has been recognized as a significant concern from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ⁷ Echinocandins, which are generally better tolerated and have a lower adverse side effect profile than polyenes, are a promising therapeutic class, but currently they are limited to intravenous options. SCY-078, a novel oral echinocandin in development, has shown in vitro fungicidal activity against multiple albicans and non-albicans Candida species in pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies.²³

Continued development of alternative, non-azole-based therapies for Candida species is needed.●

ILLUSTRATION: KATERYNA KON/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY

Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) is a common cause of vaginitis and gynecologic morbidity in the United States and globally.¹ RVVC is defined as at least 3 laboratory-confirmed (for example, culture, nucleic acid amplification test [NAAT]) symptomatic episodes in the previous 12 months.² Common symptoms include vulvar pruritus, erythema, local skin and mucosal irritation, and abnormal discharge that may be thick and white or thin and watery.

The true incidence of RVVC is difficult to determine due to clinical diagnostic inaccuracy that results in over- and underdiagnosis of VVC and the general availability of over-the-counter topical antifungal medications that individuals who self-diagnose use to treat VVC.³

Causative organisms

Vulvovaginal yeast infections are caused by Candida species, a family of ubiquitous fungi that are a part of normal genitourinary and gastrointestinal flora.⁴ As such, these infections are commonly termed VVC. The presence of Candida species in the vagina without evidence of inflammation is not considered an infection but rather is more consistent with vaginal colonization. Inflammation in the setting of Candida species is what characterizes a true VVC infection.⁴

Candida albicans is responsible for the vast majority of VVC cases in the United States, with Candida glabrata accounting for most of the remaining infections.⁵ The majority of RVVC infections that are caused by C albicans are due to azole-sensitive strains (85%–95% of infections).²C glabrata, by contrast, is intrinsically resistant to azoles, which is thought primarily to be due to overexpression of drug efflux pumps that remove active drug from the cell.^6,7

Why does VVC reoccur?

The pathogenesis of RVVC is not well understood. Predisposing factors may include frequent or recent antibiotic use, poorly controlled diabetes, immunodeficiency, and other host factors. However, many cases of RVVC are idiopathic and no predisposing or underlying conditions are identified.⁷

The role of genetic factors in predisposing to or triggering RVVC is unclear and is an area of ongoing investigation.² Longitudinal DNA-typing studies suggest that recurrent disease is usually due to relapse from a persistent vaginal reservoir of organisms (that is, vaginal colonization) or endogenous reinfection with identical strains of susceptible C albicans.^8,9 Symptomatic VVC likely results when the symbiotic balance between yeast and the normal vaginal microbiota is disrupted (by either Candida species overgrowth or changes in host immune factors).² Less commonly, “recurrent” infections may in fact be due to azole-resistant Candida and non-Candida species.²

Clinical aspects and diagnosis of VVC

Signs and symptoms suggestive of VVC include vulvovaginal erythema, edema, vaginal discharge, vulvovaginal pruritus, and irritation. Given the lack of specificity of individual clinical findings in diagnosing VVC, or for distinguishing between other common causes of vaginitis (such as bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis), laboratory testing (that is, microscopy) should be performed in combination with a clinical exam in order to make a confident diagnosis of VVC.¹⁰ Self-diagnosis of VVC is inaccurate and is not recommended, as misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment is cost ineffective, delays accurate diagnoses, and may contribute to growing azole resistance.

In patients with signs and symptoms of VVC, saline and potassium hydroxide microscopy should be performed.⁷ TABLE 1 summarizes other major diagnostic techniques for VVC.

Diagnostic considerations

Non-albicans Candida species, such as C glabrata, may be associated with minimally symptomatic or completely asymptomatic infections and may not be identified easily on wet mount as it does not form pseudohyphae or hyphae.¹¹ Therefore, culture and susceptibility or NAAT testing is highly recommended for patients who remain symptomatic and/or have a nondiagnostic microscopy and a normal vaginal pH.⁷

Treatment options

Prior to May 2022, there had been no drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat RVVC. The mainstay of treatment is long-term maintenance therapy to achieve mycologic remission (TABLE 2).

In general, recurrent episodes of VVC should be treated with a longer duration of therapy (for example, oral fluconazole 150 mg every 72 hours for a total of 3 doses or topical azole for 7–14 days).⁷ If recurrent maintenance/suppressive therapy is started, the induction phase should be longer as well, at least 10 to 14 days with a topical or oral azole followed by a 6-month or longer course of weekly oral or topical azole therapy (such as 6–12 months).^12,13

Patients with underlying immunodeficiency (such as poorly controlled diabetes, chronic corticosteroid treatment) may need prolonged courses of therapy. Correction of modifiable conditions and optimization of comorbidities should be prioritized—for example, optimized glucose control, weight loss, durable viral suppression, and so on. Of note, symptomatic VVC is more frequent among individuals with HIV and correlates with severity of immunodeficiency. Pharmacologic options for RVVC for individuals with HIV do not differ from standard recommendations.¹⁴

Fluconazole

Fluconazole is a safe, affordable, and convenient prescription oral medication that can be used for initial and maintenance/suppressive therapy.² Fluconazole levels in vaginal secretions remain at therapeutic concentrations for at least 72 hours after a 150-mg dose.¹⁵ Induction therapy consists of oral fluconazole 150 mg every 72 hours for a total of 3 doses, followed by a maintenance regimen of a once-weekly dose of oral fluconazole 150 mg for a total of 6 months. Unfortunately, up to 55% of patients will experience a relapse in symptoms.¹²

Routine liver function test monitoring is not indicated for fluconazole maintenance therapy, but it should be performed if patients are treated with daily or long-term alternative oral azole medications, such as ketoconazole and itraconazole.

