Contraception

The Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group (IPMG) reports that most users of the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) should now have access to their accounts, one month after a modified program was launched, the Food and Drug Administration announced on Jan. 14.

The IPMG has “created a new tool within the system to help resolve account access for some user groups without using the call center. This tool is intended to allow prescribers and designees to send login links directly to their patients’ desired email address through the Manage Patients page of the iPLEDGE REMS portal,” the FDA statement said.

“Prescribers can also send login links to their designees still having difficulty accessing their iPLEDGE account,” and users should check their emails for messages from iPLEDGE, including spam folders, the FDA advises. The iPLEDGE strategy is designed to prevent fetal exposure to isotretinoin, which is highly teratogenic.

Days after the new, gender-neutral approach to the isotretinoin risk mitigation program was launched on Dec. 13, the FDA convened an emergency meeting with representatives from the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) to discuss the problematic rollout of the program, which was described as disastrous, chaotic, and a failure, with dermatologists on Twitter and elsewhere expressing anger and frustration over not being able to access the program or reach the call center.

A statement by the FDA on Dec. 23 followed, urging manufacturers to develop solutions for the website and to work with the AADA and pharmacy organizations to find solutions that would minimize treatment interruptions during the transition.

The modified REMS, launched on Dec. 13, is designed to make it more inclusive for transgender patients prescribed isotretinoin. Instead of three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males), patients who are prescribed isotretinoin for acne are assigned to one of two risk categories: those who can get pregnant and those who cannot get pregnant.

In the Jan. 14 statement, the FDA notes that the agency is continuing to work with the IPMG regarding the problems clinicians, pharmacists, and patients have had with accessing iPLEDGE over the last month.

“Although there has been progress, there is a significant amount of work still to be done,” the FDA acknowledged. “While we consider potential steps within the scope of FDA’s authorities, we will continue to meet with the IPMG for updates on the status of the problems with the iPLEDGE REMS and their progress towards having the system work as intended for all users.”

The Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group (IPMG) reports that most users of the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) should now have access to their accounts, one month after a modified program was launched, the Food and Drug Administration announced on Jan. 14.

The IPMG has “created a new tool within the system to help resolve account access for some user groups without using the call center. This tool is intended to allow prescribers and designees to send login links directly to their patients’ desired email address through the Manage Patients page of the iPLEDGE REMS portal,” the FDA statement said.

“Prescribers can also send login links to their designees still having difficulty accessing their iPLEDGE account,” and users should check their emails for messages from iPLEDGE, including spam folders, the FDA advises. The iPLEDGE strategy is designed to prevent fetal exposure to isotretinoin, which is highly teratogenic.

Days after the new, gender-neutral approach to the isotretinoin risk mitigation program was launched on Dec. 13, the FDA convened an emergency meeting with representatives from the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) to discuss the problematic rollout of the program, which was described as disastrous, chaotic, and a failure, with dermatologists on Twitter and elsewhere expressing anger and frustration over not being able to access the program or reach the call center.

A statement by the FDA on Dec. 23 followed, urging manufacturers to develop solutions for the website and to work with the AADA and pharmacy organizations to find solutions that would minimize treatment interruptions during the transition.

The modified REMS, launched on Dec. 13, is designed to make it more inclusive for transgender patients prescribed isotretinoin. Instead of three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males), patients who are prescribed isotretinoin for acne are assigned to one of two risk categories: those who can get pregnant and those who cannot get pregnant.

In the Jan. 14 statement, the FDA notes that the agency is continuing to work with the IPMG regarding the problems clinicians, pharmacists, and patients have had with accessing iPLEDGE over the last month.

“Although there has been progress, there is a significant amount of work still to be done,” the FDA acknowledged. “While we consider potential steps within the scope of FDA’s authorities, we will continue to meet with the IPMG for updates on the status of the problems with the iPLEDGE REMS and their progress towards having the system work as intended for all users.”

The Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group (IPMG) reports that most users of the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) should now have access to their accounts, one month after a modified program was launched, the Food and Drug Administration announced on Jan. 14.

The IPMG has “created a new tool within the system to help resolve account access for some user groups without using the call center. This tool is intended to allow prescribers and designees to send login links directly to their patients’ desired email address through the Manage Patients page of the iPLEDGE REMS portal,” the FDA statement said.

“Prescribers can also send login links to their designees still having difficulty accessing their iPLEDGE account,” and users should check their emails for messages from iPLEDGE, including spam folders, the FDA advises. The iPLEDGE strategy is designed to prevent fetal exposure to isotretinoin, which is highly teratogenic.

Days after the new, gender-neutral approach to the isotretinoin risk mitigation program was launched on Dec. 13, the FDA convened an emergency meeting with representatives from the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) to discuss the problematic rollout of the program, which was described as disastrous, chaotic, and a failure, with dermatologists on Twitter and elsewhere expressing anger and frustration over not being able to access the program or reach the call center.

A statement by the FDA on Dec. 23 followed, urging manufacturers to develop solutions for the website and to work with the AADA and pharmacy organizations to find solutions that would minimize treatment interruptions during the transition.

The modified REMS, launched on Dec. 13, is designed to make it more inclusive for transgender patients prescribed isotretinoin. Instead of three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males), patients who are prescribed isotretinoin for acne are assigned to one of two risk categories: those who can get pregnant and those who cannot get pregnant.

In the Jan. 14 statement, the FDA notes that the agency is continuing to work with the IPMG regarding the problems clinicians, pharmacists, and patients have had with accessing iPLEDGE over the last month.

“Although there has been progress, there is a significant amount of work still to be done,” the FDA acknowledged. “While we consider potential steps within the scope of FDA’s authorities, we will continue to meet with the IPMG for updates on the status of the problems with the iPLEDGE REMS and their progress towards having the system work as intended for all users.”

Expanding Medicaid coverage has proved beneficial to postpartum women and may even help reduce disparities, say two new papers.

In the first study, expansion of Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act was associated with higher rates of postpartum coverage and outpatient visits, according to results published in JAMA Health Forum.

Racial and ethnic disparities were also reduced in postpartum coverage, although these disparities remained between Black and White women for outpatient visits.

In the second study, published in JAMA Network Open, researchers found that when postpartum care is covered as part of Emergency Medicaid, women who have been denied access because of their citizenship status are able to use these services, which includes contraception.

Federal law currently prohibits undocumented and documented immigrants who have been in the United States for less than 5 years from receiving full-benefit Medicaid. Coverage is limited to Emergency Medicaid, which offers benefits only for life-threatening conditions, including hospital admission for childbirth. Coverage is not available for prenatal or postpartum care, including contraception.

For the first article, lead author Maria W. Steenland, SD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues point out that compared with other high-income countries, maternal mortality is higher in the United States and largely driven by persistent racial disparities. Compared with non-Hispanic White women, the rates of maternal death are more than twice as high among American Indian and Alaska Native women, and more than threefold greater in non-Hispanic Black women.

“To be clear, visits increased by around the same amount for Black and White individuals after Medicaid expansion, it is just that visits started off lower among Black women, and remained lower by a similar degree,” said Dr. Steenland.

One explanation is that Black women experience racial discrimination during pregnancy-related health care including childbirth hospitalizations and this may make them more reticent to seek postpartum care, she explained. “In addition, the ability to seek health care is determined by insurance as well as other social factors such as paid leave from work, childcare, and transportation, and these other factors may have remained a larger barrier for Black women after expansion.”

In this cohort study, they looked at the association of Medicaid expansion in Arkansas with continuous postpartum coverage, postpartum health care use, and change in racial disparities in the study outcomes. Using the Arkansas All-Payer Claims Database for persons with a childbirth between 2013 and 2015, the authors identified 60,990 childbirths. Of this group, 67% were White, 22% Black, and 7% Hispanic, and 72.3% were covered by Medicaid. The remaining 27.7% were paid for by a commercial payer.

Before Medicaid expansion, 50.6% of women with Medicaid had continuous coverage during the 6 months postpartum, and the share of women with Medicaid childbirth coverage who were continuously covered for 6 months postpartum increased to 69.3% in 2014 and 90.0% in 2015. Medicaid expansion was associated with a 27.8% increase in continuous coverage for 6-12 months postpartum, and 0.9 increase in visits or a relative increase of 75.0% in outpatient care compared with the visit rate of 1.2 visits within the first 6 months postpartum during the pre-expansion period.

A subgroup analysis was conducted to see if Medicaid expansion had any effect on the disparities between White and Black patients. In the 2-year period after expansion, the percentage of both Black and White women with continuous 6-month postpartum coverage increased to 87.9% and 85.9%, respectively. White individuals averaged 2 visits in the first 6 months postpartum versus 1.6 for Black individuals before expansion, and even though there was no difference in postpartum insurance coverage after expansion, racial disparities in the number of visits during the first 6 months postpartum remained after Medicaid expansion (2.5 vs. 2).

Commenting on the paper, Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, noted that she has seen the benefits of Medicaid expansion among obstetric population in California. “I’m glad to see similar expansion in other states,” she said. “But to address persistent health care inequities, I think concierge services or patient care navigation serve a role and can hopefully put a little dent in narrowing gaps.”

Dr. Cansino noted that there are many postpartum patients who need help arranging both pediatric and postpartum care, often prioritizing the newborn appointments. “They also need childcare help so they can focus on their own care as well as transportation,” she said, adding that “it would also be interesting to review racial/ethnic differences with regard to knowledge about contraceptive need immediately postpartum and also about the stigma related to postpartum mental health disorders. If patients don’t see the value of a postpartum visit, they would tend not to attend this visit especially given the many other challenges in the postpartum period.”
 

Access for immigrants

In the second study, the authors note that the decision to expand Emergency Medicaid options is largely up to individual states. Led by Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues, they decided to compare two states – Oregon, which expanded Emergency Medicaid to include postpartum services and South Carolina, which kept only the federal minimum services – to see how it affected postpartum care among immigrant women.

Compared with South Carolina, there was a 40.6 percentage-point increase (95% confidence interval [CI] in postpartum care visits, P < .001) and postpartum contraception within 60 days grew by 33.2 percentage points (95% CI, P < .001), in Oregon after expansion went into effect.

“When postpartum care was covered for women who would have qualified for Medicaid, except for their citizenship status, their rates of attendance at a postpartum visit and use of postpartum contraception increased to levels observed in the traditional Medicaid population,” the authors wrote.

The calculations, drawn from Medicaid claims and birth certificate data from 2010 to 2019, assumed parallel trends, meaning the researchers made the assumption that use patterns would have remained the same in Oregon if the Emergency Medicaid expansion hadn’t happened and use in South Carolina would have remained consistent as well. A differential trend analysis showed significant increases in use of the services in Oregon relative to South Carolina.

“We included Oregon and South Carolina because both states have experienced similar growth in their immigrant population and have comparable immigrant populations, in terms of size and country of origin, residing in each state,” the authors noted.

Commenting on the study, Laura Mercer MD, MBA, MPH, associate professor in obstetrics and gynecology and director of the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship at the University of Arizona in Phoenix, said she was “excited and encouraged by the results” but not surprised, as it’s logical to assume that there would be more uptake of the services when they are provided free of charge or at low cost.

“Oftentimes, the mother of the family deprioritizes her own health and well-being in favor of diverting those resources to her children and her family,” said Dr. Mercer, who specializes in prenatal and postpartum care.

She added that the significant increase in contraception is a particularly representative sign of improvement as it is easier to quantify, compared to improvements in mental health or counseling.

But comprehensive postpartum care extends to physical, psychological, and social well-being. “Its components include counseling on the importance of birth spacing and providing the contraceptive method of their choice,” the authors wrote. “An absence of postpartum care has been associated with unintended pregnancy, short interpregnancy intervals, exacerbation of chronic diseases, and preterm birth.”

Dr. Mercer noted that closely spaced pregnancies, particularly less than 6 months but at least less than 18 months carry increased risk for mother and child. And for those who would say that immigrant women should be excluded from the Emergency Medicaid postpartum services, Dr. Mercer said she would encourage them to look at the data around the improved outcomes of comprehensive maternal care.

Being able to track health markers and intervene before a woman requires emergency care will reduce costs in the long run, she pointed out. But, regardless of the cost, policymakers have to ask themselves, “What do we value as a society? If we value families and healthy families and we want to promote the best possible outcomes, then I think this question becomes very easy to answer.”

The first study was funded by the National Institute for Health Care Management. Dr. Steenland was also supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Steenland reported grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development during the conduct of the study. The second study was supported by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Rodriguez reports grants from Arnold Ventures and personal fees from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Bayer, and Merck outside the submitted work. A coauthor reports grants from Merck/Organon and the Office of Population Affairs outside the submitted work, as well as membership on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning and the ACOG Gynecology Clinical Practice Guideline committee. Dr. Mercer reported no relevant financial relationships.

Expanding Medicaid coverage has proved beneficial to postpartum women and may even help reduce disparities, say two new papers.

In the first study, expansion of Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act was associated with higher rates of postpartum coverage and outpatient visits, according to results published in JAMA Health Forum.

Racial and ethnic disparities were also reduced in postpartum coverage, although these disparities remained between Black and White women for outpatient visits.

In the second study, published in JAMA Network Open, researchers found that when postpartum care is covered as part of Emergency Medicaid, women who have been denied access because of their citizenship status are able to use these services, which includes contraception.

Federal law currently prohibits undocumented and documented immigrants who have been in the United States for less than 5 years from receiving full-benefit Medicaid. Coverage is limited to Emergency Medicaid, which offers benefits only for life-threatening conditions, including hospital admission for childbirth. Coverage is not available for prenatal or postpartum care, including contraception.

For the first article, lead author Maria W. Steenland, SD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues point out that compared with other high-income countries, maternal mortality is higher in the United States and largely driven by persistent racial disparities. Compared with non-Hispanic White women, the rates of maternal death are more than twice as high among American Indian and Alaska Native women, and more than threefold greater in non-Hispanic Black women.

“To be clear, visits increased by around the same amount for Black and White individuals after Medicaid expansion, it is just that visits started off lower among Black women, and remained lower by a similar degree,” said Dr. Steenland.

One explanation is that Black women experience racial discrimination during pregnancy-related health care including childbirth hospitalizations and this may make them more reticent to seek postpartum care, she explained. “In addition, the ability to seek health care is determined by insurance as well as other social factors such as paid leave from work, childcare, and transportation, and these other factors may have remained a larger barrier for Black women after expansion.”

In this cohort study, they looked at the association of Medicaid expansion in Arkansas with continuous postpartum coverage, postpartum health care use, and change in racial disparities in the study outcomes. Using the Arkansas All-Payer Claims Database for persons with a childbirth between 2013 and 2015, the authors identified 60,990 childbirths. Of this group, 67% were White, 22% Black, and 7% Hispanic, and 72.3% were covered by Medicaid. The remaining 27.7% were paid for by a commercial payer.

Before Medicaid expansion, 50.6% of women with Medicaid had continuous coverage during the 6 months postpartum, and the share of women with Medicaid childbirth coverage who were continuously covered for 6 months postpartum increased to 69.3% in 2014 and 90.0% in 2015. Medicaid expansion was associated with a 27.8% increase in continuous coverage for 6-12 months postpartum, and 0.9 increase in visits or a relative increase of 75.0% in outpatient care compared with the visit rate of 1.2 visits within the first 6 months postpartum during the pre-expansion period.

A subgroup analysis was conducted to see if Medicaid expansion had any effect on the disparities between White and Black patients. In the 2-year period after expansion, the percentage of both Black and White women with continuous 6-month postpartum coverage increased to 87.9% and 85.9%, respectively. White individuals averaged 2 visits in the first 6 months postpartum versus 1.6 for Black individuals before expansion, and even though there was no difference in postpartum insurance coverage after expansion, racial disparities in the number of visits during the first 6 months postpartum remained after Medicaid expansion (2.5 vs. 2).

Commenting on the paper, Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, noted that she has seen the benefits of Medicaid expansion among obstetric population in California. “I’m glad to see similar expansion in other states,” she said. “But to address persistent health care inequities, I think concierge services or patient care navigation serve a role and can hopefully put a little dent in narrowing gaps.”

Dr. Cansino noted that there are many postpartum patients who need help arranging both pediatric and postpartum care, often prioritizing the newborn appointments. “They also need childcare help so they can focus on their own care as well as transportation,” she said, adding that “it would also be interesting to review racial/ethnic differences with regard to knowledge about contraceptive need immediately postpartum and also about the stigma related to postpartum mental health disorders. If patients don’t see the value of a postpartum visit, they would tend not to attend this visit especially given the many other challenges in the postpartum period.”
 

Access for immigrants

In the second study, the authors note that the decision to expand Emergency Medicaid options is largely up to individual states. Led by Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues, they decided to compare two states – Oregon, which expanded Emergency Medicaid to include postpartum services and South Carolina, which kept only the federal minimum services – to see how it affected postpartum care among immigrant women.

Compared with South Carolina, there was a 40.6 percentage-point increase (95% confidence interval [CI] in postpartum care visits, P < .001) and postpartum contraception within 60 days grew by 33.2 percentage points (95% CI, P < .001), in Oregon after expansion went into effect.

“When postpartum care was covered for women who would have qualified for Medicaid, except for their citizenship status, their rates of attendance at a postpartum visit and use of postpartum contraception increased to levels observed in the traditional Medicaid population,” the authors wrote.

The calculations, drawn from Medicaid claims and birth certificate data from 2010 to 2019, assumed parallel trends, meaning the researchers made the assumption that use patterns would have remained the same in Oregon if the Emergency Medicaid expansion hadn’t happened and use in South Carolina would have remained consistent as well. A differential trend analysis showed significant increases in use of the services in Oregon relative to South Carolina.

“We included Oregon and South Carolina because both states have experienced similar growth in their immigrant population and have comparable immigrant populations, in terms of size and country of origin, residing in each state,” the authors noted.

Commenting on the study, Laura Mercer MD, MBA, MPH, associate professor in obstetrics and gynecology and director of the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship at the University of Arizona in Phoenix, said she was “excited and encouraged by the results” but not surprised, as it’s logical to assume that there would be more uptake of the services when they are provided free of charge or at low cost.

“Oftentimes, the mother of the family deprioritizes her own health and well-being in favor of diverting those resources to her children and her family,” said Dr. Mercer, who specializes in prenatal and postpartum care.

She added that the significant increase in contraception is a particularly representative sign of improvement as it is easier to quantify, compared to improvements in mental health or counseling.

But comprehensive postpartum care extends to physical, psychological, and social well-being. “Its components include counseling on the importance of birth spacing and providing the contraceptive method of their choice,” the authors wrote. “An absence of postpartum care has been associated with unintended pregnancy, short interpregnancy intervals, exacerbation of chronic diseases, and preterm birth.”

Dr. Mercer noted that closely spaced pregnancies, particularly less than 6 months but at least less than 18 months carry increased risk for mother and child. And for those who would say that immigrant women should be excluded from the Emergency Medicaid postpartum services, Dr. Mercer said she would encourage them to look at the data around the improved outcomes of comprehensive maternal care.

Being able to track health markers and intervene before a woman requires emergency care will reduce costs in the long run, she pointed out. But, regardless of the cost, policymakers have to ask themselves, “What do we value as a society? If we value families and healthy families and we want to promote the best possible outcomes, then I think this question becomes very easy to answer.”

The first study was funded by the National Institute for Health Care Management. Dr. Steenland was also supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Steenland reported grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development during the conduct of the study. The second study was supported by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Rodriguez reports grants from Arnold Ventures and personal fees from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Bayer, and Merck outside the submitted work. A coauthor reports grants from Merck/Organon and the Office of Population Affairs outside the submitted work, as well as membership on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning and the ACOG Gynecology Clinical Practice Guideline committee. Dr. Mercer reported no relevant financial relationships.

Expanding Medicaid coverage has proved beneficial to postpartum women and may even help reduce disparities, say two new papers.

In the first study, expansion of Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act was associated with higher rates of postpartum coverage and outpatient visits, according to results published in JAMA Health Forum.

Racial and ethnic disparities were also reduced in postpartum coverage, although these disparities remained between Black and White women for outpatient visits.

In the second study, published in JAMA Network Open, researchers found that when postpartum care is covered as part of Emergency Medicaid, women who have been denied access because of their citizenship status are able to use these services, which includes contraception.

Federal law currently prohibits undocumented and documented immigrants who have been in the United States for less than 5 years from receiving full-benefit Medicaid. Coverage is limited to Emergency Medicaid, which offers benefits only for life-threatening conditions, including hospital admission for childbirth. Coverage is not available for prenatal or postpartum care, including contraception.

For the first article, lead author Maria W. Steenland, SD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues point out that compared with other high-income countries, maternal mortality is higher in the United States and largely driven by persistent racial disparities. Compared with non-Hispanic White women, the rates of maternal death are more than twice as high among American Indian and Alaska Native women, and more than threefold greater in non-Hispanic Black women.

“To be clear, visits increased by around the same amount for Black and White individuals after Medicaid expansion, it is just that visits started off lower among Black women, and remained lower by a similar degree,” said Dr. Steenland.

One explanation is that Black women experience racial discrimination during pregnancy-related health care including childbirth hospitalizations and this may make them more reticent to seek postpartum care, she explained. “In addition, the ability to seek health care is determined by insurance as well as other social factors such as paid leave from work, childcare, and transportation, and these other factors may have remained a larger barrier for Black women after expansion.”

In this cohort study, they looked at the association of Medicaid expansion in Arkansas with continuous postpartum coverage, postpartum health care use, and change in racial disparities in the study outcomes. Using the Arkansas All-Payer Claims Database for persons with a childbirth between 2013 and 2015, the authors identified 60,990 childbirths. Of this group, 67% were White, 22% Black, and 7% Hispanic, and 72.3% were covered by Medicaid. The remaining 27.7% were paid for by a commercial payer.

Before Medicaid expansion, 50.6% of women with Medicaid had continuous coverage during the 6 months postpartum, and the share of women with Medicaid childbirth coverage who were continuously covered for 6 months postpartum increased to 69.3% in 2014 and 90.0% in 2015. Medicaid expansion was associated with a 27.8% increase in continuous coverage for 6-12 months postpartum, and 0.9 increase in visits or a relative increase of 75.0% in outpatient care compared with the visit rate of 1.2 visits within the first 6 months postpartum during the pre-expansion period.

A subgroup analysis was conducted to see if Medicaid expansion had any effect on the disparities between White and Black patients. In the 2-year period after expansion, the percentage of both Black and White women with continuous 6-month postpartum coverage increased to 87.9% and 85.9%, respectively. White individuals averaged 2 visits in the first 6 months postpartum versus 1.6 for Black individuals before expansion, and even though there was no difference in postpartum insurance coverage after expansion, racial disparities in the number of visits during the first 6 months postpartum remained after Medicaid expansion (2.5 vs. 2).

Commenting on the paper, Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, noted that she has seen the benefits of Medicaid expansion among obstetric population in California. “I’m glad to see similar expansion in other states,” she said. “But to address persistent health care inequities, I think concierge services or patient care navigation serve a role and can hopefully put a little dent in narrowing gaps.”

Dr. Cansino noted that there are many postpartum patients who need help arranging both pediatric and postpartum care, often prioritizing the newborn appointments. “They also need childcare help so they can focus on their own care as well as transportation,” she said, adding that “it would also be interesting to review racial/ethnic differences with regard to knowledge about contraceptive need immediately postpartum and also about the stigma related to postpartum mental health disorders. If patients don’t see the value of a postpartum visit, they would tend not to attend this visit especially given the many other challenges in the postpartum period.”
 

Access for immigrants

In the second study, the authors note that the decision to expand Emergency Medicaid options is largely up to individual states. Led by Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues, they decided to compare two states – Oregon, which expanded Emergency Medicaid to include postpartum services and South Carolina, which kept only the federal minimum services – to see how it affected postpartum care among immigrant women.

Compared with South Carolina, there was a 40.6 percentage-point increase (95% confidence interval [CI] in postpartum care visits, P < .001) and postpartum contraception within 60 days grew by 33.2 percentage points (95% CI, P < .001), in Oregon after expansion went into effect.

“When postpartum care was covered for women who would have qualified for Medicaid, except for their citizenship status, their rates of attendance at a postpartum visit and use of postpartum contraception increased to levels observed in the traditional Medicaid population,” the authors wrote.

The calculations, drawn from Medicaid claims and birth certificate data from 2010 to 2019, assumed parallel trends, meaning the researchers made the assumption that use patterns would have remained the same in Oregon if the Emergency Medicaid expansion hadn’t happened and use in South Carolina would have remained consistent as well. A differential trend analysis showed significant increases in use of the services in Oregon relative to South Carolina.

“We included Oregon and South Carolina because both states have experienced similar growth in their immigrant population and have comparable immigrant populations, in terms of size and country of origin, residing in each state,” the authors noted.

Commenting on the study, Laura Mercer MD, MBA, MPH, associate professor in obstetrics and gynecology and director of the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship at the University of Arizona in Phoenix, said she was “excited and encouraged by the results” but not surprised, as it’s logical to assume that there would be more uptake of the services when they are provided free of charge or at low cost.

“Oftentimes, the mother of the family deprioritizes her own health and well-being in favor of diverting those resources to her children and her family,” said Dr. Mercer, who specializes in prenatal and postpartum care.

She added that the significant increase in contraception is a particularly representative sign of improvement as it is easier to quantify, compared to improvements in mental health or counseling.

But comprehensive postpartum care extends to physical, psychological, and social well-being. “Its components include counseling on the importance of birth spacing and providing the contraceptive method of their choice,” the authors wrote. “An absence of postpartum care has been associated with unintended pregnancy, short interpregnancy intervals, exacerbation of chronic diseases, and preterm birth.”

Dr. Mercer noted that closely spaced pregnancies, particularly less than 6 months but at least less than 18 months carry increased risk for mother and child. And for those who would say that immigrant women should be excluded from the Emergency Medicaid postpartum services, Dr. Mercer said she would encourage them to look at the data around the improved outcomes of comprehensive maternal care.

Being able to track health markers and intervene before a woman requires emergency care will reduce costs in the long run, she pointed out. But, regardless of the cost, policymakers have to ask themselves, “What do we value as a society? If we value families and healthy families and we want to promote the best possible outcomes, then I think this question becomes very easy to answer.”

The first study was funded by the National Institute for Health Care Management. Dr. Steenland was also supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Steenland reported grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development during the conduct of the study. The second study was supported by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Rodriguez reports grants from Arnold Ventures and personal fees from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Bayer, and Merck outside the submitted work. A coauthor reports grants from Merck/Organon and the Office of Population Affairs outside the submitted work, as well as membership on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning and the ACOG Gynecology Clinical Practice Guideline committee. Dr. Mercer reported no relevant financial relationships.

Policies increasing access to immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) were associated with reductions in preterm birth and low birth weight, based on data from South Carolina’s Medicaid program.

Preterm birth and low birth weight represent the second-leading cause of infant mortality in the United States, wrote Maria W. Steenland, SD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues. Previous policy interventions to reduce preterm birth and low birth weight have focused on services before and during pregnancy, they said. LARC is a safe and effective postpartum intervention, but cost has been a limiting factor, they noted.

In 2012, the Medicaid program in South Carolina began reimbursing hospitals for immediate postpartum LARC independent of global maternity payments. In a previous study, the researchers found that the implementation of this policy had reduced the number of short-interval births among adolescents.

