Obstetrics

Photo: Shutterstock

Telemedicine (or telehealth) originated in the early 1900s, when radios were used to communicate medical advice to clinics aboard ships.¹ According to the American Telemedicine Association, telemedicine is namely “the use of medical information exchanged from one site to another via electronic communications to improve a patient’s clinical health status.”² These communications use 2-way video, email, smartphones, wireless tools, and other forms of telecommunications technology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many ObGyns—encouraged and advised by professional organizations—began providing telemedicine services.³ The first reported case of COVID-19 was in late 2019; the use of telemedicine was 38 times higher in February 2021 than in February 2020,⁴ illustrating how many physicians quickly moved to telemedicine practices.

CASE Dr. TM’s telemedicine dream

Before COVID-19, Dr. TM (an ObGyn practi-tioner) practiced in-person medicine in his home state. With the onset of the pandemic, Dr. TM struggled to switch to primarily seeing patients online (generally using Zoom or Facebook Live), with 1 day per week in the office for essential in-person visits.

After several months, however, Dr. TM’s routine became very efficient. He could see many more patients in a shorter time than with the former, in-person system. Therefore, as staff left his practice, Dr. TM did not replace them and also laid off others. Ultimately, the practice had 1 full-time records/insurance secretary who worked from home and 1 part-time nurse who helped with the in-person day and answered some patient inquiries by email. In part as an effort to add new patients, Dr. TM built an engaging website through which his current patients could receive medical information and new patients could sign up.

In late 2022, Dr. TM offered a $100 credit to any current patient who referred a friend or family member who then became a patient. This promotion was surprisingly effective and resulted in an influx of new patients. For example, Patient Z (a long-time patient) received 3 credits for referring her 3 sisters who lived out of state and became telepatients: Patient D, who lived 200 hundred miles away; Patient E, who lived 50 miles away in the adjoining state; and Patient F, who lived 150 miles away. Patient D contacted Dr. TM because she thought she was pregnant and wanted prenatal care, Patient E thought she might have a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and wanted treatment, and Patient F wanted general care and was inquiring about a medical abortion. Dr. TM agreed to treat Patient D but required 1 in-person visit. After 1 brief telemedicine session each with Patients E and F, Dr. TM wrote prescriptions for them.

By 2023, Dr. TM was enthusiastic about telemedicine as a professional practice. However, problems would ensue.

Medical considerations

Telemedicine is endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) as a vehicle for delivering prenatal and postpartum care.⁵ This represents an effort to reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality,⁵ as well as expandaccess to care and address the deficit in primary care providers and services, especially in rural and underserved populations.^5,6 For obstetrics, prenatal care is designed to optimize pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum care, with a focus on nutrition and genetic consultation and patient education on pregnancy, childbearing, breastfeeding, and newborn care.⁷

Benefits of telemedicine include its convenience for patients and providers, its efficiency and lower costs for providers (and hopefully patients, as well), and the potential improved access to care for patients.⁸ It is estimated that if a woman inititates obstetric care at 6 weeks, over the course of the 40-week gestation period, 15 prenatal visits will occur.⁹ Ultimately, the number of visits is determined based on the specifics of the pregnancy. With telemedicine, clinicians can provide those consultations, and information related to: ultrasonography, fetal echocardiography, and postpartum care services remotely.¹⁰ Using telemedicine may reduce missed visits, and remote monitoring may improve the quality of care.¹¹

Barriers to telemedicine care include technical limitations, time constraints, and patient concerns of telehealth (visits). Technical limitations include the lack of a high speed internet connection and/or a smart device and the initial technical set-up–related problems,¹² which affect providers as well as patients. Time constraints primarly refer to the ObGyn practice’s lack of time to establish telehealth services.¹³ Other challenges include integrating translation services, billing-related problems,¹⁰ and reimbursement and licensing barriers.¹⁴

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, obstetrics led the way in telemedicine with the development of the OB Nest model. Designed to replace in-person obstetrics care visits with telehealth,¹⁵ it includes home management tools such as blood pressure cuffs, cardiotocography, scales for weight checks, and Doppler ultrasounds.¹⁰ Patients can be instructed to measure fundal height and receive medications by mail. Anesthesia consultation can occur via this venue by having the patient complete a questionnaire prior to arriving at the labor and delivery unit.¹⁶

Legal considerations

With the COVID-19 pandemic, temporary changes were made to encourage the rapid adoption of telemedicine, including changes to licensing laws, certain prescription requirements, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy-security regulations, and reimbursement rules that required in-person visits. Thus, many ObGyns started using telemedicine during this rarified period, in which the rules appeared to be few and far between, with limited enforcement of the law and professional obligations.¹⁷ However, now that many of the legal rules that were suspended or ignored have been (or are being) reimposed and enforced, it is important for providers to become familiar with the legal issues involved in practicing telemedicine.

First, where is the patient? When discussing the legal issues of telemedicine, it is important to remember that many legal rules for medical care (ie, liability, informed consent, and licensing) vary from state to state. If the patient resides in a different state (“foreign” state) from the physician’s practice location (the physician’s “home” state), the care is considered delivered in the state where the patient is located. Thus, the patient’s location generally establishes the law covering the telemedicine transaction. In the following discussion, the rules refer to the law and professional obligations, with commentary on some key legal issues that are relevant to ObGyn telemedicine.

Continue to: Reinforcing the rules...

Licensing

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government and almost all states temporarily modified the licensing requirement to allow telemedicine based on an existing medical license in any state—disregarding the “where is the patient” rule. As those rules begin to lapse or change with the official end of the pandemic declared by President Biden as May 2023,¹⁷ the rules under which a physician began telemedicine interstate practice in 2020 also may be changing.

Simply put, “The same standards for licensure apply to health care providers regardless of whether care is delivered in-person or virtually through telehealth services.”¹⁸ When a physician is engaged in telemedicine treatment of a patient in the physician’s home state, there is generally no licensing issue. Telemedicine generally does not require a separate specific license.¹⁹ However, when the patient is in another state (a “foreign” state), there can be a substantial licensing issue.²⁰ Ordinarily, to provide that treatment, the physician must, in some manner, be approved to practice in the patient’s state. That may occur, for example, in the following ways: (1) the physician may hold an additional regular license in the patient’s state, which allows practice there, or (2) the physician may have received permission for “temporary practice” in another state.

Many states (often adjoining states) have formal agreements with other states that allow telemedicine practice by providers in each other’s states. There also are “compacts”, or agreements that enable providers in any of the participating states to practice in the other associated states without a separate license.¹⁸ Although several websites provide information about compact licensing and the like, clinicians should not rely on simple lists or maps. Individual states may have special provisions about applying their laws to out-of-state “compact” physicians. In addition, under the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, “physicians have to pay licensing fees and satisfy the requirements of each medical board in the states where they wish to practice.”²¹

Consequences. Practicing telemedicine with a patient in a state where the physician does not have a license is generally a crime. Furthermore, it may be the basis for license discipline in the physician’s home state and result in a report to the National Practi-tioner Databank.²² In addition, reimbursement often depends on the practitioner being licensed, and the absence of a license may be a basis for denying payment for services.²³ Finally, malpractice insurance generally is limited to licensed practice. Thus, the insurer may decline to defend the unlicensed clinician against a malpractice claim or pay any damages.

Prescribing privileges

Prescribing privileges usually are connected to licensing, so as the rules for licensing change postpandemic, so do the rules for prescribing. In most cases, the physician must have a license in the state where care is given to prescribe medication—which in telemedicine, as noted, typically means the state where the patient is located. Exceptions vary by state, but in general, if a physician does not have a license to provide care, the physician is unlikely to be authorized to prescribe medication.²⁴ Failure to abide by the applicable state rules may result in civil and even criminal liability for illegal prescribing activity.

In addition, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA, which enforces laws concerning controlled substances) also regulate the prescription and sale of pharmaceuticals.²⁵ There are state and federal limits on the ability of clinicians to order controlled substances without an in-person visit. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act, for example, sets limits on controlled substance prescriptions without an in-person examination.²⁶ Federal law was modified due to COVID-19 to permit prescribing of many controlled substances by telemedicine if there is synchronous audio and visual examination of the patient. Physicians who write such prescriptions also are required to have a DEA registration in the patient’s state. This is an essential consideration for physicians considering interstate telemedicine practice.²⁷

HIPAA and privacy

Governments waived some of the legal requirements related to health information during the pandemic, but those waivers either have expired or will do so soon. Federal and state laws regarding privacy and security—notably including HIPAA—apply to telemedicine and are of particular concern given the considerable amount of communication of protected health information with telemedicine.

HIPAA security rules essentially require making sure health information cannot be hacked or intercepted. Audio-only telemedicine by landline (not cell) is acceptable under the security rules, but almost all other remote communication requires secure communications.²⁸

Clinicians also need to adhere to the more usual HIPAA privacy rules when practicingtelehealth. State laws protecting patient privacy vary and may be more stringent than HIPAA, so clinicians also must know the requirements in any state where they practice—whether in office or telemedicine.²⁹

Making sure telemedicine practices are consistent with these security and privacy rules often requires particular technical expertise that is outside the realm of most practicing clinicians. However, without modification, the pre-telemedicine technology of many medical offices likely is insufficient for the full range of telemedicine services.³⁰

Reimbursement and fraud

Before COVID-19, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for telemedicine was limited. Government decisions to substantially broaden those reimbursement rules (at least temporarily) provided a substantial boost to telemedicine early in the pandemic.²³ Federal regulations and statutes also expanded telemedicine reimbursement for various services. Some will end shortly after the health emergency, and others will be permanent. Parts of that will not be sorted out for several years, so it will likely be a changing landscape for reimbursement.

One motivation for tightening the rules is the substantial fraud associated with the loosened regulations, including telemedicine.³¹ Current laws apply to such fraud, including, for example, Anti-Kickback Statutes and federal and state False Claims Acts (FCAs). FCAs have “whistleblower” provisions that encourage private citizens to bring fraud actions. Government agencies and private insurance companies will undoubtedly tighten reimbursement regulations to make fraud less common.³²

Continue to: Rules that are evolving...

Informed consent

The ethical and legal obligations to obtain informed consent are present in telemedicineas well as in-person care, with the same basic requirements regarding risks, benefits, alternative care, etc.³² However, with telemedicine, information related to remote care should be included and is outlined in TABLE 1.

Certain states may have somewhat unique informed consent requirements—especially for reproductive care, including abortion.³⁴ Therefore, it is important for clinicians to ensure their consent process and forms comply with any legal jurisdiction in which a patient is located.

Medical malpractice

The basics of medical malpractice (or negligence) are the same in telemedicine as in in-person care: duty, breach of duty, and injury caused by the breach. That is, there may be liability when a medical professional breaches the duty of care, causing the patient’s injury. The physician’s duty is defined by the quality of care that the profession (specialty) accepts as reasonably good. This is defined by the opinions of physicians within the specialty and formal statements from professional organizations, including ACOG.³

Maintaining the standard of care and quality. The use of telemedicine is not an excuse to lower the quality of health care. There are some circumstances for which it is medically better to have an in-person visit. In these instances, the provider should recommend the appropriate care, even if telemedicine would be more convenient for the provider and staff.³⁵

If the patient insists and telemedicine might result in less than optimal care, the reasons for using a remote visit should be clearly documented contemporaneously with the decision. Furthermore, when the limitations of being unable to physically examine the patient result in less information than is needed for the patient’s care, the provider must find alternatives to make up for the information gap.^11,36 It also may be necessary to inform patients about how to maximize telemedicine care.³⁷ At the beginning of telemedicine care the provider should include information about the nature and limits of telehealth, and the patient’s responsibilities. (See TABLE 1) Throughout treatment of the patient, that information should be updated by the provider. That, of course, is particularly important for patients who have not previously used telemedice services^.

Malpractice rules vary by state. Many states have special rules regarding malpractice cases. These differences in malpractice standards and regulations “can be problematic for physicians who use telemedicine services to provide care outside the state in which they practice.”³⁸ Caps on noneconomic damages are an example. Those state rules would apply to telemedicine in the patient’s state.

Malpractice insurance

Malpractice insurance now commonly includes telemedicine legally practiced within the physician’s home state. Practitioners who treat patients in foreign states should carefully examine their malpractice insurance policies to confirm that the coverage extends to practice in those states.³⁹ Malpractice carriers may require notification by a covered physician who routinely provides services to patients in another state.³

Keep in mind, malpractice insurance generally does not cover the practice of medicine that is illegal. Practicing telemedicine in a foreign state, where the physician or other provider does not have a license and where that state does not otherwise permit the practice, is illegal. Most likely, the physician’s malpractice insurance will not cover claims that arise from this illegal practice in a foreign state or provide defense for malpractice claims, including frivolous lawsuits. Thus, the physician will pay out of pocket for the costs of a defense attorney.

Telemedicine treatment of minors

Children and adolescents present special legal issues for ObGyn care, which may become more complicated with telemedicine. Historically, parents are responsible for minors (those aged <18 years): they consent to medical treatment, are responsible for paying for it, and have the right to receive information about treatment.

Over the years, though, many states have made exceptions to these principles, especially with regard to contraception and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.⁴⁰ For abortion, in particular, there is considerable variation among the states in parental consent and notification.⁴¹ The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health⁴² may (depending on the state) be followed with more stringent limitations on adolescent consent to abortions, including medical abortions.⁴³

Use of telehealth does not change any obligations regarding adolescent consent or parental notification. Because those differ considerably among states, it is important for all practitioners to know their states’ requirements and keep reasonably complete records demonstrating their compliance with state law.