During pregnancy, only topical azole therapy is recommended for use, given the potential risk for adverse fetal outcomes, such as spontaneous abortion and congenital malformations, with fetal exposure to oral fluconazole ingested by the pregnant person.¹⁶ Fluconazole is present in breast milk, but it is safe to use during lactation when used at recommended doses.¹⁷

Continue to: Options for fluconazole-resistant C albicans infection...

Options for fluconazole-resistant C albicans infection

Patients who have RVVC with frequent and/or prolonged use of fluconazole are at risk for developing azole-resistant isolates of C albicans.¹² For patients found to have azole-resistant infections, treatment options include increasing the azole dose based on isolate minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to various antifungals, therapy with a non-fluconazole azole regimen, or switching to a different therapeutic drug class altogether.⁷

Options for non- albicans Candida species infection

Given the intrinsic resistance to azole therapy in some non-albicans Candida species (specifically C glabrata and Candida krusei), boric acid or nystatin regimens can be used. An induction course of vaginal boric acid is given as 600 mg per vagina daily for up to 14 days and is associated with a 70% rate of mycologic control.⁷ Boric acid is known to cause local irritation and dermatitis for both the patient and any sexual partners. If ingested orally, boric acid is associated with significant toxicity and even death.⁷

Vaginal nystatin also may be considered, with an induction course of 100,000 U for 14 days, with a similar regimen recommended for maintenance therapy. However, data are limited on maintenance regimens for RVVC due to non-albicans Candida species.²

Gentian violet

Gentian violet is a topical antiseptic agent that is available over the counter. Use of this agent is uncommon given the availability of highly effective azole-based therapy. Although useful due to its antipruritic properties, gentian violet can be messy to use and tends to stain clothing permanently.

Gentian violet use may be considered in cases of refractory RVVC with or without azole-resistant infections; it is applied as a 1% or 2% solution directly to affected areas for 10 to 14 days.¹⁸

Lactobacilli probiotics and dietary changes

Data that support the oral and/or vaginal use of probiotics that contain live lactobacilli are conflicting. In the absence of conclusive evidence to support probiotic use to treat and prevent RVVC, as well as variable quality of available products, use of these agents is not recommended.¹⁹

No controlled studies have evaluated the role of various diets in preventing RVVC; thus, no specific dietary changes are recommended.

Behavioral therapy

Available evidence does not support the treatment of sexual partners of patients with RVVC.⁷

Continue to: What’s new in treatment?...

Until recently, the main standard of care for RVVC has been oral fluconazole-based therapy. For patients whose symptoms do not respond to oral fluconazole therapy, oteseconazole is now available as a noninferior treatment option to fluconazole for both induction and maintenance therapy. Like other azoles, oteseconazole works by inhibiting a fungal enzyme (CYP51) that is essential in fungal cell membrane integrity and fungal growth.²⁰ Oteseconazole is a more selective inhibitor of the fungal CYP51 enzyme and has demonstrated excellent potency against Candida species in in vitro pharmacologic studies.²¹

In a phase 3 study that evaluated the safety and efficacy of oteseconazole in the treatment and prevention of RVVC, oteseconazole was found to be both safe and efficacious in both the induction and maintenance phases of treatment for RVVC.²⁰ In this trial, induction and maintenance with oteseconazole was compared with induction with fluconazole and placebo maintenance. Among the 185 participants with culture-verified RVVC, the oteseconazole regimen (n = 123) was associated with fewer recurrences of culture-verified VVC infections than was the fluconazole induction/placebo maintenance regimen (n = 62) during the 48-week maintenance phase of therapy (5% vs 42%).²⁰

Single- and dual-drug dosing regimens of oteseconazole are recommended based on previous trial data that compared safety and efficacy of oteseconazole versus fluconazole induction therapy and oteseconazole versus placebo maintenance therapy.²² However, widespread use of oteseconazole regimens are limited due to its higher costs and limited access to the drug outside of a research setting.²⁰

Single-drug induction therapy with oteseconazole consists of a single 600-mg oral dose on day 1 followed by a second dose of 450 mg orally on day 2. Starting on day 14, maintenance therapy starts with a single oral dose of 150 mg and is continued weekly for 11 weeks.²²

Dual-drug induction therapy consists of oral fluconazole 150 mg on days 1, 4, and 7 followed by daily dosing of oral oteseconazole 150 mg on days 14 through 20. Then, starting on day 28, weekly dosing of oral oteseconazole 150 mg is continued for 11 weeks.²²