The goal of the current study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, was to analyze the association between South Carolina’s policy change and rates of preterm birth and low birth weight among individuals with Medicaid coverage during childbirth. The researchers analyzed data from 186,953 Medicaid-paid births between January 2009 and December 2015 in South Carolina. Of these, 46,414 births (24.8%) occurred in hospitals that provided immediate postpartum LARC in response to the policy change. Overall, the implementing hospitals had more annual births paid for by Medicaid compared to nonimplementing hospitals (1,105 vs. 511) and were less likely to be rural (33.3% vs. 46.8%) and had a greater share of preterm births (15.5% vs. 9.5%). Prior to the policy change, the probability of a preterm birth in the next 4 years was 4.4% for patients at implementing hospitals and 3.5% for those in nonimplementing hospitals, and the probability of a low-birth-weight birth was 3.6% and 2.9%, respectively.

The policy change was associated with a decrease of 0.4 percentage points for preterm birth and 0.3 percentage points for subsequent low-birth-weight birth.

When the results were stratified based on race and ethnicity, the policy change was associated with a decrease of 0.5 percentage points in the probability of preterm birth in both non-Hispanic Blacks and non-Hispanic Whites. No significant differences appeared in the association between the policy change and rates of preterm birth or low-birth-weight birth between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White individuals.

However, the policy was associated with a significant decrease of 0.6 percentage points in the probability of short-interval birth among non-Hispanic Blacks, and a decrease of 1.6 percentage points in the probability of another birth within 4 years overall. The policy change also was associated with a significant increase of 27 days between births among non-Hispanic Blacks, but not with any significant change among non-Hispanic Whites or the study population overall.

“In addition, although our data cannot speak to this, the policy may have affected the intendedness of subsequent pregnancies, leading to healthier behaviors before and during pregnancy, such as early initiation of prenatal care,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on pregnancy intention or abortion, and the lack of data on patient-reported outcomes, notably the provision of patient-centered counseling and whether such counseling was biased, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on infant mortality and potential confounding from risk profiles of patients in implementing vs. nonimplementing hospitals, they wrote.

Also, the study provides population-level data, which does not guide clinical decision-making about intervals between childbirth and subsequent pregnancy, the researchers emphasized.

Although the data support the value of postpartum contraception in improving birth outcomes, “it is imperative that efforts to expand access focus on assuring comprehensive access to all forms of contraception without coercion,” the researchers concluded. “Additional policy solutions are needed to improve infant health, including those that directly address structural and interpersonal racism to reduce racial disparities in infant health,” they said.

The study is important because, although immediate postpartum LARC policies were first implemented almost a decade ago in the United States, population-level evidence on the effects of these policies remains scarce, Dr. Steenland said in an interview.  

Existing barriers to improving access to immediate postpartum LARC include health professional training and logistics within hospitals, as well as ensuring correct billing and timely reimbursements, Dr. Steenland said. “Simple and clear billing procedures, and advanced reimbursement so that hospitals can have devices stocked would make it easier to provide this service,” she noted.

“This service has gone from being almost completely unavailable, to available in some hospitals, mainly those that are urban, teaching, and high volume,” said Dr. Steenland. “Additional research is needed to determine how health systems can make this service available to all birthing persons,” she said. “Also, critically, additional research is needed to identify strategies to ensure that counseling for immediate postpartum LARC, and family planning more generally, is patient-centered, so that the availability of immediate postpartum LARC increases, rather than restricts, choice,” she added. “Finally, additional research is needed to determine whether postpartum people have affordable and accessible access to LARC removal services,” Dr. Steenland emphasized.
 

Immediate post partum is critical period

The immediate postpartum period is a critical time for access to contraception because many women do not return for postpartum visits after hospital discharge, Tracey A. Wilkinson, MD, and Jeffrey F. Peipert, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “The focus on contraception access during the postpartum period prior to hospital discharge is important because of the potential sequelae of a subsequent unintended pregnancy or short interpregnancy intervals,” they noted. These issues may be more acute in marginalized communities, and policies to expand immediate postpartum LARC are in place in a majority of states, the editorialists said.

However, they agreed with the authors’ statements that implementation of LARC must be done in a manner that supports patient choice and avoids coercion. Given the baseline disparities of the infant outcomes studied, increased access to immediate postpartum LARC must be provided in a way that does not exacerbate these disparities, they said. “This ultimately means that plans to increase access to contraception should emphasize availability while avoiding coercion, and if a patient ultimately decides to discontinue a method, enable that to occur easily and seamlessly, including LARC device removal,” they explained.

“Future studies examining patient centeredness of these postpartum LARC implementation efforts would be an important element to augment these data and show the impact in additional spheres beyond infant outcomes,” they added.
 

Overcome trust barriers and offer options

“In a time of restrictive access to abortion and contraception in many states, any additional increase in access can potentially be meaningful,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “Additionally, given the significantly higher rates of infant and maternal morbidity and mortality among the non-Hispanic Black population, seeing an intervention that can improve outcomes for both mothers and babies is also potentially very positive,” she said.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the study findings, as immediate LARC is much more common in other countries and has shown similar outcomes. “Additionally, I am reassured by the fact that the increased number of days until the next pregnancy is not higher, as this indirectly indicates that patients were able to get their LARC removed when they desired another pregnancy,” she noted.

Barriers to improving access to immediate postpartum LARC in the Medicaid population may include mistrust for any long-acting contraception, “especially if they perceive that cessation of the method will be difficult to achieve,” Dr. Prager noted. “Certainly, counseling about LARC removal should be an element of counseling prior to any initiation, and lack of access to removal of an IUD or implant can be categorized as a form of reproductive coercion,” she said. Dr. Prager said that such counseling might be more effective if it occurred during prenatal visits, “so if providers are not talking about this during routine OB visits and patients only hear about immediate postpartum LARC when they are in the hospital for delivery, they may be less likely to accept the practice,” she said. “Finally, although Medicaid will cover the cost of immediate postpartum LARC, private insurers do not do so consistently in all states, so some hospitals may find this process too difficult to navigate and therefore not offer immediate postpartum LARC,” Dr. Prager emphasized.

As for additional research, Dr. Prager said she would like to see more studies in an overall United States population of pregnant people, both Medicaid patients and others, on whether the immediate postpartum timing of LARC is desired.

“I would like to couple that with patients’ impressions or experiences of their ability to access contraception outside of the immediate postpartum time period, and also their impressions or experience with ability to have LARC removed, since they are the only contraceptives not necessarily within personal control for initiation or cessation,” Dr. Prager said.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Child Health and Development, and lead author Dr. Steenland received support from other National Institutes of Health grants. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Peipert disclosed serving on advisory boards for Bayer and CooperSurgical, and receiving research support from Merck, Bayer, and CooperSurgical/Teva. Dr. Wilkinson had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Policies increasing access to immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) were associated with reductions in preterm birth and low birth weight, based on data from South Carolina’s Medicaid program.

Preterm birth and low birth weight represent the second-leading cause of infant mortality in the United States, wrote Maria W. Steenland, SD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues. Previous policy interventions to reduce preterm birth and low birth weight have focused on services before and during pregnancy, they said. LARC is a safe and effective postpartum intervention, but cost has been a limiting factor, they noted.

In 2012, the Medicaid program in South Carolina began reimbursing hospitals for immediate postpartum LARC independent of global maternity payments. In a previous study, the researchers found that the implementation of this policy had reduced the number of short-interval births among adolescents.

The goal of the current study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, was to analyze the association between South Carolina’s policy change and rates of preterm birth and low birth weight among individuals with Medicaid coverage during childbirth. The researchers analyzed data from 186,953 Medicaid-paid births between January 2009 and December 2015 in South Carolina. Of these, 46,414 births (24.8%) occurred in hospitals that provided immediate postpartum LARC in response to the policy change. Overall, the implementing hospitals had more annual births paid for by Medicaid compared to nonimplementing hospitals (1,105 vs. 511) and were less likely to be rural (33.3% vs. 46.8%) and had a greater share of preterm births (15.5% vs. 9.5%). Prior to the policy change, the probability of a preterm birth in the next 4 years was 4.4% for patients at implementing hospitals and 3.5% for those in nonimplementing hospitals, and the probability of a low-birth-weight birth was 3.6% and 2.9%, respectively.

The policy change was associated with a decrease of 0.4 percentage points for preterm birth and 0.3 percentage points for subsequent low-birth-weight birth.

When the results were stratified based on race and ethnicity, the policy change was associated with a decrease of 0.5 percentage points in the probability of preterm birth in both non-Hispanic Blacks and non-Hispanic Whites. No significant differences appeared in the association between the policy change and rates of preterm birth or low-birth-weight birth between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White individuals.

However, the policy was associated with a significant decrease of 0.6 percentage points in the probability of short-interval birth among non-Hispanic Blacks, and a decrease of 1.6 percentage points in the probability of another birth within 4 years overall. The policy change also was associated with a significant increase of 27 days between births among non-Hispanic Blacks, but not with any significant change among non-Hispanic Whites or the study population overall.

“In addition, although our data cannot speak to this, the policy may have affected the intendedness of subsequent pregnancies, leading to healthier behaviors before and during pregnancy, such as early initiation of prenatal care,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on pregnancy intention or abortion, and the lack of data on patient-reported outcomes, notably the provision of patient-centered counseling and whether such counseling was biased, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on infant mortality and potential confounding from risk profiles of patients in implementing vs. nonimplementing hospitals, they wrote.

Also, the study provides population-level data, which does not guide clinical decision-making about intervals between childbirth and subsequent pregnancy, the researchers emphasized.

Although the data support the value of postpartum contraception in improving birth outcomes, “it is imperative that efforts to expand access focus on assuring comprehensive access to all forms of contraception without coercion,” the researchers concluded. “Additional policy solutions are needed to improve infant health, including those that directly address structural and interpersonal racism to reduce racial disparities in infant health,” they said.

The study is important because, although immediate postpartum LARC policies were first implemented almost a decade ago in the United States, population-level evidence on the effects of these policies remains scarce, Dr. Steenland said in an interview.  

Existing barriers to improving access to immediate postpartum LARC include health professional training and logistics within hospitals, as well as ensuring correct billing and timely reimbursements, Dr. Steenland said. “Simple and clear billing procedures, and advanced reimbursement so that hospitals can have devices stocked would make it easier to provide this service,” she noted.

“This service has gone from being almost completely unavailable, to available in some hospitals, mainly those that are urban, teaching, and high volume,” said Dr. Steenland. “Additional research is needed to determine how health systems can make this service available to all birthing persons,” she said. “Also, critically, additional research is needed to identify strategies to ensure that counseling for immediate postpartum LARC, and family planning more generally, is patient-centered, so that the availability of immediate postpartum LARC increases, rather than restricts, choice,” she added. “Finally, additional research is needed to determine whether postpartum people have affordable and accessible access to LARC removal services,” Dr. Steenland emphasized.
 

Immediate post partum is critical period

The immediate postpartum period is a critical time for access to contraception because many women do not return for postpartum visits after hospital discharge, Tracey A. Wilkinson, MD, and Jeffrey F. Peipert, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “The focus on contraception access during the postpartum period prior to hospital discharge is important because of the potential sequelae of a subsequent unintended pregnancy or short interpregnancy intervals,” they noted. These issues may be more acute in marginalized communities, and policies to expand immediate postpartum LARC are in place in a majority of states, the editorialists said.

However, they agreed with the authors’ statements that implementation of LARC must be done in a manner that supports patient choice and avoids coercion. Given the baseline disparities of the infant outcomes studied, increased access to immediate postpartum LARC must be provided in a way that does not exacerbate these disparities, they said. “This ultimately means that plans to increase access to contraception should emphasize availability while avoiding coercion, and if a patient ultimately decides to discontinue a method, enable that to occur easily and seamlessly, including LARC device removal,” they explained.

“Future studies examining patient centeredness of these postpartum LARC implementation efforts would be an important element to augment these data and show the impact in additional spheres beyond infant outcomes,” they added.
 

Overcome trust barriers and offer options

“In a time of restrictive access to abortion and contraception in many states, any additional increase in access can potentially be meaningful,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “Additionally, given the significantly higher rates of infant and maternal morbidity and mortality among the non-Hispanic Black population, seeing an intervention that can improve outcomes for both mothers and babies is also potentially very positive,” she said.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the study findings, as immediate LARC is much more common in other countries and has shown similar outcomes. “Additionally, I am reassured by the fact that the increased number of days until the next pregnancy is not higher, as this indirectly indicates that patients were able to get their LARC removed when they desired another pregnancy,” she noted.

Barriers to improving access to immediate postpartum LARC in the Medicaid population may include mistrust for any long-acting contraception, “especially if they perceive that cessation of the method will be difficult to achieve,” Dr. Prager noted. “Certainly, counseling about LARC removal should be an element of counseling prior to any initiation, and lack of access to removal of an IUD or implant can be categorized as a form of reproductive coercion,” she said. Dr. Prager said that such counseling might be more effective if it occurred during prenatal visits, “so if providers are not talking about this during routine OB visits and patients only hear about immediate postpartum LARC when they are in the hospital for delivery, they may be less likely to accept the practice,” she said. “Finally, although Medicaid will cover the cost of immediate postpartum LARC, private insurers do not do so consistently in all states, so some hospitals may find this process too difficult to navigate and therefore not offer immediate postpartum LARC,” Dr. Prager emphasized.

As for additional research, Dr. Prager said she would like to see more studies in an overall United States population of pregnant people, both Medicaid patients and others, on whether the immediate postpartum timing of LARC is desired.

“I would like to couple that with patients’ impressions or experiences of their ability to access contraception outside of the immediate postpartum time period, and also their impressions or experience with ability to have LARC removed, since they are the only contraceptives not necessarily within personal control for initiation or cessation,” Dr. Prager said.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Child Health and Development, and lead author Dr. Steenland received support from other National Institutes of Health grants. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Peipert disclosed serving on advisory boards for Bayer and CooperSurgical, and receiving research support from Merck, Bayer, and CooperSurgical/Teva. Dr. Wilkinson had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Policies increasing access to immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) were associated with reductions in preterm birth and low birth weight, based on data from South Carolina’s Medicaid program.

Preterm birth and low birth weight represent the second-leading cause of infant mortality in the United States, wrote Maria W. Steenland, SD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues. Previous policy interventions to reduce preterm birth and low birth weight have focused on services before and during pregnancy, they said. LARC is a safe and effective postpartum intervention, but cost has been a limiting factor, they noted.

In 2012, the Medicaid program in South Carolina began reimbursing hospitals for immediate postpartum LARC independent of global maternity payments. In a previous study, the researchers found that the implementation of this policy had reduced the number of short-interval births among adolescents.

The goal of the current study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, was to analyze the association between South Carolina’s policy change and rates of preterm birth and low birth weight among individuals with Medicaid coverage during childbirth. The researchers analyzed data from 186,953 Medicaid-paid births between January 2009 and December 2015 in South Carolina. Of these, 46,414 births (24.8%) occurred in hospitals that provided immediate postpartum LARC in response to the policy change. Overall, the implementing hospitals had more annual births paid for by Medicaid compared to nonimplementing hospitals (1,105 vs. 511) and were less likely to be rural (33.3% vs. 46.8%) and had a greater share of preterm births (15.5% vs. 9.5%). Prior to the policy change, the probability of a preterm birth in the next 4 years was 4.4% for patients at implementing hospitals and 3.5% for those in nonimplementing hospitals, and the probability of a low-birth-weight birth was 3.6% and 2.9%, respectively.

The policy change was associated with a decrease of 0.4 percentage points for preterm birth and 0.3 percentage points for subsequent low-birth-weight birth.

When the results were stratified based on race and ethnicity, the policy change was associated with a decrease of 0.5 percentage points in the probability of preterm birth in both non-Hispanic Blacks and non-Hispanic Whites. No significant differences appeared in the association between the policy change and rates of preterm birth or low-birth-weight birth between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White individuals.

However, the policy was associated with a significant decrease of 0.6 percentage points in the probability of short-interval birth among non-Hispanic Blacks, and a decrease of 1.6 percentage points in the probability of another birth within 4 years overall. The policy change also was associated with a significant increase of 27 days between births among non-Hispanic Blacks, but not with any significant change among non-Hispanic Whites or the study population overall.

“In addition, although our data cannot speak to this, the policy may have affected the intendedness of subsequent pregnancies, leading to healthier behaviors before and during pregnancy, such as early initiation of prenatal care,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on pregnancy intention or abortion, and the lack of data on patient-reported outcomes, notably the provision of patient-centered counseling and whether such counseling was biased, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on infant mortality and potential confounding from risk profiles of patients in implementing vs. nonimplementing hospitals, they wrote.

Also, the study provides population-level data, which does not guide clinical decision-making about intervals between childbirth and subsequent pregnancy, the researchers emphasized.

Although the data support the value of postpartum contraception in improving birth outcomes, “it is imperative that efforts to expand access focus on assuring comprehensive access to all forms of contraception without coercion,” the researchers concluded. “Additional policy solutions are needed to improve infant health, including those that directly address structural and interpersonal racism to reduce racial disparities in infant health,” they said.

The study is important because, although immediate postpartum LARC policies were first implemented almost a decade ago in the United States, population-level evidence on the effects of these policies remains scarce, Dr. Steenland said in an interview.  

Existing barriers to improving access to immediate postpartum LARC include health professional training and logistics within hospitals, as well as ensuring correct billing and timely reimbursements, Dr. Steenland said. “Simple and clear billing procedures, and advanced reimbursement so that hospitals can have devices stocked would make it easier to provide this service,” she noted.

“This service has gone from being almost completely unavailable, to available in some hospitals, mainly those that are urban, teaching, and high volume,” said Dr. Steenland. “Additional research is needed to determine how health systems can make this service available to all birthing persons,” she said. “Also, critically, additional research is needed to identify strategies to ensure that counseling for immediate postpartum LARC, and family planning more generally, is patient-centered, so that the availability of immediate postpartum LARC increases, rather than restricts, choice,” she added. “Finally, additional research is needed to determine whether postpartum people have affordable and accessible access to LARC removal services,” Dr. Steenland emphasized.
 

Immediate post partum is critical period

The immediate postpartum period is a critical time for access to contraception because many women do not return for postpartum visits after hospital discharge, Tracey A. Wilkinson, MD, and Jeffrey F. Peipert, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “The focus on contraception access during the postpartum period prior to hospital discharge is important because of the potential sequelae of a subsequent unintended pregnancy or short interpregnancy intervals,” they noted. These issues may be more acute in marginalized communities, and policies to expand immediate postpartum LARC are in place in a majority of states, the editorialists said.

However, they agreed with the authors’ statements that implementation of LARC must be done in a manner that supports patient choice and avoids coercion. Given the baseline disparities of the infant outcomes studied, increased access to immediate postpartum LARC must be provided in a way that does not exacerbate these disparities, they said. “This ultimately means that plans to increase access to contraception should emphasize availability while avoiding coercion, and if a patient ultimately decides to discontinue a method, enable that to occur easily and seamlessly, including LARC device removal,” they explained.

“Future studies examining patient centeredness of these postpartum LARC implementation efforts would be an important element to augment these data and show the impact in additional spheres beyond infant outcomes,” they added.
 

Overcome trust barriers and offer options

“In a time of restrictive access to abortion and contraception in many states, any additional increase in access can potentially be meaningful,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “Additionally, given the significantly higher rates of infant and maternal morbidity and mortality among the non-Hispanic Black population, seeing an intervention that can improve outcomes for both mothers and babies is also potentially very positive,” she said.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the study findings, as immediate LARC is much more common in other countries and has shown similar outcomes. “Additionally, I am reassured by the fact that the increased number of days until the next pregnancy is not higher, as this indirectly indicates that patients were able to get their LARC removed when they desired another pregnancy,” she noted.

Barriers to improving access to immediate postpartum LARC in the Medicaid population may include mistrust for any long-acting contraception, “especially if they perceive that cessation of the method will be difficult to achieve,” Dr. Prager noted. “Certainly, counseling about LARC removal should be an element of counseling prior to any initiation, and lack of access to removal of an IUD or implant can be categorized as a form of reproductive coercion,” she said. Dr. Prager said that such counseling might be more effective if it occurred during prenatal visits, “so if providers are not talking about this during routine OB visits and patients only hear about immediate postpartum LARC when they are in the hospital for delivery, they may be less likely to accept the practice,” she said. “Finally, although Medicaid will cover the cost of immediate postpartum LARC, private insurers do not do so consistently in all states, so some hospitals may find this process too difficult to navigate and therefore not offer immediate postpartum LARC,” Dr. Prager emphasized.

As for additional research, Dr. Prager said she would like to see more studies in an overall United States population of pregnant people, both Medicaid patients and others, on whether the immediate postpartum timing of LARC is desired.

“I would like to couple that with patients’ impressions or experiences of their ability to access contraception outside of the immediate postpartum time period, and also their impressions or experience with ability to have LARC removed, since they are the only contraceptives not necessarily within personal control for initiation or cessation,” Dr. Prager said.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Child Health and Development, and lead author Dr. Steenland received support from other National Institutes of Health grants. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Peipert disclosed serving on advisory boards for Bayer and CooperSurgical, and receiving research support from Merck, Bayer, and CooperSurgical/Teva. Dr. Wilkinson had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs) have been linked to increased background enhancement on breast MRI, according to research presented at the Radiological Society of North America 2021 annual meeting.

About 10.4% of women 15-49 years of age who use contraception have an IUD or contraceptive implant, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unlike oral or transdermal hormonal contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy, levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs release a small amount of the hormone directly into the uterus and are thought to have a much more localized effect, Luisa Huck, MD, the lead author of the study, said in an interview.

But women with IUDs have long reported adverse effects associated with other hormonal medication. “In the past, some women reported depression, headaches, sleep disorders, and panic attacks,” noted Dr. Huck, a radiology resident at RWTH Aachen University in Germany.

Christiane Kuhl, MD, chief of the department of radiology at RWTH Aachen University and senior author of the research, had also observed that women with hormonal IUDs often have increased background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on contrast-enhanced MRI. BPE “has been established as a sensitive marker of hormonal stimulation of breast,” the study authors wrote, and previous studies have shown that women using hormonal medications have higher BPE on breast MRIs.

To better understand whether IUDs can increase BPE, Dr. Huck and colleagues used the hospital database to search for premenopausal women who had undergone breast MRIs for screening between January 2014 and July 2020. To be included, women had to have had at least two scans: one with and one without an IUD in place, with the scan conducted at least 4 weeks after IUD placement or removal. All women in the study had no history of breast cancer or hormone or antihormone intake.

The study involved 48 women with an average age of 45 years and a median of 27 months between the two scans. Forty-six of the women had the Mirena levonorgestrel-releasing IUD and two had the Jaydess IUD. To account for hormone variations between patients, the researchers used each patient as their own reference point. To control for age-related effects, 25 women had their first MRI without an IUD and their second scan with an IUD in place. The second group of 23 women underwent their first MRI with an IUD and had it removed before the second scan.

Hormonal effects on breast enhancement are very complex, and hormonal stimulation is not always predictably correlated with changes on MRI imaging.

For 23 women in the study, background enhancement was higher on scans with the IUD than without (P < .001). For 24 women, there was no change in BPE with or without an IUD, and one woman had lower BPE with an IUD than without.

“It is very interesting and relevant to practice to consider that the presence of an intrauterine device would have potential impact on the enhancement we see in the breast on MRI imaging,” Samantha Heller, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiology at New York University, said in an interview.

However, the study used BPE as a measure for hormonal shifts, and “hormonal effects on breast enhancement are very complex, and hormonal stimulation is not always predictably correlated with changes on MRI imaging,” she noted. BPE on MRI can fluctuate, so testing actual hormone levels in patients with elevated BPE could be helpful to identify hormonal shifts, she added. It is also important to understand why half of the women in the study showed no variation in BPE, she said.

The study findings are not very surprising, considering that it is known that low levels of progesterone from IUDs circulate in the blood stream, Frances Casey, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, said in an interview. They do not suggest that there should be any changes to IUD guidelines, she added.

However, “the study findings raise the question as to whether IUD status should be documented as a matter of course prior to performing breast MRI,” said Dr. Heller. “It is standard to document the timing of a woman’s menstrual cycle, as well as to note any hormone suppression or replacement therapy. This is in part so that the radiologist may understand the etiology of any observed variation in background enhancement,” she explained.

Although increased enhancement on MRI has sometimes been linked to higher chances of recommendations for additional imaging or biopsies, she noted, “more work would be needed to understand the impact – if any – of an IUD on breast MRI recommendations due to enhancement changes.”

Dr. Huck, Dr. Heller, and Dr. Casey disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs) have been linked to increased background enhancement on breast MRI, according to research presented at the Radiological Society of North America 2021 annual meeting.

About 10.4% of women 15-49 years of age who use contraception have an IUD or contraceptive implant, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unlike oral or transdermal hormonal contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy, levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs release a small amount of the hormone directly into the uterus and are thought to have a much more localized effect, Luisa Huck, MD, the lead author of the study, said in an interview.

But women with IUDs have long reported adverse effects associated with other hormonal medication. “In the past, some women reported depression, headaches, sleep disorders, and panic attacks,” noted Dr. Huck, a radiology resident at RWTH Aachen University in Germany.

Christiane Kuhl, MD, chief of the department of radiology at RWTH Aachen University and senior author of the research, had also observed that women with hormonal IUDs often have increased background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on contrast-enhanced MRI. BPE “has been established as a sensitive marker of hormonal stimulation of breast,” the study authors wrote, and previous studies have shown that women using hormonal medications have higher BPE on breast MRIs.

To better understand whether IUDs can increase BPE, Dr. Huck and colleagues used the hospital database to search for premenopausal women who had undergone breast MRIs for screening between January 2014 and July 2020. To be included, women had to have had at least two scans: one with and one without an IUD in place, with the scan conducted at least 4 weeks after IUD placement or removal. All women in the study had no history of breast cancer or hormone or antihormone intake.

The study involved 48 women with an average age of 45 years and a median of 27 months between the two scans. Forty-six of the women had the Mirena levonorgestrel-releasing IUD and two had the Jaydess IUD. To account for hormone variations between patients, the researchers used each patient as their own reference point. To control for age-related effects, 25 women had their first MRI without an IUD and their second scan with an IUD in place. The second group of 23 women underwent their first MRI with an IUD and had it removed before the second scan.

Hormonal effects on breast enhancement are very complex, and hormonal stimulation is not always predictably correlated with changes on MRI imaging.

For 23 women in the study, background enhancement was higher on scans with the IUD than without (P < .001). For 24 women, there was no change in BPE with or without an IUD, and one woman had lower BPE with an IUD than without.

“It is very interesting and relevant to practice to consider that the presence of an intrauterine device would have potential impact on the enhancement we see in the breast on MRI imaging,” Samantha Heller, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiology at New York University, said in an interview.

However, the study used BPE as a measure for hormonal shifts, and “hormonal effects on breast enhancement are very complex, and hormonal stimulation is not always predictably correlated with changes on MRI imaging,” she noted. BPE on MRI can fluctuate, so testing actual hormone levels in patients with elevated BPE could be helpful to identify hormonal shifts, she added. It is also important to understand why half of the women in the study showed no variation in BPE, she said.

The study findings are not very surprising, considering that it is known that low levels of progesterone from IUDs circulate in the blood stream, Frances Casey, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, said in an interview. They do not suggest that there should be any changes to IUD guidelines, she added.

However, “the study findings raise the question as to whether IUD status should be documented as a matter of course prior to performing breast MRI,” said Dr. Heller. “It is standard to document the timing of a woman’s menstrual cycle, as well as to note any hormone suppression or replacement therapy. This is in part so that the radiologist may understand the etiology of any observed variation in background enhancement,” she explained.

Although increased enhancement on MRI has sometimes been linked to higher chances of recommendations for additional imaging or biopsies, she noted, “more work would be needed to understand the impact – if any – of an IUD on breast MRI recommendations due to enhancement changes.”

Dr. Huck, Dr. Heller, and Dr. Casey disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs) have been linked to increased background enhancement on breast MRI, according to research presented at the Radiological Society of North America 2021 annual meeting.