Abortion

The most heated current controversy about telemedicine involves abortion—specifically medical abortion, which is the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol.^44,45 The FDA approved the combination in 2000. Almost immediately, many states required in-person visits with a certified clinician to receive a prescription for mifepristone and misoprostol, and eventually, the FDA adopted similar requirements.⁴⁶ However, during the pandemic from 2021 to 2022, the FDA permitted telemedicine prescriptions. Several states still require in-person physician visits, although the constitutionality of those requirements has not been established.⁴⁷

With the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health in 2022,⁴² disagreements have ensued about the degree to which states may regulate the prescription of FDA-approved medical abortion drugs. Thorny constitutional issues exist in the plans of both abortion opponents and proponents in the battle over medical abortion in antiabortion states. It may be that federal drug law preempts state laws limiting access to FDA-approved drugs. On the other hand, it may be that states can make it a crime within the state to possess or provide abortion-inducing drugs. Courts will probably take years to resolve the many tangled legal questions.⁴⁸

Thus, while the pandemic telemedicine rules may have advanced access to abortion,³⁴ there may be some pending downsides.⁴⁹ States that prohibit abortion will likely include prohibitions on medical abortions. In addition, they may prohibit anyone in the state (including pharmacies) from selling, possessing, or obtaining any drug used for causing or inducing an abortion.⁵⁰ If, for constitutional reasons, they cannot press criminal charges or undertake licensing discipline for prescribing abortion, some states will likely withdraw from telehealth licensing compacts to avoid out-of-state prescriptions. This area of telemedicine has considerable uncertainty.

Continue to: CASE Conclusion...

CASE Conclusion

Patient concerns come to the fore

By 2023, Dr. TM started receiving bad news. Patient D called complaining that after following the advice on the website, she suffered a severe reaction and had to be rushed to an emergency department. Patient E (who had only 1 in-office visit early in her pregnancy) notified the office that she developed very high blood pressure that resulted in severe placental abruption, requiring emergency care and resulting in the loss of the fetus. Patient F complained that someone hacked the TikTok direct message communication with Dr. TM and tried to “blackmail” or harass her.

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F represent potential problems of telemedicine practice. Patient D was injured because she relied on her doctor’s website (to which Dr. TM directed patients). It contained an error that caused an injury. A doctor-patient relationship existed, and bad medical advice likely caused the injury. Physicians providing advice online must ensure the advice is correct and kept current.

Patient E demonstrates the importance of monitoring patients remotely (blood pressure transmitted to the office) or with periodic in-office visits. It is not clear whether she was a no-show for office visits (and whether the office followed up on any missed appointments) or if such visits were never scheduled. Liability for failure to monitor adequately is a possibility.

Patient F’s seemingly minor complaint could be a potential problem. Dr. TM used an insecure mode of communication. Although some HIPAA security regulations were modified or suspended during the pandemic, using such an unsecure platform is problematic, especially if temporary HIPAA rules expired. The outcome of the complaint is in doubt.

Out-of-state practice

Dr. TM treated 3 out-of-state residents (D, E, and F) via telemedicine. Recently Dr. TM received a complaint from the State Medical Licensure Board for practicing medicine without a license (Patient D), followed by similar charges from Patient E’s and Patient F’s state licensing boards. He has received a licensing inquiry from his home state board about those claims of illegal practice in other states and incompetent treatment.

Patient D’s pregnancy did not go well. The 1 in-person visit did not occur and she has filed a malpractice suit against Dr. TM. Patient E is threatening a malpractice case because the STI was not appropriately diagnosed and had advanced before another physician treated it.
 

In addition, a private citizen in Patient F’s state has filed suit against Dr. TM for abetting an illegal abortion (for Patient F).

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F illustrate the risk of even incidental out-of-state practice. The medical board inquiries arose from anonymous tips to all 4 states reporting Dr. TM was “practicing medicine without a license.” Patient E’s home state did have a licensing compact with the adjoining state (ie, Dr. TM’s home state). However, it required physicians to register and file an annual report, which Dr. TM had not done. The other 2 states did not have compacts with Dr. TM’s home state. Thus, he was illegally practicing medicine and would be subject to penalties. His home state also might impose license discipline based on his illegal practice in other states.

Continue to: What’s the verdict?...

What’s the verdict?

Dr. TM’s malpractice carrier is refusing to defend the claims of medical malpractice threatened by Patients D, E, and F. The company first notes that the terms of the malpractice policy specifically exclude the illegal practice of medicine. Furthermore, when a physician legally practices in another state, the policy requires a written notice to the insurance carrier of such practice. Dr. TM will likely have to engage and pay for a malpractice attorney for these cases. Because the claims are filed in 3 different states, more than a home-state attorney will likely be involved in the defense of these cases. Dr. TM will need to pay the attorneys and any damages from a settlement or trial.

Malpractice claims. Patient D claims that the doctor essentially abandoned her by never reaching out to her or arranging an in-person visit. Dr. TM claims the patient was responsible for scheduling the in-person visit. Patient E claims it was malpractice not to determine the specific nature of the STI and to do follow-up testing to determine that it was cured. All patients claim there was no genuine informed consent to the telemedicine. An attorney has warned Dr. TM that it is “not going to look good to the jury” that he was practicing without a license in the state and suggests he settle the cases quickly by paying damages.

Abortion-related claims. Patient F presents a different set of problems. Dr. TM’s home state is “proabortion.” Patient F’s home state is strongly “antiabortion,” making it a felony to participate in, assist, or facilitate an abortion (including medical abortion). Criminal charges have been filed against Dr. TM for the illegal practice of medicine, for aiding and facilitating an abortion, and for failure to notify a parent that a minor is seeking an abortion. For now, Dr. TM’s state is refusing to extradite on the abortion charge. Still, the patient’s state insists that it do so on the illegal practice of medicine charges and new charges of insurance fraud and failure to report suspected sexual abuse of a child. (Under the patient’s state law, anyone having sex with Patient F would have engaged in sexual abuse or “statutory rape,” so the state insists that the fact she was pregnant proves someone had sex with her.)

Patient F’s state also has a statute that allows private citizens to file civil claims against anyone procuring or assisting with an abortion (a successful private citizen can receive a minimum of $10,000 from the defendant). Several citizens from the patient’s state have already filed claims against Dr. TM in his state courts. Only one of them, probably the first to file, could succeed. Courts in the state have issued subpoenas and ordered Dr. TM to appear and reply to the civil suits. If he does not respond, there will be a default judgment.

Dr. TM’s attorney tells him that these lawsuits will not settle and will take a long time to defend and resolve. That will be expensive.

Billing and fraud. Dr. TM’s office recently received a series of notices from private health insurers stating they are investigating previously made payments as being fraudulent (unlicensed). They will not pay any new claims pending the investigation. On behalf of Medicare-Medicaid and other federal programs, the US Attorney’s office has notified Dr. TM that it has opened an investigation into fraudulent federal payments. F’s home state also is filing a (criminal) insurance fraud case, although the basis for it is unclear. (Dr. TM’s attorney believes it might be to increase pressure on the physician’s state to extradite Dr. TM for Patient F’s case.)

In addition, a disgruntled former employee of Dr. TM has filed a federal FCA case against him for filing inflated claims with various federally funded programs. The employee also made whistleblower calls to insurance companies and some state-funded medical programs. A forensic accounting investigation by Dr. TM’s accountant confirmed a pattern of very sloppy records and recurring billing for televisits that did not occur. Dr. TM believes that this was the act of one of the temporary assistants he hired in a pinch, who did not understand the system and just guessed when filing some insurance claims.

During the investigation, the federal and state attorneys are looking into a possible violation of state and federal Anti-Kickback Statutes. This is based on the original offer of a $100 credit for referrals to Dr. TM’s telemedicine practice.

The attorneys are concerned that other legal problems may present themselves. They are thoroughly reviewing Dr. TM’s practice and making several critical but somewhat modest changes to his practice. They also have insisted that Dr. TM have appropriate staff to handle the details of the practice and billing.

Conclusions

Telemedicine presents notable legal challenges to medical practice. As the pandemic status ends, ObGyn physicians practicing telemedicine need to be aware of the rules and how they are changing. For those physicians who want to continue or start a telemedicine practice, securing legal and technical support to ensure your operations are inline with the legal requirements can minimize any risk of legal troubles in the future. ●

Photo: Shutterstock

Telemedicine (or telehealth) originated in the early 1900s, when radios were used to communicate medical advice to clinics aboard ships.¹ According to the American Telemedicine Association, telemedicine is namely “the use of medical information exchanged from one site to another via electronic communications to improve a patient’s clinical health status.”² These communications use 2-way video, email, smartphones, wireless tools, and other forms of telecommunications technology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many ObGyns—encouraged and advised by professional organizations—began providing telemedicine services.³ The first reported case of COVID-19 was in late 2019; the use of telemedicine was 38 times higher in February 2021 than in February 2020,⁴ illustrating how many physicians quickly moved to telemedicine practices.

CASE Dr. TM’s telemedicine dream

Before COVID-19, Dr. TM (an ObGyn practi-tioner) practiced in-person medicine in his home state. With the onset of the pandemic, Dr. TM struggled to switch to primarily seeing patients online (generally using Zoom or Facebook Live), with 1 day per week in the office for essential in-person visits.

After several months, however, Dr. TM’s routine became very efficient. He could see many more patients in a shorter time than with the former, in-person system. Therefore, as staff left his practice, Dr. TM did not replace them and also laid off others. Ultimately, the practice had 1 full-time records/insurance secretary who worked from home and 1 part-time nurse who helped with the in-person day and answered some patient inquiries by email. In part as an effort to add new patients, Dr. TM built an engaging website through which his current patients could receive medical information and new patients could sign up.

In late 2022, Dr. TM offered a $100 credit to any current patient who referred a friend or family member who then became a patient. This promotion was surprisingly effective and resulted in an influx of new patients. For example, Patient Z (a long-time patient) received 3 credits for referring her 3 sisters who lived out of state and became telepatients: Patient D, who lived 200 hundred miles away; Patient E, who lived 50 miles away in the adjoining state; and Patient F, who lived 150 miles away. Patient D contacted Dr. TM because she thought she was pregnant and wanted prenatal care, Patient E thought she might have a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and wanted treatment, and Patient F wanted general care and was inquiring about a medical abortion. Dr. TM agreed to treat Patient D but required 1 in-person visit. After 1 brief telemedicine session each with Patients E and F, Dr. TM wrote prescriptions for them.

By 2023, Dr. TM was enthusiastic about telemedicine as a professional practice. However, problems would ensue.

Medical considerations

Telemedicine is endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) as a vehicle for delivering prenatal and postpartum care.⁵ This represents an effort to reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality,⁵ as well as expandaccess to care and address the deficit in primary care providers and services, especially in rural and underserved populations.^5,6 For obstetrics, prenatal care is designed to optimize pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum care, with a focus on nutrition and genetic consultation and patient education on pregnancy, childbearing, breastfeeding, and newborn care.⁷

Benefits of telemedicine include its convenience for patients and providers, its efficiency and lower costs for providers (and hopefully patients, as well), and the potential improved access to care for patients.⁸ It is estimated that if a woman inititates obstetric care at 6 weeks, over the course of the 40-week gestation period, 15 prenatal visits will occur.⁹ Ultimately, the number of visits is determined based on the specifics of the pregnancy. With telemedicine, clinicians can provide those consultations, and information related to: ultrasonography, fetal echocardiography, and postpartum care services remotely.¹⁰ Using telemedicine may reduce missed visits, and remote monitoring may improve the quality of care.¹¹

Barriers to telemedicine care include technical limitations, time constraints, and patient concerns of telehealth (visits). Technical limitations include the lack of a high speed internet connection and/or a smart device and the initial technical set-up–related problems,¹² which affect providers as well as patients. Time constraints primarly refer to the ObGyn practice’s lack of time to establish telehealth services.¹³ Other challenges include integrating translation services, billing-related problems,¹⁰ and reimbursement and licensing barriers.¹⁴

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, obstetrics led the way in telemedicine with the development of the OB Nest model. Designed to replace in-person obstetrics care visits with telehealth,¹⁵ it includes home management tools such as blood pressure cuffs, cardiotocography, scales for weight checks, and Doppler ultrasounds.¹⁰ Patients can be instructed to measure fundal height and receive medications by mail. Anesthesia consultation can occur via this venue by having the patient complete a questionnaire prior to arriving at the labor and delivery unit.¹⁶

Legal considerations

With the COVID-19 pandemic, temporary changes were made to encourage the rapid adoption of telemedicine, including changes to licensing laws, certain prescription requirements, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy-security regulations, and reimbursement rules that required in-person visits. Thus, many ObGyns started using telemedicine during this rarified period, in which the rules appeared to be few and far between, with limited enforcement of the law and professional obligations.¹⁷ However, now that many of the legal rules that were suspended or ignored have been (or are being) reimposed and enforced, it is important for providers to become familiar with the legal issues involved in practicing telemedicine.

First, where is the patient? When discussing the legal issues of telemedicine, it is important to remember that many legal rules for medical care (ie, liability, informed consent, and licensing) vary from state to state. If the patient resides in a different state (“foreign” state) from the physician’s practice location (the physician’s “home” state), the care is considered delivered in the state where the patient is located. Thus, the patient’s location generally establishes the law covering the telemedicine transaction. In the following discussion, the rules refer to the law and professional obligations, with commentary on some key legal issues that are relevant to ObGyn telemedicine.

Continue to: Reinforcing the rules...

Licensing

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government and almost all states temporarily modified the licensing requirement to allow telemedicine based on an existing medical license in any state—disregarding the “where is the patient” rule. As those rules begin to lapse or change with the official end of the pandemic declared by President Biden as May 2023,¹⁷ the rules under which a physician began telemedicine interstate practice in 2020 also may be changing.

Simply put, “The same standards for licensure apply to health care providers regardless of whether care is delivered in-person or virtually through telehealth services.”¹⁸ When a physician is engaged in telemedicine treatment of a patient in the physician’s home state, there is generally no licensing issue. Telemedicine generally does not require a separate specific license.¹⁹ However, when the patient is in another state (a “foreign” state), there can be a substantial licensing issue.²⁰ Ordinarily, to provide that treatment, the physician must, in some manner, be approved to practice in the patient’s state. That may occur, for example, in the following ways: (1) the physician may hold an additional regular license in the patient’s state, which allows practice there, or (2) the physician may have received permission for “temporary practice” in another state.