Effects on pregnancy and lactation. Concerns of oteseconazole’s fetal teratogenicity are based on animal reproduction studies that reported ocular abnormalities from in utero exposure. Human data are insufficient to determine if oteseconazole is excreted in breast milk or what its effects are on milk production. Among breastfed infants whose mothers were exposed to oteseconazole during lactation, no adverse outcomes were reported, but follow up of oteseconazole-exposed infants was limited. ²² Therefore, use of oteseconazole among pregnant and/or lactating persons with RVVC is contraindicated at this time. The long-half life (approximately 138 days) of oteseconazole may preclude use among persons attempting pregnancy. ²²

Other therapies. The other common classes of antifungal therapy used in the treatment of RVVC include the polyenes (for example, amphotericin B) and echinocandins (such as caspofungin) drug classes. Emerging azole-resistance among Candida species has been recognized as a significant concern from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ⁷ Echinocandins, which are generally better tolerated and have a lower adverse side effect profile than polyenes, are a promising therapeutic class, but currently they are limited to intravenous options. SCY-078, a novel oral echinocandin in development, has shown in vitro fungicidal activity against multiple albicans and non-albicans Candida species in pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies.²³

Continued development of alternative, non-azole-based therapies for Candida species is needed.●

According to the United States Transgender Survey, 39% of respondents reported experiencing serious psychological distress (based on the Kessler 6 Psychological Distress Scale) in the past 30 days compared with 5% in the general population.¹ Additionally, 40% of respondents attempted suicide in their lifetime, compared with 5% in the general population.¹ Almost half of respondents reported being sexually assaulted at some time in their life, and 10% reported being sexually assaulted in the past year.¹

Studies have also shown that veterans and active-duty service members experience worse mental health outcomes and are at increased risk for suicide than civilians and nonveterans.^2-5 About 1 in 4 active-duty service members meet the criteria for diagnosis of a mental illness.⁴ Service members were found to have higher rates of probable anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) compared with the general population.^2,6 In 2018, veteran suicide deaths accounted for about 13% of all deaths by suicide in the US even though veterans only accounted for about 7% of the adult population in that year.^5,7 Also in 2018, about 17 veterans committed suicide per day.⁵ According to the Health Related Behaviors Survey of active-duty service members, about 18% reported thinking about attempting suicide some time in their lives compared with 4% of the general population.^2,3 Additionally, 5% of service members reported previous suicide attempts compared with 0.5% in the general population.^2,3 It is clear that transgender individuals, veterans, and service members have certain mental health outcomes that are worse than that of the general population.^1-7

Transgender individuals along with LGB (lesbian, gay, bisexual) individuals have long faced discrimination and unfair treatment in the military.^8-11 In the 1920s, the first written policies were established that banned gay men from serving in the military.⁹ The US Department of Defense (DoD) continued these policies until in 1993, the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy was established, which had the façade of being more inclusive for LGB individuals but forced LGB service members to hide their sexual identity and continued the anti-LGBTQ messages that previous policies had created.^8,10,11 In 2010, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was repealed, which allowed LGB individuals to serve in the military without concealing their sexual orientation and without fear of discharge based on their sexual identity.¹¹ This repeal did not allow transgender individuals to serve their country as the DoD categorized transgender identity as a medical and mental health disorder.^8,11

In 2016, the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military was lifted, and service members could no longer be discharged or turned away from joining the military based on gender identity.^8,12 However, in 2018, this order was reversed. The new policy stated that new service members must meet requirements and standards of their sex assigned at birth, and individuals with a history of gender dysphoria or those who have received gender-affirming medical or surgical treatment were prohibited to serve in the military.^8,13 This policy did not apply to service members who joined before it took effect. Finally, in April 2021, the current policy took effect, permitting transgender individuals to openly serve in the military. The current policy states that service members cannot be discharged or denied reenlistment based on their gender identity and provides support to receive gender-affirming medical care.¹⁴ Although transgender individuals are now accepted in military service, there is still much progress needed to promote equity among transgender service members.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of articles presenting data on mental health outcomes in transgender veterans and active-duty service members. The National Library of Medicine PubMed database was searched using the following search terms in various combinations: mental health outcomes, transgender, veterans, military, active duty, substance use, and sexual trauma. The literature search was performed in August 2021 and included articles published through July 31, 2021. Methodology, size, demographics, measures, and main findings were extracted from each article. All studies were eligible for inclusion regardless of sample size. Studies that examined the LGBTQ population without separating transgender individuals were excluded. Studies that examined mental health outcomes including, but not limited to, PTSD, depression, suicidality, anxiety, and substance use disorders (SUDs) in addition to sexual trauma were included. Studies that only examined physical health outcomes were excluded. Qualitative studies, case reports, and papers that did not present original data were excluded (Figure).

Results

Our search resulted in 86 publications. After excluding 65 articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria, 19 studies were included in this review. The Appendix shows the summary of findings from each study, including the study size and results. All studies were conducted in the United States. Most papers used a cross-sectional study design. Most of the studies focused on transgender veterans, but some included data on transgender active-duty service members.