About 10.4% of women 15-49 years of age who use contraception have an IUD or contraceptive implant, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unlike oral or transdermal hormonal contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy, levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs release a small amount of the hormone directly into the uterus and are thought to have a much more localized effect, Luisa Huck, MD, the lead author of the study, said in an interview.

But women with IUDs have long reported adverse effects associated with other hormonal medication. “In the past, some women reported depression, headaches, sleep disorders, and panic attacks,” noted Dr. Huck, a radiology resident at RWTH Aachen University in Germany.

Christiane Kuhl, MD, chief of the department of radiology at RWTH Aachen University and senior author of the research, had also observed that women with hormonal IUDs often have increased background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on contrast-enhanced MRI. BPE “has been established as a sensitive marker of hormonal stimulation of breast,” the study authors wrote, and previous studies have shown that women using hormonal medications have higher BPE on breast MRIs.

To better understand whether IUDs can increase BPE, Dr. Huck and colleagues used the hospital database to search for premenopausal women who had undergone breast MRIs for screening between January 2014 and July 2020. To be included, women had to have had at least two scans: one with and one without an IUD in place, with the scan conducted at least 4 weeks after IUD placement or removal. All women in the study had no history of breast cancer or hormone or antihormone intake.

The study involved 48 women with an average age of 45 years and a median of 27 months between the two scans. Forty-six of the women had the Mirena levonorgestrel-releasing IUD and two had the Jaydess IUD. To account for hormone variations between patients, the researchers used each patient as their own reference point. To control for age-related effects, 25 women had their first MRI without an IUD and their second scan with an IUD in place. The second group of 23 women underwent their first MRI with an IUD and had it removed before the second scan.

Hormonal effects on breast enhancement are very complex, and hormonal stimulation is not always predictably correlated with changes on MRI imaging.

For 23 women in the study, background enhancement was higher on scans with the IUD than without (P < .001). For 24 women, there was no change in BPE with or without an IUD, and one woman had lower BPE with an IUD than without.

“It is very interesting and relevant to practice to consider that the presence of an intrauterine device would have potential impact on the enhancement we see in the breast on MRI imaging,” Samantha Heller, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiology at New York University, said in an interview.

However, the study used BPE as a measure for hormonal shifts, and “hormonal effects on breast enhancement are very complex, and hormonal stimulation is not always predictably correlated with changes on MRI imaging,” she noted. BPE on MRI can fluctuate, so testing actual hormone levels in patients with elevated BPE could be helpful to identify hormonal shifts, she added. It is also important to understand why half of the women in the study showed no variation in BPE, she said.

The study findings are not very surprising, considering that it is known that low levels of progesterone from IUDs circulate in the blood stream, Frances Casey, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, said in an interview. They do not suggest that there should be any changes to IUD guidelines, she added.

However, “the study findings raise the question as to whether IUD status should be documented as a matter of course prior to performing breast MRI,” said Dr. Heller. “It is standard to document the timing of a woman’s menstrual cycle, as well as to note any hormone suppression or replacement therapy. This is in part so that the radiologist may understand the etiology of any observed variation in background enhancement,” she explained.

Although increased enhancement on MRI has sometimes been linked to higher chances of recommendations for additional imaging or biopsies, she noted, “more work would be needed to understand the impact – if any – of an IUD on breast MRI recommendations due to enhancement changes.”

Dr. Huck, Dr. Heller, and Dr. Casey disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In September, when Texas’ near-total abortion ban took effect, Planned Parenthood clinics in the Lone Star State started offering every patient who walked in information on Senate Bill 8, as well as emergency contraception, condoms, and two pregnancy tests. The plan is to distribute 22,000 “empowerment kits” this year.

“We felt it was very important for patients to have as many tools on hand to help them meet this really onerous law,” said Elizabeth Cardwell, lead clinician at Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, which has 24 clinics across the northern and central regions of the state and provides care to tens of thousands of people annually.

Most of their patients – who tend to be uninsured and have annual household incomes of less than $25,000 – had not known about SB 8 the first several weeks after implementation, said Dr. Cardwell. But once they learned about it, patients seemed to rush to get on birth control, she said.

SB 8 allows private citizens, in Texas or elsewhere, to sue anyone who performs an abortion in the state or who “aided or abetted” someone getting an abortion once fetal cardiac activity is detected. This is generally around six weeks, before most people know they’re pregnant. It’s had a chilling effect in Texas, where access to abortion was already limited.

Medical staffs are doubling down on educating patients about birth control. They recognize the strategy isn’t foolproof but are desperate to prevent unintended pregnancies, nearly half of which nationwide end in abortion.

“It’s more important now than it ever has been,” said Dr. Cardwell. “I’ve been in abortion care 30-plus years, and my go-to line was ‘You’ve got plenty of time. You don’t have to feel rushed. Talk with your partner. Talk with your family,’” she said. “Now we don’t have that luxury.”

Patients, too, seem to feel a sense of urgency. During September, according to data from Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, medical staff provided patients with some form of birth control — for example, pill packs, Depo-Provera shots or IUD implant insertions – in more than 3,750 visits, 5% more than in Sept. 2020.

Dr. Jennifer Liedtke, a family physician in West Texas, said she and her nurse practitioners explain SB 8 to every patient who comes to their private practice and saw a 20% increase in requests for long-acting reversible contraceptive methods, known as LARCs, in September.

LARCs, a category that includes intrauterine devices and hormonal implants, have become increasingly appealing because they are 99% effective at preventing pregnancy and last several years. They are also simpler than the pill, which needs to be taken daily, or the vaginal ring, which needs to be changed monthly.

Still, LARCs are not everyone’s preferred method. For example, inserting an IUD can be painful.

A doctor’s office is one of the few opportunities for reliable birth control education. Texas law doesn’t require schools to teach sex education, and if they do, educators must stress abstinence as the preferred birth control method. Some doctors opt to explain abortion access in the state when naming birth control options.

Dr. Liedtke is used to having to explain new laws passed by the Texas legislature. “It happens all the time,” she said. But the controversy surrounding SB 8 confuses patients all the more as the law works its way through the court system with differing rulings, one of which briefly blocked the measure. The U.S. Supreme Court heard related arguments Nov. 1.

“People just don’t understand,” said Dr. Liedtke. “It was tied up for 48 hours, so they are like, ‘It’s not a law anymore?’ Well, no, technically it is.”

Not all providers are able to talk freely about abortion access. In 2019, the Trump administration barred providers that participate in the federally funded family planning program, Title X, from mentioning abortion care to patients, even if patients themselves raise questions. In early October, the Biden administration reversed that rule. The change will kick in this month. Planned Parenthood can discuss SB 8 in Texas because Texas affiliates do not receive Title X dollars.

Dr. Lindsey Vasquez of Legacy Community Health, the largest federally qualified health center in Texas and a recipient of Title X dollars, said she and other staff members have not discussed abortion or SB 8 because they also must juggle a variety of other priorities. Legacy’s patients are underserved, she said. A majority live at or below the federal poverty level.

Nearly two years into the Covid-19 pandemic, “we’re literally maximizing those visits,” Dr. Vasquez said. Their jobs go beyond offering reproductive care. “We’re making sure they have food resources, that they have their housing stable,” she said. “We really are trying to make sure that all of their needs are met because we know for these types of populations – patients that we serve – this may be our only moment that we get to meet them.”

Specialized family planning clinics that receive Title X dollars do have proactive conversations about contraceptive methods, according to Every Body Texas, the Title X grantee for the state.

Discussions of long-acting reversible contraception must be handled with sensitivity because these forms of birth control have a questionable history among certain populations, primarily lower-income patients. In the 1990s, lawmakers in several states, including Texas, introduced bills to offer cash assistance recipients financial incentives to get an implant or mandate insertion for people on government benefits, a move seen as reproductive coercion.

“It’s important for a client to get on the contraceptive method of their choice,” said Mimi Garcia, communications director for Every Body Texas. “Some people will just say, ‘Let’s get everyone on IUDs’ or ‘Let’s get everybody on hormonal implants’ because those are the most effective methods. ... That’s not something that’s going to work for [every] individual. ... Either they don’t agree with it philosophically, or they don’t like how it makes their body feel.”

It’s a nuanced subject for providers to broach, so some suggest starting the conversation by asking the patient about their future.

“The best question to ask is ‘When do you want to have another baby?’” said Dr. Liedtke. And then if they say, ‘Oh, gosh, I’m not even sure I want to have more kids’ or ‘Five or six years from now,’ then we start talking LARCs. ... But if it’s like, ‘Man, I really want to start trying in a year,’ then I don’t talk to them about putting one of those in.”

The Biden administration expected more demand for birth control in Texas, so Health & Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra announced in mid-September that Every Body Texas would receive additional Title X funding, as would local providers experiencing an influx of clients as a result of SB 8.

But providers said improved access to contraception will not blunt the law’s effects. It will not protect patients who want to get pregnant but ultimately decide on abortion because they receive a diagnosis of a serious complication, their relationship status changes, or they lose financial or social support, said Dr. Elissa Serapio, an OB-GYN in the Rio Grande Valley and a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health.

“It’s the very best that we can do,” said Dr. Cardwell, of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas. “There’s no 100% effective method of birth control.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In September, when Texas’ near-total abortion ban took effect, Planned Parenthood clinics in the Lone Star State started offering every patient who walked in information on Senate Bill 8, as well as emergency contraception, condoms, and two pregnancy tests. The plan is to distribute 22,000 “empowerment kits” this year.

“We felt it was very important for patients to have as many tools on hand to help them meet this really onerous law,” said Elizabeth Cardwell, lead clinician at Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, which has 24 clinics across the northern and central regions of the state and provides care to tens of thousands of people annually.

Most of their patients – who tend to be uninsured and have annual household incomes of less than $25,000 – had not known about SB 8 the first several weeks after implementation, said Dr. Cardwell. But once they learned about it, patients seemed to rush to get on birth control, she said.

SB 8 allows private citizens, in Texas or elsewhere, to sue anyone who performs an abortion in the state or who “aided or abetted” someone getting an abortion once fetal cardiac activity is detected. This is generally around six weeks, before most people know they’re pregnant. It’s had a chilling effect in Texas, where access to abortion was already limited.

Medical staffs are doubling down on educating patients about birth control. They recognize the strategy isn’t foolproof but are desperate to prevent unintended pregnancies, nearly half of which nationwide end in abortion.

“It’s more important now than it ever has been,” said Dr. Cardwell. “I’ve been in abortion care 30-plus years, and my go-to line was ‘You’ve got plenty of time. You don’t have to feel rushed. Talk with your partner. Talk with your family,’” she said. “Now we don’t have that luxury.”

Patients, too, seem to feel a sense of urgency. During September, according to data from Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, medical staff provided patients with some form of birth control — for example, pill packs, Depo-Provera shots or IUD implant insertions – in more than 3,750 visits, 5% more than in Sept. 2020.

Dr. Jennifer Liedtke, a family physician in West Texas, said she and her nurse practitioners explain SB 8 to every patient who comes to their private practice and saw a 20% increase in requests for long-acting reversible contraceptive methods, known as LARCs, in September.

LARCs, a category that includes intrauterine devices and hormonal implants, have become increasingly appealing because they are 99% effective at preventing pregnancy and last several years. They are also simpler than the pill, which needs to be taken daily, or the vaginal ring, which needs to be changed monthly.

Still, LARCs are not everyone’s preferred method. For example, inserting an IUD can be painful.

A doctor’s office is one of the few opportunities for reliable birth control education. Texas law doesn’t require schools to teach sex education, and if they do, educators must stress abstinence as the preferred birth control method. Some doctors opt to explain abortion access in the state when naming birth control options.

Dr. Liedtke is used to having to explain new laws passed by the Texas legislature. “It happens all the time,” she said. But the controversy surrounding SB 8 confuses patients all the more as the law works its way through the court system with differing rulings, one of which briefly blocked the measure. The U.S. Supreme Court heard related arguments Nov. 1.

“People just don’t understand,” said Dr. Liedtke. “It was tied up for 48 hours, so they are like, ‘It’s not a law anymore?’ Well, no, technically it is.”

Not all providers are able to talk freely about abortion access. In 2019, the Trump administration barred providers that participate in the federally funded family planning program, Title X, from mentioning abortion care to patients, even if patients themselves raise questions. In early October, the Biden administration reversed that rule. The change will kick in this month. Planned Parenthood can discuss SB 8 in Texas because Texas affiliates do not receive Title X dollars.

Dr. Lindsey Vasquez of Legacy Community Health, the largest federally qualified health center in Texas and a recipient of Title X dollars, said she and other staff members have not discussed abortion or SB 8 because they also must juggle a variety of other priorities. Legacy’s patients are underserved, she said. A majority live at or below the federal poverty level.

Nearly two years into the Covid-19 pandemic, “we’re literally maximizing those visits,” Dr. Vasquez said. Their jobs go beyond offering reproductive care. “We’re making sure they have food resources, that they have their housing stable,” she said. “We really are trying to make sure that all of their needs are met because we know for these types of populations – patients that we serve – this may be our only moment that we get to meet them.”

Specialized family planning clinics that receive Title X dollars do have proactive conversations about contraceptive methods, according to Every Body Texas, the Title X grantee for the state.

Discussions of long-acting reversible contraception must be handled with sensitivity because these forms of birth control have a questionable history among certain populations, primarily lower-income patients. In the 1990s, lawmakers in several states, including Texas, introduced bills to offer cash assistance recipients financial incentives to get an implant or mandate insertion for people on government benefits, a move seen as reproductive coercion.

“It’s important for a client to get on the contraceptive method of their choice,” said Mimi Garcia, communications director for Every Body Texas. “Some people will just say, ‘Let’s get everyone on IUDs’ or ‘Let’s get everybody on hormonal implants’ because those are the most effective methods. ... That’s not something that’s going to work for [every] individual. ... Either they don’t agree with it philosophically, or they don’t like how it makes their body feel.”

It’s a nuanced subject for providers to broach, so some suggest starting the conversation by asking the patient about their future.

“The best question to ask is ‘When do you want to have another baby?’” said Dr. Liedtke. And then if they say, ‘Oh, gosh, I’m not even sure I want to have more kids’ or ‘Five or six years from now,’ then we start talking LARCs. ... But if it’s like, ‘Man, I really want to start trying in a year,’ then I don’t talk to them about putting one of those in.”

The Biden administration expected more demand for birth control in Texas, so Health & Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra announced in mid-September that Every Body Texas would receive additional Title X funding, as would local providers experiencing an influx of clients as a result of SB 8.

But providers said improved access to contraception will not blunt the law’s effects. It will not protect patients who want to get pregnant but ultimately decide on abortion because they receive a diagnosis of a serious complication, their relationship status changes, or they lose financial or social support, said Dr. Elissa Serapio, an OB-GYN in the Rio Grande Valley and a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health.

“It’s the very best that we can do,” said Dr. Cardwell, of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas. “There’s no 100% effective method of birth control.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In September, when Texas’ near-total abortion ban took effect, Planned Parenthood clinics in the Lone Star State started offering every patient who walked in information on Senate Bill 8, as well as emergency contraception, condoms, and two pregnancy tests. The plan is to distribute 22,000 “empowerment kits” this year.

“We felt it was very important for patients to have as many tools on hand to help them meet this really onerous law,” said Elizabeth Cardwell, lead clinician at Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, which has 24 clinics across the northern and central regions of the state and provides care to tens of thousands of people annually.

Most of their patients – who tend to be uninsured and have annual household incomes of less than $25,000 – had not known about SB 8 the first several weeks after implementation, said Dr. Cardwell. But once they learned about it, patients seemed to rush to get on birth control, she said.

SB 8 allows private citizens, in Texas or elsewhere, to sue anyone who performs an abortion in the state or who “aided or abetted” someone getting an abortion once fetal cardiac activity is detected. This is generally around six weeks, before most people know they’re pregnant. It’s had a chilling effect in Texas, where access to abortion was already limited.

Medical staffs are doubling down on educating patients about birth control. They recognize the strategy isn’t foolproof but are desperate to prevent unintended pregnancies, nearly half of which nationwide end in abortion.

“It’s more important now than it ever has been,” said Dr. Cardwell. “I’ve been in abortion care 30-plus years, and my go-to line was ‘You’ve got plenty of time. You don’t have to feel rushed. Talk with your partner. Talk with your family,’” she said. “Now we don’t have that luxury.”

Patients, too, seem to feel a sense of urgency. During September, according to data from Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, medical staff provided patients with some form of birth control — for example, pill packs, Depo-Provera shots or IUD implant insertions – in more than 3,750 visits, 5% more than in Sept. 2020.

Dr. Jennifer Liedtke, a family physician in West Texas, said she and her nurse practitioners explain SB 8 to every patient who comes to their private practice and saw a 20% increase in requests for long-acting reversible contraceptive methods, known as LARCs, in September.

LARCs, a category that includes intrauterine devices and hormonal implants, have become increasingly appealing because they are 99% effective at preventing pregnancy and last several years. They are also simpler than the pill, which needs to be taken daily, or the vaginal ring, which needs to be changed monthly.

Still, LARCs are not everyone’s preferred method. For example, inserting an IUD can be painful.

A doctor’s office is one of the few opportunities for reliable birth control education. Texas law doesn’t require schools to teach sex education, and if they do, educators must stress abstinence as the preferred birth control method. Some doctors opt to explain abortion access in the state when naming birth control options.

Dr. Liedtke is used to having to explain new laws passed by the Texas legislature. “It happens all the time,” she said. But the controversy surrounding SB 8 confuses patients all the more as the law works its way through the court system with differing rulings, one of which briefly blocked the measure. The U.S. Supreme Court heard related arguments Nov. 1.

“People just don’t understand,” said Dr. Liedtke. “It was tied up for 48 hours, so they are like, ‘It’s not a law anymore?’ Well, no, technically it is.”

Not all providers are able to talk freely about abortion access. In 2019, the Trump administration barred providers that participate in the federally funded family planning program, Title X, from mentioning abortion care to patients, even if patients themselves raise questions. In early October, the Biden administration reversed that rule. The change will kick in this month. Planned Parenthood can discuss SB 8 in Texas because Texas affiliates do not receive Title X dollars.

Dr. Lindsey Vasquez of Legacy Community Health, the largest federally qualified health center in Texas and a recipient of Title X dollars, said she and other staff members have not discussed abortion or SB 8 because they also must juggle a variety of other priorities. Legacy’s patients are underserved, she said. A majority live at or below the federal poverty level.

Nearly two years into the Covid-19 pandemic, “we’re literally maximizing those visits,” Dr. Vasquez said. Their jobs go beyond offering reproductive care. “We’re making sure they have food resources, that they have their housing stable,” she said. “We really are trying to make sure that all of their needs are met because we know for these types of populations – patients that we serve – this may be our only moment that we get to meet them.”

Specialized family planning clinics that receive Title X dollars do have proactive conversations about contraceptive methods, according to Every Body Texas, the Title X grantee for the state.

Discussions of long-acting reversible contraception must be handled with sensitivity because these forms of birth control have a questionable history among certain populations, primarily lower-income patients. In the 1990s, lawmakers in several states, including Texas, introduced bills to offer cash assistance recipients financial incentives to get an implant or mandate insertion for people on government benefits, a move seen as reproductive coercion.

“It’s important for a client to get on the contraceptive method of their choice,” said Mimi Garcia, communications director for Every Body Texas. “Some people will just say, ‘Let’s get everyone on IUDs’ or ‘Let’s get everybody on hormonal implants’ because those are the most effective methods. ... That’s not something that’s going to work for [every] individual. ... Either they don’t agree with it philosophically, or they don’t like how it makes their body feel.”

It’s a nuanced subject for providers to broach, so some suggest starting the conversation by asking the patient about their future.

“The best question to ask is ‘When do you want to have another baby?’” said Dr. Liedtke. And then if they say, ‘Oh, gosh, I’m not even sure I want to have more kids’ or ‘Five or six years from now,’ then we start talking LARCs. ... But if it’s like, ‘Man, I really want to start trying in a year,’ then I don’t talk to them about putting one of those in.”

The Biden administration expected more demand for birth control in Texas, so Health & Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra announced in mid-September that Every Body Texas would receive additional Title X funding, as would local providers experiencing an influx of clients as a result of SB 8.

But providers said improved access to contraception will not blunt the law’s effects. It will not protect patients who want to get pregnant but ultimately decide on abortion because they receive a diagnosis of a serious complication, their relationship status changes, or they lose financial or social support, said Dr. Elissa Serapio, an OB-GYN in the Rio Grande Valley and a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health.

“It’s the very best that we can do,” said Dr. Cardwell, of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas. “There’s no 100% effective method of birth control.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The Supreme Court’s usual processes were disrupted this term. The COVID-19 pandemic required audio hearings rather than in-person, and it resulted in a number of emergency legal appeals. As the Court began its regular sessions on October 5, 2020, there were only 8 justices—Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had passed away and Amy Coney Barrett had not yet been confirmed by the Senate. The Court decided many important cases this term, including dealing with the delivery of drugs to induce abortions, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) moratorium on housing evictions, yet another case on the Affordable Care Act, state laws concerning pharmacy benefit managers, and the Hologic and Minerva endometrial ablation systems patents. After considering these cases, we also will briefly look at other cases of general interest.

Abortion

Patient access to mifepristone

In May 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) was the named plaintiff in a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol that are used to induce medical abortions.¹ The case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of ACOG and others^2,3 and raised the issue of patients’ access to these medications. The basic claim of the case was that during the pandemic, the FDA’s regulation of mifepristone was unconstitutional in that they imposed an undue burden on the decision of women to have an abortion.⁴ (Although misoprostol is a part of the medical abortion regimen, it is not subject to special regulation and was not part of the litigation.)

The FDA regulation of mifepristone, begun in 2000 but modified since then, includes 3 elements to assure safe use:

• prescribers must have special training or certification
• the drug can be dispensed to patients only in a hospital, clinic, or medical office under the supervision of a certified health care provider (known as the “in-person dispensing requirement” because retail pharmacy or mail distribution are prohibited)
• the health care provider must review a “patient agreement form” with the patient and have the patient sign the consent form in the provider’s presence.⁵

The pandemic made fulfilling these requirements substantially more burdensome and difficult. The question was whether the FDA was constitutionally required to modify its regulations during a pandemic to take account of the undue burden of the regulation created by the pandemic. That is, the question was not whether the FDA could have or should have chosen to make the modification, but whether it was required to do so.

In July 2020, a federal district court in Maryland held that the FDA regulation was an unconstitutional burden on the abortion rights of women during the pandemic and issued a preliminary injunction to stop the FDA from enforcing the in-person dispensing and signature rules. The district judge applied the injunction to Maryland, but also made it a nationwide injunction. (The issue of district court nationwide injunctions is considered in, “District court ‘nationwide injunctions’”). 

The FDA asked the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the enforcement of the injunction, which the appeals court denied. The FDA then appealed to the Supreme Court, asking it to stay the injunction. In October 2020, the Court announced that it was holding the FDA’s request “in abeyance” to allow the district court to consider a motion by the FDA to dissolve or change the injunction. It gave the district court 40 days in which to act. That decision by the Court was in the “Shadow Docket” (see sidebar on page XX), so the exact vote of the Court in October is not clear, but 2 Justices (Alito and Thomas) dissented and would have stayed the injunction.⁶ Over the next 40 days, the district court did not withdraw its nationwide injunction.

Thus, on January 12, 2021, the case was again before the Supreme Court, which let the FDA’s regulations regarding mifepristone remain in place by lifting the district court’s injunction. Most of the justices supporting the stay did not write to explain their decision, although their dissent in the earlier cases may have served that purpose. (Maryland was permitting many kinds of activity that were more risky than visiting a clinic—indoor dining, with open hair salons, gyms, and casinos.)⁷ Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurrence to indicate that, in his view, the issue was not whether the FDA’s regulations placed an undue burden on a right to an abortion generally, but that “My view is that courts owe significant deference” to the public health authorities (here meaning the FDA). Justices Sotomayor and Kagan dissented, saying that the issue was the undue burden on women, given the difficulties of the pandemic, particularly going to medical facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁸

The injunction, sought by ACOG and others, was issued by the district court and was in effect for several months before it was dissolved by the Supreme Court. Following the change in presidential administrations, in April 2021 the FDA announced that it was going to “exercise enforcement discretion with respect to the in-person dispensing requirement…during the COVID-19 public health emergency.”⁹

Continue to: The Texas abortion case...

The Texas abortion case

The Court, on September 1, 2021, declined to block a Texas abortion statute from taking effect.¹⁰ This law precludes abortions after a fetal heartbeat is present at about 6 weeks of gestation. The Fifth Circuit declined to grant an injunction delaying implementation of the Texas law, and the Court did not reverse that decision.

Over the years, a variety of states have placed limitations on abortion, and those almost always have been enjoined by federal courts before they went into effect. However, the Texas statute, which undoubtedly is unconstitutional, was creatively constructed to avoid an early injunction.¹¹ The statute does not allow state officials to enforce the new law, but rather it allows almost any private citizen to seek monetary damages from anyone performing an abortion or who “aids and abets” an abortion. Thus, it is difficult to tailor a lawsuit before this law is enforced. First, courts do not enjoin laws; they usually enjoin individuals from enforcing the law, and in this case it is difficult to know which individuals will be enforcing the laws and what their decisions might be. There also are some questions about the degree to which federal courts can enjoin state courts from deciding lawsuits under state law. For these procedural reasons, the majority of the Court found that those attacking the Texas law had not met their burden of showing that that they would win their case.

Even 3 of the dissenting justices said the defendants may be right that “existing doctrines preclude judicial intervention,” but that the consequences are such that the Court should delay the law until there is time for briefing and argument. The other 3 dissenting justices thought there would be ways of getting around the clever roadblock Texas had erected for the federal courts.

There has been some commentary that this case portends the abandonment of Roe v Wade and Casey,¹² but that conclusion does not seem warranted by this case. The Court has accepted a Mississippi abortion law to be heard next term.¹³ In addition, the Texas statute is likely to be back in federal court once a private individual has filed a claim for money from an abortion provider (and likely even before that).

COVID-19 cases

The Supreme Court decided several cases related to COVID-19, including adjustments to election procedures, church services, and CDC eviction moratoria. As a general matter early in the pandemic, the Court deferred to government authorities, generally upholding government actions. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the importance of the Court deferring to government officials in emergencies. As the pandemic progressed into 2021, however, the Court became less and less sympathetic to government actions that were not consistent, permitted by existing law, or reasonably necessary. For example, regulations of churches that were inconsistent with the regulation of similar organizations were struck down.¹⁴

Among the most interesting of the summer 2021 cases was the CDC eviction moratorium that essentially prohibited landlords nationwide from evicting tenants for nonpayment of rent. When the challenges to these CDC regulations first reached the Court, the moratorium was about to expire; in a 5-4 decision, the Court did not enjoin the CDC from continuing that policy. Justice Kavanaugh (the fifth vote) warned that “clear and specific congressional authorization…would be necessary to extend the moratorium past July 31.”¹⁵ Despite telling the Court that the moratorium would expire on July 31, just 3 days after the expiration and without any congressional authorization, the CDC reinstated what was practically the same moratorium.¹⁶ On August 26, the Court struck down the reinstated regulation, probably by a 6-3 margin. (Because this case arose in the “Shadow Docket,” the vote of some justices is not certain).¹⁷

Continue to: The Affordable Care Act...

The Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act was challenged in the Court for the third time.¹⁸ In this term’s case, several states argued that when Congress essentially eliminated the penalty/tax for not purchasing insurance coverage, there was no longer a constitutional basis for the individual mandate. With that centerpiece gone, they claimed, the whole statute should be declared unconstitutional.