Many states (often adjoining states) have formal agreements with other states that allow telemedicine practice by providers in each other’s states. There also are “compacts”, or agreements that enable providers in any of the participating states to practice in the other associated states without a separate license.¹⁸ Although several websites provide information about compact licensing and the like, clinicians should not rely on simple lists or maps. Individual states may have special provisions about applying their laws to out-of-state “compact” physicians. In addition, under the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, “physicians have to pay licensing fees and satisfy the requirements of each medical board in the states where they wish to practice.”²¹

Consequences. Practicing telemedicine with a patient in a state where the physician does not have a license is generally a crime. Furthermore, it may be the basis for license discipline in the physician’s home state and result in a report to the National Practi-tioner Databank.²² In addition, reimbursement often depends on the practitioner being licensed, and the absence of a license may be a basis for denying payment for services.²³ Finally, malpractice insurance generally is limited to licensed practice. Thus, the insurer may decline to defend the unlicensed clinician against a malpractice claim or pay any damages.

Prescribing privileges

Prescribing privileges usually are connected to licensing, so as the rules for licensing change postpandemic, so do the rules for prescribing. In most cases, the physician must have a license in the state where care is given to prescribe medication—which in telemedicine, as noted, typically means the state where the patient is located. Exceptions vary by state, but in general, if a physician does not have a license to provide care, the physician is unlikely to be authorized to prescribe medication.²⁴ Failure to abide by the applicable state rules may result in civil and even criminal liability for illegal prescribing activity.

In addition, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA, which enforces laws concerning controlled substances) also regulate the prescription and sale of pharmaceuticals.²⁵ There are state and federal limits on the ability of clinicians to order controlled substances without an in-person visit. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act, for example, sets limits on controlled substance prescriptions without an in-person examination.²⁶ Federal law was modified due to COVID-19 to permit prescribing of many controlled substances by telemedicine if there is synchronous audio and visual examination of the patient. Physicians who write such prescriptions also are required to have a DEA registration in the patient’s state. This is an essential consideration for physicians considering interstate telemedicine practice.²⁷

HIPAA and privacy

Governments waived some of the legal requirements related to health information during the pandemic, but those waivers either have expired or will do so soon. Federal and state laws regarding privacy and security—notably including HIPAA—apply to telemedicine and are of particular concern given the considerable amount of communication of protected health information with telemedicine.

HIPAA security rules essentially require making sure health information cannot be hacked or intercepted. Audio-only telemedicine by landline (not cell) is acceptable under the security rules, but almost all other remote communication requires secure communications.²⁸

Clinicians also need to adhere to the more usual HIPAA privacy rules when practicingtelehealth. State laws protecting patient privacy vary and may be more stringent than HIPAA, so clinicians also must know the requirements in any state where they practice—whether in office or telemedicine.²⁹

Making sure telemedicine practices are consistent with these security and privacy rules often requires particular technical expertise that is outside the realm of most practicing clinicians. However, without modification, the pre-telemedicine technology of many medical offices likely is insufficient for the full range of telemedicine services.³⁰

Reimbursement and fraud

Before COVID-19, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for telemedicine was limited. Government decisions to substantially broaden those reimbursement rules (at least temporarily) provided a substantial boost to telemedicine early in the pandemic.²³ Federal regulations and statutes also expanded telemedicine reimbursement for various services. Some will end shortly after the health emergency, and others will be permanent. Parts of that will not be sorted out for several years, so it will likely be a changing landscape for reimbursement.

One motivation for tightening the rules is the substantial fraud associated with the loosened regulations, including telemedicine.³¹ Current laws apply to such fraud, including, for example, Anti-Kickback Statutes and federal and state False Claims Acts (FCAs). FCAs have “whistleblower” provisions that encourage private citizens to bring fraud actions. Government agencies and private insurance companies will undoubtedly tighten reimbursement regulations to make fraud less common.³²

Continue to: Rules that are evolving...

Informed consent

The ethical and legal obligations to obtain informed consent are present in telemedicineas well as in-person care, with the same basic requirements regarding risks, benefits, alternative care, etc.³² However, with telemedicine, information related to remote care should be included and is outlined in TABLE 1.

Certain states may have somewhat unique informed consent requirements—especially for reproductive care, including abortion.³⁴ Therefore, it is important for clinicians to ensure their consent process and forms comply with any legal jurisdiction in which a patient is located.

Medical malpractice

The basics of medical malpractice (or negligence) are the same in telemedicine as in in-person care: duty, breach of duty, and injury caused by the breach. That is, there may be liability when a medical professional breaches the duty of care, causing the patient’s injury. The physician’s duty is defined by the quality of care that the profession (specialty) accepts as reasonably good. This is defined by the opinions of physicians within the specialty and formal statements from professional organizations, including ACOG.³

Maintaining the standard of care and quality. The use of telemedicine is not an excuse to lower the quality of health care. There are some circumstances for which it is medically better to have an in-person visit. In these instances, the provider should recommend the appropriate care, even if telemedicine would be more convenient for the provider and staff.³⁵

If the patient insists and telemedicine might result in less than optimal care, the reasons for using a remote visit should be clearly documented contemporaneously with the decision. Furthermore, when the limitations of being unable to physically examine the patient result in less information than is needed for the patient’s care, the provider must find alternatives to make up for the information gap.^11,36 It also may be necessary to inform patients about how to maximize telemedicine care.³⁷ At the beginning of telemedicine care the provider should include information about the nature and limits of telehealth, and the patient’s responsibilities. (See TABLE 1) Throughout treatment of the patient, that information should be updated by the provider. That, of course, is particularly important for patients who have not previously used telemedice services^.

Malpractice rules vary by state. Many states have special rules regarding malpractice cases. These differences in malpractice standards and regulations “can be problematic for physicians who use telemedicine services to provide care outside the state in which they practice.”³⁸ Caps on noneconomic damages are an example. Those state rules would apply to telemedicine in the patient’s state.

Malpractice insurance

Malpractice insurance now commonly includes telemedicine legally practiced within the physician’s home state. Practitioners who treat patients in foreign states should carefully examine their malpractice insurance policies to confirm that the coverage extends to practice in those states.³⁹ Malpractice carriers may require notification by a covered physician who routinely provides services to patients in another state.³

Keep in mind, malpractice insurance generally does not cover the practice of medicine that is illegal. Practicing telemedicine in a foreign state, where the physician or other provider does not have a license and where that state does not otherwise permit the practice, is illegal. Most likely, the physician’s malpractice insurance will not cover claims that arise from this illegal practice in a foreign state or provide defense for malpractice claims, including frivolous lawsuits. Thus, the physician will pay out of pocket for the costs of a defense attorney.

Telemedicine treatment of minors

Children and adolescents present special legal issues for ObGyn care, which may become more complicated with telemedicine. Historically, parents are responsible for minors (those aged <18 years): they consent to medical treatment, are responsible for paying for it, and have the right to receive information about treatment.

Over the years, though, many states have made exceptions to these principles, especially with regard to contraception and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.⁴⁰ For abortion, in particular, there is considerable variation among the states in parental consent and notification.⁴¹ The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health⁴² may (depending on the state) be followed with more stringent limitations on adolescent consent to abortions, including medical abortions.⁴³

Use of telehealth does not change any obligations regarding adolescent consent or parental notification. Because those differ considerably among states, it is important for all practitioners to know their states’ requirements and keep reasonably complete records demonstrating their compliance with state law.

Abortion

The most heated current controversy about telemedicine involves abortion—specifically medical abortion, which is the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol.^44,45 The FDA approved the combination in 2000. Almost immediately, many states required in-person visits with a certified clinician to receive a prescription for mifepristone and misoprostol, and eventually, the FDA adopted similar requirements.⁴⁶ However, during the pandemic from 2021 to 2022, the FDA permitted telemedicine prescriptions. Several states still require in-person physician visits, although the constitutionality of those requirements has not been established.⁴⁷

With the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health in 2022,⁴² disagreements have ensued about the degree to which states may regulate the prescription of FDA-approved medical abortion drugs. Thorny constitutional issues exist in the plans of both abortion opponents and proponents in the battle over medical abortion in antiabortion states. It may be that federal drug law preempts state laws limiting access to FDA-approved drugs. On the other hand, it may be that states can make it a crime within the state to possess or provide abortion-inducing drugs. Courts will probably take years to resolve the many tangled legal questions.⁴⁸

Thus, while the pandemic telemedicine rules may have advanced access to abortion,³⁴ there may be some pending downsides.⁴⁹ States that prohibit abortion will likely include prohibitions on medical abortions. In addition, they may prohibit anyone in the state (including pharmacies) from selling, possessing, or obtaining any drug used for causing or inducing an abortion.⁵⁰ If, for constitutional reasons, they cannot press criminal charges or undertake licensing discipline for prescribing abortion, some states will likely withdraw from telehealth licensing compacts to avoid out-of-state prescriptions. This area of telemedicine has considerable uncertainty.

Continue to: CASE Conclusion...

CASE Conclusion

Patient concerns come to the fore

By 2023, Dr. TM started receiving bad news. Patient D called complaining that after following the advice on the website, she suffered a severe reaction and had to be rushed to an emergency department. Patient E (who had only 1 in-office visit early in her pregnancy) notified the office that she developed very high blood pressure that resulted in severe placental abruption, requiring emergency care and resulting in the loss of the fetus. Patient F complained that someone hacked the TikTok direct message communication with Dr. TM and tried to “blackmail” or harass her.

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F represent potential problems of telemedicine practice. Patient D was injured because she relied on her doctor’s website (to which Dr. TM directed patients). It contained an error that caused an injury. A doctor-patient relationship existed, and bad medical advice likely caused the injury. Physicians providing advice online must ensure the advice is correct and kept current.

Patient E demonstrates the importance of monitoring patients remotely (blood pressure transmitted to the office) or with periodic in-office visits. It is not clear whether she was a no-show for office visits (and whether the office followed up on any missed appointments) or if such visits were never scheduled. Liability for failure to monitor adequately is a possibility.

Patient F’s seemingly minor complaint could be a potential problem. Dr. TM used an insecure mode of communication. Although some HIPAA security regulations were modified or suspended during the pandemic, using such an unsecure platform is problematic, especially if temporary HIPAA rules expired. The outcome of the complaint is in doubt.

Out-of-state practice

Dr. TM treated 3 out-of-state residents (D, E, and F) via telemedicine. Recently Dr. TM received a complaint from the State Medical Licensure Board for practicing medicine without a license (Patient D), followed by similar charges from Patient E’s and Patient F’s state licensing boards. He has received a licensing inquiry from his home state board about those claims of illegal practice in other states and incompetent treatment.

Patient D’s pregnancy did not go well. The 1 in-person visit did not occur and she has filed a malpractice suit against Dr. TM. Patient E is threatening a malpractice case because the STI was not appropriately diagnosed and had advanced before another physician treated it.
 

In addition, a private citizen in Patient F’s state has filed suit against Dr. TM for abetting an illegal abortion (for Patient F).

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F illustrate the risk of even incidental out-of-state practice. The medical board inquiries arose from anonymous tips to all 4 states reporting Dr. TM was “practicing medicine without a license.” Patient E’s home state did have a licensing compact with the adjoining state (ie, Dr. TM’s home state). However, it required physicians to register and file an annual report, which Dr. TM had not done. The other 2 states did not have compacts with Dr. TM’s home state. Thus, he was illegally practicing medicine and would be subject to penalties. His home state also might impose license discipline based on his illegal practice in other states.

Continue to: What’s the verdict?...

What’s the verdict?

Dr. TM’s malpractice carrier is refusing to defend the claims of medical malpractice threatened by Patients D, E, and F. The company first notes that the terms of the malpractice policy specifically exclude the illegal practice of medicine. Furthermore, when a physician legally practices in another state, the policy requires a written notice to the insurance carrier of such practice. Dr. TM will likely have to engage and pay for a malpractice attorney for these cases. Because the claims are filed in 3 different states, more than a home-state attorney will likely be involved in the defense of these cases. Dr. TM will need to pay the attorneys and any damages from a settlement or trial.

Malpractice claims. Patient D claims that the doctor essentially abandoned her by never reaching out to her or arranging an in-person visit. Dr. TM claims the patient was responsible for scheduling the in-person visit. Patient E claims it was malpractice not to determine the specific nature of the STI and to do follow-up testing to determine that it was cured. All patients claim there was no genuine informed consent to the telemedicine. An attorney has warned Dr. TM that it is “not going to look good to the jury” that he was practicing without a license in the state and suggests he settle the cases quickly by paying damages.

Abortion-related claims. Patient F presents a different set of problems. Dr. TM’s home state is “proabortion.” Patient F’s home state is strongly “antiabortion,” making it a felony to participate in, assist, or facilitate an abortion (including medical abortion). Criminal charges have been filed against Dr. TM for the illegal practice of medicine, for aiding and facilitating an abortion, and for failure to notify a parent that a minor is seeking an abortion. For now, Dr. TM’s state is refusing to extradite on the abortion charge. Still, the patient’s state insists that it do so on the illegal practice of medicine charges and new charges of insurance fraud and failure to report suspected sexual abuse of a child. (Under the patient’s state law, anyone having sex with Patient F would have engaged in sexual abuse or “statutory rape,” so the state insists that the fact she was pregnant proves someone had sex with her.)

Patient F’s state also has a statute that allows private citizens to file civil claims against anyone procuring or assisting with an abortion (a successful private citizen can receive a minimum of $10,000 from the defendant). Several citizens from the patient’s state have already filed claims against Dr. TM in his state courts. Only one of them, probably the first to file, could succeed. Courts in the state have issued subpoenas and ordered Dr. TM to appear and reply to the civil suits. If he does not respond, there will be a default judgment.

Dr. TM’s attorney tells him that these lawsuits will not settle and will take a long time to defend and resolve. That will be expensive.