We separated the findings into the following categories based on the variables measured: mental health, including depression, anxiety, PTSD, and serious mental illness; suicidality and self-harm; substance use; and military sexual trauma (MST). Many studies overlapped multiple categories.

Mental Health

Most of the studies included reported that transgender veterans have statistically significant worse mental health outcomes compared with cisgender veterans.^28-30 In addition, transgender active-duty service members were found to have worse mental health outcomes than cisgender active-duty service members.³¹ MST and discrimination were associated with worse mental health outcomes among transgender veterans.^32,33 One study showed a different result than others and found that transgender older adults with prior military service had higher psychological health-related quality of life and lower depressive symptoms than those without prior military service (P = .02 and .04, respectively).³⁴ Another study compared transgender veterans with active-duty service members and found that transgender veterans reported higher rates of depression (64.6% vs 30.9%; χ² = 11.68; P = .001) and anxiety (41.3% vs 18.2%; χ² = 6.54; P = .01) compared with transgender service members.³⁵

Suicidality and Self-harm

Eleven of the 19 studies included measured suicidality and/or self-harm as an outcome. Transgender veterans and active-duty service members were found to have higher odds of suicidality than their cisgender counterparts.^16,28,29,31 In addition, transgender veterans may die by suicide at a younger age than cisgender veterans.³⁶ Stigma and gender-related discrimination were found to be associated with suicidal ideation.^33,37-39 Transgender veterans were less likely than transgender nonveterans to report nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI).⁴⁰

Substance Use

Two studies focused on substance use, while 5 other studies included substance use in their measures. One of these 2 studies that focused only on substance use outcomes found that transgender veterans were more likely than cisgender veterans to have any SUD (7.2% vs 3.9%; P < .001), in addition to specifically cannabis (3.4% vs 1.5%; P < .001), amphetamine (1.1% vs 0.3%; P < .001), and cocaine use disorders (1.5% vs 1.1%; P < .001).⁴¹

Another study reported that transgender veterans had lower odds of self-reported alcohol use but had greater odds of having alcohol-related diagnoses compared with cisgender veterans.⁴² Of the other studies, it was found that a higher percentage of transgender veterans were diagnosed with an SUD compared with transgender active-duty service members, and transgender veterans were more likely than cisgender veterans to be diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.^29,31 Additionally, rural transgender veterans had increased odds of tobacco use disorder compared with transgender veterans who lived in urban areas.⁴³

Military Sexual Trauma

Five of the studies included examined MST, defined as sexual assault or sexual harassment that is experienced during military service.⁴⁴ Studies found that 15% to 17% of transgender veterans experienced MST.^32,45 Transgender veterans were more likely to report MST than cisgender veterans.^28,29 MST was found to be consistently associated with depression and PTSD.^32,45 A high percentage (83.9%) of transgender active-duty service members reported experiencing sexual harassment and almost one-third experienced sexual assault.⁴⁶

Discussion

Outcomes examined in this review included MST, substance use, suicidality, and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD among transgender active-duty service members and veterans. To our knowledge, no other review on this topic exists. There is a review of the health and well-being of LGBTQ veterans and service members, but a majority of the included studies did not separate transgender individuals from LGB persons.¹⁷ This review of transgender individuals showed similar results to the review of LGBTQ individuals.¹⁷ This review also presented similar results to previous studies that indicated that transgender individuals in the general population have worse mental health outcomes compared with their cisgender counterparts, in addition to studies that showed that veterans and active-duty service members have worse mental health outcomes compared with civilians and nonveterans.^1-5 The population of focus in this review faced a unique set of challenges, being that they belonged to both of these subsets of the population, both of which experienced worse mental health outcomes, according to the literature.

Studies included in our review found that transgender veterans and service members have worse mental health outcomes than cisgender veterans and service members.^28-31 This outcome was predicted based on previous data collection among transgender individuals, veterans, and active-duty service members. One of the studies included found different results and concluded that prior military service was a protective factor against poorer mental health outcomes.³⁴ This could be, in part, due to veterans’ access to care through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system. It has been found that transgender veterans use VA services at higher rates than the general population of veterans and that barriers to care were found more for medical treatment than for mental health treatment.⁴⁷ One study found that almost 70% of transgender veterans who used VA services were satisfied with their mental health care.⁴⁸ In contrast, another study included in our review found that transgender veterans had worse mental health outcomes than transgender service members, possibly showing that even with access to care, the burden of stigma and discrimination worsens mental health over time.³¹ Although it has been shown that transgender veterans may feel comfortable disclosing their gender identity to their health care professional, many barriers to care have been identified, such as insensitivity and lack of knowledge about transgender care among clinicians.^49-51 With this information, it would be useful to ensure proper training for health care professionals on providing gender-affirming care.

Most of the studies also found that transgender veterans and service members had greater odds of suicidal thoughts and events than cisgender veterans and service members.^16,28,29,35 On the contrary, transgender veterans were less likely than transgender nonveterans to report NSSI, which could be for various reasons.⁴⁰ Transgender veterans may report less NSSI but experience it at similar rates, or veteran status may be a protective factor for NSSI.