Along with many other specialty groups, ACOG joined an amicus curiae brief sponsored by the American Medical Association (AMA).¹⁹ An amicus brief is one not filed by the parties to the case, but by organizations or individuals who have information that may be of use to the Court in considering the case. Among other things, the filing of an amicus brief indicates the interest of the organization in the outcome of the case. In this case, the crux of the amicus was that even if the individual mandate currently is not constitutional, the Court should sever that provision and retain the rest of the ACA.

Despite some wild predictions about what the Court might do, it did not decide any substantive issue. Rather, it found that none of the parties to the case had “standing” to challenge the constitutionality of the ACA. Therefore, in effect, the Court dismissed the case without deciding the substantive legal issues.
 

Pharmacy Benefit Managers

The powerful Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) are a hidden part of the health care system; however, in recent years there has been increasing regulatory attention paid to them. Some states have begun regulating aspects of PBMs. In this term, the Court considered an Arkansas law that sought to protect local pharmacies from PBM pricing practices.²⁰ The AMA filed an amicus brief in the case which made legal arguments, most of which had been made by the parties to the litigation.²¹

PBMs generally tell pharmacies how much they will reimburse the pharmacy for filling a prescription for a particular drug. In some instances, PBMs will set a reimbursement price that is lower than the wholesale price at which local pharmacies can purchase the drug. The Arkansas law prohibited PBMs in the state from reimbursing pharmacies for less than the wholesale cost the pharmacy paid for the drug.

The claim of the PBMs was that the Arkansas law violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In part, this act preempts state law that relates to fringe benefit plans. States have the authority to regulate insurance, but ERISA limits what they can do when the insurance relates to fringe benefits. The Court held that ERISA does not preempt the Arkansas law or similar state laws in other states. Because the state law was not preempted by the state law, the Arkansas regulation was upheld. The fact that this was a unanimous decision (8-0, because Justice Barrett was not on the Court when the case was heard) suggests that states may have leeway in additional regulations of PBMs, and it would not be surprising to see more of that state regulation in the future.

Continue to: Patent uncertainty...

Patent uncertainty

Csaba Truckai invented and patented the NovaSure System ablation device with a “moisture permeable” head. He sold his company and the related patents, which eventually were purchased by Hologic. Over time, Hologic added claims to the original patent. In the meantime, Truckai went on to invent another device, the Minerva Endometrial Ablation System (MEAS), which had a “moisture impermeable” head. (Note that the “Minerva Surgical, Inc.” involved in this case is not related to the company “Minerva Industries,” which some identified as a “patent troll.”)²²

Hologic sued Minerva, claiming that Truckai’s second device (MEAS) infringed on its patent for the first device (NovaSure). Truckai’s defense was that the patent on NovaSure was invalid. Hologic felt that since Truckai had obtained that patent and then sold it, it was improper for him now to claim it was invalid. There is a doctrine for that: assignor estoppel—the person who sold (assigned) the patent is prevented from later claiming it was invalid. The question in this case was whether assignor estoppel is part of the patent law of the United States. It is not in the patent statutes, so it is a court-determined part of the law.

In a 5-4 decision this Term, the Court held that assignor estoppel is recognized, but that it is narrow.²³ The Court identified several exceptions to assignor estoppel, notably for this case, including the situation in which the purchaser of the patent, after the purchase, returns to the Patent and Trademark Office to expand (amend) the patent’s claims. In that case, the seller could not be estopped by the amended terms of the patent. Minerva claimed that it was attacking the expanded patent that included changes made after it sold the patent. The Court, therefore, returned the case to the Federal Circuit to apply the principles it laid out about assignor estoppel.

Biotech and other fast-moving fields frequently have new technology building on slightly earlier technology. The current patent system often leaves uncertainty about who owns which part of a valid patent. This uncertainty is a drag on innovation, and the patent system is supposed to spur innovation. Assignor estoppel is likely to create additional complexity and uncertainty in some patents, which is regrettable.
 

Review of the Term

In addition to the other disruptions of the Term, during the first part of the Term, Amy Coney Barrett was not yet confirmed by the Senate, so there were only 8 justices until October 27. She did not participate in those cases that were heard before she joined the Court. The consensus is that the Court heard 67 cases: 57 were formally briefed and argued along with 8 summary reversals and 2 religious cases in the Shadow Docket. In my opinion, this undercounts both the number and the importance of the Shadow Docket cases, but the following data use the 67 case convention.²⁴

The Court was unanimous in 43% of the cases, including some of the most divisive issues. That unanimity reflects very narrow decisions. There were (by conventional count) only eight 5-4 opinions (12%), an unusually low number. Justice Kavanaugh is viewed as the “median” justice. He was in the majority in 97% of all cases. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett were in the majority 91%, and Justice Gorsuch 90%. As for the other justices, they were in the majority (all cases) most of the time: Justice Alito, 83%; Justice Thomas, 81%; Justice Breyer, 76%; Justice Kagan, 75%; and Justice Sotomayor, 69%. In “divided cases” (when unanimous cases are removed), the percentages are: Justice Kavanaugh, 95%; Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, 84%; Justice Gorsuch, 82%; Justice Alito, 70%; Justice Thomas, 66%; Justice Breyer, 58%; Justice Kagan, 55%; and Justice Sotomayor, 45%.

When the term began, many Court watchers expected a relatively uninteresting term, dealing with many technical legal details. In fact, it turned out to be more interesting and important than expected, even with narrow holdings in important cases. Part of the secret of the term was that a lot of the real action was in the Shadow Docket. The end of the term is sometimes the moment when a justice announces a plan to retire. Many commentators expected Justice Breyer might announce—he has been under pressure to do so, to allow President Biden to nominate and a Democratic Senate to confirm a progressive justice. However, he did not do so. It is possible that he will announce his retirement to be effective when his successor is confirmed, but that is pure speculation.
 

Continue to: Next Term...

Next Term

The next term began on Monday, October 4, 2021. With the considerable current activity in the Shadow Docket, there was not much of a summer break. The coming term looks extraordinary. The headline case is an abortion case from Mississippi, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization.²⁵ The legal question is the constitutionality of Mississippi law that prohibits most abortions after 15 weeks of gestation. The Texas abortion law will also be back before the Court. As we saw this term, big cases may produce very narrow results, but this case has the potential for being a notable abortion decision.

In a different case the Court will decide whether a state attorney general can step in to defend an abortion law when the state health secretary does not do so.²⁶

The Court also has accepted 3 cases dealing with reimbursement for health services. One deals with whether or not the Department of Health and Human Services can set reimbursement rates without good survey data regarding costs,²⁷ another involves the calculation of additional payments for hospitals that serve a “disproportionate number of low-income patients,”²⁸ and the third whether state Medicaid programs can take funds from an injured beneficiary’s tort recovery to cover future Medicaid costs.²⁹

In other cases, the Court will review a gun control law from New York. The Court’s earlier Second Amendment cases involved guns in the home used for self-defense, but this case raises the question of whether a state can practically preclude “concealed-carry licenses.”³⁰ Many experts believe the Court will accept a case dealing with racial preferences in college admissions, perhaps the Harvard case in which the claim is discrimination against Asian Americans.³¹

The ACOG mifepristone case was interesting, in part because the federal district court issued a nationwide injunction against the Americans with Disabilities Act, enforcing its rules anywhere in the country. The effect of these orders is for a single district judge to create the “law of the land,” at least until that is reviewed—which can take months. The advantage of the nationwide injunction is that it avoids having to repeatedly litigate the same issues in multiple courts around the country. The downside is that plaintiffs can seek out a nonrepresentative judge or circuit and receive an injunction that would be granted by few other circuits. In addition, a nationwide injunction can apply to specific circumstances that are not before the court issuing the injunction. In the mifepristone case, for example, 10 states requested to intervene in the ACOG case. The court rejected the request, but the nationwide injunction applied to those states.¹

Although federal judges have had the authority to issue nationwide injunctions for years, they are becoming much more common. One reason is the ease of forum shopping noted earlier—organizations can cherry-pick district courts and circuits sympathetic to their views. Both left- and right-leaning organizations have learned this lesson, so left-leaning groups are likely to file in specific districts in the Ninth Circuit, and right-leaning groups to districts in the Fifth Circuit.

If the current trend of increasing nationwide injunctions continues, either the rules for the federal courts or congressional action may be required to reduce some of the abuses by both sides of the political spectrum.

The Supreme Court’s usual processes were disrupted this term. The COVID-19 pandemic required audio hearings rather than in-person, and it resulted in a number of emergency legal appeals. As the Court began its regular sessions on October 5, 2020, there were only 8 justices—Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had passed away and Amy Coney Barrett had not yet been confirmed by the Senate. The Court decided many important cases this term, including dealing with the delivery of drugs to induce abortions, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) moratorium on housing evictions, yet another case on the Affordable Care Act, state laws concerning pharmacy benefit managers, and the Hologic and Minerva endometrial ablation systems patents. After considering these cases, we also will briefly look at other cases of general interest.

Abortion

Patient access to mifepristone

In May 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) was the named plaintiff in a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol that are used to induce medical abortions.¹ The case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of ACOG and others^2,3 and raised the issue of patients’ access to these medications. The basic claim of the case was that during the pandemic, the FDA’s regulation of mifepristone was unconstitutional in that they imposed an undue burden on the decision of women to have an abortion.⁴ (Although misoprostol is a part of the medical abortion regimen, it is not subject to special regulation and was not part of the litigation.)

The FDA regulation of mifepristone, begun in 2000 but modified since then, includes 3 elements to assure safe use:

• prescribers must have special training or certification
• the drug can be dispensed to patients only in a hospital, clinic, or medical office under the supervision of a certified health care provider (known as the “in-person dispensing requirement” because retail pharmacy or mail distribution are prohibited)
• the health care provider must review a “patient agreement form” with the patient and have the patient sign the consent form in the provider’s presence.⁵

The pandemic made fulfilling these requirements substantially more burdensome and difficult. The question was whether the FDA was constitutionally required to modify its regulations during a pandemic to take account of the undue burden of the regulation created by the pandemic. That is, the question was not whether the FDA could have or should have chosen to make the modification, but whether it was required to do so.

In July 2020, a federal district court in Maryland held that the FDA regulation was an unconstitutional burden on the abortion rights of women during the pandemic and issued a preliminary injunction to stop the FDA from enforcing the in-person dispensing and signature rules. The district judge applied the injunction to Maryland, but also made it a nationwide injunction. (The issue of district court nationwide injunctions is considered in, “District court ‘nationwide injunctions’”). 

The FDA asked the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the enforcement of the injunction, which the appeals court denied. The FDA then appealed to the Supreme Court, asking it to stay the injunction. In October 2020, the Court announced that it was holding the FDA’s request “in abeyance” to allow the district court to consider a motion by the FDA to dissolve or change the injunction. It gave the district court 40 days in which to act. That decision by the Court was in the “Shadow Docket” (see sidebar on page XX), so the exact vote of the Court in October is not clear, but 2 Justices (Alito and Thomas) dissented and would have stayed the injunction.⁶ Over the next 40 days, the district court did not withdraw its nationwide injunction.

Thus, on January 12, 2021, the case was again before the Supreme Court, which let the FDA’s regulations regarding mifepristone remain in place by lifting the district court’s injunction. Most of the justices supporting the stay did not write to explain their decision, although their dissent in the earlier cases may have served that purpose. (Maryland was permitting many kinds of activity that were more risky than visiting a clinic—indoor dining, with open hair salons, gyms, and casinos.)⁷ Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurrence to indicate that, in his view, the issue was not whether the FDA’s regulations placed an undue burden on a right to an abortion generally, but that “My view is that courts owe significant deference” to the public health authorities (here meaning the FDA). Justices Sotomayor and Kagan dissented, saying that the issue was the undue burden on women, given the difficulties of the pandemic, particularly going to medical facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁸

The injunction, sought by ACOG and others, was issued by the district court and was in effect for several months before it was dissolved by the Supreme Court. Following the change in presidential administrations, in April 2021 the FDA announced that it was going to “exercise enforcement discretion with respect to the in-person dispensing requirement…during the COVID-19 public health emergency.”⁹

Continue to: The Texas abortion case...

The Texas abortion case

The Court, on September 1, 2021, declined to block a Texas abortion statute from taking effect.¹⁰ This law precludes abortions after a fetal heartbeat is present at about 6 weeks of gestation. The Fifth Circuit declined to grant an injunction delaying implementation of the Texas law, and the Court did not reverse that decision.

Over the years, a variety of states have placed limitations on abortion, and those almost always have been enjoined by federal courts before they went into effect. However, the Texas statute, which undoubtedly is unconstitutional, was creatively constructed to avoid an early injunction.¹¹ The statute does not allow state officials to enforce the new law, but rather it allows almost any private citizen to seek monetary damages from anyone performing an abortion or who “aids and abets” an abortion. Thus, it is difficult to tailor a lawsuit before this law is enforced. First, courts do not enjoin laws; they usually enjoin individuals from enforcing the law, and in this case it is difficult to know which individuals will be enforcing the laws and what their decisions might be. There also are some questions about the degree to which federal courts can enjoin state courts from deciding lawsuits under state law. For these procedural reasons, the majority of the Court found that those attacking the Texas law had not met their burden of showing that that they would win their case.

Even 3 of the dissenting justices said the defendants may be right that “existing doctrines preclude judicial intervention,” but that the consequences are such that the Court should delay the law until there is time for briefing and argument. The other 3 dissenting justices thought there would be ways of getting around the clever roadblock Texas had erected for the federal courts.

There has been some commentary that this case portends the abandonment of Roe v Wade and Casey,¹² but that conclusion does not seem warranted by this case. The Court has accepted a Mississippi abortion law to be heard next term.¹³ In addition, the Texas statute is likely to be back in federal court once a private individual has filed a claim for money from an abortion provider (and likely even before that).

COVID-19 cases

The Supreme Court decided several cases related to COVID-19, including adjustments to election procedures, church services, and CDC eviction moratoria. As a general matter early in the pandemic, the Court deferred to government authorities, generally upholding government actions. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the importance of the Court deferring to government officials in emergencies. As the pandemic progressed into 2021, however, the Court became less and less sympathetic to government actions that were not consistent, permitted by existing law, or reasonably necessary. For example, regulations of churches that were inconsistent with the regulation of similar organizations were struck down.¹⁴

Among the most interesting of the summer 2021 cases was the CDC eviction moratorium that essentially prohibited landlords nationwide from evicting tenants for nonpayment of rent. When the challenges to these CDC regulations first reached the Court, the moratorium was about to expire; in a 5-4 decision, the Court did not enjoin the CDC from continuing that policy. Justice Kavanaugh (the fifth vote) warned that “clear and specific congressional authorization…would be necessary to extend the moratorium past July 31.”¹⁵ Despite telling the Court that the moratorium would expire on July 31, just 3 days after the expiration and without any congressional authorization, the CDC reinstated what was practically the same moratorium.¹⁶ On August 26, the Court struck down the reinstated regulation, probably by a 6-3 margin. (Because this case arose in the “Shadow Docket,” the vote of some justices is not certain).¹⁷

Continue to: The Affordable Care Act...

The Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act was challenged in the Court for the third time.¹⁸ In this term’s case, several states argued that when Congress essentially eliminated the penalty/tax for not purchasing insurance coverage, there was no longer a constitutional basis for the individual mandate. With that centerpiece gone, they claimed, the whole statute should be declared unconstitutional.

Along with many other specialty groups, ACOG joined an amicus curiae brief sponsored by the American Medical Association (AMA).¹⁹ An amicus brief is one not filed by the parties to the case, but by organizations or individuals who have information that may be of use to the Court in considering the case. Among other things, the filing of an amicus brief indicates the interest of the organization in the outcome of the case. In this case, the crux of the amicus was that even if the individual mandate currently is not constitutional, the Court should sever that provision and retain the rest of the ACA.

Despite some wild predictions about what the Court might do, it did not decide any substantive issue. Rather, it found that none of the parties to the case had “standing” to challenge the constitutionality of the ACA. Therefore, in effect, the Court dismissed the case without deciding the substantive legal issues.
 

Pharmacy Benefit Managers

The powerful Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) are a hidden part of the health care system; however, in recent years there has been increasing regulatory attention paid to them. Some states have begun regulating aspects of PBMs. In this term, the Court considered an Arkansas law that sought to protect local pharmacies from PBM pricing practices.²⁰ The AMA filed an amicus brief in the case which made legal arguments, most of which had been made by the parties to the litigation.²¹

PBMs generally tell pharmacies how much they will reimburse the pharmacy for filling a prescription for a particular drug. In some instances, PBMs will set a reimbursement price that is lower than the wholesale price at which local pharmacies can purchase the drug. The Arkansas law prohibited PBMs in the state from reimbursing pharmacies for less than the wholesale cost the pharmacy paid for the drug.

The claim of the PBMs was that the Arkansas law violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In part, this act preempts state law that relates to fringe benefit plans. States have the authority to regulate insurance, but ERISA limits what they can do when the insurance relates to fringe benefits. The Court held that ERISA does not preempt the Arkansas law or similar state laws in other states. Because the state law was not preempted by the state law, the Arkansas regulation was upheld. The fact that this was a unanimous decision (8-0, because Justice Barrett was not on the Court when the case was heard) suggests that states may have leeway in additional regulations of PBMs, and it would not be surprising to see more of that state regulation in the future.

Continue to: Patent uncertainty...

Patent uncertainty

Csaba Truckai invented and patented the NovaSure System ablation device with a “moisture permeable” head. He sold his company and the related patents, which eventually were purchased by Hologic. Over time, Hologic added claims to the original patent. In the meantime, Truckai went on to invent another device, the Minerva Endometrial Ablation System (MEAS), which had a “moisture impermeable” head. (Note that the “Minerva Surgical, Inc.” involved in this case is not related to the company “Minerva Industries,” which some identified as a “patent troll.”)²²

Hologic sued Minerva, claiming that Truckai’s second device (MEAS) infringed on its patent for the first device (NovaSure). Truckai’s defense was that the patent on NovaSure was invalid. Hologic felt that since Truckai had obtained that patent and then sold it, it was improper for him now to claim it was invalid. There is a doctrine for that: assignor estoppel—the person who sold (assigned) the patent is prevented from later claiming it was invalid. The question in this case was whether assignor estoppel is part of the patent law of the United States. It is not in the patent statutes, so it is a court-determined part of the law.

In a 5-4 decision this Term, the Court held that assignor estoppel is recognized, but that it is narrow.²³ The Court identified several exceptions to assignor estoppel, notably for this case, including the situation in which the purchaser of the patent, after the purchase, returns to the Patent and Trademark Office to expand (amend) the patent’s claims. In that case, the seller could not be estopped by the amended terms of the patent. Minerva claimed that it was attacking the expanded patent that included changes made after it sold the patent. The Court, therefore, returned the case to the Federal Circuit to apply the principles it laid out about assignor estoppel.

Biotech and other fast-moving fields frequently have new technology building on slightly earlier technology. The current patent system often leaves uncertainty about who owns which part of a valid patent. This uncertainty is a drag on innovation, and the patent system is supposed to spur innovation. Assignor estoppel is likely to create additional complexity and uncertainty in some patents, which is regrettable.
 

Review of the Term

In addition to the other disruptions of the Term, during the first part of the Term, Amy Coney Barrett was not yet confirmed by the Senate, so there were only 8 justices until October 27. She did not participate in those cases that were heard before she joined the Court. The consensus is that the Court heard 67 cases: 57 were formally briefed and argued along with 8 summary reversals and 2 religious cases in the Shadow Docket. In my opinion, this undercounts both the number and the importance of the Shadow Docket cases, but the following data use the 67 case convention.²⁴

The Court was unanimous in 43% of the cases, including some of the most divisive issues. That unanimity reflects very narrow decisions. There were (by conventional count) only eight 5-4 opinions (12%), an unusually low number. Justice Kavanaugh is viewed as the “median” justice. He was in the majority in 97% of all cases. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett were in the majority 91%, and Justice Gorsuch 90%. As for the other justices, they were in the majority (all cases) most of the time: Justice Alito, 83%; Justice Thomas, 81%; Justice Breyer, 76%; Justice Kagan, 75%; and Justice Sotomayor, 69%. In “divided cases” (when unanimous cases are removed), the percentages are: Justice Kavanaugh, 95%; Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, 84%; Justice Gorsuch, 82%; Justice Alito, 70%; Justice Thomas, 66%; Justice Breyer, 58%; Justice Kagan, 55%; and Justice Sotomayor, 45%.

When the term began, many Court watchers expected a relatively uninteresting term, dealing with many technical legal details. In fact, it turned out to be more interesting and important than expected, even with narrow holdings in important cases. Part of the secret of the term was that a lot of the real action was in the Shadow Docket. The end of the term is sometimes the moment when a justice announces a plan to retire. Many commentators expected Justice Breyer might announce—he has been under pressure to do so, to allow President Biden to nominate and a Democratic Senate to confirm a progressive justice. However, he did not do so. It is possible that he will announce his retirement to be effective when his successor is confirmed, but that is pure speculation.
 

Continue to: Next Term...

Next Term

The next term began on Monday, October 4, 2021. With the considerable current activity in the Shadow Docket, there was not much of a summer break. The coming term looks extraordinary. The headline case is an abortion case from Mississippi, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization.²⁵ The legal question is the constitutionality of Mississippi law that prohibits most abortions after 15 weeks of gestation. The Texas abortion law will also be back before the Court. As we saw this term, big cases may produce very narrow results, but this case has the potential for being a notable abortion decision.

In a different case the Court will decide whether a state attorney general can step in to defend an abortion law when the state health secretary does not do so.²⁶

The Court also has accepted 3 cases dealing with reimbursement for health services. One deals with whether or not the Department of Health and Human Services can set reimbursement rates without good survey data regarding costs,²⁷ another involves the calculation of additional payments for hospitals that serve a “disproportionate number of low-income patients,”²⁸ and the third whether state Medicaid programs can take funds from an injured beneficiary’s tort recovery to cover future Medicaid costs.²⁹

In other cases, the Court will review a gun control law from New York. The Court’s earlier Second Amendment cases involved guns in the home used for self-defense, but this case raises the question of whether a state can practically preclude “concealed-carry licenses.”³⁰ Many experts believe the Court will accept a case dealing with racial preferences in college admissions, perhaps the Harvard case in which the claim is discrimination against Asian Americans.³¹

The ACOG mifepristone case was interesting, in part because the federal district court issued a nationwide injunction against the Americans with Disabilities Act, enforcing its rules anywhere in the country. The effect of these orders is for a single district judge to create the “law of the land,” at least until that is reviewed—which can take months. The advantage of the nationwide injunction is that it avoids having to repeatedly litigate the same issues in multiple courts around the country. The downside is that plaintiffs can seek out a nonrepresentative judge or circuit and receive an injunction that would be granted by few other circuits. In addition, a nationwide injunction can apply to specific circumstances that are not before the court issuing the injunction. In the mifepristone case, for example, 10 states requested to intervene in the ACOG case. The court rejected the request, but the nationwide injunction applied to those states.¹

Although federal judges have had the authority to issue nationwide injunctions for years, they are becoming much more common. One reason is the ease of forum shopping noted earlier—organizations can cherry-pick district courts and circuits sympathetic to their views. Both left- and right-leaning organizations have learned this lesson, so left-leaning groups are likely to file in specific districts in the Ninth Circuit, and right-leaning groups to districts in the Fifth Circuit.

If the current trend of increasing nationwide injunctions continues, either the rules for the federal courts or congressional action may be required to reduce some of the abuses by both sides of the political spectrum.

The Supreme Court’s usual processes were disrupted this term. The COVID-19 pandemic required audio hearings rather than in-person, and it resulted in a number of emergency legal appeals. As the Court began its regular sessions on October 5, 2020, there were only 8 justices—Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had passed away and Amy Coney Barrett had not yet been confirmed by the Senate. The Court decided many important cases this term, including dealing with the delivery of drugs to induce abortions, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) moratorium on housing evictions, yet another case on the Affordable Care Act, state laws concerning pharmacy benefit managers, and the Hologic and Minerva endometrial ablation systems patents. After considering these cases, we also will briefly look at other cases of general interest.

Abortion

Patient access to mifepristone

In May 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) was the named plaintiff in a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol that are used to induce medical abortions.¹ The case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of ACOG and others^2,3 and raised the issue of patients’ access to these medications. The basic claim of the case was that during the pandemic, the FDA’s regulation of mifepristone was unconstitutional in that they imposed an undue burden on the decision of women to have an abortion.⁴ (Although misoprostol is a part of the medical abortion regimen, it is not subject to special regulation and was not part of the litigation.)

The FDA regulation of mifepristone, begun in 2000 but modified since then, includes 3 elements to assure safe use:

• prescribers must have special training or certification
• the drug can be dispensed to patients only in a hospital, clinic, or medical office under the supervision of a certified health care provider (known as the “in-person dispensing requirement” because retail pharmacy or mail distribution are prohibited)
• the health care provider must review a “patient agreement form” with the patient and have the patient sign the consent form in the provider’s presence.⁵

The pandemic made fulfilling these requirements substantially more burdensome and difficult. The question was whether the FDA was constitutionally required to modify its regulations during a pandemic to take account of the undue burden of the regulation created by the pandemic. That is, the question was not whether the FDA could have or should have chosen to make the modification, but whether it was required to do so.

In July 2020, a federal district court in Maryland held that the FDA regulation was an unconstitutional burden on the abortion rights of women during the pandemic and issued a preliminary injunction to stop the FDA from enforcing the in-person dispensing and signature rules. The district judge applied the injunction to Maryland, but also made it a nationwide injunction. (The issue of district court nationwide injunctions is considered in, “District court ‘nationwide injunctions’”). 

The FDA asked the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the enforcement of the injunction, which the appeals court denied. The FDA then appealed to the Supreme Court, asking it to stay the injunction. In October 2020, the Court announced that it was holding the FDA’s request “in abeyance” to allow the district court to consider a motion by the FDA to dissolve or change the injunction. It gave the district court 40 days in which to act. That decision by the Court was in the “Shadow Docket” (see sidebar on page XX), so the exact vote of the Court in October is not clear, but 2 Justices (Alito and Thomas) dissented and would have stayed the injunction.⁶ Over the next 40 days, the district court did not withdraw its nationwide injunction.

Thus, on January 12, 2021, the case was again before the Supreme Court, which let the FDA’s regulations regarding mifepristone remain in place by lifting the district court’s injunction. Most of the justices supporting the stay did not write to explain their decision, although their dissent in the earlier cases may have served that purpose. (Maryland was permitting many kinds of activity that were more risky than visiting a clinic—indoor dining, with open hair salons, gyms, and casinos.)⁷ Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurrence to indicate that, in his view, the issue was not whether the FDA’s regulations placed an undue burden on a right to an abortion generally, but that “My view is that courts owe significant deference” to the public health authorities (here meaning the FDA). Justices Sotomayor and Kagan dissented, saying that the issue was the undue burden on women, given the difficulties of the pandemic, particularly going to medical facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁸

The injunction, sought by ACOG and others, was issued by the district court and was in effect for several months before it was dissolved by the Supreme Court. Following the change in presidential administrations, in April 2021 the FDA announced that it was going to “exercise enforcement discretion with respect to the in-person dispensing requirement…during the COVID-19 public health emergency.”⁹

Continue to: The Texas abortion case...

The Texas abortion case

The Court, on September 1, 2021, declined to block a Texas abortion statute from taking effect.¹⁰ This law precludes abortions after a fetal heartbeat is present at about 6 weeks of gestation. The Fifth Circuit declined to grant an injunction delaying implementation of the Texas law, and the Court did not reverse that decision.