Billing and fraud. Dr. TM’s office recently received a series of notices from private health insurers stating they are investigating previously made payments as being fraudulent (unlicensed). They will not pay any new claims pending the investigation. On behalf of Medicare-Medicaid and other federal programs, the US Attorney’s office has notified Dr. TM that it has opened an investigation into fraudulent federal payments. F’s home state also is filing a (criminal) insurance fraud case, although the basis for it is unclear. (Dr. TM’s attorney believes it might be to increase pressure on the physician’s state to extradite Dr. TM for Patient F’s case.)

In addition, a disgruntled former employee of Dr. TM has filed a federal FCA case against him for filing inflated claims with various federally funded programs. The employee also made whistleblower calls to insurance companies and some state-funded medical programs. A forensic accounting investigation by Dr. TM’s accountant confirmed a pattern of very sloppy records and recurring billing for televisits that did not occur. Dr. TM believes that this was the act of one of the temporary assistants he hired in a pinch, who did not understand the system and just guessed when filing some insurance claims.

During the investigation, the federal and state attorneys are looking into a possible violation of state and federal Anti-Kickback Statutes. This is based on the original offer of a $100 credit for referrals to Dr. TM’s telemedicine practice.

The attorneys are concerned that other legal problems may present themselves. They are thoroughly reviewing Dr. TM’s practice and making several critical but somewhat modest changes to his practice. They also have insisted that Dr. TM have appropriate staff to handle the details of the practice and billing.

Conclusions

Telemedicine presents notable legal challenges to medical practice. As the pandemic status ends, ObGyn physicians practicing telemedicine need to be aware of the rules and how they are changing. For those physicians who want to continue or start a telemedicine practice, securing legal and technical support to ensure your operations are inline with the legal requirements can minimize any risk of legal troubles in the future. ●

Photo: Shutterstock

Telemedicine (or telehealth) originated in the early 1900s, when radios were used to communicate medical advice to clinics aboard ships.¹ According to the American Telemedicine Association, telemedicine is namely “the use of medical information exchanged from one site to another via electronic communications to improve a patient’s clinical health status.”² These communications use 2-way video, email, smartphones, wireless tools, and other forms of telecommunications technology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many ObGyns—encouraged and advised by professional organizations—began providing telemedicine services.³ The first reported case of COVID-19 was in late 2019; the use of telemedicine was 38 times higher in February 2021 than in February 2020,⁴ illustrating how many physicians quickly moved to telemedicine practices.

CASE Dr. TM’s telemedicine dream

Before COVID-19, Dr. TM (an ObGyn practi-tioner) practiced in-person medicine in his home state. With the onset of the pandemic, Dr. TM struggled to switch to primarily seeing patients online (generally using Zoom or Facebook Live), with 1 day per week in the office for essential in-person visits.

After several months, however, Dr. TM’s routine became very efficient. He could see many more patients in a shorter time than with the former, in-person system. Therefore, as staff left his practice, Dr. TM did not replace them and also laid off others. Ultimately, the practice had 1 full-time records/insurance secretary who worked from home and 1 part-time nurse who helped with the in-person day and answered some patient inquiries by email. In part as an effort to add new patients, Dr. TM built an engaging website through which his current patients could receive medical information and new patients could sign up.

In late 2022, Dr. TM offered a $100 credit to any current patient who referred a friend or family member who then became a patient. This promotion was surprisingly effective and resulted in an influx of new patients. For example, Patient Z (a long-time patient) received 3 credits for referring her 3 sisters who lived out of state and became telepatients: Patient D, who lived 200 hundred miles away; Patient E, who lived 50 miles away in the adjoining state; and Patient F, who lived 150 miles away. Patient D contacted Dr. TM because she thought she was pregnant and wanted prenatal care, Patient E thought she might have a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and wanted treatment, and Patient F wanted general care and was inquiring about a medical abortion. Dr. TM agreed to treat Patient D but required 1 in-person visit. After 1 brief telemedicine session each with Patients E and F, Dr. TM wrote prescriptions for them.

By 2023, Dr. TM was enthusiastic about telemedicine as a professional practice. However, problems would ensue.

Medical considerations

Telemedicine is endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) as a vehicle for delivering prenatal and postpartum care.⁵ This represents an effort to reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality,⁵ as well as expandaccess to care and address the deficit in primary care providers and services, especially in rural and underserved populations.^5,6 For obstetrics, prenatal care is designed to optimize pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum care, with a focus on nutrition and genetic consultation and patient education on pregnancy, childbearing, breastfeeding, and newborn care.⁷

Benefits of telemedicine include its convenience for patients and providers, its efficiency and lower costs for providers (and hopefully patients, as well), and the potential improved access to care for patients.⁸ It is estimated that if a woman inititates obstetric care at 6 weeks, over the course of the 40-week gestation period, 15 prenatal visits will occur.⁹ Ultimately, the number of visits is determined based on the specifics of the pregnancy. With telemedicine, clinicians can provide those consultations, and information related to: ultrasonography, fetal echocardiography, and postpartum care services remotely.¹⁰ Using telemedicine may reduce missed visits, and remote monitoring may improve the quality of care.¹¹

Barriers to telemedicine care include technical limitations, time constraints, and patient concerns of telehealth (visits). Technical limitations include the lack of a high speed internet connection and/or a smart device and the initial technical set-up–related problems,¹² which affect providers as well as patients. Time constraints primarly refer to the ObGyn practice’s lack of time to establish telehealth services.¹³ Other challenges include integrating translation services, billing-related problems,¹⁰ and reimbursement and licensing barriers.¹⁴

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, obstetrics led the way in telemedicine with the development of the OB Nest model. Designed to replace in-person obstetrics care visits with telehealth,¹⁵ it includes home management tools such as blood pressure cuffs, cardiotocography, scales for weight checks, and Doppler ultrasounds.¹⁰ Patients can be instructed to measure fundal height and receive medications by mail. Anesthesia consultation can occur via this venue by having the patient complete a questionnaire prior to arriving at the labor and delivery unit.¹⁶

Legal considerations

With the COVID-19 pandemic, temporary changes were made to encourage the rapid adoption of telemedicine, including changes to licensing laws, certain prescription requirements, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy-security regulations, and reimbursement rules that required in-person visits. Thus, many ObGyns started using telemedicine during this rarified period, in which the rules appeared to be few and far between, with limited enforcement of the law and professional obligations.¹⁷ However, now that many of the legal rules that were suspended or ignored have been (or are being) reimposed and enforced, it is important for providers to become familiar with the legal issues involved in practicing telemedicine.

First, where is the patient? When discussing the legal issues of telemedicine, it is important to remember that many legal rules for medical care (ie, liability, informed consent, and licensing) vary from state to state. If the patient resides in a different state (“foreign” state) from the physician’s practice location (the physician’s “home” state), the care is considered delivered in the state where the patient is located. Thus, the patient’s location generally establishes the law covering the telemedicine transaction. In the following discussion, the rules refer to the law and professional obligations, with commentary on some key legal issues that are relevant to ObGyn telemedicine.

Continue to: Reinforcing the rules...

Licensing

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government and almost all states temporarily modified the licensing requirement to allow telemedicine based on an existing medical license in any state—disregarding the “where is the patient” rule. As those rules begin to lapse or change with the official end of the pandemic declared by President Biden as May 2023,¹⁷ the rules under which a physician began telemedicine interstate practice in 2020 also may be changing.

Simply put, “The same standards for licensure apply to health care providers regardless of whether care is delivered in-person or virtually through telehealth services.”¹⁸ When a physician is engaged in telemedicine treatment of a patient in the physician’s home state, there is generally no licensing issue. Telemedicine generally does not require a separate specific license.¹⁹ However, when the patient is in another state (a “foreign” state), there can be a substantial licensing issue.²⁰ Ordinarily, to provide that treatment, the physician must, in some manner, be approved to practice in the patient’s state. That may occur, for example, in the following ways: (1) the physician may hold an additional regular license in the patient’s state, which allows practice there, or (2) the physician may have received permission for “temporary practice” in another state.

Many states (often adjoining states) have formal agreements with other states that allow telemedicine practice by providers in each other’s states. There also are “compacts”, or agreements that enable providers in any of the participating states to practice in the other associated states without a separate license.¹⁸ Although several websites provide information about compact licensing and the like, clinicians should not rely on simple lists or maps. Individual states may have special provisions about applying their laws to out-of-state “compact” physicians. In addition, under the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, “physicians have to pay licensing fees and satisfy the requirements of each medical board in the states where they wish to practice.”²¹

Consequences. Practicing telemedicine with a patient in a state where the physician does not have a license is generally a crime. Furthermore, it may be the basis for license discipline in the physician’s home state and result in a report to the National Practi-tioner Databank.²² In addition, reimbursement often depends on the practitioner being licensed, and the absence of a license may be a basis for denying payment for services.²³ Finally, malpractice insurance generally is limited to licensed practice. Thus, the insurer may decline to defend the unlicensed clinician against a malpractice claim or pay any damages.

Prescribing privileges

Prescribing privileges usually are connected to licensing, so as the rules for licensing change postpandemic, so do the rules for prescribing. In most cases, the physician must have a license in the state where care is given to prescribe medication—which in telemedicine, as noted, typically means the state where the patient is located. Exceptions vary by state, but in general, if a physician does not have a license to provide care, the physician is unlikely to be authorized to prescribe medication.²⁴ Failure to abide by the applicable state rules may result in civil and even criminal liability for illegal prescribing activity.

In addition, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA, which enforces laws concerning controlled substances) also regulate the prescription and sale of pharmaceuticals.²⁵ There are state and federal limits on the ability of clinicians to order controlled substances without an in-person visit. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act, for example, sets limits on controlled substance prescriptions without an in-person examination.²⁶ Federal law was modified due to COVID-19 to permit prescribing of many controlled substances by telemedicine if there is synchronous audio and visual examination of the patient. Physicians who write such prescriptions also are required to have a DEA registration in the patient’s state. This is an essential consideration for physicians considering interstate telemedicine practice.²⁷

HIPAA and privacy

Governments waived some of the legal requirements related to health information during the pandemic, but those waivers either have expired or will do so soon. Federal and state laws regarding privacy and security—notably including HIPAA—apply to telemedicine and are of particular concern given the considerable amount of communication of protected health information with telemedicine.

HIPAA security rules essentially require making sure health information cannot be hacked or intercepted. Audio-only telemedicine by landline (not cell) is acceptable under the security rules, but almost all other remote communication requires secure communications.²⁸

Clinicians also need to adhere to the more usual HIPAA privacy rules when practicingtelehealth. State laws protecting patient privacy vary and may be more stringent than HIPAA, so clinicians also must know the requirements in any state where they practice—whether in office or telemedicine.²⁹

Making sure telemedicine practices are consistent with these security and privacy rules often requires particular technical expertise that is outside the realm of most practicing clinicians. However, without modification, the pre-telemedicine technology of many medical offices likely is insufficient for the full range of telemedicine services.³⁰

Reimbursement and fraud

Before COVID-19, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for telemedicine was limited. Government decisions to substantially broaden those reimbursement rules (at least temporarily) provided a substantial boost to telemedicine early in the pandemic.²³ Federal regulations and statutes also expanded telemedicine reimbursement for various services. Some will end shortly after the health emergency, and others will be permanent. Parts of that will not be sorted out for several years, so it will likely be a changing landscape for reimbursement.

One motivation for tightening the rules is the substantial fraud associated with the loosened regulations, including telemedicine.³¹ Current laws apply to such fraud, including, for example, Anti-Kickback Statutes and federal and state False Claims Acts (FCAs). FCAs have “whistleblower” provisions that encourage private citizens to bring fraud actions. Government agencies and private insurance companies will undoubtedly tighten reimbursement regulations to make fraud less common.³²

Continue to: Rules that are evolving...

Informed consent

The ethical and legal obligations to obtain informed consent are present in telemedicineas well as in-person care, with the same basic requirements regarding risks, benefits, alternative care, etc.³² However, with telemedicine, information related to remote care should be included and is outlined in TABLE 1.

Certain states may have somewhat unique informed consent requirements—especially for reproductive care, including abortion.³⁴ Therefore, it is important for clinicians to ensure their consent process and forms comply with any legal jurisdiction in which a patient is located.

Medical malpractice

The basics of medical malpractice (or negligence) are the same in telemedicine as in in-person care: duty, breach of duty, and injury caused by the breach. That is, there may be liability when a medical professional breaches the duty of care, causing the patient’s injury. The physician’s duty is defined by the quality of care that the profession (specialty) accepts as reasonably good. This is defined by the opinions of physicians within the specialty and formal statements from professional organizations, including ACOG.³

Maintaining the standard of care and quality. The use of telemedicine is not an excuse to lower the quality of health care. There are some circumstances for which it is medically better to have an in-person visit. In these instances, the provider should recommend the appropriate care, even if telemedicine would be more convenient for the provider and staff.³⁵

If the patient insists and telemedicine might result in less than optimal care, the reasons for using a remote visit should be clearly documented contemporaneously with the decision. Furthermore, when the limitations of being unable to physically examine the patient result in less information than is needed for the patient’s care, the provider must find alternatives to make up for the information gap.^11,36 It also may be necessary to inform patients about how to maximize telemedicine care.³⁷ At the beginning of telemedicine care the provider should include information about the nature and limits of telehealth, and the patient’s responsibilities. (See TABLE 1) Throughout treatment of the patient, that information should be updated by the provider. That, of course, is particularly important for patients who have not previously used telemedice services^.

Malpractice rules vary by state. Many states have special rules regarding malpractice cases. These differences in malpractice standards and regulations “can be problematic for physicians who use telemedicine services to provide care outside the state in which they practice.”³⁸ Caps on noneconomic damages are an example. Those state rules would apply to telemedicine in the patient’s state.