Limitations

This review was limited due to the lack of data collected from transgender veterans and service members. The studies included did not allow for standardized comparisons and did not use identical measures. Some papers compared transgender veterans with transgender nonveterans, some transgender veterans and/or service members with cisgender veterans and/or service members, and some transgender veterans with transgender service members. There were some consistent results found across the studies, but some studies showed contradictory results or no significant differences within a certain category. It is difficult to compare such different study designs and various participant populations. Additional research is required to verify and replicate these results.

Conclusions

Although this review was limited due to the lack of consistent study designs in the literature examining the mental health of transgender veterans and active-duty service members, overall results showed that transgender veterans and service members experience worse mental health outcomes than their cisgender counterparts. With this knowledge and exploring the history of discrimination that this population has faced, improved systems must be put into place to better serve this population and improve health outcomes. Additional research is required to examine the effects of gender-affirming care on mental health among transgender veterans and service members.

According to the United States Transgender Survey, 39% of respondents reported experiencing serious psychological distress (based on the Kessler 6 Psychological Distress Scale) in the past 30 days compared with 5% in the general population.¹ Additionally, 40% of respondents attempted suicide in their lifetime, compared with 5% in the general population.¹ Almost half of respondents reported being sexually assaulted at some time in their life, and 10% reported being sexually assaulted in the past year.¹

Studies have also shown that veterans and active-duty service members experience worse mental health outcomes and are at increased risk for suicide than civilians and nonveterans.^2-5 About 1 in 4 active-duty service members meet the criteria for diagnosis of a mental illness.⁴ Service members were found to have higher rates of probable anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) compared with the general population.^2,6 In 2018, veteran suicide deaths accounted for about 13% of all deaths by suicide in the US even though veterans only accounted for about 7% of the adult population in that year.^5,7 Also in 2018, about 17 veterans committed suicide per day.⁵ According to the Health Related Behaviors Survey of active-duty service members, about 18% reported thinking about attempting suicide some time in their lives compared with 4% of the general population.^2,3 Additionally, 5% of service members reported previous suicide attempts compared with 0.5% in the general population.^2,3 It is clear that transgender individuals, veterans, and service members have certain mental health outcomes that are worse than that of the general population.^1-7

Transgender individuals along with LGB (lesbian, gay, bisexual) individuals have long faced discrimination and unfair treatment in the military.^8-11 In the 1920s, the first written policies were established that banned gay men from serving in the military.⁹ The US Department of Defense (DoD) continued these policies until in 1993, the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy was established, which had the façade of being more inclusive for LGB individuals but forced LGB service members to hide their sexual identity and continued the anti-LGBTQ messages that previous policies had created.^8,10,11 In 2010, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was repealed, which allowed LGB individuals to serve in the military without concealing their sexual orientation and without fear of discharge based on their sexual identity.¹¹ This repeal did not allow transgender individuals to serve their country as the DoD categorized transgender identity as a medical and mental health disorder.^8,11

In 2016, the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military was lifted, and service members could no longer be discharged or turned away from joining the military based on gender identity.^8,12 However, in 2018, this order was reversed. The new policy stated that new service members must meet requirements and standards of their sex assigned at birth, and individuals with a history of gender dysphoria or those who have received gender-affirming medical or surgical treatment were prohibited to serve in the military.^8,13 This policy did not apply to service members who joined before it took effect. Finally, in April 2021, the current policy took effect, permitting transgender individuals to openly serve in the military. The current policy states that service members cannot be discharged or denied reenlistment based on their gender identity and provides support to receive gender-affirming medical care.¹⁴ Although transgender individuals are now accepted in military service, there is still much progress needed to promote equity among transgender service members.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of articles presenting data on mental health outcomes in transgender veterans and active-duty service members. The National Library of Medicine PubMed database was searched using the following search terms in various combinations: mental health outcomes, transgender, veterans, military, active duty, substance use, and sexual trauma. The literature search was performed in August 2021 and included articles published through July 31, 2021. Methodology, size, demographics, measures, and main findings were extracted from each article. All studies were eligible for inclusion regardless of sample size. Studies that examined the LGBTQ population without separating transgender individuals were excluded. Studies that examined mental health outcomes including, but not limited to, PTSD, depression, suicidality, anxiety, and substance use disorders (SUDs) in addition to sexual trauma were included. Studies that only examined physical health outcomes were excluded. Qualitative studies, case reports, and papers that did not present original data were excluded (Figure).

Results

Our search resulted in 86 publications. After excluding 65 articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria, 19 studies were included in this review. The Appendix shows the summary of findings from each study, including the study size and results. All studies were conducted in the United States. Most papers used a cross-sectional study design. Most of the studies focused on transgender veterans, but some included data on transgender active-duty service members.

We separated the findings into the following categories based on the variables measured: mental health, including depression, anxiety, PTSD, and serious mental illness; suicidality and self-harm; substance use; and military sexual trauma (MST). Many studies overlapped multiple categories.