Over the years, a variety of states have placed limitations on abortion, and those almost always have been enjoined by federal courts before they went into effect. However, the Texas statute, which undoubtedly is unconstitutional, was creatively constructed to avoid an early injunction.¹¹ The statute does not allow state officials to enforce the new law, but rather it allows almost any private citizen to seek monetary damages from anyone performing an abortion or who “aids and abets” an abortion. Thus, it is difficult to tailor a lawsuit before this law is enforced. First, courts do not enjoin laws; they usually enjoin individuals from enforcing the law, and in this case it is difficult to know which individuals will be enforcing the laws and what their decisions might be. There also are some questions about the degree to which federal courts can enjoin state courts from deciding lawsuits under state law. For these procedural reasons, the majority of the Court found that those attacking the Texas law had not met their burden of showing that that they would win their case.

Even 3 of the dissenting justices said the defendants may be right that “existing doctrines preclude judicial intervention,” but that the consequences are such that the Court should delay the law until there is time for briefing and argument. The other 3 dissenting justices thought there would be ways of getting around the clever roadblock Texas had erected for the federal courts.

There has been some commentary that this case portends the abandonment of Roe v Wade and Casey,¹² but that conclusion does not seem warranted by this case. The Court has accepted a Mississippi abortion law to be heard next term.¹³ In addition, the Texas statute is likely to be back in federal court once a private individual has filed a claim for money from an abortion provider (and likely even before that).

COVID-19 cases

The Supreme Court decided several cases related to COVID-19, including adjustments to election procedures, church services, and CDC eviction moratoria. As a general matter early in the pandemic, the Court deferred to government authorities, generally upholding government actions. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the importance of the Court deferring to government officials in emergencies. As the pandemic progressed into 2021, however, the Court became less and less sympathetic to government actions that were not consistent, permitted by existing law, or reasonably necessary. For example, regulations of churches that were inconsistent with the regulation of similar organizations were struck down.¹⁴

Among the most interesting of the summer 2021 cases was the CDC eviction moratorium that essentially prohibited landlords nationwide from evicting tenants for nonpayment of rent. When the challenges to these CDC regulations first reached the Court, the moratorium was about to expire; in a 5-4 decision, the Court did not enjoin the CDC from continuing that policy. Justice Kavanaugh (the fifth vote) warned that “clear and specific congressional authorization…would be necessary to extend the moratorium past July 31.”¹⁵ Despite telling the Court that the moratorium would expire on July 31, just 3 days after the expiration and without any congressional authorization, the CDC reinstated what was practically the same moratorium.¹⁶ On August 26, the Court struck down the reinstated regulation, probably by a 6-3 margin. (Because this case arose in the “Shadow Docket,” the vote of some justices is not certain).¹⁷

Continue to: The Affordable Care Act...

The Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act was challenged in the Court for the third time.¹⁸ In this term’s case, several states argued that when Congress essentially eliminated the penalty/tax for not purchasing insurance coverage, there was no longer a constitutional basis for the individual mandate. With that centerpiece gone, they claimed, the whole statute should be declared unconstitutional.

Along with many other specialty groups, ACOG joined an amicus curiae brief sponsored by the American Medical Association (AMA).¹⁹ An amicus brief is one not filed by the parties to the case, but by organizations or individuals who have information that may be of use to the Court in considering the case. Among other things, the filing of an amicus brief indicates the interest of the organization in the outcome of the case. In this case, the crux of the amicus was that even if the individual mandate currently is not constitutional, the Court should sever that provision and retain the rest of the ACA.

Despite some wild predictions about what the Court might do, it did not decide any substantive issue. Rather, it found that none of the parties to the case had “standing” to challenge the constitutionality of the ACA. Therefore, in effect, the Court dismissed the case without deciding the substantive legal issues.
 

Pharmacy Benefit Managers

The powerful Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) are a hidden part of the health care system; however, in recent years there has been increasing regulatory attention paid to them. Some states have begun regulating aspects of PBMs. In this term, the Court considered an Arkansas law that sought to protect local pharmacies from PBM pricing practices.²⁰ The AMA filed an amicus brief in the case which made legal arguments, most of which had been made by the parties to the litigation.²¹

PBMs generally tell pharmacies how much they will reimburse the pharmacy for filling a prescription for a particular drug. In some instances, PBMs will set a reimbursement price that is lower than the wholesale price at which local pharmacies can purchase the drug. The Arkansas law prohibited PBMs in the state from reimbursing pharmacies for less than the wholesale cost the pharmacy paid for the drug.

The claim of the PBMs was that the Arkansas law violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In part, this act preempts state law that relates to fringe benefit plans. States have the authority to regulate insurance, but ERISA limits what they can do when the insurance relates to fringe benefits. The Court held that ERISA does not preempt the Arkansas law or similar state laws in other states. Because the state law was not preempted by the state law, the Arkansas regulation was upheld. The fact that this was a unanimous decision (8-0, because Justice Barrett was not on the Court when the case was heard) suggests that states may have leeway in additional regulations of PBMs, and it would not be surprising to see more of that state regulation in the future.

Continue to: Patent uncertainty...

Patent uncertainty

Csaba Truckai invented and patented the NovaSure System ablation device with a “moisture permeable” head. He sold his company and the related patents, which eventually were purchased by Hologic. Over time, Hologic added claims to the original patent. In the meantime, Truckai went on to invent another device, the Minerva Endometrial Ablation System (MEAS), which had a “moisture impermeable” head. (Note that the “Minerva Surgical, Inc.” involved in this case is not related to the company “Minerva Industries,” which some identified as a “patent troll.”)²²

Hologic sued Minerva, claiming that Truckai’s second device (MEAS) infringed on its patent for the first device (NovaSure). Truckai’s defense was that the patent on NovaSure was invalid. Hologic felt that since Truckai had obtained that patent and then sold it, it was improper for him now to claim it was invalid. There is a doctrine for that: assignor estoppel—the person who sold (assigned) the patent is prevented from later claiming it was invalid. The question in this case was whether assignor estoppel is part of the patent law of the United States. It is not in the patent statutes, so it is a court-determined part of the law.

In a 5-4 decision this Term, the Court held that assignor estoppel is recognized, but that it is narrow.²³ The Court identified several exceptions to assignor estoppel, notably for this case, including the situation in which the purchaser of the patent, after the purchase, returns to the Patent and Trademark Office to expand (amend) the patent’s claims. In that case, the seller could not be estopped by the amended terms of the patent. Minerva claimed that it was attacking the expanded patent that included changes made after it sold the patent. The Court, therefore, returned the case to the Federal Circuit to apply the principles it laid out about assignor estoppel.

Biotech and other fast-moving fields frequently have new technology building on slightly earlier technology. The current patent system often leaves uncertainty about who owns which part of a valid patent. This uncertainty is a drag on innovation, and the patent system is supposed to spur innovation. Assignor estoppel is likely to create additional complexity and uncertainty in some patents, which is regrettable.
 

Review of the Term

In addition to the other disruptions of the Term, during the first part of the Term, Amy Coney Barrett was not yet confirmed by the Senate, so there were only 8 justices until October 27. She did not participate in those cases that were heard before she joined the Court. The consensus is that the Court heard 67 cases: 57 were formally briefed and argued along with 8 summary reversals and 2 religious cases in the Shadow Docket. In my opinion, this undercounts both the number and the importance of the Shadow Docket cases, but the following data use the 67 case convention.²⁴

The Court was unanimous in 43% of the cases, including some of the most divisive issues. That unanimity reflects very narrow decisions. There were (by conventional count) only eight 5-4 opinions (12%), an unusually low number. Justice Kavanaugh is viewed as the “median” justice. He was in the majority in 97% of all cases. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett were in the majority 91%, and Justice Gorsuch 90%. As for the other justices, they were in the majority (all cases) most of the time: Justice Alito, 83%; Justice Thomas, 81%; Justice Breyer, 76%; Justice Kagan, 75%; and Justice Sotomayor, 69%. In “divided cases” (when unanimous cases are removed), the percentages are: Justice Kavanaugh, 95%; Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, 84%; Justice Gorsuch, 82%; Justice Alito, 70%; Justice Thomas, 66%; Justice Breyer, 58%; Justice Kagan, 55%; and Justice Sotomayor, 45%.

When the term began, many Court watchers expected a relatively uninteresting term, dealing with many technical legal details. In fact, it turned out to be more interesting and important than expected, even with narrow holdings in important cases. Part of the secret of the term was that a lot of the real action was in the Shadow Docket. The end of the term is sometimes the moment when a justice announces a plan to retire. Many commentators expected Justice Breyer might announce—he has been under pressure to do so, to allow President Biden to nominate and a Democratic Senate to confirm a progressive justice. However, he did not do so. It is possible that he will announce his retirement to be effective when his successor is confirmed, but that is pure speculation.
 

Continue to: Next Term...

Next Term

The next term began on Monday, October 4, 2021. With the considerable current activity in the Shadow Docket, there was not much of a summer break. The coming term looks extraordinary. The headline case is an abortion case from Mississippi, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization.²⁵ The legal question is the constitutionality of Mississippi law that prohibits most abortions after 15 weeks of gestation. The Texas abortion law will also be back before the Court. As we saw this term, big cases may produce very narrow results, but this case has the potential for being a notable abortion decision.

In a different case the Court will decide whether a state attorney general can step in to defend an abortion law when the state health secretary does not do so.²⁶

The Court also has accepted 3 cases dealing with reimbursement for health services. One deals with whether or not the Department of Health and Human Services can set reimbursement rates without good survey data regarding costs,²⁷ another involves the calculation of additional payments for hospitals that serve a “disproportionate number of low-income patients,”²⁸ and the third whether state Medicaid programs can take funds from an injured beneficiary’s tort recovery to cover future Medicaid costs.²⁹

In other cases, the Court will review a gun control law from New York. The Court’s earlier Second Amendment cases involved guns in the home used for self-defense, but this case raises the question of whether a state can practically preclude “concealed-carry licenses.”³⁰ Many experts believe the Court will accept a case dealing with racial preferences in college admissions, perhaps the Harvard case in which the claim is discrimination against Asian Americans.³¹

The ACOG mifepristone case was interesting, in part because the federal district court issued a nationwide injunction against the Americans with Disabilities Act, enforcing its rules anywhere in the country. The effect of these orders is for a single district judge to create the “law of the land,” at least until that is reviewed—which can take months. The advantage of the nationwide injunction is that it avoids having to repeatedly litigate the same issues in multiple courts around the country. The downside is that plaintiffs can seek out a nonrepresentative judge or circuit and receive an injunction that would be granted by few other circuits. In addition, a nationwide injunction can apply to specific circumstances that are not before the court issuing the injunction. In the mifepristone case, for example, 10 states requested to intervene in the ACOG case. The court rejected the request, but the nationwide injunction applied to those states.¹

Although federal judges have had the authority to issue nationwide injunctions for years, they are becoming much more common. One reason is the ease of forum shopping noted earlier—organizations can cherry-pick district courts and circuits sympathetic to their views. Both left- and right-leaning organizations have learned this lesson, so left-leaning groups are likely to file in specific districts in the Ninth Circuit, and right-leaning groups to districts in the Fifth Circuit.

If the current trend of increasing nationwide injunctions continues, either the rules for the federal courts or congressional action may be required to reduce some of the abuses by both sides of the political spectrum.

Short-term hormonal contraceptives remain the most popular class of reversible contraceptives in the United States, despite the availability of longer-acting methods. Oral contraceptives (OCs), contraceptive patches, and contraceptive vaginal rings are extensively used not only because these methods are easy to initiate but also because their ongoing use remains under the control of the woman herself and also provides her with a wide range of important noncontraceptive benefits.

Despite the more than 60 years of innovation that have made hormonal contraceptives safer, more tolerable, and more convenient, there has been room for improvement. Over the last few years, 4 new hormonal methods have been introduced, and each addresses different limitations and problems associated with the existing, often generic, products.

Compared with the traditional norethindrone pill (Micronor and generics), a new drospirenone progestin-only pill (POP) increases ovulation suppression, offers an improved cyclical bleeding profile, and relaxes the tight missed-pill rules that are usually associated with POPs.

In contrast with the older norelgestromin patch (Evra, Xulane), a new contraceptive transdermal patch significantly decreases total estrogen exposure and pairs its estrogen with levonorgestrel, the progestin associated with the lowest venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk in combined hormonal pills.

While existing combination OCs are formulated with the potent estrogen ethinyl estradiol (EE), a new combination pill, formulated with estetrol (E4) and drospirenone, introduces the first new estrogen (estetrol) used in a contraceptive in more than 50 years. Estetrol, a native estrogen, has selective tissue activity with minimal hepatic and breast impacts. Combined with drospirenone, this formulation offers women good contraceptive efficacy and bleeding patterns.

A new contraceptive vaginal ring introduces a new long-acting, specific progestin (segesterone acetate) and pairs it with low-dose EE. These hormones are packaged in a soft vaginal ring that provides up to 13 cycles of contraceptive protection (3 weeks in/1 week out) with one ring, greatly increasing convenience for women.

Each of these new products represents important incremental improvement over existing options.

Continue to: 1. The drospirenone-only OC...

The new POP with drospirenone 4 mg (Slynd), which received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2019, is packaged in a 24/4 formulation (24 hormonally active tablets followed by 4 inactive tablets). This formulation results in more predictable bleeding than does the 0.35-mg norethindrone POP, which contains 28 hormonally active tablets in each pack. In the US clinical trials of drospirenone 4 mg, scheduled bleeding decreased from 81% in cycle 1 to 20% in cycle 13. Unscheduled spotting and bleeding decreased from 61% to 40% in the same timeframe. Notably, this bleeding pattern was well tolerated; only 0.4% of trial participants discontinued this drospirenone POP due to problems with irregular bleeding or amenorrhea.

In contrast to the continuous norethindrone POP, which is not sufficiently dosed to consistently suppress ovulation, the 4-mg daily dose of drospirenone in this new POP is higher than the 3 mg used in commonly prescribed combination OCs that contain EE and drospirenone. This results in a POP that has more consistent ovulation suppression. Because this drospirenone POP is appropriately dosed and based on a longer-acting progestin, it is more forgiving of inconsistent pill taking. Accordingly, the missed-pill rules for this pill are the same as with combination estrogen-progestin OCs.¹ The package labeling cites a first-year failure rate of 4%, but this includes unconfirmed pregnancies. The Pearl Index from the North American trials, based on confirmed pregnancies in nonbreastfeeding women, was 2.9.²

The package labeling for this drospirenone POP includes few contraindications. Conditions that preclude use include the US Medical Eligibility Criteria for contraception Category 4 condition (breast cancer in the last 5 years), renal impairment, and adrenal insufficiency. Other standard contraindications are listed in the prescribing information. Serum potassium levels should be checked (one time only) in the first cycle only for women who chronically use medications that could cause hyperkalemia, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Given the ovulation suppression associated with this drospirenone POP, the safety of a progestin-only method, and the persistent popularity of OC pills, this pill should greatly increase the use of POPs beyond their traditional niche of postpartum and breastfeeding women. The advent of the drospirenone POP means that clinicians now have better options for women who have contraindications to estrogen and desire to control their own contraceptive use. It would be a logical consideration for over-the-counter accessibility.

2. Transdermal patch with ethinyl estradiol/levonorgestrel

The new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal contraceptive patch (Twirla) is soft and flexible, about the same size as other contraceptive patches, and contains EE 2.3 mg/levonorgestrel 2.6 mg. It provides total estrogen exposure that is similar to that of OCs with EE 30 µg and distinctly lower than estrogen levels seen with the original norelgestromin-containing patch or its 2 subsequent generic versions.³ This EE/levonorgestrel patch uses a new 5-layer drug delivery system that focuses the steroids for absorption beneath the patch; there is no peripheral spread of drug around the patch (FIGURE 1).

Transdermal patches offer the convenience of once-a-week dosing. One patch is used each week for 3 consecutive weeks followed by a patch-free week. Patches can be worn on the abdomen, buttock, or trunk (except breasts). Patches should not be placed consecutively on the same site; after a week’s rest, however, the first site can be reused. All transdermal contraceptive products are indicated for use only by women with a body mass index (BMI) <30 kg/m².⁴

While no head-to-head trials have compared this new lower-dose patch with older patches, each patch was compared against a standardized pill, so meaningful comparisons can be made.

In each case, the circulating estrogen levels associated with use of the EE/levonorgestrel patch were considerably lower than those of the comparator pill, while the older norelgestromin patch consistently delivered higher total estrogen levels than its 35-µg comparator pill (TABLE).³ Along these lines, no VTE events occurred in women in the clinical trial of the new patch among women with a BMI <30 kg/m².⁴

Women with a BMI <25 kg/m² experienced lower Pearl Index (PI) pregnancy rates (3.5%) compared with women with a BMI between 25 and 30 kg/m² (5.7%), according to clinical trial data cited in the package labeling. All the modern PI criteria were used to calculate these failure rates. Cycles in which no coitus occurred were excluded. Similarly, cycles in which another contraceptive method (for example, condoms) was added (even once) were excluded. Frequent pregnancy testing was done in the study centers and by the women at home. Bleeding patterns were well accepted; only 2.2% of study participants exited the study early due to menstrual disorders of any kind. Similarly, 3.1% of women discontinued use because of application site disorders. Women should be advised to press down on the patch edges after emerging from water exposure. Replacement patches are rapidly available from the manufacturer should permanent complete patch detachment occur.

Larger-scale phase 4 trials will be conducted to study the impact of this lower-dose patch on VTE rates.

Continue to: 3. A 1-year contraceptive vaginal ring...

The need to obtain new supplies every month or every 3 months contributes to high rates of contraceptive failure and unintended pregnancy among women using short-acting hormonal contraceptives (pills, patches, and vaginal rings).⁵ A woman-controlled contraceptive that would provide 1 year of protection against unintended pregnancy represents a step forward. A contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) that releases the novel progestin segesterone acetate and EE provides woman-controlled contraception for up to 1 year. This CVR (Annovera) received FDA approval in 2018 and has been marketed in the United States since 2020.

The segesterone acetate/EE CVR is a soft, flexible ring that is opaque white in color and fabricated from nonbiodegradable silicone (FIGURE 2). The outside diameter is 5.6 cm, compared with the 5.4-cm outer diameter of the etonogestrel/EE vaginal ring (NuvaRing). The segesterone acetate/EE CVR has 2 channels: one releases segesterone acetate only and the other releases segesterone acetate and EE. In contrast with the etonogestrel/EE CVR, the segesterone acetate/EE CVR does not need to be refrigerated when stored.⁶

Continue to: 4. An OC with a novel estrogen...

4. An OC with a novel estrogen

Even as use of intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants continues to grow, OCs remain the reversible contraceptive most used by US women. While OCs have been widely studied and represent a safe method of contraception for most reproductive-age women, combination estrogen-progestin OCs are well recognized to increase the risk of VTE. Although the primary role of the progestin component of combination OCs is to suppress ovulation, estrogen is included in combination OCs to stimulate endometrial proliferation, thereby causing predictable bleeding. EE, the potent synthetic estrogen used in the great majority of current OC formulations, induces hepatic production of prothrombotic proteins while inhibiting synthesis of antithrombotic proteins. While the lower EE doses (10–35 µg) in today’s OC formulations are associated with a lower VTE risk than older OCs that contained higher doses of estrogen, VTE continues to represent the principal health risk associated with use of combination OCs. Accordingly, development of a combination OC that has less impact on risk of VTE would be appealing.

In April 2021, the FDA approved an OC formulation that combines 15 mg of the novel estrogen estetrol with 3 mg of drospirenone (Nextstellis). This dose of drospirenone is the same as that used in commonly prescribed EE/drospirenone OC formulations. Also known as E4, estetrol is a natural estrogen synthesized by the fetal liver. Plant-derived E4 is used in this new OC.

Depending on the tissue, E4 acts differently than other estrogens. Similar to other estrogens, E4 acts as an agonist on the nuclear receptor to produce beneficial effects in bone, vaginal mucosa, and heart.⁸ Unlike other estrogens, E4 inhibits proliferation of mammary gland cells and has a neutral impact on the liver.⁹

In contrast with EE, E4 is not inhibited by the liver’s P450 enzymes; accordingly, the risk of drug-drug interactions is reduced. Because E4 is primarily excreted through the urine and not through the biliary tract, the risk of gallstone formation may be lower than with an EE OC. Likewise, E4 has substantially less impact on triglycerides, which are increased with EE. Finally, because of E4’s reduced effect on the liver, the impact on clotting parameters is less than that observed with an OC formulated with EE.¹⁰ This latter observation raises the possibility that VTE risk is lower with the E4/drospirenone OC than an OC formulated with EE.

A 13-cycle phase 3 trial of the E4/drospirenone OC conducted in the United States and Canada enrolled 1,864 women aged 16 to 50 years, including 1,674 who were aged 16 to 35 years.¹¹ Among women in this latter age group, the PI was 2.65 per 100 woman-years. Bleeding/cycle control patterns were similar to those observed in recent trials of other combination contraceptives. Likewise, the proportion of trial participants who discontinued the study due to adverse effects was similar to or lower than that noted in recent trials of other combination contraceptives. Of particular note, no cases of VTE were noted among trial participants of any BMI, a finding which contrasts with recent phase 3 trials of other combination contraceptives. The result of this pivotal trial suggests that the theoretic advantages of E4 when used in a combination OC formulation may translate into a safer, effective, and well-tolerated contraceptive.

Refinements in hormonal contraceptives continue

The 4 new short-acting hormonal contraceptives we reviewed represent enhancements on existing pills, patches, and rings. We hope that, financially, women will have access to these innovative methods and, in particular, that third-party payers will facilitate women’s access to these enhanced short-acting hormonal contraceptives. ●

Short-term hormonal contraceptives remain the most popular class of reversible contraceptives in the United States, despite the availability of longer-acting methods. Oral contraceptives (OCs), contraceptive patches, and contraceptive vaginal rings are extensively used not only because these methods are easy to initiate but also because their ongoing use remains under the control of the woman herself and also provides her with a wide range of important noncontraceptive benefits.

Despite the more than 60 years of innovation that have made hormonal contraceptives safer, more tolerable, and more convenient, there has been room for improvement. Over the last few years, 4 new hormonal methods have been introduced, and each addresses different limitations and problems associated with the existing, often generic, products.

Compared with the traditional norethindrone pill (Micronor and generics), a new drospirenone progestin-only pill (POP) increases ovulation suppression, offers an improved cyclical bleeding profile, and relaxes the tight missed-pill rules that are usually associated with POPs.

In contrast with the older norelgestromin patch (Evra, Xulane), a new contraceptive transdermal patch significantly decreases total estrogen exposure and pairs its estrogen with levonorgestrel, the progestin associated with the lowest venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk in combined hormonal pills.

While existing combination OCs are formulated with the potent estrogen ethinyl estradiol (EE), a new combination pill, formulated with estetrol (E4) and drospirenone, introduces the first new estrogen (estetrol) used in a contraceptive in more than 50 years. Estetrol, a native estrogen, has selective tissue activity with minimal hepatic and breast impacts. Combined with drospirenone, this formulation offers women good contraceptive efficacy and bleeding patterns.

A new contraceptive vaginal ring introduces a new long-acting, specific progestin (segesterone acetate) and pairs it with low-dose EE. These hormones are packaged in a soft vaginal ring that provides up to 13 cycles of contraceptive protection (3 weeks in/1 week out) with one ring, greatly increasing convenience for women.

Each of these new products represents important incremental improvement over existing options.

Continue to: 1. The drospirenone-only OC...

The new POP with drospirenone 4 mg (Slynd), which received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2019, is packaged in a 24/4 formulation (24 hormonally active tablets followed by 4 inactive tablets). This formulation results in more predictable bleeding than does the 0.35-mg norethindrone POP, which contains 28 hormonally active tablets in each pack. In the US clinical trials of drospirenone 4 mg, scheduled bleeding decreased from 81% in cycle 1 to 20% in cycle 13. Unscheduled spotting and bleeding decreased from 61% to 40% in the same timeframe. Notably, this bleeding pattern was well tolerated; only 0.4% of trial participants discontinued this drospirenone POP due to problems with irregular bleeding or amenorrhea.

In contrast to the continuous norethindrone POP, which is not sufficiently dosed to consistently suppress ovulation, the 4-mg daily dose of drospirenone in this new POP is higher than the 3 mg used in commonly prescribed combination OCs that contain EE and drospirenone. This results in a POP that has more consistent ovulation suppression. Because this drospirenone POP is appropriately dosed and based on a longer-acting progestin, it is more forgiving of inconsistent pill taking. Accordingly, the missed-pill rules for this pill are the same as with combination estrogen-progestin OCs.¹ The package labeling cites a first-year failure rate of 4%, but this includes unconfirmed pregnancies. The Pearl Index from the North American trials, based on confirmed pregnancies in nonbreastfeeding women, was 2.9.²

The package labeling for this drospirenone POP includes few contraindications. Conditions that preclude use include the US Medical Eligibility Criteria for contraception Category 4 condition (breast cancer in the last 5 years), renal impairment, and adrenal insufficiency. Other standard contraindications are listed in the prescribing information. Serum potassium levels should be checked (one time only) in the first cycle only for women who chronically use medications that could cause hyperkalemia, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Given the ovulation suppression associated with this drospirenone POP, the safety of a progestin-only method, and the persistent popularity of OC pills, this pill should greatly increase the use of POPs beyond their traditional niche of postpartum and breastfeeding women. The advent of the drospirenone POP means that clinicians now have better options for women who have contraindications to estrogen and desire to control their own contraceptive use. It would be a logical consideration for over-the-counter accessibility.

2. Transdermal patch with ethinyl estradiol/levonorgestrel

The new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal contraceptive patch (Twirla) is soft and flexible, about the same size as other contraceptive patches, and contains EE 2.3 mg/levonorgestrel 2.6 mg. It provides total estrogen exposure that is similar to that of OCs with EE 30 µg and distinctly lower than estrogen levels seen with the original norelgestromin-containing patch or its 2 subsequent generic versions.³ This EE/levonorgestrel patch uses a new 5-layer drug delivery system that focuses the steroids for absorption beneath the patch; there is no peripheral spread of drug around the patch (FIGURE 1).

Transdermal patches offer the convenience of once-a-week dosing. One patch is used each week for 3 consecutive weeks followed by a patch-free week. Patches can be worn on the abdomen, buttock, or trunk (except breasts). Patches should not be placed consecutively on the same site; after a week’s rest, however, the first site can be reused. All transdermal contraceptive products are indicated for use only by women with a body mass index (BMI) <30 kg/m².⁴

While no head-to-head trials have compared this new lower-dose patch with older patches, each patch was compared against a standardized pill, so meaningful comparisons can be made.

In each case, the circulating estrogen levels associated with use of the EE/levonorgestrel patch were considerably lower than those of the comparator pill, while the older norelgestromin patch consistently delivered higher total estrogen levels than its 35-µg comparator pill (TABLE).³ Along these lines, no VTE events occurred in women in the clinical trial of the new patch among women with a BMI <30 kg/m².⁴

Women with a BMI <25 kg/m² experienced lower Pearl Index (PI) pregnancy rates (3.5%) compared with women with a BMI between 25 and 30 kg/m² (5.7%), according to clinical trial data cited in the package labeling. All the modern PI criteria were used to calculate these failure rates. Cycles in which no coitus occurred were excluded. Similarly, cycles in which another contraceptive method (for example, condoms) was added (even once) were excluded. Frequent pregnancy testing was done in the study centers and by the women at home. Bleeding patterns were well accepted; only 2.2% of study participants exited the study early due to menstrual disorders of any kind. Similarly, 3.1% of women discontinued use because of application site disorders. Women should be advised to press down on the patch edges after emerging from water exposure. Replacement patches are rapidly available from the manufacturer should permanent complete patch detachment occur.

Larger-scale phase 4 trials will be conducted to study the impact of this lower-dose patch on VTE rates.

Continue to: 3. A 1-year contraceptive vaginal ring...