Malpractice insurance

Malpractice insurance now commonly includes telemedicine legally practiced within the physician’s home state. Practitioners who treat patients in foreign states should carefully examine their malpractice insurance policies to confirm that the coverage extends to practice in those states.³⁹ Malpractice carriers may require notification by a covered physician who routinely provides services to patients in another state.³

Keep in mind, malpractice insurance generally does not cover the practice of medicine that is illegal. Practicing telemedicine in a foreign state, where the physician or other provider does not have a license and where that state does not otherwise permit the practice, is illegal. Most likely, the physician’s malpractice insurance will not cover claims that arise from this illegal practice in a foreign state or provide defense for malpractice claims, including frivolous lawsuits. Thus, the physician will pay out of pocket for the costs of a defense attorney.

Telemedicine treatment of minors

Children and adolescents present special legal issues for ObGyn care, which may become more complicated with telemedicine. Historically, parents are responsible for minors (those aged <18 years): they consent to medical treatment, are responsible for paying for it, and have the right to receive information about treatment.

Over the years, though, many states have made exceptions to these principles, especially with regard to contraception and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.⁴⁰ For abortion, in particular, there is considerable variation among the states in parental consent and notification.⁴¹ The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health⁴² may (depending on the state) be followed with more stringent limitations on adolescent consent to abortions, including medical abortions.⁴³

Use of telehealth does not change any obligations regarding adolescent consent or parental notification. Because those differ considerably among states, it is important for all practitioners to know their states’ requirements and keep reasonably complete records demonstrating their compliance with state law.

Abortion

The most heated current controversy about telemedicine involves abortion—specifically medical abortion, which is the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol.^44,45 The FDA approved the combination in 2000. Almost immediately, many states required in-person visits with a certified clinician to receive a prescription for mifepristone and misoprostol, and eventually, the FDA adopted similar requirements.⁴⁶ However, during the pandemic from 2021 to 2022, the FDA permitted telemedicine prescriptions. Several states still require in-person physician visits, although the constitutionality of those requirements has not been established.⁴⁷

With the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health in 2022,⁴² disagreements have ensued about the degree to which states may regulate the prescription of FDA-approved medical abortion drugs. Thorny constitutional issues exist in the plans of both abortion opponents and proponents in the battle over medical abortion in antiabortion states. It may be that federal drug law preempts state laws limiting access to FDA-approved drugs. On the other hand, it may be that states can make it a crime within the state to possess or provide abortion-inducing drugs. Courts will probably take years to resolve the many tangled legal questions.⁴⁸

Thus, while the pandemic telemedicine rules may have advanced access to abortion,³⁴ there may be some pending downsides.⁴⁹ States that prohibit abortion will likely include prohibitions on medical abortions. In addition, they may prohibit anyone in the state (including pharmacies) from selling, possessing, or obtaining any drug used for causing or inducing an abortion.⁵⁰ If, for constitutional reasons, they cannot press criminal charges or undertake licensing discipline for prescribing abortion, some states will likely withdraw from telehealth licensing compacts to avoid out-of-state prescriptions. This area of telemedicine has considerable uncertainty.

Continue to: CASE Conclusion...

CASE Conclusion

Patient concerns come to the fore

By 2023, Dr. TM started receiving bad news. Patient D called complaining that after following the advice on the website, she suffered a severe reaction and had to be rushed to an emergency department. Patient E (who had only 1 in-office visit early in her pregnancy) notified the office that she developed very high blood pressure that resulted in severe placental abruption, requiring emergency care and resulting in the loss of the fetus. Patient F complained that someone hacked the TikTok direct message communication with Dr. TM and tried to “blackmail” or harass her.

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F represent potential problems of telemedicine practice. Patient D was injured because she relied on her doctor’s website (to which Dr. TM directed patients). It contained an error that caused an injury. A doctor-patient relationship existed, and bad medical advice likely caused the injury. Physicians providing advice online must ensure the advice is correct and kept current.

Patient E demonstrates the importance of monitoring patients remotely (blood pressure transmitted to the office) or with periodic in-office visits. It is not clear whether she was a no-show for office visits (and whether the office followed up on any missed appointments) or if such visits were never scheduled. Liability for failure to monitor adequately is a possibility.

Patient F’s seemingly minor complaint could be a potential problem. Dr. TM used an insecure mode of communication. Although some HIPAA security regulations were modified or suspended during the pandemic, using such an unsecure platform is problematic, especially if temporary HIPAA rules expired. The outcome of the complaint is in doubt.

Out-of-state practice

Dr. TM treated 3 out-of-state residents (D, E, and F) via telemedicine. Recently Dr. TM received a complaint from the State Medical Licensure Board for practicing medicine without a license (Patient D), followed by similar charges from Patient E’s and Patient F’s state licensing boards. He has received a licensing inquiry from his home state board about those claims of illegal practice in other states and incompetent treatment.

Patient D’s pregnancy did not go well. The 1 in-person visit did not occur and she has filed a malpractice suit against Dr. TM. Patient E is threatening a malpractice case because the STI was not appropriately diagnosed and had advanced before another physician treated it.
 

In addition, a private citizen in Patient F’s state has filed suit against Dr. TM for abetting an illegal abortion (for Patient F).

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F illustrate the risk of even incidental out-of-state practice. The medical board inquiries arose from anonymous tips to all 4 states reporting Dr. TM was “practicing medicine without a license.” Patient E’s home state did have a licensing compact with the adjoining state (ie, Dr. TM’s home state). However, it required physicians to register and file an annual report, which Dr. TM had not done. The other 2 states did not have compacts with Dr. TM’s home state. Thus, he was illegally practicing medicine and would be subject to penalties. His home state also might impose license discipline based on his illegal practice in other states.

Continue to: What’s the verdict?...

What’s the verdict?

Dr. TM’s malpractice carrier is refusing to defend the claims of medical malpractice threatened by Patients D, E, and F. The company first notes that the terms of the malpractice policy specifically exclude the illegal practice of medicine. Furthermore, when a physician legally practices in another state, the policy requires a written notice to the insurance carrier of such practice. Dr. TM will likely have to engage and pay for a malpractice attorney for these cases. Because the claims are filed in 3 different states, more than a home-state attorney will likely be involved in the defense of these cases. Dr. TM will need to pay the attorneys and any damages from a settlement or trial.

Malpractice claims. Patient D claims that the doctor essentially abandoned her by never reaching out to her or arranging an in-person visit. Dr. TM claims the patient was responsible for scheduling the in-person visit. Patient E claims it was malpractice not to determine the specific nature of the STI and to do follow-up testing to determine that it was cured. All patients claim there was no genuine informed consent to the telemedicine. An attorney has warned Dr. TM that it is “not going to look good to the jury” that he was practicing without a license in the state and suggests he settle the cases quickly by paying damages.

Abortion-related claims. Patient F presents a different set of problems. Dr. TM’s home state is “proabortion.” Patient F’s home state is strongly “antiabortion,” making it a felony to participate in, assist, or facilitate an abortion (including medical abortion). Criminal charges have been filed against Dr. TM for the illegal practice of medicine, for aiding and facilitating an abortion, and for failure to notify a parent that a minor is seeking an abortion. For now, Dr. TM’s state is refusing to extradite on the abortion charge. Still, the patient’s state insists that it do so on the illegal practice of medicine charges and new charges of insurance fraud and failure to report suspected sexual abuse of a child. (Under the patient’s state law, anyone having sex with Patient F would have engaged in sexual abuse or “statutory rape,” so the state insists that the fact she was pregnant proves someone had sex with her.)

Patient F’s state also has a statute that allows private citizens to file civil claims against anyone procuring or assisting with an abortion (a successful private citizen can receive a minimum of $10,000 from the defendant). Several citizens from the patient’s state have already filed claims against Dr. TM in his state courts. Only one of them, probably the first to file, could succeed. Courts in the state have issued subpoenas and ordered Dr. TM to appear and reply to the civil suits. If he does not respond, there will be a default judgment.

Dr. TM’s attorney tells him that these lawsuits will not settle and will take a long time to defend and resolve. That will be expensive.

Billing and fraud. Dr. TM’s office recently received a series of notices from private health insurers stating they are investigating previously made payments as being fraudulent (unlicensed). They will not pay any new claims pending the investigation. On behalf of Medicare-Medicaid and other federal programs, the US Attorney’s office has notified Dr. TM that it has opened an investigation into fraudulent federal payments. F’s home state also is filing a (criminal) insurance fraud case, although the basis for it is unclear. (Dr. TM’s attorney believes it might be to increase pressure on the physician’s state to extradite Dr. TM for Patient F’s case.)

In addition, a disgruntled former employee of Dr. TM has filed a federal FCA case against him for filing inflated claims with various federally funded programs. The employee also made whistleblower calls to insurance companies and some state-funded medical programs. A forensic accounting investigation by Dr. TM’s accountant confirmed a pattern of very sloppy records and recurring billing for televisits that did not occur. Dr. TM believes that this was the act of one of the temporary assistants he hired in a pinch, who did not understand the system and just guessed when filing some insurance claims.

During the investigation, the federal and state attorneys are looking into a possible violation of state and federal Anti-Kickback Statutes. This is based on the original offer of a $100 credit for referrals to Dr. TM’s telemedicine practice.

The attorneys are concerned that other legal problems may present themselves. They are thoroughly reviewing Dr. TM’s practice and making several critical but somewhat modest changes to his practice. They also have insisted that Dr. TM have appropriate staff to handle the details of the practice and billing.

Conclusions

Telemedicine presents notable legal challenges to medical practice. As the pandemic status ends, ObGyn physicians practicing telemedicine need to be aware of the rules and how they are changing. For those physicians who want to continue or start a telemedicine practice, securing legal and technical support to ensure your operations are inline with the legal requirements can minimize any risk of legal troubles in the future. ●

Rates of perinatal HIV have dropped so much that the disease is effectively eliminated in the United States, with less than 1 baby for every 100,000 live births having the virus, a new study released by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds.

The report marks significant progress on the U.S. government’s goal to eradicate perinatal HIV, an immune-weakening and potentially deadly virus that is passed from mother to baby during pregnancy. Just 32 children in the country were diagnosed in 2019, compared with twice as many in 2010, according to the CDC.

Mothers who are HIV positive can prevent transmission of the infection by receiving antiretroviral therapy, according to Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco’s division of HIV, infectious disease and global medicine.

Dr. Gandhi said she could recall only one case of perinatal HIV in the San Francisco area over the last decade.

“This country has been really aggressive about counseling women who are pregnant and getting mothers in care,” Dr. Gandhi said.

The treatment method was discovered more than 30 years ago. Prior to the therapy and ensuing awareness campaigns to prevent transmission, mothers with HIV would typically pass the virus to their child in utero, during delivery, or while breastfeeding.

“There should be zero children born with HIV, given that we’ve had these drugs for so long,” Dr. Ghandi said. 
 

Disparities persist

But challenges remain in some communities, where babies born to Black mothers are disproportionately affected by the disease, the new study found. “Racial and ethnic differences in perinatal HIV diagnoses persisted through the 10-year period,” the report’s authors concluded. “The highest rates of perinatal HIV diagnoses were seen among infants born to Black women.”

Although rates of perinatal HIV declined for babies born to Black mothers over the decade-long study, the diagnosis rate was above the goal of elimination at 3.1 for every 100,000 live births, according to the data.

Meanwhile, transmission rates hovered around 1%-2% for Latinx and Hispanic women and mothers who identified as “other races,” including Native American.

Despite the availability of medication, expectant mothers may face several hurdles to getting the daily treatment they need to prevent transmission to their fetus, according to Jennifer Jao, MD, MPH, a physician of infectious diseases at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

They might have trouble securing health insurance or finding transportation to doctor’s appointments, or face other problems like lacking secure housing or food – all factors that prevent them from prioritizing the care.

“All of those things play into the mix,” Dr. Jao said. “We see over and over again that closing the gap means you’ve got to reach the women who are pregnant and who don’t have resources.”
 

Progress in ‘danger’

Experts said they’re not sure what the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, accompanied by a recent uptick in sexually transmitted diseases, will be on rates of perinatal HIV. Some women were unable to access prenatal health care during the pandemic because they couldn’t access public transportation or childcare, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in 2022.

Globally, a decline in rates of HIV and AIDS rates has slowed, prompting the World Health Organization to warn last year that progress on the disease is in danger. Researchers only included HIV rates in the United States through 2019, so the data are outdated, Dr. Gandhi noted.

“All of this put together means we don’t know where we are with perinatal transmission over the last 3 years,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Nahida Chakhtoura, MD, MsGH, and Bill Kapogiannis, MD, both with the National Institutes of Health, urge health care professionals to take an active role in eliminating these racial and ethnic disparities in an effort to – as the title of their editorial proclaims – achieve a “road to zero perinatal HIV transmission” in the United States.

“The more proactive we are in identifying and promptly addressing systematic deficiencies that exacerbate health inequities in cutting-edge research innovations and optimal clinical service provision,” they write, “the less reactive we will need to be when new transmissible infections appear at our doorstep.”

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

Rates of perinatal HIV have dropped so much that the disease is effectively eliminated in the United States, with less than 1 baby for every 100,000 live births having the virus, a new study released by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds.

The report marks significant progress on the U.S. government’s goal to eradicate perinatal HIV, an immune-weakening and potentially deadly virus that is passed from mother to baby during pregnancy. Just 32 children in the country were diagnosed in 2019, compared with twice as many in 2010, according to the CDC.

Mothers who are HIV positive can prevent transmission of the infection by receiving antiretroviral therapy, according to Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco’s division of HIV, infectious disease and global medicine.

Dr. Gandhi said she could recall only one case of perinatal HIV in the San Francisco area over the last decade.

“This country has been really aggressive about counseling women who are pregnant and getting mothers in care,” Dr. Gandhi said.

The treatment method was discovered more than 30 years ago. Prior to the therapy and ensuing awareness campaigns to prevent transmission, mothers with HIV would typically pass the virus to their child in utero, during delivery, or while breastfeeding.

“There should be zero children born with HIV, given that we’ve had these drugs for so long,” Dr. Ghandi said. 
 