Mental Health

Most of the studies included reported that transgender veterans have statistically significant worse mental health outcomes compared with cisgender veterans.^28-30 In addition, transgender active-duty service members were found to have worse mental health outcomes than cisgender active-duty service members.³¹ MST and discrimination were associated with worse mental health outcomes among transgender veterans.^32,33 One study showed a different result than others and found that transgender older adults with prior military service had higher psychological health-related quality of life and lower depressive symptoms than those without prior military service (P = .02 and .04, respectively).³⁴ Another study compared transgender veterans with active-duty service members and found that transgender veterans reported higher rates of depression (64.6% vs 30.9%; χ² = 11.68; P = .001) and anxiety (41.3% vs 18.2%; χ² = 6.54; P = .01) compared with transgender service members.³⁵

Suicidality and Self-harm

Eleven of the 19 studies included measured suicidality and/or self-harm as an outcome. Transgender veterans and active-duty service members were found to have higher odds of suicidality than their cisgender counterparts.^16,28,29,31 In addition, transgender veterans may die by suicide at a younger age than cisgender veterans.³⁶ Stigma and gender-related discrimination were found to be associated with suicidal ideation.^33,37-39 Transgender veterans were less likely than transgender nonveterans to report nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI).⁴⁰

Substance Use

Two studies focused on substance use, while 5 other studies included substance use in their measures. One of these 2 studies that focused only on substance use outcomes found that transgender veterans were more likely than cisgender veterans to have any SUD (7.2% vs 3.9%; P < .001), in addition to specifically cannabis (3.4% vs 1.5%; P < .001), amphetamine (1.1% vs 0.3%; P < .001), and cocaine use disorders (1.5% vs 1.1%; P < .001).⁴¹

Another study reported that transgender veterans had lower odds of self-reported alcohol use but had greater odds of having alcohol-related diagnoses compared with cisgender veterans.⁴² Of the other studies, it was found that a higher percentage of transgender veterans were diagnosed with an SUD compared with transgender active-duty service members, and transgender veterans were more likely than cisgender veterans to be diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.^29,31 Additionally, rural transgender veterans had increased odds of tobacco use disorder compared with transgender veterans who lived in urban areas.⁴³

Military Sexual Trauma

Five of the studies included examined MST, defined as sexual assault or sexual harassment that is experienced during military service.⁴⁴ Studies found that 15% to 17% of transgender veterans experienced MST.^32,45 Transgender veterans were more likely to report MST than cisgender veterans.^28,29 MST was found to be consistently associated with depression and PTSD.^32,45 A high percentage (83.9%) of transgender active-duty service members reported experiencing sexual harassment and almost one-third experienced sexual assault.⁴⁶

Discussion

Outcomes examined in this review included MST, substance use, suicidality, and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD among transgender active-duty service members and veterans. To our knowledge, no other review on this topic exists. There is a review of the health and well-being of LGBTQ veterans and service members, but a majority of the included studies did not separate transgender individuals from LGB persons.¹⁷ This review of transgender individuals showed similar results to the review of LGBTQ individuals.¹⁷ This review also presented similar results to previous studies that indicated that transgender individuals in the general population have worse mental health outcomes compared with their cisgender counterparts, in addition to studies that showed that veterans and active-duty service members have worse mental health outcomes compared with civilians and nonveterans.^1-5 The population of focus in this review faced a unique set of challenges, being that they belonged to both of these subsets of the population, both of which experienced worse mental health outcomes, according to the literature.

Studies included in our review found that transgender veterans and service members have worse mental health outcomes than cisgender veterans and service members.^28-31 This outcome was predicted based on previous data collection among transgender individuals, veterans, and active-duty service members. One of the studies included found different results and concluded that prior military service was a protective factor against poorer mental health outcomes.³⁴ This could be, in part, due to veterans’ access to care through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system. It has been found that transgender veterans use VA services at higher rates than the general population of veterans and that barriers to care were found more for medical treatment than for mental health treatment.⁴⁷ One study found that almost 70% of transgender veterans who used VA services were satisfied with their mental health care.⁴⁸ In contrast, another study included in our review found that transgender veterans had worse mental health outcomes than transgender service members, possibly showing that even with access to care, the burden of stigma and discrimination worsens mental health over time.³¹ Although it has been shown that transgender veterans may feel comfortable disclosing their gender identity to their health care professional, many barriers to care have been identified, such as insensitivity and lack of knowledge about transgender care among clinicians.^49-51 With this information, it would be useful to ensure proper training for health care professionals on providing gender-affirming care.

Most of the studies also found that transgender veterans and service members had greater odds of suicidal thoughts and events than cisgender veterans and service members.^16,28,29,35 On the contrary, transgender veterans were less likely than transgender nonveterans to report NSSI, which could be for various reasons.⁴⁰ Transgender veterans may report less NSSI but experience it at similar rates, or veteran status may be a protective factor for NSSI.

Limitations

This review was limited due to the lack of data collected from transgender veterans and service members. The studies included did not allow for standardized comparisons and did not use identical measures. Some papers compared transgender veterans with transgender nonveterans, some transgender veterans and/or service members with cisgender veterans and/or service members, and some transgender veterans with transgender service members. There were some consistent results found across the studies, but some studies showed contradictory results or no significant differences within a certain category. It is difficult to compare such different study designs and various participant populations. Additional research is required to verify and replicate these results.