The need to obtain new supplies every month or every 3 months contributes to high rates of contraceptive failure and unintended pregnancy among women using short-acting hormonal contraceptives (pills, patches, and vaginal rings).⁵ A woman-controlled contraceptive that would provide 1 year of protection against unintended pregnancy represents a step forward. A contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) that releases the novel progestin segesterone acetate and EE provides woman-controlled contraception for up to 1 year. This CVR (Annovera) received FDA approval in 2018 and has been marketed in the United States since 2020.

The segesterone acetate/EE CVR is a soft, flexible ring that is opaque white in color and fabricated from nonbiodegradable silicone (FIGURE 2). The outside diameter is 5.6 cm, compared with the 5.4-cm outer diameter of the etonogestrel/EE vaginal ring (NuvaRing). The segesterone acetate/EE CVR has 2 channels: one releases segesterone acetate only and the other releases segesterone acetate and EE. In contrast with the etonogestrel/EE CVR, the segesterone acetate/EE CVR does not need to be refrigerated when stored.⁶

Continue to: 4. An OC with a novel estrogen...

4. An OC with a novel estrogen

Even as use of intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants continues to grow, OCs remain the reversible contraceptive most used by US women. While OCs have been widely studied and represent a safe method of contraception for most reproductive-age women, combination estrogen-progestin OCs are well recognized to increase the risk of VTE. Although the primary role of the progestin component of combination OCs is to suppress ovulation, estrogen is included in combination OCs to stimulate endometrial proliferation, thereby causing predictable bleeding. EE, the potent synthetic estrogen used in the great majority of current OC formulations, induces hepatic production of prothrombotic proteins while inhibiting synthesis of antithrombotic proteins. While the lower EE doses (10–35 µg) in today’s OC formulations are associated with a lower VTE risk than older OCs that contained higher doses of estrogen, VTE continues to represent the principal health risk associated with use of combination OCs. Accordingly, development of a combination OC that has less impact on risk of VTE would be appealing.

In April 2021, the FDA approved an OC formulation that combines 15 mg of the novel estrogen estetrol with 3 mg of drospirenone (Nextstellis). This dose of drospirenone is the same as that used in commonly prescribed EE/drospirenone OC formulations. Also known as E4, estetrol is a natural estrogen synthesized by the fetal liver. Plant-derived E4 is used in this new OC.

Depending on the tissue, E4 acts differently than other estrogens. Similar to other estrogens, E4 acts as an agonist on the nuclear receptor to produce beneficial effects in bone, vaginal mucosa, and heart.⁸ Unlike other estrogens, E4 inhibits proliferation of mammary gland cells and has a neutral impact on the liver.⁹

In contrast with EE, E4 is not inhibited by the liver’s P450 enzymes; accordingly, the risk of drug-drug interactions is reduced. Because E4 is primarily excreted through the urine and not through the biliary tract, the risk of gallstone formation may be lower than with an EE OC. Likewise, E4 has substantially less impact on triglycerides, which are increased with EE. Finally, because of E4’s reduced effect on the liver, the impact on clotting parameters is less than that observed with an OC formulated with EE.¹⁰ This latter observation raises the possibility that VTE risk is lower with the E4/drospirenone OC than an OC formulated with EE.

A 13-cycle phase 3 trial of the E4/drospirenone OC conducted in the United States and Canada enrolled 1,864 women aged 16 to 50 years, including 1,674 who were aged 16 to 35 years.¹¹ Among women in this latter age group, the PI was 2.65 per 100 woman-years. Bleeding/cycle control patterns were similar to those observed in recent trials of other combination contraceptives. Likewise, the proportion of trial participants who discontinued the study due to adverse effects was similar to or lower than that noted in recent trials of other combination contraceptives. Of particular note, no cases of VTE were noted among trial participants of any BMI, a finding which contrasts with recent phase 3 trials of other combination contraceptives. The result of this pivotal trial suggests that the theoretic advantages of E4 when used in a combination OC formulation may translate into a safer, effective, and well-tolerated contraceptive.

Refinements in hormonal contraceptives continue

The 4 new short-acting hormonal contraceptives we reviewed represent enhancements on existing pills, patches, and rings. We hope that, financially, women will have access to these innovative methods and, in particular, that third-party payers will facilitate women’s access to these enhanced short-acting hormonal contraceptives. ●

Short-term hormonal contraceptives remain the most popular class of reversible contraceptives in the United States, despite the availability of longer-acting methods. Oral contraceptives (OCs), contraceptive patches, and contraceptive vaginal rings are extensively used not only because these methods are easy to initiate but also because their ongoing use remains under the control of the woman herself and also provides her with a wide range of important noncontraceptive benefits.

Despite the more than 60 years of innovation that have made hormonal contraceptives safer, more tolerable, and more convenient, there has been room for improvement. Over the last few years, 4 new hormonal methods have been introduced, and each addresses different limitations and problems associated with the existing, often generic, products.

Compared with the traditional norethindrone pill (Micronor and generics), a new drospirenone progestin-only pill (POP) increases ovulation suppression, offers an improved cyclical bleeding profile, and relaxes the tight missed-pill rules that are usually associated with POPs.

In contrast with the older norelgestromin patch (Evra, Xulane), a new contraceptive transdermal patch significantly decreases total estrogen exposure and pairs its estrogen with levonorgestrel, the progestin associated with the lowest venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk in combined hormonal pills.

While existing combination OCs are formulated with the potent estrogen ethinyl estradiol (EE), a new combination pill, formulated with estetrol (E4) and drospirenone, introduces the first new estrogen (estetrol) used in a contraceptive in more than 50 years. Estetrol, a native estrogen, has selective tissue activity with minimal hepatic and breast impacts. Combined with drospirenone, this formulation offers women good contraceptive efficacy and bleeding patterns.

A new contraceptive vaginal ring introduces a new long-acting, specific progestin (segesterone acetate) and pairs it with low-dose EE. These hormones are packaged in a soft vaginal ring that provides up to 13 cycles of contraceptive protection (3 weeks in/1 week out) with one ring, greatly increasing convenience for women.

Each of these new products represents important incremental improvement over existing options.

Continue to: 1. The drospirenone-only OC...

The new POP with drospirenone 4 mg (Slynd), which received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2019, is packaged in a 24/4 formulation (24 hormonally active tablets followed by 4 inactive tablets). This formulation results in more predictable bleeding than does the 0.35-mg norethindrone POP, which contains 28 hormonally active tablets in each pack. In the US clinical trials of drospirenone 4 mg, scheduled bleeding decreased from 81% in cycle 1 to 20% in cycle 13. Unscheduled spotting and bleeding decreased from 61% to 40% in the same timeframe. Notably, this bleeding pattern was well tolerated; only 0.4% of trial participants discontinued this drospirenone POP due to problems with irregular bleeding or amenorrhea.

In contrast to the continuous norethindrone POP, which is not sufficiently dosed to consistently suppress ovulation, the 4-mg daily dose of drospirenone in this new POP is higher than the 3 mg used in commonly prescribed combination OCs that contain EE and drospirenone. This results in a POP that has more consistent ovulation suppression. Because this drospirenone POP is appropriately dosed and based on a longer-acting progestin, it is more forgiving of inconsistent pill taking. Accordingly, the missed-pill rules for this pill are the same as with combination estrogen-progestin OCs.¹ The package labeling cites a first-year failure rate of 4%, but this includes unconfirmed pregnancies. The Pearl Index from the North American trials, based on confirmed pregnancies in nonbreastfeeding women, was 2.9.²

The package labeling for this drospirenone POP includes few contraindications. Conditions that preclude use include the US Medical Eligibility Criteria for contraception Category 4 condition (breast cancer in the last 5 years), renal impairment, and adrenal insufficiency. Other standard contraindications are listed in the prescribing information. Serum potassium levels should be checked (one time only) in the first cycle only for women who chronically use medications that could cause hyperkalemia, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Given the ovulation suppression associated with this drospirenone POP, the safety of a progestin-only method, and the persistent popularity of OC pills, this pill should greatly increase the use of POPs beyond their traditional niche of postpartum and breastfeeding women. The advent of the drospirenone POP means that clinicians now have better options for women who have contraindications to estrogen and desire to control their own contraceptive use. It would be a logical consideration for over-the-counter accessibility.

2. Transdermal patch with ethinyl estradiol/levonorgestrel

The new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal contraceptive patch (Twirla) is soft and flexible, about the same size as other contraceptive patches, and contains EE 2.3 mg/levonorgestrel 2.6 mg. It provides total estrogen exposure that is similar to that of OCs with EE 30 µg and distinctly lower than estrogen levels seen with the original norelgestromin-containing patch or its 2 subsequent generic versions.³ This EE/levonorgestrel patch uses a new 5-layer drug delivery system that focuses the steroids for absorption beneath the patch; there is no peripheral spread of drug around the patch (FIGURE 1).

Transdermal patches offer the convenience of once-a-week dosing. One patch is used each week for 3 consecutive weeks followed by a patch-free week. Patches can be worn on the abdomen, buttock, or trunk (except breasts). Patches should not be placed consecutively on the same site; after a week’s rest, however, the first site can be reused. All transdermal contraceptive products are indicated for use only by women with a body mass index (BMI) <30 kg/m².⁴

While no head-to-head trials have compared this new lower-dose patch with older patches, each patch was compared against a standardized pill, so meaningful comparisons can be made.

In each case, the circulating estrogen levels associated with use of the EE/levonorgestrel patch were considerably lower than those of the comparator pill, while the older norelgestromin patch consistently delivered higher total estrogen levels than its 35-µg comparator pill (TABLE).³ Along these lines, no VTE events occurred in women in the clinical trial of the new patch among women with a BMI <30 kg/m².⁴

Women with a BMI <25 kg/m² experienced lower Pearl Index (PI) pregnancy rates (3.5%) compared with women with a BMI between 25 and 30 kg/m² (5.7%), according to clinical trial data cited in the package labeling. All the modern PI criteria were used to calculate these failure rates. Cycles in which no coitus occurred were excluded. Similarly, cycles in which another contraceptive method (for example, condoms) was added (even once) were excluded. Frequent pregnancy testing was done in the study centers and by the women at home. Bleeding patterns were well accepted; only 2.2% of study participants exited the study early due to menstrual disorders of any kind. Similarly, 3.1% of women discontinued use because of application site disorders. Women should be advised to press down on the patch edges after emerging from water exposure. Replacement patches are rapidly available from the manufacturer should permanent complete patch detachment occur.

Larger-scale phase 4 trials will be conducted to study the impact of this lower-dose patch on VTE rates.

Continue to: 3. A 1-year contraceptive vaginal ring...

The need to obtain new supplies every month or every 3 months contributes to high rates of contraceptive failure and unintended pregnancy among women using short-acting hormonal contraceptives (pills, patches, and vaginal rings).⁵ A woman-controlled contraceptive that would provide 1 year of protection against unintended pregnancy represents a step forward. A contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) that releases the novel progestin segesterone acetate and EE provides woman-controlled contraception for up to 1 year. This CVR (Annovera) received FDA approval in 2018 and has been marketed in the United States since 2020.

The segesterone acetate/EE CVR is a soft, flexible ring that is opaque white in color and fabricated from nonbiodegradable silicone (FIGURE 2). The outside diameter is 5.6 cm, compared with the 5.4-cm outer diameter of the etonogestrel/EE vaginal ring (NuvaRing). The segesterone acetate/EE CVR has 2 channels: one releases segesterone acetate only and the other releases segesterone acetate and EE. In contrast with the etonogestrel/EE CVR, the segesterone acetate/EE CVR does not need to be refrigerated when stored.⁶

Continue to: 4. An OC with a novel estrogen...

4. An OC with a novel estrogen

Even as use of intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants continues to grow, OCs remain the reversible contraceptive most used by US women. While OCs have been widely studied and represent a safe method of contraception for most reproductive-age women, combination estrogen-progestin OCs are well recognized to increase the risk of VTE. Although the primary role of the progestin component of combination OCs is to suppress ovulation, estrogen is included in combination OCs to stimulate endometrial proliferation, thereby causing predictable bleeding. EE, the potent synthetic estrogen used in the great majority of current OC formulations, induces hepatic production of prothrombotic proteins while inhibiting synthesis of antithrombotic proteins. While the lower EE doses (10–35 µg) in today’s OC formulations are associated with a lower VTE risk than older OCs that contained higher doses of estrogen, VTE continues to represent the principal health risk associated with use of combination OCs. Accordingly, development of a combination OC that has less impact on risk of VTE would be appealing.

In April 2021, the FDA approved an OC formulation that combines 15 mg of the novel estrogen estetrol with 3 mg of drospirenone (Nextstellis). This dose of drospirenone is the same as that used in commonly prescribed EE/drospirenone OC formulations. Also known as E4, estetrol is a natural estrogen synthesized by the fetal liver. Plant-derived E4 is used in this new OC.

Depending on the tissue, E4 acts differently than other estrogens. Similar to other estrogens, E4 acts as an agonist on the nuclear receptor to produce beneficial effects in bone, vaginal mucosa, and heart.⁸ Unlike other estrogens, E4 inhibits proliferation of mammary gland cells and has a neutral impact on the liver.⁹

In contrast with EE, E4 is not inhibited by the liver’s P450 enzymes; accordingly, the risk of drug-drug interactions is reduced. Because E4 is primarily excreted through the urine and not through the biliary tract, the risk of gallstone formation may be lower than with an EE OC. Likewise, E4 has substantially less impact on triglycerides, which are increased with EE. Finally, because of E4’s reduced effect on the liver, the impact on clotting parameters is less than that observed with an OC formulated with EE.¹⁰ This latter observation raises the possibility that VTE risk is lower with the E4/drospirenone OC than an OC formulated with EE.

A 13-cycle phase 3 trial of the E4/drospirenone OC conducted in the United States and Canada enrolled 1,864 women aged 16 to 50 years, including 1,674 who were aged 16 to 35 years.¹¹ Among women in this latter age group, the PI was 2.65 per 100 woman-years. Bleeding/cycle control patterns were similar to those observed in recent trials of other combination contraceptives. Likewise, the proportion of trial participants who discontinued the study due to adverse effects was similar to or lower than that noted in recent trials of other combination contraceptives. Of particular note, no cases of VTE were noted among trial participants of any BMI, a finding which contrasts with recent phase 3 trials of other combination contraceptives. The result of this pivotal trial suggests that the theoretic advantages of E4 when used in a combination OC formulation may translate into a safer, effective, and well-tolerated contraceptive.

Refinements in hormonal contraceptives continue

The 4 new short-acting hormonal contraceptives we reviewed represent enhancements on existing pills, patches, and rings. We hope that, financially, women will have access to these innovative methods and, in particular, that third-party payers will facilitate women’s access to these enhanced short-acting hormonal contraceptives. ●

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a modification to the isotretinoin risk-mitigation program to make it more inclusive for transgender patients.

Beginning on Dec. 13, 2021, patients prescribed isotretinoin for acne will be assigned to one of two risk categories – those who can get pregnant and those who cannot for the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS). Previously, there were three risk categories: females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males.

In recent years, dermatologists and others have advocated for the change, hoping to make the process more inclusive and less intrusive for their transgender patients.

Isotretinoin (Accutane, Absorica, Amnesteem, Claravis, others) has a high risk of severe birth defects, and has been linked with other health issues, making it crucial for those with the ability to become pregnant to take contraceptive precautions while on the medication. Under the iPLEDGE program, physicians, patients, and pharmacies prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy testing for patients who can become pregnant.

The FDA had given notification in June 2018 that the REMS modification and labeling change would be required, replacing the gender-specific language with gender-neutral language, according to an FDA spokesperson. The change was based on feedback that the gender-specific language can be a barrier to access for some patients. The FDA approved the modification on Oct. 8.
 

Expert reactions

“This is an exciting and welcome change from the FDA on iPLEDGE that many dermatologists, myself included, have advocated for quite a few years,” Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, assistant professor of dermatology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

In a report on the dermatologic care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Yeung and his colleagues noted that more than 10 million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people live in the United States and that improving their health is a public health priority.

“For cisgender patients, nothing has changed – patients will continue to receive appropriate educational material related to isotretinoin based on their pregnancy potential,” Dr. Yeung said. “For transgender and gender diverse patients, this is a huge step forward.”

Under the previous system, doctors were asked to register patients using gender binary categories, “which were confusing when they did not reflect reality” for these patients, Dr. Yeung said. The new system, Dr. Yeung added, “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”

“The new terminology is not just respectful, it also is simpler and makes more sense,” agreed Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery at Mount Sinai Health System and professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “As it stood, a transgender man with his uterus and ovaries in place might be missed in the pregnancy surveillance system because he could simply be labeled a man and not followed further. At the same time, both transgender women and cisgender women who were at no risk of pregnancy could be subject to more medical scrutiny that might have been consider intrusive.”

The change “validates the important point that pregnancy potential is not exclusively defined by sociocultural constructs of gender and allow dermatologists to focus purely on what matters when prescribing isotretinoin – whether an individual is able to become pregnant or not, regardless of their gender identity,” Klint Peebles, MD, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in Washington, D.C., and suburban Maryland, who has also advocated for the change, said in an interview.

 

FDA elaborates

The modification includes important changes for doctors, pharmacists, and patients alike, according to the FDA.

Health care providers must assign and confirm their currently enrolled patient’s risk category when they first log in to the IPLEDGE REMS website on or after Dec. 13, the effective date. They should be sure any patient whose prescription RMA (iPLEDGE authorization) expires on Dec. 11-12 is told to obtain their prescription before midnight, Eastern time, Dec. 10.

Pharmacists will be affected, too, since the iPLEDGE REMS changed to a new platform vendor and the current “switch” pharmacy management system will be removed as a method to verify authorization to dispense isotretinoin. With these changes, as of Dec. 13, pharmacists can’t use the switch system to obtain a predispense authorization, or RMA (risk management authorization). They will need to obtain an RMA online by accessing the iPLEDGE REMS website or via telephone to the PLEDGE REMS center, 866-495-0654, before dispensing the prescription.

Patients, beginning Dec. 13, will have the option of presenting a unique QR code at the pharmacy on their smartphone rather than providing the iPLEDGE identification number. The code can be accessed by logging into their account on the iPLEDGE REMS website.

Patients with an isotretinoin prescription RMA that expires Dec. 11-12, must obtain the prescription before 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on Dec. 10. If the RMA expires before the prescription is picked up, the patient must begin the authorization process all over again.

Dr. Safer, Dr. Yeung, and Dr. Peebles have no relevant disclosures.

More information on the update and the isotretinoin REMS program is available on the FDA website.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a modification to the isotretinoin risk-mitigation program to make it more inclusive for transgender patients.

Beginning on Dec. 13, 2021, patients prescribed isotretinoin for acne will be assigned to one of two risk categories – those who can get pregnant and those who cannot for the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS). Previously, there were three risk categories: females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males.

In recent years, dermatologists and others have advocated for the change, hoping to make the process more inclusive and less intrusive for their transgender patients.

Isotretinoin (Accutane, Absorica, Amnesteem, Claravis, others) has a high risk of severe birth defects, and has been linked with other health issues, making it crucial for those with the ability to become pregnant to take contraceptive precautions while on the medication. Under the iPLEDGE program, physicians, patients, and pharmacies prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy testing for patients who can become pregnant.

The FDA had given notification in June 2018 that the REMS modification and labeling change would be required, replacing the gender-specific language with gender-neutral language, according to an FDA spokesperson. The change was based on feedback that the gender-specific language can be a barrier to access for some patients. The FDA approved the modification on Oct. 8.
 

Expert reactions

“This is an exciting and welcome change from the FDA on iPLEDGE that many dermatologists, myself included, have advocated for quite a few years,” Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, assistant professor of dermatology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

In a report on the dermatologic care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Yeung and his colleagues noted that more than 10 million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people live in the United States and that improving their health is a public health priority.

“For cisgender patients, nothing has changed – patients will continue to receive appropriate educational material related to isotretinoin based on their pregnancy potential,” Dr. Yeung said. “For transgender and gender diverse patients, this is a huge step forward.”

Under the previous system, doctors were asked to register patients using gender binary categories, “which were confusing when they did not reflect reality” for these patients, Dr. Yeung said. The new system, Dr. Yeung added, “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”

“The new terminology is not just respectful, it also is simpler and makes more sense,” agreed Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery at Mount Sinai Health System and professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “As it stood, a transgender man with his uterus and ovaries in place might be missed in the pregnancy surveillance system because he could simply be labeled a man and not followed further. At the same time, both transgender women and cisgender women who were at no risk of pregnancy could be subject to more medical scrutiny that might have been consider intrusive.”

The change “validates the important point that pregnancy potential is not exclusively defined by sociocultural constructs of gender and allow dermatologists to focus purely on what matters when prescribing isotretinoin – whether an individual is able to become pregnant or not, regardless of their gender identity,” Klint Peebles, MD, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in Washington, D.C., and suburban Maryland, who has also advocated for the change, said in an interview.

 

FDA elaborates

The modification includes important changes for doctors, pharmacists, and patients alike, according to the FDA.

Health care providers must assign and confirm their currently enrolled patient’s risk category when they first log in to the IPLEDGE REMS website on or after Dec. 13, the effective date. They should be sure any patient whose prescription RMA (iPLEDGE authorization) expires on Dec. 11-12 is told to obtain their prescription before midnight, Eastern time, Dec. 10.

Pharmacists will be affected, too, since the iPLEDGE REMS changed to a new platform vendor and the current “switch” pharmacy management system will be removed as a method to verify authorization to dispense isotretinoin. With these changes, as of Dec. 13, pharmacists can’t use the switch system to obtain a predispense authorization, or RMA (risk management authorization). They will need to obtain an RMA online by accessing the iPLEDGE REMS website or via telephone to the PLEDGE REMS center, 866-495-0654, before dispensing the prescription.

Patients, beginning Dec. 13, will have the option of presenting a unique QR code at the pharmacy on their smartphone rather than providing the iPLEDGE identification number. The code can be accessed by logging into their account on the iPLEDGE REMS website.

Patients with an isotretinoin prescription RMA that expires Dec. 11-12, must obtain the prescription before 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on Dec. 10. If the RMA expires before the prescription is picked up, the patient must begin the authorization process all over again.

Dr. Safer, Dr. Yeung, and Dr. Peebles have no relevant disclosures.

More information on the update and the isotretinoin REMS program is available on the FDA website.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a modification to the isotretinoin risk-mitigation program to make it more inclusive for transgender patients.

Beginning on Dec. 13, 2021, patients prescribed isotretinoin for acne will be assigned to one of two risk categories – those who can get pregnant and those who cannot for the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS). Previously, there were three risk categories: females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males.

In recent years, dermatologists and others have advocated for the change, hoping to make the process more inclusive and less intrusive for their transgender patients.

Isotretinoin (Accutane, Absorica, Amnesteem, Claravis, others) has a high risk of severe birth defects, and has been linked with other health issues, making it crucial for those with the ability to become pregnant to take contraceptive precautions while on the medication. Under the iPLEDGE program, physicians, patients, and pharmacies prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy testing for patients who can become pregnant.

The FDA had given notification in June 2018 that the REMS modification and labeling change would be required, replacing the gender-specific language with gender-neutral language, according to an FDA spokesperson. The change was based on feedback that the gender-specific language can be a barrier to access for some patients. The FDA approved the modification on Oct. 8.
 

Expert reactions

“This is an exciting and welcome change from the FDA on iPLEDGE that many dermatologists, myself included, have advocated for quite a few years,” Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, assistant professor of dermatology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

In a report on the dermatologic care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Yeung and his colleagues noted that more than 10 million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people live in the United States and that improving their health is a public health priority.

“For cisgender patients, nothing has changed – patients will continue to receive appropriate educational material related to isotretinoin based on their pregnancy potential,” Dr. Yeung said. “For transgender and gender diverse patients, this is a huge step forward.”

Under the previous system, doctors were asked to register patients using gender binary categories, “which were confusing when they did not reflect reality” for these patients, Dr. Yeung said. The new system, Dr. Yeung added, “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”

“The new terminology is not just respectful, it also is simpler and makes more sense,” agreed Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery at Mount Sinai Health System and professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “As it stood, a transgender man with his uterus and ovaries in place might be missed in the pregnancy surveillance system because he could simply be labeled a man and not followed further. At the same time, both transgender women and cisgender women who were at no risk of pregnancy could be subject to more medical scrutiny that might have been consider intrusive.”

The change “validates the important point that pregnancy potential is not exclusively defined by sociocultural constructs of gender and allow dermatologists to focus purely on what matters when prescribing isotretinoin – whether an individual is able to become pregnant or not, regardless of their gender identity,” Klint Peebles, MD, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in Washington, D.C., and suburban Maryland, who has also advocated for the change, said in an interview.

 

FDA elaborates

The modification includes important changes for doctors, pharmacists, and patients alike, according to the FDA.

Health care providers must assign and confirm their currently enrolled patient’s risk category when they first log in to the IPLEDGE REMS website on or after Dec. 13, the effective date. They should be sure any patient whose prescription RMA (iPLEDGE authorization) expires on Dec. 11-12 is told to obtain their prescription before midnight, Eastern time, Dec. 10.

Pharmacists will be affected, too, since the iPLEDGE REMS changed to a new platform vendor and the current “switch” pharmacy management system will be removed as a method to verify authorization to dispense isotretinoin. With these changes, as of Dec. 13, pharmacists can’t use the switch system to obtain a predispense authorization, or RMA (risk management authorization). They will need to obtain an RMA online by accessing the iPLEDGE REMS website or via telephone to the PLEDGE REMS center, 866-495-0654, before dispensing the prescription.

Patients, beginning Dec. 13, will have the option of presenting a unique QR code at the pharmacy on their smartphone rather than providing the iPLEDGE identification number. The code can be accessed by logging into their account on the iPLEDGE REMS website.

Patients with an isotretinoin prescription RMA that expires Dec. 11-12, must obtain the prescription before 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on Dec. 10. If the RMA expires before the prescription is picked up, the patient must begin the authorization process all over again.

Dr. Safer, Dr. Yeung, and Dr. Peebles have no relevant disclosures.

More information on the update and the isotretinoin REMS program is available on the FDA website.

A new contraceptive method should ideally provide improved access or a higher quality and safety option. Although unintended pregnancy rates in the United States are decreasing, significant disparities across race and socioeconomic status remain,¹ and these disparities actually doubled from 1994 to 2011 even though the overall unintended pregnancy rate decreased.^1-3 Specifically, people of color, those with lower income, and people with lower education levels had higher rates of unintended pregnancies than did White people with higher education and income, suggesting disparate access to contraception services.¹ Thus, as new contraceptive methods are introduced, we must assess if they have the potential to address this disparity as well as continue to provide higher quality and safer options.

In this Update, we critically review the phase 3 data on efficacy and safety for 3 new methods that were introduced to the US market over the past year to evaluate their impact on the current contraceptive landscape.

The first method, newly approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is a combined oral contraceptive (OC) that contains a novel endogenous estrogen, estetrol, or E4 (Nextstellis). E4 is a natural estrogen produced in the fetal liver that has lower potency and a longer half-life than estradiol. Nextstellis is a monophasic 24/4 OC pill that contains E4 14.2 mg and drospirenone 3 mg in each of the 24 hormone-containing pills. Most combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in the United States today contain synthetically made ethinyl estradiol (EE) due to its high potency and oral bioavailability. Outside of the reproductive system, EE upregulates the production of hepatic proteins and alters procoagulant and anticoagulant factors, which results in an overall increase in venous thromboembolic (VTE) risk among CHC users.²

After widespread use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) started in the 1960s, data emerged regarding increased VTE risk.³ Subsequent research discovered that the type of estrogen used in CHCs directly correlates with the thrombosis risk due to the hepatic upregulation with both first- and second-pass metabolism. Although this risk was reduced as the EE dose decreased below 50 µg and concurrent VTE risk factors were contraindicated, CHC users still faced a 2-fold increase in VTE risk compared with nonusers.^4,5 EE in contraceptive formulations increases VTE risk, likely related to upregulation of procoagulant factors and decreasing anticoagulant proteins.² By contrast, a phase 2 trial of Nextstellis demonstrated more neutral effects of E4/drospirenone on hemostatic parameters compared with EE/levonorgestrel or EE/drospirenone.⁶ Furthermore, E4/drospirenone exhibited lower increases in hepatic proteins, such as angiotensinogen, triglycerides, and sex-hormone binding globulin.⁷ These findings together suggest that this novel CHC pill has a more favorable cardiovascular adverse effect profile compared with currently available CHCs.