Disparities persist

But challenges remain in some communities, where babies born to Black mothers are disproportionately affected by the disease, the new study found. “Racial and ethnic differences in perinatal HIV diagnoses persisted through the 10-year period,” the report’s authors concluded. “The highest rates of perinatal HIV diagnoses were seen among infants born to Black women.”

Although rates of perinatal HIV declined for babies born to Black mothers over the decade-long study, the diagnosis rate was above the goal of elimination at 3.1 for every 100,000 live births, according to the data.

Meanwhile, transmission rates hovered around 1%-2% for Latinx and Hispanic women and mothers who identified as “other races,” including Native American.

Despite the availability of medication, expectant mothers may face several hurdles to getting the daily treatment they need to prevent transmission to their fetus, according to Jennifer Jao, MD, MPH, a physician of infectious diseases at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

They might have trouble securing health insurance or finding transportation to doctor’s appointments, or face other problems like lacking secure housing or food – all factors that prevent them from prioritizing the care.

“All of those things play into the mix,” Dr. Jao said. “We see over and over again that closing the gap means you’ve got to reach the women who are pregnant and who don’t have resources.”
 

Progress in ‘danger’

Experts said they’re not sure what the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, accompanied by a recent uptick in sexually transmitted diseases, will be on rates of perinatal HIV. Some women were unable to access prenatal health care during the pandemic because they couldn’t access public transportation or childcare, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in 2022.

Globally, a decline in rates of HIV and AIDS rates has slowed, prompting the World Health Organization to warn last year that progress on the disease is in danger. Researchers only included HIV rates in the United States through 2019, so the data are outdated, Dr. Gandhi noted.

“All of this put together means we don’t know where we are with perinatal transmission over the last 3 years,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Nahida Chakhtoura, MD, MsGH, and Bill Kapogiannis, MD, both with the National Institutes of Health, urge health care professionals to take an active role in eliminating these racial and ethnic disparities in an effort to – as the title of their editorial proclaims – achieve a “road to zero perinatal HIV transmission” in the United States.

“The more proactive we are in identifying and promptly addressing systematic deficiencies that exacerbate health inequities in cutting-edge research innovations and optimal clinical service provision,” they write, “the less reactive we will need to be when new transmissible infections appear at our doorstep.”

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

Rates of perinatal HIV have dropped so much that the disease is effectively eliminated in the United States, with less than 1 baby for every 100,000 live births having the virus, a new study released by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds.

The report marks significant progress on the U.S. government’s goal to eradicate perinatal HIV, an immune-weakening and potentially deadly virus that is passed from mother to baby during pregnancy. Just 32 children in the country were diagnosed in 2019, compared with twice as many in 2010, according to the CDC.

Mothers who are HIV positive can prevent transmission of the infection by receiving antiretroviral therapy, according to Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco’s division of HIV, infectious disease and global medicine.

Dr. Gandhi said she could recall only one case of perinatal HIV in the San Francisco area over the last decade.

“This country has been really aggressive about counseling women who are pregnant and getting mothers in care,” Dr. Gandhi said.

The treatment method was discovered more than 30 years ago. Prior to the therapy and ensuing awareness campaigns to prevent transmission, mothers with HIV would typically pass the virus to their child in utero, during delivery, or while breastfeeding.

“There should be zero children born with HIV, given that we’ve had these drugs for so long,” Dr. Ghandi said. 
 

Disparities persist

But challenges remain in some communities, where babies born to Black mothers are disproportionately affected by the disease, the new study found. “Racial and ethnic differences in perinatal HIV diagnoses persisted through the 10-year period,” the report’s authors concluded. “The highest rates of perinatal HIV diagnoses were seen among infants born to Black women.”

Although rates of perinatal HIV declined for babies born to Black mothers over the decade-long study, the diagnosis rate was above the goal of elimination at 3.1 for every 100,000 live births, according to the data.

Meanwhile, transmission rates hovered around 1%-2% for Latinx and Hispanic women and mothers who identified as “other races,” including Native American.

Despite the availability of medication, expectant mothers may face several hurdles to getting the daily treatment they need to prevent transmission to their fetus, according to Jennifer Jao, MD, MPH, a physician of infectious diseases at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

They might have trouble securing health insurance or finding transportation to doctor’s appointments, or face other problems like lacking secure housing or food – all factors that prevent them from prioritizing the care.

“All of those things play into the mix,” Dr. Jao said. “We see over and over again that closing the gap means you’ve got to reach the women who are pregnant and who don’t have resources.”
 

Progress in ‘danger’

Experts said they’re not sure what the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, accompanied by a recent uptick in sexually transmitted diseases, will be on rates of perinatal HIV. Some women were unable to access prenatal health care during the pandemic because they couldn’t access public transportation or childcare, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in 2022.

Globally, a decline in rates of HIV and AIDS rates has slowed, prompting the World Health Organization to warn last year that progress on the disease is in danger. Researchers only included HIV rates in the United States through 2019, so the data are outdated, Dr. Gandhi noted.

“All of this put together means we don’t know where we are with perinatal transmission over the last 3 years,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Nahida Chakhtoura, MD, MsGH, and Bill Kapogiannis, MD, both with the National Institutes of Health, urge health care professionals to take an active role in eliminating these racial and ethnic disparities in an effort to – as the title of their editorial proclaims – achieve a “road to zero perinatal HIV transmission” in the United States.

“The more proactive we are in identifying and promptly addressing systematic deficiencies that exacerbate health inequities in cutting-edge research innovations and optimal clinical service provision,” they write, “the less reactive we will need to be when new transmissible infections appear at our doorstep.”

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

Risk-stratified timing of birth at term may reduce a mother’s risk of preeclampsia by half, analysis of a large U.K. cohort suggests.

Timed birth strategies include scheduled labor inductions and cesarean deliveries.

In this observational analysis of nearly 90,000 pregnancies, at-term preeclampsia occurred with similar frequency among women routinely screened during the first trimester and among at-risk women screened during the third trimester.

Overall, on average, at-risk women delivered at 40 weeks, with two-thirds experiencing spontaneous onset of labor. About one-fourth had cesarean deliveries.

“We anticipated that timed birth at 37 weeks could reduce the occurrence of more than half of preeclampsia, [but] this is not an intervention that could be recommended, as complications for the baby would be increased,” Laura A. Magee, MD, of King’s College London, told this news organization.

“However, we were delighted to see that a personalized approach to timed birth, based on an individual woman’s risk of preeclampsia, could prevent a similar number of cases of preeclampsia, with fewer women requiring timed birth and at later gestational ages, when newborn problems would be less frequent.”

Although not currently recommended to prevent at-term preeclampsia, “timed birth by labor induction is a very common timing of birth strategy,” she noted. “At least one-third of women currently undergo labor induction at term gestational age, and one in six choose to deliver by elective cesarean.”

The study was published online in the journal Hypertension.
 

Screening at 35-36 weeks superior

The investigators analyzed data from a nonintervention cohort study of singleton pregnancies delivering at ≥ 24 weeks, without major anomalies, at two U.K. hospitals.

At routine visits at 11-13 weeks’ gestation, 57,131 pregnancies were screened, and 1,138 term preeclampsia cases developed.

Most of these women were in their early 30s, self-identified as White, and had a BMI at the upper limits of normal. About 10% were smokers; fewer than 3% had a medical history of high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, or autoimmune disease; and 3.9% reported a family history of preeclampsia.

At 35-36 weeks, in a different cohort, 29,035 pregnancies were screened and term preeclampsia developed in 619 women. Demographics and pregnancy characteristics were similar to those screened at 11-13 weeks, although the average BMI was higher – in the overweight range – and there were fewer Black women, although they still made up 10% of the screened population.

Patient-specific preeclampsia risks were determined by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, and the Fetal Medicine Foundation competing-risks model, available through an online calculator.

Timing of birth for term preeclampsia prevention was evaluated at 37, 38, 39, and 40 weeks or depending on preeclampsia risk by the competing-risks model at 35-36 weeks.

The primary outcomes were the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented, and number-needed-to-deliver to prevent one term preeclampsia case.

The investigators found that overall, the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented was highest, and number-needed-to-deliver lowest, for preeclampsia screening at 35-36 weeks rather than at 11-13 weeks.

For delivery at 37 weeks, fewer cases of preeclampsia were prevented with NICE criteria (28.8%) than with the competing-risks model (59.8%), and the number-needed-to-deliver was higher (16.4 vs 6.9, respectively).

At 35-36 weeks, the risk-stratified approach had similar preeclampsia prevention (57.2%) and number-needed-to-deliver (8.4), but fewer women would be induced at 37 weeks (1.2% vs. 8.8%).

Although personalized timed birth at term may be an effective way to address at-term preeclampsia, “clinicians should wait for definitive clinical trial evidence,” Dr. Magee said.
 

‘Stay tuned’

Vesna D. Garovic, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and chair of the 2021 AHA Scientific Statement, “Hypertension in Pregnancy: Diagnosis, Blood Pressure Goals, and Pharmacotherapy,” agrees.

The new data “set the stage for adequately designed and powered studies that will provide ultimate response/evidence regarding the efficacy of this approach,” she told this news organization.

“Future studies need to address the safety of this approach,” she added, “as close to 10 timed/planned deliveries will be needed to prevent one case of preeclampsia.”

For now, she said, “While these preliminary data are promising, they are not sufficient to adopt timed birth in daily practice. Prospective studies that will provide sufficient evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of this approach are likely to follow. Stay tuned.”

Indeed, Dr. Magee noted that the Fetal Medicine Foundation is about to launch a randomized trial of a personalized “timing of birth” strategy at term based on the preeclampsia risk described in her group’s study vs. usual care at term – that is, “watchful waiting, and delivery should preeclampsia or another indication for birth develop.”

The study was supported by grants from the Fetal Medicine Foundation, United Kingdom, and various biotech companies provided reagents and relevant equipment free of charge. Dr. Magee and Dr. Garovic reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Risk-stratified timing of birth at term may reduce a mother’s risk of preeclampsia by half, analysis of a large U.K. cohort suggests.

Timed birth strategies include scheduled labor inductions and cesarean deliveries.

In this observational analysis of nearly 90,000 pregnancies, at-term preeclampsia occurred with similar frequency among women routinely screened during the first trimester and among at-risk women screened during the third trimester.

Overall, on average, at-risk women delivered at 40 weeks, with two-thirds experiencing spontaneous onset of labor. About one-fourth had cesarean deliveries.

“We anticipated that timed birth at 37 weeks could reduce the occurrence of more than half of preeclampsia, [but] this is not an intervention that could be recommended, as complications for the baby would be increased,” Laura A. Magee, MD, of King’s College London, told this news organization.

“However, we were delighted to see that a personalized approach to timed birth, based on an individual woman’s risk of preeclampsia, could prevent a similar number of cases of preeclampsia, with fewer women requiring timed birth and at later gestational ages, when newborn problems would be less frequent.”

Although not currently recommended to prevent at-term preeclampsia, “timed birth by labor induction is a very common timing of birth strategy,” she noted. “At least one-third of women currently undergo labor induction at term gestational age, and one in six choose to deliver by elective cesarean.”

The study was published online in the journal Hypertension.
 

Screening at 35-36 weeks superior

The investigators analyzed data from a nonintervention cohort study of singleton pregnancies delivering at ≥ 24 weeks, without major anomalies, at two U.K. hospitals.

At routine visits at 11-13 weeks’ gestation, 57,131 pregnancies were screened, and 1,138 term preeclampsia cases developed.

Most of these women were in their early 30s, self-identified as White, and had a BMI at the upper limits of normal. About 10% were smokers; fewer than 3% had a medical history of high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, or autoimmune disease; and 3.9% reported a family history of preeclampsia.

At 35-36 weeks, in a different cohort, 29,035 pregnancies were screened and term preeclampsia developed in 619 women. Demographics and pregnancy characteristics were similar to those screened at 11-13 weeks, although the average BMI was higher – in the overweight range – and there were fewer Black women, although they still made up 10% of the screened population.

Patient-specific preeclampsia risks were determined by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, and the Fetal Medicine Foundation competing-risks model, available through an online calculator.

Timing of birth for term preeclampsia prevention was evaluated at 37, 38, 39, and 40 weeks or depending on preeclampsia risk by the competing-risks model at 35-36 weeks.

The primary outcomes were the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented, and number-needed-to-deliver to prevent one term preeclampsia case.

The investigators found that overall, the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented was highest, and number-needed-to-deliver lowest, for preeclampsia screening at 35-36 weeks rather than at 11-13 weeks.

For delivery at 37 weeks, fewer cases of preeclampsia were prevented with NICE criteria (28.8%) than with the competing-risks model (59.8%), and the number-needed-to-deliver was higher (16.4 vs 6.9, respectively).

At 35-36 weeks, the risk-stratified approach had similar preeclampsia prevention (57.2%) and number-needed-to-deliver (8.4), but fewer women would be induced at 37 weeks (1.2% vs. 8.8%).

Although personalized timed birth at term may be an effective way to address at-term preeclampsia, “clinicians should wait for definitive clinical trial evidence,” Dr. Magee said.
 

‘Stay tuned’

Vesna D. Garovic, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and chair of the 2021 AHA Scientific Statement, “Hypertension in Pregnancy: Diagnosis, Blood Pressure Goals, and Pharmacotherapy,” agrees.

The new data “set the stage for adequately designed and powered studies that will provide ultimate response/evidence regarding the efficacy of this approach,” she told this news organization.

“Future studies need to address the safety of this approach,” she added, “as close to 10 timed/planned deliveries will be needed to prevent one case of preeclampsia.”

For now, she said, “While these preliminary data are promising, they are not sufficient to adopt timed birth in daily practice. Prospective studies that will provide sufficient evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of this approach are likely to follow. Stay tuned.”