Conclusions

Although this review was limited due to the lack of consistent study designs in the literature examining the mental health of transgender veterans and active-duty service members, overall results showed that transgender veterans and service members experience worse mental health outcomes than their cisgender counterparts. With this knowledge and exploring the history of discrimination that this population has faced, improved systems must be put into place to better serve this population and improve health outcomes. Additional research is required to examine the effects of gender-affirming care on mental health among transgender veterans and service members.

According to the United States Transgender Survey, 39% of respondents reported experiencing serious psychological distress (based on the Kessler 6 Psychological Distress Scale) in the past 30 days compared with 5% in the general population.¹ Additionally, 40% of respondents attempted suicide in their lifetime, compared with 5% in the general population.¹ Almost half of respondents reported being sexually assaulted at some time in their life, and 10% reported being sexually assaulted in the past year.¹

Studies have also shown that veterans and active-duty service members experience worse mental health outcomes and are at increased risk for suicide than civilians and nonveterans.^2-5 About 1 in 4 active-duty service members meet the criteria for diagnosis of a mental illness.⁴ Service members were found to have higher rates of probable anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) compared with the general population.^2,6 In 2018, veteran suicide deaths accounted for about 13% of all deaths by suicide in the US even though veterans only accounted for about 7% of the adult population in that year.^5,7 Also in 2018, about 17 veterans committed suicide per day.⁵ According to the Health Related Behaviors Survey of active-duty service members, about 18% reported thinking about attempting suicide some time in their lives compared with 4% of the general population.^2,3 Additionally, 5% of service members reported previous suicide attempts compared with 0.5% in the general population.^2,3 It is clear that transgender individuals, veterans, and service members have certain mental health outcomes that are worse than that of the general population.^1-7

Transgender individuals along with LGB (lesbian, gay, bisexual) individuals have long faced discrimination and unfair treatment in the military.^8-11 In the 1920s, the first written policies were established that banned gay men from serving in the military.⁹ The US Department of Defense (DoD) continued these policies until in 1993, the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy was established, which had the façade of being more inclusive for LGB individuals but forced LGB service members to hide their sexual identity and continued the anti-LGBTQ messages that previous policies had created.^8,10,11 In 2010, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was repealed, which allowed LGB individuals to serve in the military without concealing their sexual orientation and without fear of discharge based on their sexual identity.¹¹ This repeal did not allow transgender individuals to serve their country as the DoD categorized transgender identity as a medical and mental health disorder.^8,11

In 2016, the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military was lifted, and service members could no longer be discharged or turned away from joining the military based on gender identity.^8,12 However, in 2018, this order was reversed. The new policy stated that new service members must meet requirements and standards of their sex assigned at birth, and individuals with a history of gender dysphoria or those who have received gender-affirming medical or surgical treatment were prohibited to serve in the military.^8,13 This policy did not apply to service members who joined before it took effect. Finally, in April 2021, the current policy took effect, permitting transgender individuals to openly serve in the military. The current policy states that service members cannot be discharged or denied reenlistment based on their gender identity and provides support to receive gender-affirming medical care.¹⁴ Although transgender individuals are now accepted in military service, there is still much progress needed to promote equity among transgender service members.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of articles presenting data on mental health outcomes in transgender veterans and active-duty service members. The National Library of Medicine PubMed database was searched using the following search terms in various combinations: mental health outcomes, transgender, veterans, military, active duty, substance use, and sexual trauma. The literature search was performed in August 2021 and included articles published through July 31, 2021. Methodology, size, demographics, measures, and main findings were extracted from each article. All studies were eligible for inclusion regardless of sample size. Studies that examined the LGBTQ population without separating transgender individuals were excluded. Studies that examined mental health outcomes including, but not limited to, PTSD, depression, suicidality, anxiety, and substance use disorders (SUDs) in addition to sexual trauma were included. Studies that only examined physical health outcomes were excluded. Qualitative studies, case reports, and papers that did not present original data were excluded (Figure).

Results

Our search resulted in 86 publications. After excluding 65 articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria, 19 studies were included in this review. The Appendix shows the summary of findings from each study, including the study size and results. All studies were conducted in the United States. Most papers used a cross-sectional study design. Most of the studies focused on transgender veterans, but some included data on transgender active-duty service members.

We separated the findings into the following categories based on the variables measured: mental health, including depression, anxiety, PTSD, and serious mental illness; suicidality and self-harm; substance use; and military sexual trauma (MST). Many studies overlapped multiple categories.