The second contraceptive method is a new transdermal patch that contains EE and levonorgestrel (Twirla); this is in contrast to the available EE/norelgestromin contraceptive patch (Xulane). Transdermal contraceptive patches can offer some users easier adherence as compared with a daily OC.⁸ Until this past year, the only transdermal contraceptive available in the United States was Xulane, which contains a daily dose of EE 35 µg and norelgestromin 150 µg. Norelgestromin is eventually metabolized to levonorgestrel derivatives.⁹ Twirla is administered in the same manner as Xulane and contains a daily hormone exposure equivalent to a COC containing EE 30 µg and levonorgestrel 120 µg. Similar to EE/norelgestromin, the EE/levonorgestrel patch also is contraindicated in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m²) due to decreased efficacy and increased risk for VTE. Additionally, phase 3 data demonstrated decreasing efficacy of Twirla in overweight users (BMI ≥25–30 kg/m²), perhaps further limiting the population that may benefit from this contraceptive method.¹⁰ These issues with efficacy and weight likely are related to the fact that levonorgestrel distribution is weight dependent, with evidence of lower plasma levels in obese individuals.^11-13

The third new method is a prescription vaginal contraceptive gel with lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate (Phexxi) designed to prevent pregnancy by maintaining an acidic vaginal environment that is inhospitable to sperm. For many decades, vaginal contraceptives, including vaginal spermicidal gels, provided easy access to a nonhormonal and flexible method of moderately effective contraception for many users. Phexxi is a prescription vaginal pH regulator administered as a gel and active for 1 hour after application. All previous vaginal gels sold in the United States are applied similarly, are available over the counter, and include nonoxynol-9, which is a surfactant that damages sperm cell membranes. Recent data from a phase 3 trial demonstrated similar contraceptive effectiveness of Phexxi when compared with available nonoxynol-9 alternatives.¹⁴

Continue to: New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE...

New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE

Creinin MD, Westhoff CL, Bouchard C, et al. Estetrol-drospirenone combination oral contraceptive: North American phase 3 efficacy and safety results. Contraception. 2021;104:222-228.

The COC E4/drospirenone was evaluated in 2 parallel multinational studies. Here, we review the North American data that are more relevant for the US population; the European-Russian data also are published.¹⁵

Study examined 1 year’s use of E4/drospirenone

The US–Canadian trial conducted by Creinin and colleagues enrolled 1,864 participants aged 16 to 50 years to evaluate contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, and adverse events with 1-year use (13 cycles) of E4/drospirenone. The primary efficacy group included 1,524 women aged 16 to 35. This study enrolled healthy, heterosexually active participants with a BMI ≤35 kg/m² and regular menses from 70 sites in the United States and 7 sites in Canada. The dropout rate was 45%, comparable to that in other contraceptive studies. Participants used E4/drospirenone cyclically, taking 1 hormone-containing pill daily for 24 days followed by 4 days of placebo pills.

Contraceptive efficacious, no VTE observed

The researchers reported efficacy as a Pearl Index (PI) of 2.65 pregnancies per 100 woman-years in participants aged 16 to 35 and an overall 13-cycle life-table pregnancy rate of 2.06%. The PI did not differ among nonobese and obese participants in multivariable analysis. Most users experienced scheduled withdrawal bleeding; only 13% to 18% reported absence of scheduled bleeding. Unscheduled bleeding was typically spotting (55.2%), and this decreased with treatment duration from 30% in cycle 1 to 15% to 20% in cycle 5 and on.

Overall, 28.9% of participants reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs), which most commonly were headache (5.0%), metrorrhagia (4.6%), and nausea (3.8%). Investigators reported a minimal change in mean (SD) BMI of 0.4 (1.7) kg/m² from baseline after 1 year of E4/drospirenone use, and only 0.5% of participants discontinued use due to weight gain. The most common reasons for AE-related treatment discontinuation included metrorrhagia (0.9%), menorrhagia (0.8%), and vaginal hemorrhage (0.5%). Importantly, no cases of VTE occurred in this study of estetrol despite 23% of participants being obese, a known risk factor for VTE.

Continue to: Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women...

Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women

Nelson AL, Kaunitz AM, Kroll R; SECURE Investigators. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol transdermal delivery system: phase 3 clinical trial results. Contraception. 2021;103:137-143.

To assess the contraceptive efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the transdermal patch Twirla (EE/levonorgestrel) over 1 year of treatment (13 cycles), Nelson and colleagues conducted an open-label, multicenter, US-based phase 3 trial of participants aged 18 years and older with regular cycles. There were no restrictions based on BMI. On average, the study population was overweight, with a mean BMI of 28.3 kg/m² , and 35% of the population was considered obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²).

Study design

A total of 2,032 participants enrolled in the study, with separate populations defined for specific analysis on safety, contraceptive efficacy, and cycle control. The primary efficacy group included 1,736 participants. Fifty-one percent discontinued the study, most commonly due to “women’s decision” (15%) and lost to follow-up (11%). Users received bleeding diaries and returned periodically throughout the study for evaluation for efficacy, adherence, and adverse events.

Efficacy associated with BMI

The study results demonstrated an overall PI of 5.8 pregnancies per 100 woman-years for users aged younger than 35. TABLE 2 demonstrates the overall trend of efficacy in relation to BMI.^10,15-19 Participants with a higher BMI were found to have a higher PI, revealing lower contraceptive efficacy in more overweight and obese patients. The overall cumulative pregnancy rate over 13 cycles was 5.3%

Participants reported decreasing frequency of bleeding/spotting days over the treatment duration of 13 cycles, from a mean (SD) of 6.2 (4.5) days in cycle 1 to 4.9 (3.5) days in cycle 13. Unscheduled bleeding episodes remained high throughout the study period. Initially, 60% of users reported 1 or more days of unscheduled bleeding in cycle 1, and 42% still reported unscheduled bleeding in cycle 13. In light of this, only 45 participants (2.2%) discontinued the study due to bleeding issues, suggesting perhaps that the bleeding was light. Overall, users experienced acceptable wearability of the patch, and the rate of detachment decreased over the study period from 9.9% in cycle 1 to 2.4% in cycle 13. There were also low rates (0.5%) of moderate to severe irritation. Itching at the adhesion site decreased slightly from 13.1% in cycle 2 to 9.6% in cycle 13.

In general, 27.2% of patch users experienced a study-related AE, most reported as mild to moderate. Nausea (4.1%) and headaches (3.6%) were the most common hormone-related AE. Importantly, 4 obese users experienced 5 VTEs (deep vein thrombosis, n = 2; pulmonary embolism, n = 3) between cycle 5 and 13. Three of these users had additional VTE risk factors, such as air travel and a family history of clots. No users who were of normal weight or overweight experienced VTE.

Continue to: Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option...

Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option

Thomas MA, Chappell BT, Maximos B, et al. A novel vaginal pH regulator: results from the phase 3 AMPOWER contraception clinical trial. Contracept X. 2020;2:100031.

In an open-label phase 3 study, Thomas and colleagues enrolled 1,384 participants aged 18 to 35 with regular cycles at 112 sites in the United States to assess the contraceptive efficacy, safety, and acceptability of Phexxi vaginal gel (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) over 7 cycles (6 months). Participants were required to have at least 3 episodes of heterosexual vaginal intercourse per cycle and return throughout the treatment duration for study visits. Fifty-three percent of participants did not complete the study, most frequently due to loss to follow-up (18.1%) and participant withdrawal (12.3%). Most participants were White (69%) and had an average (SD) age of 27.7 (4.5) years.

Efficacy and AE rates

The investigators reported a cumulative pregnancy rate of 13.7% over 7 cycles (6 months). In this study, 45.2% of women experienced 1 AE, and most were noted to be mild (23.9%) to moderate (18.7%). The most reported AE was vulvovaginal burning (20.0%), followed by vulvovaginal pruritus (11.2%), urinary tract infection (5.7%), and vulvovaginal pain (3.8%). Less than 2% of participants discontinued the study due to an AE. Burning and itching decreased with time and with decreased frequency of use. When used twice per day compared with once per day, burning rates decreased from 4.6% to 2.1%, and itching rates decreased from 1.0% to 0.7%. Serious AEs were uncommon, occurring in 1.3% of users; only 1, cystitis, was noted to be “probably” related to the treatment. ●

A new contraceptive method should ideally provide improved access or a higher quality and safety option. Although unintended pregnancy rates in the United States are decreasing, significant disparities across race and socioeconomic status remain,¹ and these disparities actually doubled from 1994 to 2011 even though the overall unintended pregnancy rate decreased.^1-3 Specifically, people of color, those with lower income, and people with lower education levels had higher rates of unintended pregnancies than did White people with higher education and income, suggesting disparate access to contraception services.¹ Thus, as new contraceptive methods are introduced, we must assess if they have the potential to address this disparity as well as continue to provide higher quality and safer options.

In this Update, we critically review the phase 3 data on efficacy and safety for 3 new methods that were introduced to the US market over the past year to evaluate their impact on the current contraceptive landscape.

The first method, newly approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is a combined oral contraceptive (OC) that contains a novel endogenous estrogen, estetrol, or E4 (Nextstellis). E4 is a natural estrogen produced in the fetal liver that has lower potency and a longer half-life than estradiol. Nextstellis is a monophasic 24/4 OC pill that contains E4 14.2 mg and drospirenone 3 mg in each of the 24 hormone-containing pills. Most combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in the United States today contain synthetically made ethinyl estradiol (EE) due to its high potency and oral bioavailability. Outside of the reproductive system, EE upregulates the production of hepatic proteins and alters procoagulant and anticoagulant factors, which results in an overall increase in venous thromboembolic (VTE) risk among CHC users.²

After widespread use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) started in the 1960s, data emerged regarding increased VTE risk.³ Subsequent research discovered that the type of estrogen used in CHCs directly correlates with the thrombosis risk due to the hepatic upregulation with both first- and second-pass metabolism. Although this risk was reduced as the EE dose decreased below 50 µg and concurrent VTE risk factors were contraindicated, CHC users still faced a 2-fold increase in VTE risk compared with nonusers.^4,5 EE in contraceptive formulations increases VTE risk, likely related to upregulation of procoagulant factors and decreasing anticoagulant proteins.² By contrast, a phase 2 trial of Nextstellis demonstrated more neutral effects of E4/drospirenone on hemostatic parameters compared with EE/levonorgestrel or EE/drospirenone.⁶ Furthermore, E4/drospirenone exhibited lower increases in hepatic proteins, such as angiotensinogen, triglycerides, and sex-hormone binding globulin.⁷ These findings together suggest that this novel CHC pill has a more favorable cardiovascular adverse effect profile compared with currently available CHCs.

The second contraceptive method is a new transdermal patch that contains EE and levonorgestrel (Twirla); this is in contrast to the available EE/norelgestromin contraceptive patch (Xulane). Transdermal contraceptive patches can offer some users easier adherence as compared with a daily OC.⁸ Until this past year, the only transdermal contraceptive available in the United States was Xulane, which contains a daily dose of EE 35 µg and norelgestromin 150 µg. Norelgestromin is eventually metabolized to levonorgestrel derivatives.⁹ Twirla is administered in the same manner as Xulane and contains a daily hormone exposure equivalent to a COC containing EE 30 µg and levonorgestrel 120 µg. Similar to EE/norelgestromin, the EE/levonorgestrel patch also is contraindicated in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m²) due to decreased efficacy and increased risk for VTE. Additionally, phase 3 data demonstrated decreasing efficacy of Twirla in overweight users (BMI ≥25–30 kg/m²), perhaps further limiting the population that may benefit from this contraceptive method.¹⁰ These issues with efficacy and weight likely are related to the fact that levonorgestrel distribution is weight dependent, with evidence of lower plasma levels in obese individuals.^11-13

The third new method is a prescription vaginal contraceptive gel with lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate (Phexxi) designed to prevent pregnancy by maintaining an acidic vaginal environment that is inhospitable to sperm. For many decades, vaginal contraceptives, including vaginal spermicidal gels, provided easy access to a nonhormonal and flexible method of moderately effective contraception for many users. Phexxi is a prescription vaginal pH regulator administered as a gel and active for 1 hour after application. All previous vaginal gels sold in the United States are applied similarly, are available over the counter, and include nonoxynol-9, which is a surfactant that damages sperm cell membranes. Recent data from a phase 3 trial demonstrated similar contraceptive effectiveness of Phexxi when compared with available nonoxynol-9 alternatives.¹⁴

Continue to: New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE...

New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE

Creinin MD, Westhoff CL, Bouchard C, et al. Estetrol-drospirenone combination oral contraceptive: North American phase 3 efficacy and safety results. Contraception. 2021;104:222-228.

The COC E4/drospirenone was evaluated in 2 parallel multinational studies. Here, we review the North American data that are more relevant for the US population; the European-Russian data also are published.¹⁵

Study examined 1 year’s use of E4/drospirenone

The US–Canadian trial conducted by Creinin and colleagues enrolled 1,864 participants aged 16 to 50 years to evaluate contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, and adverse events with 1-year use (13 cycles) of E4/drospirenone. The primary efficacy group included 1,524 women aged 16 to 35. This study enrolled healthy, heterosexually active participants with a BMI ≤35 kg/m² and regular menses from 70 sites in the United States and 7 sites in Canada. The dropout rate was 45%, comparable to that in other contraceptive studies. Participants used E4/drospirenone cyclically, taking 1 hormone-containing pill daily for 24 days followed by 4 days of placebo pills.

Contraceptive efficacious, no VTE observed

The researchers reported efficacy as a Pearl Index (PI) of 2.65 pregnancies per 100 woman-years in participants aged 16 to 35 and an overall 13-cycle life-table pregnancy rate of 2.06%. The PI did not differ among nonobese and obese participants in multivariable analysis. Most users experienced scheduled withdrawal bleeding; only 13% to 18% reported absence of scheduled bleeding. Unscheduled bleeding was typically spotting (55.2%), and this decreased with treatment duration from 30% in cycle 1 to 15% to 20% in cycle 5 and on.

Overall, 28.9% of participants reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs), which most commonly were headache (5.0%), metrorrhagia (4.6%), and nausea (3.8%). Investigators reported a minimal change in mean (SD) BMI of 0.4 (1.7) kg/m² from baseline after 1 year of E4/drospirenone use, and only 0.5% of participants discontinued use due to weight gain. The most common reasons for AE-related treatment discontinuation included metrorrhagia (0.9%), menorrhagia (0.8%), and vaginal hemorrhage (0.5%). Importantly, no cases of VTE occurred in this study of estetrol despite 23% of participants being obese, a known risk factor for VTE.

Continue to: Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women...

Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women

Nelson AL, Kaunitz AM, Kroll R; SECURE Investigators. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol transdermal delivery system: phase 3 clinical trial results. Contraception. 2021;103:137-143.

To assess the contraceptive efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the transdermal patch Twirla (EE/levonorgestrel) over 1 year of treatment (13 cycles), Nelson and colleagues conducted an open-label, multicenter, US-based phase 3 trial of participants aged 18 years and older with regular cycles. There were no restrictions based on BMI. On average, the study population was overweight, with a mean BMI of 28.3 kg/m² , and 35% of the population was considered obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²).

Study design

A total of 2,032 participants enrolled in the study, with separate populations defined for specific analysis on safety, contraceptive efficacy, and cycle control. The primary efficacy group included 1,736 participants. Fifty-one percent discontinued the study, most commonly due to “women’s decision” (15%) and lost to follow-up (11%). Users received bleeding diaries and returned periodically throughout the study for evaluation for efficacy, adherence, and adverse events.

Efficacy associated with BMI

The study results demonstrated an overall PI of 5.8 pregnancies per 100 woman-years for users aged younger than 35. TABLE 2 demonstrates the overall trend of efficacy in relation to BMI.^10,15-19 Participants with a higher BMI were found to have a higher PI, revealing lower contraceptive efficacy in more overweight and obese patients. The overall cumulative pregnancy rate over 13 cycles was 5.3%

Participants reported decreasing frequency of bleeding/spotting days over the treatment duration of 13 cycles, from a mean (SD) of 6.2 (4.5) days in cycle 1 to 4.9 (3.5) days in cycle 13. Unscheduled bleeding episodes remained high throughout the study period. Initially, 60% of users reported 1 or more days of unscheduled bleeding in cycle 1, and 42% still reported unscheduled bleeding in cycle 13. In light of this, only 45 participants (2.2%) discontinued the study due to bleeding issues, suggesting perhaps that the bleeding was light. Overall, users experienced acceptable wearability of the patch, and the rate of detachment decreased over the study period from 9.9% in cycle 1 to 2.4% in cycle 13. There were also low rates (0.5%) of moderate to severe irritation. Itching at the adhesion site decreased slightly from 13.1% in cycle 2 to 9.6% in cycle 13.

In general, 27.2% of patch users experienced a study-related AE, most reported as mild to moderate. Nausea (4.1%) and headaches (3.6%) were the most common hormone-related AE. Importantly, 4 obese users experienced 5 VTEs (deep vein thrombosis, n = 2; pulmonary embolism, n = 3) between cycle 5 and 13. Three of these users had additional VTE risk factors, such as air travel and a family history of clots. No users who were of normal weight or overweight experienced VTE.

Continue to: Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option...

Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option

Thomas MA, Chappell BT, Maximos B, et al. A novel vaginal pH regulator: results from the phase 3 AMPOWER contraception clinical trial. Contracept X. 2020;2:100031.

In an open-label phase 3 study, Thomas and colleagues enrolled 1,384 participants aged 18 to 35 with regular cycles at 112 sites in the United States to assess the contraceptive efficacy, safety, and acceptability of Phexxi vaginal gel (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) over 7 cycles (6 months). Participants were required to have at least 3 episodes of heterosexual vaginal intercourse per cycle and return throughout the treatment duration for study visits. Fifty-three percent of participants did not complete the study, most frequently due to loss to follow-up (18.1%) and participant withdrawal (12.3%). Most participants were White (69%) and had an average (SD) age of 27.7 (4.5) years.

Efficacy and AE rates

The investigators reported a cumulative pregnancy rate of 13.7% over 7 cycles (6 months). In this study, 45.2% of women experienced 1 AE, and most were noted to be mild (23.9%) to moderate (18.7%). The most reported AE was vulvovaginal burning (20.0%), followed by vulvovaginal pruritus (11.2%), urinary tract infection (5.7%), and vulvovaginal pain (3.8%). Less than 2% of participants discontinued the study due to an AE. Burning and itching decreased with time and with decreased frequency of use. When used twice per day compared with once per day, burning rates decreased from 4.6% to 2.1%, and itching rates decreased from 1.0% to 0.7%. Serious AEs were uncommon, occurring in 1.3% of users; only 1, cystitis, was noted to be “probably” related to the treatment. ●

A new contraceptive method should ideally provide improved access or a higher quality and safety option. Although unintended pregnancy rates in the United States are decreasing, significant disparities across race and socioeconomic status remain,¹ and these disparities actually doubled from 1994 to 2011 even though the overall unintended pregnancy rate decreased.^1-3 Specifically, people of color, those with lower income, and people with lower education levels had higher rates of unintended pregnancies than did White people with higher education and income, suggesting disparate access to contraception services.¹ Thus, as new contraceptive methods are introduced, we must assess if they have the potential to address this disparity as well as continue to provide higher quality and safer options.

In this Update, we critically review the phase 3 data on efficacy and safety for 3 new methods that were introduced to the US market over the past year to evaluate their impact on the current contraceptive landscape.

The first method, newly approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is a combined oral contraceptive (OC) that contains a novel endogenous estrogen, estetrol, or E4 (Nextstellis). E4 is a natural estrogen produced in the fetal liver that has lower potency and a longer half-life than estradiol. Nextstellis is a monophasic 24/4 OC pill that contains E4 14.2 mg and drospirenone 3 mg in each of the 24 hormone-containing pills. Most combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in the United States today contain synthetically made ethinyl estradiol (EE) due to its high potency and oral bioavailability. Outside of the reproductive system, EE upregulates the production of hepatic proteins and alters procoagulant and anticoagulant factors, which results in an overall increase in venous thromboembolic (VTE) risk among CHC users.²

After widespread use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) started in the 1960s, data emerged regarding increased VTE risk.³ Subsequent research discovered that the type of estrogen used in CHCs directly correlates with the thrombosis risk due to the hepatic upregulation with both first- and second-pass metabolism. Although this risk was reduced as the EE dose decreased below 50 µg and concurrent VTE risk factors were contraindicated, CHC users still faced a 2-fold increase in VTE risk compared with nonusers.^4,5 EE in contraceptive formulations increases VTE risk, likely related to upregulation of procoagulant factors and decreasing anticoagulant proteins.² By contrast, a phase 2 trial of Nextstellis demonstrated more neutral effects of E4/drospirenone on hemostatic parameters compared with EE/levonorgestrel or EE/drospirenone.⁶ Furthermore, E4/drospirenone exhibited lower increases in hepatic proteins, such as angiotensinogen, triglycerides, and sex-hormone binding globulin.⁷ These findings together suggest that this novel CHC pill has a more favorable cardiovascular adverse effect profile compared with currently available CHCs.

The second contraceptive method is a new transdermal patch that contains EE and levonorgestrel (Twirla); this is in contrast to the available EE/norelgestromin contraceptive patch (Xulane). Transdermal contraceptive patches can offer some users easier adherence as compared with a daily OC.⁸ Until this past year, the only transdermal contraceptive available in the United States was Xulane, which contains a daily dose of EE 35 µg and norelgestromin 150 µg. Norelgestromin is eventually metabolized to levonorgestrel derivatives.⁹ Twirla is administered in the same manner as Xulane and contains a daily hormone exposure equivalent to a COC containing EE 30 µg and levonorgestrel 120 µg. Similar to EE/norelgestromin, the EE/levonorgestrel patch also is contraindicated in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m²) due to decreased efficacy and increased risk for VTE. Additionally, phase 3 data demonstrated decreasing efficacy of Twirla in overweight users (BMI ≥25–30 kg/m²), perhaps further limiting the population that may benefit from this contraceptive method.¹⁰ These issues with efficacy and weight likely are related to the fact that levonorgestrel distribution is weight dependent, with evidence of lower plasma levels in obese individuals.^11-13

The third new method is a prescription vaginal contraceptive gel with lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate (Phexxi) designed to prevent pregnancy by maintaining an acidic vaginal environment that is inhospitable to sperm. For many decades, vaginal contraceptives, including vaginal spermicidal gels, provided easy access to a nonhormonal and flexible method of moderately effective contraception for many users. Phexxi is a prescription vaginal pH regulator administered as a gel and active for 1 hour after application. All previous vaginal gels sold in the United States are applied similarly, are available over the counter, and include nonoxynol-9, which is a surfactant that damages sperm cell membranes. Recent data from a phase 3 trial demonstrated similar contraceptive effectiveness of Phexxi when compared with available nonoxynol-9 alternatives.¹⁴

Continue to: New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE...

New OC with the novel estrogen E4 demonstrates good safety profile for VTE

Creinin MD, Westhoff CL, Bouchard C, et al. Estetrol-drospirenone combination oral contraceptive: North American phase 3 efficacy and safety results. Contraception. 2021;104:222-228.

The COC E4/drospirenone was evaluated in 2 parallel multinational studies. Here, we review the North American data that are more relevant for the US population; the European-Russian data also are published.¹⁵

Study examined 1 year’s use of E4/drospirenone

The US–Canadian trial conducted by Creinin and colleagues enrolled 1,864 participants aged 16 to 50 years to evaluate contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, and adverse events with 1-year use (13 cycles) of E4/drospirenone. The primary efficacy group included 1,524 women aged 16 to 35. This study enrolled healthy, heterosexually active participants with a BMI ≤35 kg/m² and regular menses from 70 sites in the United States and 7 sites in Canada. The dropout rate was 45%, comparable to that in other contraceptive studies. Participants used E4/drospirenone cyclically, taking 1 hormone-containing pill daily for 24 days followed by 4 days of placebo pills.

Contraceptive efficacious, no VTE observed

The researchers reported efficacy as a Pearl Index (PI) of 2.65 pregnancies per 100 woman-years in participants aged 16 to 35 and an overall 13-cycle life-table pregnancy rate of 2.06%. The PI did not differ among nonobese and obese participants in multivariable analysis. Most users experienced scheduled withdrawal bleeding; only 13% to 18% reported absence of scheduled bleeding. Unscheduled bleeding was typically spotting (55.2%), and this decreased with treatment duration from 30% in cycle 1 to 15% to 20% in cycle 5 and on.

Overall, 28.9% of participants reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs), which most commonly were headache (5.0%), metrorrhagia (4.6%), and nausea (3.8%). Investigators reported a minimal change in mean (SD) BMI of 0.4 (1.7) kg/m² from baseline after 1 year of E4/drospirenone use, and only 0.5% of participants discontinued use due to weight gain. The most common reasons for AE-related treatment discontinuation included metrorrhagia (0.9%), menorrhagia (0.8%), and vaginal hemorrhage (0.5%). Importantly, no cases of VTE occurred in this study of estetrol despite 23% of participants being obese, a known risk factor for VTE.

Continue to: Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women...

Efficacy of a new EE/levonorgestrel transdermal patch may be lower in overweight, obese women

Nelson AL, Kaunitz AM, Kroll R; SECURE Investigators. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol transdermal delivery system: phase 3 clinical trial results. Contraception. 2021;103:137-143.

To assess the contraceptive efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the transdermal patch Twirla (EE/levonorgestrel) over 1 year of treatment (13 cycles), Nelson and colleagues conducted an open-label, multicenter, US-based phase 3 trial of participants aged 18 years and older with regular cycles. There were no restrictions based on BMI. On average, the study population was overweight, with a mean BMI of 28.3 kg/m² , and 35% of the population was considered obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²).

Study design

A total of 2,032 participants enrolled in the study, with separate populations defined for specific analysis on safety, contraceptive efficacy, and cycle control. The primary efficacy group included 1,736 participants. Fifty-one percent discontinued the study, most commonly due to “women’s decision” (15%) and lost to follow-up (11%). Users received bleeding diaries and returned periodically throughout the study for evaluation for efficacy, adherence, and adverse events.

Efficacy associated with BMI

The study results demonstrated an overall PI of 5.8 pregnancies per 100 woman-years for users aged younger than 35. TABLE 2 demonstrates the overall trend of efficacy in relation to BMI.^10,15-19 Participants with a higher BMI were found to have a higher PI, revealing lower contraceptive efficacy in more overweight and obese patients. The overall cumulative pregnancy rate over 13 cycles was 5.3%

Participants reported decreasing frequency of bleeding/spotting days over the treatment duration of 13 cycles, from a mean (SD) of 6.2 (4.5) days in cycle 1 to 4.9 (3.5) days in cycle 13. Unscheduled bleeding episodes remained high throughout the study period. Initially, 60% of users reported 1 or more days of unscheduled bleeding in cycle 1, and 42% still reported unscheduled bleeding in cycle 13. In light of this, only 45 participants (2.2%) discontinued the study due to bleeding issues, suggesting perhaps that the bleeding was light. Overall, users experienced acceptable wearability of the patch, and the rate of detachment decreased over the study period from 9.9% in cycle 1 to 2.4% in cycle 13. There were also low rates (0.5%) of moderate to severe irritation. Itching at the adhesion site decreased slightly from 13.1% in cycle 2 to 9.6% in cycle 13.