Indeed, Dr. Magee noted that the Fetal Medicine Foundation is about to launch a randomized trial of a personalized “timing of birth” strategy at term based on the preeclampsia risk described in her group’s study vs. usual care at term – that is, “watchful waiting, and delivery should preeclampsia or another indication for birth develop.”

The study was supported by grants from the Fetal Medicine Foundation, United Kingdom, and various biotech companies provided reagents and relevant equipment free of charge. Dr. Magee and Dr. Garovic reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Risk-stratified timing of birth at term may reduce a mother’s risk of preeclampsia by half, analysis of a large U.K. cohort suggests.

Timed birth strategies include scheduled labor inductions and cesarean deliveries.

In this observational analysis of nearly 90,000 pregnancies, at-term preeclampsia occurred with similar frequency among women routinely screened during the first trimester and among at-risk women screened during the third trimester.

Overall, on average, at-risk women delivered at 40 weeks, with two-thirds experiencing spontaneous onset of labor. About one-fourth had cesarean deliveries.

“We anticipated that timed birth at 37 weeks could reduce the occurrence of more than half of preeclampsia, [but] this is not an intervention that could be recommended, as complications for the baby would be increased,” Laura A. Magee, MD, of King’s College London, told this news organization.

“However, we were delighted to see that a personalized approach to timed birth, based on an individual woman’s risk of preeclampsia, could prevent a similar number of cases of preeclampsia, with fewer women requiring timed birth and at later gestational ages, when newborn problems would be less frequent.”

Although not currently recommended to prevent at-term preeclampsia, “timed birth by labor induction is a very common timing of birth strategy,” she noted. “At least one-third of women currently undergo labor induction at term gestational age, and one in six choose to deliver by elective cesarean.”

The study was published online in the journal Hypertension.
 

Screening at 35-36 weeks superior

The investigators analyzed data from a nonintervention cohort study of singleton pregnancies delivering at ≥ 24 weeks, without major anomalies, at two U.K. hospitals.

At routine visits at 11-13 weeks’ gestation, 57,131 pregnancies were screened, and 1,138 term preeclampsia cases developed.

Most of these women were in their early 30s, self-identified as White, and had a BMI at the upper limits of normal. About 10% were smokers; fewer than 3% had a medical history of high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, or autoimmune disease; and 3.9% reported a family history of preeclampsia.

At 35-36 weeks, in a different cohort, 29,035 pregnancies were screened and term preeclampsia developed in 619 women. Demographics and pregnancy characteristics were similar to those screened at 11-13 weeks, although the average BMI was higher – in the overweight range – and there were fewer Black women, although they still made up 10% of the screened population.

Patient-specific preeclampsia risks were determined by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, and the Fetal Medicine Foundation competing-risks model, available through an online calculator.

Timing of birth for term preeclampsia prevention was evaluated at 37, 38, 39, and 40 weeks or depending on preeclampsia risk by the competing-risks model at 35-36 weeks.

The primary outcomes were the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented, and number-needed-to-deliver to prevent one term preeclampsia case.

The investigators found that overall, the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented was highest, and number-needed-to-deliver lowest, for preeclampsia screening at 35-36 weeks rather than at 11-13 weeks.

For delivery at 37 weeks, fewer cases of preeclampsia were prevented with NICE criteria (28.8%) than with the competing-risks model (59.8%), and the number-needed-to-deliver was higher (16.4 vs 6.9, respectively).

At 35-36 weeks, the risk-stratified approach had similar preeclampsia prevention (57.2%) and number-needed-to-deliver (8.4), but fewer women would be induced at 37 weeks (1.2% vs. 8.8%).

Although personalized timed birth at term may be an effective way to address at-term preeclampsia, “clinicians should wait for definitive clinical trial evidence,” Dr. Magee said.
 

‘Stay tuned’

Vesna D. Garovic, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and chair of the 2021 AHA Scientific Statement, “Hypertension in Pregnancy: Diagnosis, Blood Pressure Goals, and Pharmacotherapy,” agrees.

The new data “set the stage for adequately designed and powered studies that will provide ultimate response/evidence regarding the efficacy of this approach,” she told this news organization.

“Future studies need to address the safety of this approach,” she added, “as close to 10 timed/planned deliveries will be needed to prevent one case of preeclampsia.”

For now, she said, “While these preliminary data are promising, they are not sufficient to adopt timed birth in daily practice. Prospective studies that will provide sufficient evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of this approach are likely to follow. Stay tuned.”

Indeed, Dr. Magee noted that the Fetal Medicine Foundation is about to launch a randomized trial of a personalized “timing of birth” strategy at term based on the preeclampsia risk described in her group’s study vs. usual care at term – that is, “watchful waiting, and delivery should preeclampsia or another indication for birth develop.”

The study was supported by grants from the Fetal Medicine Foundation, United Kingdom, and various biotech companies provided reagents and relevant equipment free of charge. Dr. Magee and Dr. Garovic reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Photo: Shutterstock

Tita ATN, Carlo WA, McClure EM, et al; for the A-PLUS Trial Group. Azithromycin to prevent sepsis or death in women planning a vaginal birth. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1161-1170. doi:10:1056/NEJMoa2212111.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Maternal peripartum infection is 1 of the top 5 causes of maternal death, accounting for about 10% of cases of maternal mortality. Cesarean delivery (CD), of course, is the most important risk factor for puerperal infection. However, even vaginal delivery, particularly in low- to middle-resource countries, where deliveries often occur under less-than-optimal conditions, may be associated with a surprisingly high frequency of both maternal and neonatal infections. The beneficial effect of prophylactic antibiotics for CD is well established. An important remaining question is whether similar benefit can be achieved with prophylaxis for women planning to have a vaginal birth.

In 2017, Oluwalana and colleagues conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a single 2-g oral dose of azithromycin in Gambian women undergoing labor.¹ During the 8 weeks after delivery, maternal infections were lower in the azithromycin group, 3.6% versus 9.2% (relative risk [RR], 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22–0.71; P=.002). Infections also were lower in the newborns, 18.1% versus 23.8% (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58–0.99; P=.052), delivered to mothers who received azithromycin. The greatest impact on neonatal infections was the reduced frequency of skin infections.

In 2021, Subramaniam and colleagues evaluated the effect of a single dose of oral azithromycin with, or without, amoxicillin on the prevalence of peripartum infection in laboring women in Cameroon.² Patients and their newborns were followed for 6 weeks after delivery. Unlike the previous investigation, the authors were unable to show a protective effect of prophylaxis on either maternal or neonatal infection.

Against this backdrop, Tita and colleagues conducted a remarkably large, well-designed, randomized, placebo-controlled study of azithromycin prophylaxis in women at 8 different sites in 7 low- or middle-income countries (the A-PLUS investigation).³

Details of the study

The investigators randomly assigned 29,278 patients at or beyond 28 weeks’ gestation to receive either a 2-g oral dose of azithromycin or placebo during labor. This particular drug was chosen because it is readily available, inexpensive, well tolerated, and has a broad range of activity against many important pelvic pathogens, including genital mycoplasmas. Some patients also received other antibiotics, for example, for group B streptococcal (GBS) prophylaxis or for CD prophylaxis if abdominal delivery was indicated.

The 2 primary outcomes were a composite of maternal sepsis or death and a composite of stillbirth or neonatal death or sepsis within 4 weeks of delivery. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcomes.

Results. The results of the investigation were compelling, and the data safety monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial early because of clear maternal benefit. The groups were well balanced with respect to important characteristics, such as incidence of CD, receipt of other prophylactic antibiotics, and median time between randomization and delivery.

The incidence of maternal sepsis or death was lower in the azithromycin group (1.6% vs 2.4%; RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56–0.79; P<.001). The key effect was on the frequency of maternal sepsis because the incidence of maternal death was very low in both groups, 0.1%. With respect to secondary outcomes, prophylaxis was effective in reducing the frequency of endometritis (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55–0.79) and perineal and incisional infection (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56–0.85).

There was no difference in the frequency of neonatal sepsis or death. There also was no difference in the frequency of adverse drug effects in either group. Of note, more cases of neonatal pyloric stenosis were observed in the azithromycin group, but the overall incidence was lower than the expected background rate. This possible “signal” is important because this effect has been noted with increased frequency in neonates who received this antibiotic. ●

Photo: Shutterstock

Tita ATN, Carlo WA, McClure EM, et al; for the A-PLUS Trial Group. Azithromycin to prevent sepsis or death in women planning a vaginal birth. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1161-1170. doi:10:1056/NEJMoa2212111.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Maternal peripartum infection is 1 of the top 5 causes of maternal death, accounting for about 10% of cases of maternal mortality. Cesarean delivery (CD), of course, is the most important risk factor for puerperal infection. However, even vaginal delivery, particularly in low- to middle-resource countries, where deliveries often occur under less-than-optimal conditions, may be associated with a surprisingly high frequency of both maternal and neonatal infections. The beneficial effect of prophylactic antibiotics for CD is well established. An important remaining question is whether similar benefit can be achieved with prophylaxis for women planning to have a vaginal birth.

In 2017, Oluwalana and colleagues conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a single 2-g oral dose of azithromycin in Gambian women undergoing labor.¹ During the 8 weeks after delivery, maternal infections were lower in the azithromycin group, 3.6% versus 9.2% (relative risk [RR], 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22–0.71; P=.002). Infections also were lower in the newborns, 18.1% versus 23.8% (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58–0.99; P=.052), delivered to mothers who received azithromycin. The greatest impact on neonatal infections was the reduced frequency of skin infections.

In 2021, Subramaniam and colleagues evaluated the effect of a single dose of oral azithromycin with, or without, amoxicillin on the prevalence of peripartum infection in laboring women in Cameroon.² Patients and their newborns were followed for 6 weeks after delivery. Unlike the previous investigation, the authors were unable to show a protective effect of prophylaxis on either maternal or neonatal infection.

Against this backdrop, Tita and colleagues conducted a remarkably large, well-designed, randomized, placebo-controlled study of azithromycin prophylaxis in women at 8 different sites in 7 low- or middle-income countries (the A-PLUS investigation).³

Details of the study

The investigators randomly assigned 29,278 patients at or beyond 28 weeks’ gestation to receive either a 2-g oral dose of azithromycin or placebo during labor. This particular drug was chosen because it is readily available, inexpensive, well tolerated, and has a broad range of activity against many important pelvic pathogens, including genital mycoplasmas. Some patients also received other antibiotics, for example, for group B streptococcal (GBS) prophylaxis or for CD prophylaxis if abdominal delivery was indicated.

The 2 primary outcomes were a composite of maternal sepsis or death and a composite of stillbirth or neonatal death or sepsis within 4 weeks of delivery. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcomes.

Results. The results of the investigation were compelling, and the data safety monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial early because of clear maternal benefit. The groups were well balanced with respect to important characteristics, such as incidence of CD, receipt of other prophylactic antibiotics, and median time between randomization and delivery.

The incidence of maternal sepsis or death was lower in the azithromycin group (1.6% vs 2.4%; RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56–0.79; P<.001). The key effect was on the frequency of maternal sepsis because the incidence of maternal death was very low in both groups, 0.1%. With respect to secondary outcomes, prophylaxis was effective in reducing the frequency of endometritis (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55–0.79) and perineal and incisional infection (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56–0.85).

There was no difference in the frequency of neonatal sepsis or death. There also was no difference in the frequency of adverse drug effects in either group. Of note, more cases of neonatal pyloric stenosis were observed in the azithromycin group, but the overall incidence was lower than the expected background rate. This possible “signal” is important because this effect has been noted with increased frequency in neonates who received this antibiotic. ●

Photo: Shutterstock

Tita ATN, Carlo WA, McClure EM, et al; for the A-PLUS Trial Group. Azithromycin to prevent sepsis or death in women planning a vaginal birth. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1161-1170. doi:10:1056/NEJMoa2212111.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Maternal peripartum infection is 1 of the top 5 causes of maternal death, accounting for about 10% of cases of maternal mortality. Cesarean delivery (CD), of course, is the most important risk factor for puerperal infection. However, even vaginal delivery, particularly in low- to middle-resource countries, where deliveries often occur under less-than-optimal conditions, may be associated with a surprisingly high frequency of both maternal and neonatal infections. The beneficial effect of prophylactic antibiotics for CD is well established. An important remaining question is whether similar benefit can be achieved with prophylaxis for women planning to have a vaginal birth.

In 2017, Oluwalana and colleagues conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a single 2-g oral dose of azithromycin in Gambian women undergoing labor.¹ During the 8 weeks after delivery, maternal infections were lower in the azithromycin group, 3.6% versus 9.2% (relative risk [RR], 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22–0.71; P=.002). Infections also were lower in the newborns, 18.1% versus 23.8% (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58–0.99; P=.052), delivered to mothers who received azithromycin. The greatest impact on neonatal infections was the reduced frequency of skin infections.

In 2021, Subramaniam and colleagues evaluated the effect of a single dose of oral azithromycin with, or without, amoxicillin on the prevalence of peripartum infection in laboring women in Cameroon.² Patients and their newborns were followed for 6 weeks after delivery. Unlike the previous investigation, the authors were unable to show a protective effect of prophylaxis on either maternal or neonatal infection.

Against this backdrop, Tita and colleagues conducted a remarkably large, well-designed, randomized, placebo-controlled study of azithromycin prophylaxis in women at 8 different sites in 7 low- or middle-income countries (the A-PLUS investigation).³

Details of the study

The investigators randomly assigned 29,278 patients at or beyond 28 weeks’ gestation to receive either a 2-g oral dose of azithromycin or placebo during labor. This particular drug was chosen because it is readily available, inexpensive, well tolerated, and has a broad range of activity against many important pelvic pathogens, including genital mycoplasmas. Some patients also received other antibiotics, for example, for group B streptococcal (GBS) prophylaxis or for CD prophylaxis if abdominal delivery was indicated.

The 2 primary outcomes were a composite of maternal sepsis or death and a composite of stillbirth or neonatal death or sepsis within 4 weeks of delivery. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcomes.