Mental Health

Most of the studies included reported that transgender veterans have statistically significant worse mental health outcomes compared with cisgender veterans.^28-30 In addition, transgender active-duty service members were found to have worse mental health outcomes than cisgender active-duty service members.³¹ MST and discrimination were associated with worse mental health outcomes among transgender veterans.^32,33 One study showed a different result than others and found that transgender older adults with prior military service had higher psychological health-related quality of life and lower depressive symptoms than those without prior military service (P = .02 and .04, respectively).³⁴ Another study compared transgender veterans with active-duty service members and found that transgender veterans reported higher rates of depression (64.6% vs 30.9%; χ² = 11.68; P = .001) and anxiety (41.3% vs 18.2%; χ² = 6.54; P = .01) compared with transgender service members.³⁵

Suicidality and Self-harm

Eleven of the 19 studies included measured suicidality and/or self-harm as an outcome. Transgender veterans and active-duty service members were found to have higher odds of suicidality than their cisgender counterparts.^16,28,29,31 In addition, transgender veterans may die by suicide at a younger age than cisgender veterans.³⁶ Stigma and gender-related discrimination were found to be associated with suicidal ideation.^33,37-39 Transgender veterans were less likely than transgender nonveterans to report nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI).⁴⁰

Substance Use

Two studies focused on substance use, while 5 other studies included substance use in their measures. One of these 2 studies that focused only on substance use outcomes found that transgender veterans were more likely than cisgender veterans to have any SUD (7.2% vs 3.9%; P < .001), in addition to specifically cannabis (3.4% vs 1.5%; P < .001), amphetamine (1.1% vs 0.3%; P < .001), and cocaine use disorders (1.5% vs 1.1%; P < .001).⁴¹

Another study reported that transgender veterans had lower odds of self-reported alcohol use but had greater odds of having alcohol-related diagnoses compared with cisgender veterans.⁴² Of the other studies, it was found that a higher percentage of transgender veterans were diagnosed with an SUD compared with transgender active-duty service members, and transgender veterans were more likely than cisgender veterans to be diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.^29,31 Additionally, rural transgender veterans had increased odds of tobacco use disorder compared with transgender veterans who lived in urban areas.⁴³

Military Sexual Trauma

Five of the studies included examined MST, defined as sexual assault or sexual harassment that is experienced during military service.⁴⁴ Studies found that 15% to 17% of transgender veterans experienced MST.^32,45 Transgender veterans were more likely to report MST than cisgender veterans.^28,29 MST was found to be consistently associated with depression and PTSD.^32,45 A high percentage (83.9%) of transgender active-duty service members reported experiencing sexual harassment and almost one-third experienced sexual assault.⁴⁶

Discussion

Outcomes examined in this review included MST, substance use, suicidality, and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD among transgender active-duty service members and veterans. To our knowledge, no other review on this topic exists. There is a review of the health and well-being of LGBTQ veterans and service members, but a majority of the included studies did not separate transgender individuals from LGB persons.¹⁷ This review of transgender individuals showed similar results to the review of LGBTQ individuals.¹⁷ This review also presented similar results to previous studies that indicated that transgender individuals in the general population have worse mental health outcomes compared with their cisgender counterparts, in addition to studies that showed that veterans and active-duty service members have worse mental health outcomes compared with civilians and nonveterans.^1-5 The population of focus in this review faced a unique set of challenges, being that they belonged to both of these subsets of the population, both of which experienced worse mental health outcomes, according to the literature.

Studies included in our review found that transgender veterans and service members have worse mental health outcomes than cisgender veterans and service members.^28-31 This outcome was predicted based on previous data collection among transgender individuals, veterans, and active-duty service members. One of the studies included found different results and concluded that prior military service was a protective factor against poorer mental health outcomes.³⁴ This could be, in part, due to veterans’ access to care through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system. It has been found that transgender veterans use VA services at higher rates than the general population of veterans and that barriers to care were found more for medical treatment than for mental health treatment.⁴⁷ One study found that almost 70% of transgender veterans who used VA services were satisfied with their mental health care.⁴⁸ In contrast, another study included in our review found that transgender veterans had worse mental health outcomes than transgender service members, possibly showing that even with access to care, the burden of stigma and discrimination worsens mental health over time.³¹ Although it has been shown that transgender veterans may feel comfortable disclosing their gender identity to their health care professional, many barriers to care have been identified, such as insensitivity and lack of knowledge about transgender care among clinicians.^49-51 With this information, it would be useful to ensure proper training for health care professionals on providing gender-affirming care.

Most of the studies also found that transgender veterans and service members had greater odds of suicidal thoughts and events than cisgender veterans and service members.^16,28,29,35 On the contrary, transgender veterans were less likely than transgender nonveterans to report NSSI, which could be for various reasons.⁴⁰ Transgender veterans may report less NSSI but experience it at similar rates, or veteran status may be a protective factor for NSSI.

Limitations

This review was limited due to the lack of data collected from transgender veterans and service members. The studies included did not allow for standardized comparisons and did not use identical measures. Some papers compared transgender veterans with transgender nonveterans, some transgender veterans and/or service members with cisgender veterans and/or service members, and some transgender veterans with transgender service members. There were some consistent results found across the studies, but some studies showed contradictory results or no significant differences within a certain category. It is difficult to compare such different study designs and various participant populations. Additional research is required to verify and replicate these results.

Conclusions

Although this review was limited due to the lack of consistent study designs in the literature examining the mental health of transgender veterans and active-duty service members, overall results showed that transgender veterans and service members experience worse mental health outcomes than their cisgender counterparts. With this knowledge and exploring the history of discrimination that this population has faced, improved systems must be put into place to better serve this population and improve health outcomes. Additional research is required to examine the effects of gender-affirming care on mental health among transgender veterans and service members.