In general, 27.2% of patch users experienced a study-related AE, most reported as mild to moderate. Nausea (4.1%) and headaches (3.6%) were the most common hormone-related AE. Importantly, 4 obese users experienced 5 VTEs (deep vein thrombosis, n = 2; pulmonary embolism, n = 3) between cycle 5 and 13. Three of these users had additional VTE risk factors, such as air travel and a family history of clots. No users who were of normal weight or overweight experienced VTE.

Continue to: Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option...

Novel vaginal pH buffering spermicide is a new Rx-only option

Thomas MA, Chappell BT, Maximos B, et al. A novel vaginal pH regulator: results from the phase 3 AMPOWER contraception clinical trial. Contracept X. 2020;2:100031.

In an open-label phase 3 study, Thomas and colleagues enrolled 1,384 participants aged 18 to 35 with regular cycles at 112 sites in the United States to assess the contraceptive efficacy, safety, and acceptability of Phexxi vaginal gel (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) over 7 cycles (6 months). Participants were required to have at least 3 episodes of heterosexual vaginal intercourse per cycle and return throughout the treatment duration for study visits. Fifty-three percent of participants did not complete the study, most frequently due to loss to follow-up (18.1%) and participant withdrawal (12.3%). Most participants were White (69%) and had an average (SD) age of 27.7 (4.5) years.

Efficacy and AE rates

The investigators reported a cumulative pregnancy rate of 13.7% over 7 cycles (6 months). In this study, 45.2% of women experienced 1 AE, and most were noted to be mild (23.9%) to moderate (18.7%). The most reported AE was vulvovaginal burning (20.0%), followed by vulvovaginal pruritus (11.2%), urinary tract infection (5.7%), and vulvovaginal pain (3.8%). Less than 2% of participants discontinued the study due to an AE. Burning and itching decreased with time and with decreased frequency of use. When used twice per day compared with once per day, burning rates decreased from 4.6% to 2.1%, and itching rates decreased from 1.0% to 0.7%. Serious AEs were uncommon, occurring in 1.3% of users; only 1, cystitis, was noted to be “probably” related to the treatment. ●

Contraception prescription patterns vary by specialty and geography

Access to contraceptive services is dependent on both the local availability of healthcare providers as well as the types of contraception services offered by those providers. Little is known about the national US contraception workforce, which includes any type of provider that offers contraceptive care. In this observational study, three national data sources were combined to construct a comprehensive database of the contraception provider workforce to evaluate Medicaid participation and variation in the supply, distribution, and types of contraceptive services offered. The study found that 73.1% of obstetric and gynecologic medical physicians (OBGYN), 72.6% of nurse-midwives, 51.4% of family medicine physicians, 32.4% of pediatricians, 25.2% of advanced practice nurses, 19.8% of internal medicine physicians, and 19.4% of physician assistants prescribed the contraceptive pill, patch, or ring. Approximately half of OBGYNs and family medicine physicians (50.2% and 52.2%, respectively) provided injectable contraception, compared to 34.7% of internal medicine physicians and 34.1% of pediatricians. Intrauterine devices (IUD) were provided by 92.8% of OBGYNs compared with 16.4% of family physicians, 2.6% of internal medicine physicians, and 0.6% of pediatricians. Contraceptive implants were provided by 56.2% of OBGYNs, compared with 13.7% of family medicine physicians, 1.8% of internal medicine physicians, and 4.0% of pediatricians. The contraception workforce also varied by geography, both in the density and types of providers that different communities depend upon. States ranged from provider-to-population ratios of 27.9 to 74.2 providers per 10,000 women of reproductive age. The availability of different specialties and professions also varied between counties, with 675 of the 1,411 counties lacking either OBGYNs or nurse-midwives prescribing contraception. This study also found variation across states and provider types in the proportion of contraceptive providers who accept Medicaid, with rates of Medicaid acceptance highest amongst OBGYNs and lowest amongst internal medicine physicians. This report highlights that the distribution of the contraception workforce and Medicaid acceptance varies widely by location and specialty and documents large gaps in the provision of highly effective contraceptive services including IUDs and implants. Increasing the number and types of providers that can provide family planning is central to providing comprehensive reproductive healthcare and reducing unintended pregnancies.

US Healthcare provider practices related to Emergency Contraception

Emergency contraception (EC) can prevent pregnancy after sexual encounters in which contraception was not used or used incorrectly. The US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (US SPR) was initially released in 2013 and includes recommendations for healthcare providers on the initiation of EC, increasing access to EC through advance provision of EC pills, and initiation of regular contraception in conjunction with provision of EC pills. The objective of this study was to assess the percentage of healthcare providers reporting frequent provision of select EC practices around the time of and after the release of the US SPR. Two cross-sectional mailed surveys were conducted using different nationwide samples of office-based physicians and public-sector providers around the time of (2013-2014) and after (2019) the initial US SPR release. Providers were asked to indicate how often in the past year they had: 1) provided an advance prescription of EC pills to a woman not specifically seeking EC; 2) provided an advanced supply of EC pills to a woman not specifically seeking EC; 3) provided or prescribed a contraceptive at the same time as EC pills were provided; and 4) provided a copper IUD as EC. Data was pooled from both surveys, resulting in an overall sample size of 3,480 providers (n = 2,060 for the 2013-2014 survey and n = 1,420 for the 2019 survey). In the 2019 nationwide sample, 16% of respondents frequently provided an advance prescription of EC pills, 7% provided an advanced supply of EC pills, 8% provided the copper IUD as EC, and 41% cfrequently provided regular contraception at the time of EC pills. Overall, there were no significant changes in prevalence of frequently providing or prescribing an advance supply of EC pills between 2013-2014 and 2019, which may reflect changes in provider practices based on availability of over-the-counter levonogestrel EC pills in 2013. An increase in the proportion of providers who frequently provided regular contraception at the same time as EC pills and who provided a copper IUD for EC between 2013-2014 and 2019 was observed. In 2019, providers who reported using the US SPR were more likely to provide contraception at the same time as EC pills and provide the copper IUD for EC compared with those who did not use the US SPR. Wider implementation of the US SPR recommendations and an improved understanding of the barriers faced by providers in implementing these practices may improve access to EC. A recent report found that the levonorgestrel 52 IUD provides EC with efficacy similar to that of the copper IUD and may lead to more widespread placement of IUDs for EC (Turok).  


Progestogen-only pill shows promise as a potential non-prescription contraception option for both breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding women

An initiative is currently underway to apply for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for over-the-counter sales of a progestogen-only contraceptive pill (POP) containing 75 mg/day norgestrel. Although 75 mg/day norgestrel is approved by the FDA for prescription use, this formulation is not currently available in the US as marketing of this product was discontinued in 2005 for reasons not related to safety or effectiveness. The failure rate of the POP is presently reported to be the same as that of combined oral contraceptive pills (COC): 9% typical use and 0.3% perfect use unintended pregnancy rate. The objective of this review is to summarize and present the published data regarding the contraceptive effectiveness of 75 mg/day norgestrel amongst breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding women. A literature search was conducted in 2019 and identified 13 articles that specifically assessed the contraceptive efficacy of 75 mg/day norgestrel. Seven of the 13 studies included a total of 5,258 women who were breastfeeding and six of the 13 studies included a total 3,144 non-breastfeeding women. Taken together, the six studies of 3,144 non-breastfeeding women provide data on 35,319 months of use with a range of overall 12-month failure rates from 0-2.4/hundred woman-years from 75 mg/day norgestrel during typical use with a calculated aggregate Pearl Index of 2.2. Among breastfeeding women, the 12-month life table cumulative pregnancy rates for 75 mg/day norgestrel ranged from 0-3.4. This review concluded that the data support that 75 mg/day norgestrel is highly effective in clinical use, with similar estimates of failure in breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding women, providing support to the case for FDA approval of over-the-counter use of 75 mg/day norgestrel. Most contraindications to use of combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives relate to the estrogen component. Over the counter availability of the norgestrel POP could enhance women’s access to hormonal contraception.  

Millions of women view YouTube videos on self-removal of long-acting contraception

This study reviewed 58 YouTube videos related to self-removal of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC)– namely intrauterine devices (IUD) and contraceptive implants. Video content was analyzed to explore demographic characteristics, method and duration of LARC use, and motivations and experiences of self-removal. There were 48 videos (83%) that featured individuals who self-removed an IUD and 10 videos (17%) that featured individuals who self-removed an implant. All videos were uploaded between 2012-2020 and had over 4 million collective views, with the median number of views being 10,473 per video. Although a much smaller proportion of videos featured the self-removal of an implant, these videos had a higher average number of views (median 23,097 vs, 9533) and comments (median 44 vs. 14) compared to videos of IUD self-removals. The video creators of 53% were identified as White, 31% as Black, and 14% as Latina. The top comments for each video were analyzed and three primary themes emerged: positive affirmations; the viewer’s consideration of or attempt at self-removal; and complaints about LARC. There were 25 videos (n = 25/58) that included a comment from a viewer who stated they had either removed their own LARC device after watching the video or intended to do so soon. Three main motivations for self-removal were identified. Roughly half the sample (n = 30/58) described a desire to remove their method at home out of personal preference or convenience (n = 28/48 IUD users and n = 2/10 implant users). Others noted the inconvenience of an in-clinic removal. A large proportion of LARC users described barriers to clinic-based removal, including cost, lack of insurance, and long waiting times for an appointment. Most individuals in the sample (n = 56/58) successfully removed their device and described their experience in positive terms related to the ease of removal. Roughly a third of all video creators encountered challenges, including difficulty grasping the strings of their IUD or challenges removing the implant (n = 17/48 IUD users and n = 3/10 implant users). Positive experiences of self-removal and high levels of viewer engagement with online videos suggest a need for provider counseling on LARC removal at the time of insertion. Providers should clearly describe any procedural or financial requirements of removal prior to LARC placement. Providers may also wish to proactively discuss the risks and best practices for safe self-removal of LARC, including a conversation about the desired length of the IUD strings, risks associated with self-removal, and available resources when the patient encounters barriers to clinic-based removal. This study provides important data about the characteristics, motivations, and experiences of a group of people that are often invisible to researchers and healthcare providers.

References:
Broussard K, Becker A. Self-removal of long-acting reversible contraception: A content analysis of YouTube videos. Contraception. 2021 Aug 13: S0010-7824(21)00346-2 (in press).

Chen C, Strasser J, Banawa R, Luo Q, Bodas M, Castruccio-Prince C, Das K, Pittman P. Who is providing contraception care in the United States? An observational study of the contraception workforce. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Aug 18:  S0002-9378(21)00883-8 (in press).

Contraception prescription patterns vary by specialty and geography

Access to contraceptive services is dependent on both the local availability of healthcare providers as well as the types of contraception services offered by those providers. Little is known about the national US contraception workforce, which includes any type of provider that offers contraceptive care. In this observational study, three national data sources were combined to construct a comprehensive database of the contraception provider workforce to evaluate Medicaid participation and variation in the supply, distribution, and types of contraceptive services offered. The study found that 73.1% of obstetric and gynecologic medical physicians (OBGYN), 72.6% of nurse-midwives, 51.4% of family medicine physicians, 32.4% of pediatricians, 25.2% of advanced practice nurses, 19.8% of internal medicine physicians, and 19.4% of physician assistants prescribed the contraceptive pill, patch, or ring. Approximately half of OBGYNs and family medicine physicians (50.2% and 52.2%, respectively) provided injectable contraception, compared to 34.7% of internal medicine physicians and 34.1% of pediatricians. Intrauterine devices (IUD) were provided by 92.8% of OBGYNs compared with 16.4% of family physicians, 2.6% of internal medicine physicians, and 0.6% of pediatricians. Contraceptive implants were provided by 56.2% of OBGYNs, compared with 13.7% of family medicine physicians, 1.8% of internal medicine physicians, and 4.0% of pediatricians. The contraception workforce also varied by geography, both in the density and types of providers that different communities depend upon. States ranged from provider-to-population ratios of 27.9 to 74.2 providers per 10,000 women of reproductive age. The availability of different specialties and professions also varied between counties, with 675 of the 1,411 counties lacking either OBGYNs or nurse-midwives prescribing contraception. This study also found variation across states and provider types in the proportion of contraceptive providers who accept Medicaid, with rates of Medicaid acceptance highest amongst OBGYNs and lowest amongst internal medicine physicians. This report highlights that the distribution of the contraception workforce and Medicaid acceptance varies widely by location and specialty and documents large gaps in the provision of highly effective contraceptive services including IUDs and implants. Increasing the number and types of providers that can provide family planning is central to providing comprehensive reproductive healthcare and reducing unintended pregnancies.

US Healthcare provider practices related to Emergency Contraception

Emergency contraception (EC) can prevent pregnancy after sexual encounters in which contraception was not used or used incorrectly. The US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (US SPR) was initially released in 2013 and includes recommendations for healthcare providers on the initiation of EC, increasing access to EC through advance provision of EC pills, and initiation of regular contraception in conjunction with provision of EC pills. The objective of this study was to assess the percentage of healthcare providers reporting frequent provision of select EC practices around the time of and after the release of the US SPR. Two cross-sectional mailed surveys were conducted using different nationwide samples of office-based physicians and public-sector providers around the time of (2013-2014) and after (2019) the initial US SPR release. Providers were asked to indicate how often in the past year they had: 1) provided an advance prescription of EC pills to a woman not specifically seeking EC; 2) provided an advanced supply of EC pills to a woman not specifically seeking EC; 3) provided or prescribed a contraceptive at the same time as EC pills were provided; and 4) provided a copper IUD as EC. Data was pooled from both surveys, resulting in an overall sample size of 3,480 providers (n = 2,060 for the 2013-2014 survey and n = 1,420 for the 2019 survey). In the 2019 nationwide sample, 16% of respondents frequently provided an advance prescription of EC pills, 7% provided an advanced supply of EC pills, 8% provided the copper IUD as EC, and 41% cfrequently provided regular contraception at the time of EC pills. Overall, there were no significant changes in prevalence of frequently providing or prescribing an advance supply of EC pills between 2013-2014 and 2019, which may reflect changes in provider practices based on availability of over-the-counter levonogestrel EC pills in 2013. An increase in the proportion of providers who frequently provided regular contraception at the same time as EC pills and who provided a copper IUD for EC between 2013-2014 and 2019 was observed. In 2019, providers who reported using the US SPR were more likely to provide contraception at the same time as EC pills and provide the copper IUD for EC compared with those who did not use the US SPR. Wider implementation of the US SPR recommendations and an improved understanding of the barriers faced by providers in implementing these practices may improve access to EC. A recent report found that the levonorgestrel 52 IUD provides EC with efficacy similar to that of the copper IUD and may lead to more widespread placement of IUDs for EC (Turok).  


Progestogen-only pill shows promise as a potential non-prescription contraception option for both breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding women

An initiative is currently underway to apply for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for over-the-counter sales of a progestogen-only contraceptive pill (POP) containing 75 mg/day norgestrel. Although 75 mg/day norgestrel is approved by the FDA for prescription use, this formulation is not currently available in the US as marketing of this product was discontinued in 2005 for reasons not related to safety or effectiveness. The failure rate of the POP is presently reported to be the same as that of combined oral contraceptive pills (COC): 9% typical use and 0.3% perfect use unintended pregnancy rate. The objective of this review is to summarize and present the published data regarding the contraceptive effectiveness of 75 mg/day norgestrel amongst breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding women. A literature search was conducted in 2019 and identified 13 articles that specifically assessed the contraceptive efficacy of 75 mg/day norgestrel. Seven of the 13 studies included a total of 5,258 women who were breastfeeding and six of the 13 studies included a total 3,144 non-breastfeeding women. Taken together, the six studies of 3,144 non-breastfeeding women provide data on 35,319 months of use with a range of overall 12-month failure rates from 0-2.4/hundred woman-years from 75 mg/day norgestrel during typical use with a calculated aggregate Pearl Index of 2.2. Among breastfeeding women, the 12-month life table cumulative pregnancy rates for 75 mg/day norgestrel ranged from 0-3.4. This review concluded that the data support that 75 mg/day norgestrel is highly effective in clinical use, with similar estimates of failure in breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding women, providing support to the case for FDA approval of over-the-counter use of 75 mg/day norgestrel. Most contraindications to use of combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives relate to the estrogen component. Over the counter availability of the norgestrel POP could enhance women’s access to hormonal contraception.  

Millions of women view YouTube videos on self-removal of long-acting contraception

This study reviewed 58 YouTube videos related to self-removal of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC)– namely intrauterine devices (IUD) and contraceptive implants. Video content was analyzed to explore demographic characteristics, method and duration of LARC use, and motivations and experiences of self-removal. There were 48 videos (83%) that featured individuals who self-removed an IUD and 10 videos (17%) that featured individuals who self-removed an implant. All videos were uploaded between 2012-2020 and had over 4 million collective views, with the median number of views being 10,473 per video. Although a much smaller proportion of videos featured the self-removal of an implant, these videos had a higher average number of views (median 23,097 vs, 9533) and comments (median 44 vs. 14) compared to videos of IUD self-removals. The video creators of 53% were identified as White, 31% as Black, and 14% as Latina. The top comments for each video were analyzed and three primary themes emerged: positive affirmations; the viewer’s consideration of or attempt at self-removal; and complaints about LARC. There were 25 videos (n = 25/58) that included a comment from a viewer who stated they had either removed their own LARC device after watching the video or intended to do so soon. Three main motivations for self-removal were identified. Roughly half the sample (n = 30/58) described a desire to remove their method at home out of personal preference or convenience (n = 28/48 IUD users and n = 2/10 implant users). Others noted the inconvenience of an in-clinic removal. A large proportion of LARC users described barriers to clinic-based removal, including cost, lack of insurance, and long waiting times for an appointment. Most individuals in the sample (n = 56/58) successfully removed their device and described their experience in positive terms related to the ease of removal. Roughly a third of all video creators encountered challenges, including difficulty grasping the strings of their IUD or challenges removing the implant (n = 17/48 IUD users and n = 3/10 implant users). Positive experiences of self-removal and high levels of viewer engagement with online videos suggest a need for provider counseling on LARC removal at the time of insertion. Providers should clearly describe any procedural or financial requirements of removal prior to LARC placement. Providers may also wish to proactively discuss the risks and best practices for safe self-removal of LARC, including a conversation about the desired length of the IUD strings, risks associated with self-removal, and available resources when the patient encounters barriers to clinic-based removal. This study provides important data about the characteristics, motivations, and experiences of a group of people that are often invisible to researchers and healthcare providers.

References:
Broussard K, Becker A. Self-removal of long-acting reversible contraception: A content analysis of YouTube videos. Contraception. 2021 Aug 13: S0010-7824(21)00346-2 (in press).

Chen C, Strasser J, Banawa R, Luo Q, Bodas M, Castruccio-Prince C, Das K, Pittman P. Who is providing contraception care in the United States? An observational study of the contraception workforce. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Aug 18:  S0002-9378(21)00883-8 (in press).

Contraception prescription patterns vary by specialty and geography

Access to contraceptive services is dependent on both the local availability of healthcare providers as well as the types of contraception services offered by those providers. Little is known about the national US contraception workforce, which includes any type of provider that offers contraceptive care. In this observational study, three national data sources were combined to construct a comprehensive database of the contraception provider workforce to evaluate Medicaid participation and variation in the supply, distribution, and types of contraceptive services offered. The study found that 73.1% of obstetric and gynecologic medical physicians (OBGYN), 72.6% of nurse-midwives, 51.4% of family medicine physicians, 32.4% of pediatricians, 25.2% of advanced practice nurses, 19.8% of internal medicine physicians, and 19.4% of physician assistants prescribed the contraceptive pill, patch, or ring. Approximately half of OBGYNs and family medicine physicians (50.2% and 52.2%, respectively) provided injectable contraception, compared to 34.7% of internal medicine physicians and 34.1% of pediatricians. Intrauterine devices (IUD) were provided by 92.8% of OBGYNs compared with 16.4% of family physicians, 2.6% of internal medicine physicians, and 0.6% of pediatricians. Contraceptive implants were provided by 56.2% of OBGYNs, compared with 13.7% of family medicine physicians, 1.8% of internal medicine physicians, and 4.0% of pediatricians. The contraception workforce also varied by geography, both in the density and types of providers that different communities depend upon. States ranged from provider-to-population ratios of 27.9 to 74.2 providers per 10,000 women of reproductive age. The availability of different specialties and professions also varied between counties, with 675 of the 1,411 counties lacking either OBGYNs or nurse-midwives prescribing contraception. This study also found variation across states and provider types in the proportion of contraceptive providers who accept Medicaid, with rates of Medicaid acceptance highest amongst OBGYNs and lowest amongst internal medicine physicians. This report highlights that the distribution of the contraception workforce and Medicaid acceptance varies widely by location and specialty and documents large gaps in the provision of highly effective contraceptive services including IUDs and implants. Increasing the number and types of providers that can provide family planning is central to providing comprehensive reproductive healthcare and reducing unintended pregnancies.

US Healthcare provider practices related to Emergency Contraception

Emergency contraception (EC) can prevent pregnancy after sexual encounters in which contraception was not used or used incorrectly. The US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (US SPR) was initially released in 2013 and includes recommendations for healthcare providers on the initiation of EC, increasing access to EC through advance provision of EC pills, and initiation of regular contraception in conjunction with provision of EC pills. The objective of this study was to assess the percentage of healthcare providers reporting frequent provision of select EC practices around the time of and after the release of the US SPR. Two cross-sectional mailed surveys were conducted using different nationwide samples of office-based physicians and public-sector providers around the time of (2013-2014) and after (2019) the initial US SPR release. Providers were asked to indicate how often in the past year they had: 1) provided an advance prescription of EC pills to a woman not specifically seeking EC; 2) provided an advanced supply of EC pills to a woman not specifically seeking EC; 3) provided or prescribed a contraceptive at the same time as EC pills were provided; and 4) provided a copper IUD as EC. Data was pooled from both surveys, resulting in an overall sample size of 3,480 providers (n = 2,060 for the 2013-2014 survey and n = 1,420 for the 2019 survey). In the 2019 nationwide sample, 16% of respondents frequently provided an advance prescription of EC pills, 7% provided an advanced supply of EC pills, 8% provided the copper IUD as EC, and 41% cfrequently provided regular contraception at the time of EC pills. Overall, there were no significant changes in prevalence of frequently providing or prescribing an advance supply of EC pills between 2013-2014 and 2019, which may reflect changes in provider practices based on availability of over-the-counter levonogestrel EC pills in 2013. An increase in the proportion of providers who frequently provided regular contraception at the same time as EC pills and who provided a copper IUD for EC between 2013-2014 and 2019 was observed. In 2019, providers who reported using the US SPR were more likely to provide contraception at the same time as EC pills and provide the copper IUD for EC compared with those who did not use the US SPR. Wider implementation of the US SPR recommendations and an improved understanding of the barriers faced by providers in implementing these practices may improve access to EC. A recent report found that the levonorgestrel 52 IUD provides EC with efficacy similar to that of the copper IUD and may lead to more widespread placement of IUDs for EC (Turok).  


Progestogen-only pill shows promise as a potential non-prescription contraception option for both breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding women

An initiative is currently underway to apply for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for over-the-counter sales of a progestogen-only contraceptive pill (POP) containing 75 mg/day norgestrel. Although 75 mg/day norgestrel is approved by the FDA for prescription use, this formulation is not currently available in the US as marketing of this product was discontinued in 2005 for reasons not related to safety or effectiveness. The failure rate of the POP is presently reported to be the same as that of combined oral contraceptive pills (COC): 9% typical use and 0.3% perfect use unintended pregnancy rate. The objective of this review is to summarize and present the published data regarding the contraceptive effectiveness of 75 mg/day norgestrel amongst breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding women. A literature search was conducted in 2019 and identified 13 articles that specifically assessed the contraceptive efficacy of 75 mg/day norgestrel. Seven of the 13 studies included a total of 5,258 women who were breastfeeding and six of the 13 studies included a total 3,144 non-breastfeeding women. Taken together, the six studies of 3,144 non-breastfeeding women provide data on 35,319 months of use with a range of overall 12-month failure rates from 0-2.4/hundred woman-years from 75 mg/day norgestrel during typical use with a calculated aggregate Pearl Index of 2.2. Among breastfeeding women, the 12-month life table cumulative pregnancy rates for 75 mg/day norgestrel ranged from 0-3.4. This review concluded that the data support that 75 mg/day norgestrel is highly effective in clinical use, with similar estimates of failure in breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding women, providing support to the case for FDA approval of over-the-counter use of 75 mg/day norgestrel. Most contraindications to use of combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives relate to the estrogen component. Over the counter availability of the norgestrel POP could enhance women’s access to hormonal contraception.  

Millions of women view YouTube videos on self-removal of long-acting contraception

This study reviewed 58 YouTube videos related to self-removal of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC)– namely intrauterine devices (IUD) and contraceptive implants. Video content was analyzed to explore demographic characteristics, method and duration of LARC use, and motivations and experiences of self-removal. There were 48 videos (83%) that featured individuals who self-removed an IUD and 10 videos (17%) that featured individuals who self-removed an implant. All videos were uploaded between 2012-2020 and had over 4 million collective views, with the median number of views being 10,473 per video. Although a much smaller proportion of videos featured the self-removal of an implant, these videos had a higher average number of views (median 23,097 vs, 9533) and comments (median 44 vs. 14) compared to videos of IUD self-removals. The video creators of 53% were identified as White, 31% as Black, and 14% as Latina. The top comments for each video were analyzed and three primary themes emerged: positive affirmations; the viewer’s consideration of or attempt at self-removal; and complaints about LARC. There were 25 videos (n = 25/58) that included a comment from a viewer who stated they had either removed their own LARC device after watching the video or intended to do so soon. Three main motivations for self-removal were identified. Roughly half the sample (n = 30/58) described a desire to remove their method at home out of personal preference or convenience (n = 28/48 IUD users and n = 2/10 implant users). Others noted the inconvenience of an in-clinic removal. A large proportion of LARC users described barriers to clinic-based removal, including cost, lack of insurance, and long waiting times for an appointment. Most individuals in the sample (n = 56/58) successfully removed their device and described their experience in positive terms related to the ease of removal. Roughly a third of all video creators encountered challenges, including difficulty grasping the strings of their IUD or challenges removing the implant (n = 17/48 IUD users and n = 3/10 implant users). Positive experiences of self-removal and high levels of viewer engagement with online videos suggest a need for provider counseling on LARC removal at the time of insertion. Providers should clearly describe any procedural or financial requirements of removal prior to LARC placement. Providers may also wish to proactively discuss the risks and best practices for safe self-removal of LARC, including a conversation about the desired length of the IUD strings, risks associated with self-removal, and available resources when the patient encounters barriers to clinic-based removal. This study provides important data about the characteristics, motivations, and experiences of a group of people that are often invisible to researchers and healthcare providers.

References:
Broussard K, Becker A. Self-removal of long-acting reversible contraception: A content analysis of YouTube videos. Contraception. 2021 Aug 13: S0010-7824(21)00346-2 (in press).

Chen C, Strasser J, Banawa R, Luo Q, Bodas M, Castruccio-Prince C, Das K, Pittman P. Who is providing contraception care in the United States? An observational study of the contraception workforce. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Aug 18:  S0002-9378(21)00883-8 (in press).