Results. The results of the investigation were compelling, and the data safety monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial early because of clear maternal benefit. The groups were well balanced with respect to important characteristics, such as incidence of CD, receipt of other prophylactic antibiotics, and median time between randomization and delivery.

The incidence of maternal sepsis or death was lower in the azithromycin group (1.6% vs 2.4%; RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56–0.79; P<.001). The key effect was on the frequency of maternal sepsis because the incidence of maternal death was very low in both groups, 0.1%. With respect to secondary outcomes, prophylaxis was effective in reducing the frequency of endometritis (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55–0.79) and perineal and incisional infection (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56–0.85).

There was no difference in the frequency of neonatal sepsis or death. There also was no difference in the frequency of adverse drug effects in either group. Of note, more cases of neonatal pyloric stenosis were observed in the azithromycin group, but the overall incidence was lower than the expected background rate. This possible “signal” is important because this effect has been noted with increased frequency in neonates who received this antibiotic. ●

First trimester miscarriage, the presence of a nonviable intrauterine pregnancy before 13 weeks’ gestation, is a common complication occurring in approximately 15% of clinical pregnancies.^1,2 The goals for the holistic management of first-trimester miscarriage are to 1) reduce the risk of complications such as excessive bleeding and infection, 2) ensure that the patient is supported during a time of great distress, and 3) optimally counsel the patient about treatment options and elicit the patient’s preferences for care.³ To resolve a miscarriage, the intrauterine pregnancy tissue must be expelled, restoring normal reproductive function.

The options for the management of a nonviable intrauterine pregnancy include expectant management, medication treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol or misoprostol-alone, or uterine aspiration. In the absence of uterine hemorrhage, infection, or another severe complication of miscarriage, the patient’s preferences should guide the choice of treatment. Many patients with miscarriage prioritize avoiding medical interventions and may prefer expectant management. A patient who prefers rapid and reliable completion of the pregnancy loss process may prefer uterine aspiration. If the patient prefers to avoid uterine aspiration but desires control over the time and location of the expulsion process, medication treatment may be optimal. Many other factors influence a patient’s choice of miscarriage treatment, including balancing work and childcare issues and the ease of scheduling a uterine aspiration. In counseling patients about the options for miscarriage treatment it is helpful to know the success rate of each treatment option.⁴ This editorial reviews miscarriage treatment outcomes as summarized in a recent Cochrane network meta-analysis.⁵

Uterine aspiration versus mifepristone-misoprostol

In 2 clinical trials that included 899 patients with miscarriage, successful treatment with uterine aspira-tion versus mifepristone-misoprostolwas reported in 95% and 66% of cases, respectively.^6,7

In the largest clinical trial comparing uterine aspiration to mifepristone-misoprostol, 801 patients with first-trimester miscarriage were randomly assigned to uterine aspiration or mifepristone-misoprostol.⁶ Uterine aspiration and mifepristone-misoprostol were associated with successful miscarriage treatment in 95% and 64% of cases, respectively. In the uterine aspiration group, a second uterine aspiration occurred in 5% of patients. Two patients in the uterine aspiration group needed a third uterine aspiration to resolve the miscarriage. In the mifepristone-misoprostol group, 36% of patients had a uterine aspiration. It should be noted that the trial protocol guided patients having a medication abortion to uterine aspiration if expulsion of miscarriage tissue had not occurred within 8 hours of receiving misoprostol. If the trial protocol permitted 1 to 4 weeks of monitoring after mifepristone-misoprostol treatment, the success rate with medication treatment would be greater. Six to 8 weeks following miscarriage treatment, patient-reported anxiety and depression symptoms were similar in both groups.⁶

Uterine aspiration versus misoprostol

Among 3 clinical trials that limited enrollment to patients with missed miscarriage, involving 308 patients, the success rates for uterine aspiration and misoprostol treatment was 95% and 62%, respectively.⁵

In a study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, 652 patients with missed miscarriage or incomplete miscarriage were randomly assigned in a 1:3 ratioto uterine aspiration or misoprostol treatment (800 µg vaginally). After 8 days of follow-up, successful treatment rates among the patients treated with uterine evacuation or misoprostol was 97% and 84%, respectively.⁸ Of note, with misoprostol treatment the success rate increased from day 3 to day 8 of follow-up—from 71% to 84%.⁸

Continue to: Mifepristone-misoprostol versus misoprostol...

The combined results of 7 clinical trials of medication management of missed miscarriage that included 1,812 patients showed that successful treatment with mifepristone-misoprostol or misoprostol alone occurred in 80% and 70% of cases, respectively.⁵

Schreiber and colleagues⁹ reported a study of 300 patients with an anembryonic gestation or embryonic demise that were between 5 and 12 completed weeks of gestation and randomly assigned to treatment with mifepristone (200 mg) plus vaginal misoprostol (800 µg) administered 24 to 48 hours after mifepristone or vaginal misoprostol (800 µg) alone. Ultrasonography was performed 1 to 4 days after misoprostol administration. Successful treatment was defined as expulsion of the gestational sac plus no additional surgical or medical intervention within 30 days after treatment. In this study, the dual-medication regimen of mifepristone-misoprostol was more successful than misoprostol alone in resolving the miscarriage, 84% and 67%, respectively (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09–1.43). Surgical evacuation of the uterus occurred less often with mifepristone-misoprostol treatment (9%) than with misoprostol monotherapy (24%) (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21 ̶ 0.68). Pelvic infection occurred in 2 patients (1.3%) in each group. Uterine bleeding managed with blood transfusion occurred in 3 patients who received mifepristone-misoprostol and 1 patient who received misoprostol alone. In this study, clinical factors, including active bleeding, parity, and gestational age did not influence treatment success with the mifepristone-misoprostol regimen.¹⁰ The mifepristone-misoprostol regimen was reported to be more cost-effective than misoprostol alone.¹¹Chu and colleagues¹² reporteda study of medication treatmentof missed miscarriage that included more than 700 patients randomly assigned to treatment with mifepristone-misoprostol or placebo-misoprostol. Missed miscarriage was diagnosed by an ultrasound demonstrating a gestational sac and a nonviable pregnancy. The doses of mifepristone and misoprostol were 200 mg and 800 µg, respectively. In this study, the misoprostol was administered 48 hours following mifepristone or placebo using a vaginal, oral, or buccal route; 90% of patients used the vaginal route. Treatment was considered successful if the patient passed the gestational sac as determined by an ultrasound performed 7 days after entry into the study. If the gestational sac was passed, the patients were asked to do a urine pregnancy test 3 weeks after entering the study to conclude their care episode. If patients did not pass the gestational sac, they were offered a second dose of misoprostol or surgical evacuation. At 7 days of follow-up, the success rates in the mifepristone-misoprostol and misoprostol-alone groups were 83% and 76%, respectively. Surgical intervention was performed in 25% of patients treated with placebo-misoprostol and 17% of patients treated with mifepristone-misoprostol (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53 ̶ 0.95; P=.021).¹² A cost-effectiveness analysis of the trial results reported that the combination of mifepristone-misoprostol was less costly than misoprostolalone for the management of missed miscarriages.¹³

Photo: Getty Images

Expectant management versus uterine aspiration

The combined results of 7 clinical trials that included a total of 1,693 patients showed that successful treatment of miscarriage with expectant management or uterine aspiration occurred in 68% and 93% of cases, respectively.⁵ In one study, 700 patients with miscarriage were randomly assigned to expectant management or uterine aspiration. Treatment was successful for 56% and 95% of patients in the expectant management and uterine aspiration groups, respectively.⁶

The Cochrane network meta-analysis concluded that cervical preparation followed by uterine aspiration may be more effective than expectant management, with a reported risk ratio (RR) of 2.12 (95% CI, 1.41–3.20) with low-certainty evidence.⁵ In addition, uterine aspiration compared with expectant management may reduce the risk of serious complications (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.23–1.32), with a wide range of treatment effects in reported trials and low-certainty evidence.⁵

In the treatment of miscarriage, the efficacy of expectant management may vary by the type of miscarriage. In one study, following the identification of a miscarriage, the percent of patients who have completed the expulsion of pregnancy tissue by 14 days was reported to be 84% for incomplete miscarriage, 59% for pregnancy loss with no expulsion of tissue, and 52% with ultrasound detection of a nonviable pregnancy with a gestational sac.¹⁴

Expectant management versus mifepristone-misoprostol

Aggregated data from 3 clinical trials that included a total of 910 patients showed that successful treatment with expectant management or mifepristone-misoprostol was reported in 48% and 68% of cases, respectively.⁵ The Cochrane network meta-analysis concluded that mifepristone-misoprostol may be more effective than expectant management, with a risk ratio of 1.42 (95% CI, 1.22–1.66) with low-certainty evidence. In addition, mifepristone-misoprostol compared with expectant management may reduce the risk for serious complications (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.31–1.84) with wide range of treatment effects and low-certainty evidence.⁵

Continue to: Expectant management versus misoprostol...

The combined results of 10 clinical trials that included a total of 838 patients with miscarriage, showed that successful treatment with expectant management or misoprostol-alone occurred in 44% and 75% of cases, respectively.⁵ Among 3 studies limiting enrollment to patients with missed miscarriage, successful treatment with expectant management or misoprostol-alone occurred in 32% and 70%, respectively.⁵

The Cochrane analysis concluded that misoprostol-alone may be more effective than expectant management, with a reported risk ratio of 1.30 (95% CI, 1.16–1.46) with low-certainty evidence. In addition, misoprostol-alone compared with expectant management may reduce the risk of serious complications (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.22–1.15) with a wide range of treatment effects and low-certainty evidence.⁵

Patient experience of miscarriage care

Pregnancy loss is often a distressing experience, which is associated with grief, anxiety, depression, and guilt, lasting up to 2 years for some patients.^15,16 Patient dissatisfaction with miscarriage care often focuses on 4 issues: a perceived lack of emotional support, failure to elicit patient preferences for treatment, insufficient provision of information, and inconsistent posttreatment follow-up.^17-19 When caring for patients with miscarriage, key goals are to communicate medical information with empathy and to provide emotional support. In the setting of a miscarriage, it is easy for patients to perceive that the clinician is insensitive and cold.¹⁵ Expressions of sympathy, compassion, and condolence help build an emotional connection and improve trust with the patient. Communications that may be helpful include: “I am sorry for your loss,” “I wish the outcome could be different,” “Our clinical team wants to provide you the best care possible,” and “May I ask how you are feeling?” Many patients report that they would like to have been offered mental health services as part of their miscarriage care.¹⁵

The Cochrane network meta-analysis of miscarriage concluded that uterine aspiration, misoprostol-mifepristone, and misoprostol-alone were likely more effective in resolving a miscarriage than expectant management.⁵ The strength of the conclusion was limited because of significant heterogeneity among studies, including different inclusion criteria, definition of success, and length of follow-up. Clinical trials with follow-up intervals more than 7 days generally reported greater success rates with expectant¹⁴ and medication management⁸ than studies with short follow-up intervals. Generally, expectant or medication management treatment is more likely to be successful in cases of incomplete abortion than in cases of missed miscarriage.⁵

In a rank analysis of treatment efficacy, uterine aspiration was top-ranked, followed by medication management. Expectant management had the greatest probability of being associated with unplanned uterine aspiration. Based on my analysis of available miscarriage studies, I estimate that the treatment success rates are approximately:

• uterine aspiration (93% to 99%)
• misoprostol-mifepristone (66% to 84%)
• misoprostol-alone (62% to 76%)
• expectant management (32% to 68%).

Although there may be significant differences in efficacy among the treatment options, offering patients all available approaches to treatment, providing information about the relative success of each approach, and eliciting the patient preference for care ensures an optimal patient experience during a major life event. ●
 

First trimester miscarriage, the presence of a nonviable intrauterine pregnancy before 13 weeks’ gestation, is a common complication occurring in approximately 15% of clinical pregnancies.^1,2 The goals for the holistic management of first-trimester miscarriage are to 1) reduce the risk of complications such as excessive bleeding and infection, 2) ensure that the patient is supported during a time of great distress, and 3) optimally counsel the patient about treatment options and elicit the patient’s preferences for care.³ To resolve a miscarriage, the intrauterine pregnancy tissue must be expelled, restoring normal reproductive function.

The options for the management of a nonviable intrauterine pregnancy include expectant management, medication treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol or misoprostol-alone, or uterine aspiration. In the absence of uterine hemorrhage, infection, or another severe complication of miscarriage, the patient’s preferences should guide the choice of treatment. Many patients with miscarriage prioritize avoiding medical interventions and may prefer expectant management. A patient who prefers rapid and reliable completion of the pregnancy loss process may prefer uterine aspiration. If the patient prefers to avoid uterine aspiration but desires control over the time and location of the expulsion process, medication treatment may be optimal. Many other factors influence a patient’s choice of miscarriage treatment, including balancing work and childcare issues and the ease of scheduling a uterine aspiration. In counseling patients about the options for miscarriage treatment it is helpful to know the success rate of each treatment option.⁴ This editorial reviews miscarriage treatment outcomes as summarized in a recent Cochrane network meta-analysis.⁵

Uterine aspiration versus mifepristone-misoprostol

In 2 clinical trials that included 899 patients with miscarriage, successful treatment with uterine aspira-tion versus mifepristone-misoprostolwas reported in 95% and 66% of cases, respectively.^6,7

In the largest clinical trial comparing uterine aspiration to mifepristone-misoprostol, 801 patients with first-trimester miscarriage were randomly assigned to uterine aspiration or mifepristone-misoprostol.⁶ Uterine aspiration and mifepristone-misoprostol were associated with successful miscarriage treatment in 95% and 64% of cases, respectively. In the uterine aspiration group, a second uterine aspiration occurred in 5% of patients. Two patients in the uterine aspiration group needed a third uterine aspiration to resolve the miscarriage. In the mifepristone-misoprostol group, 36% of patients had a uterine aspiration. It should be noted that the trial protocol guided patients having a medication abortion to uterine aspiration if expulsion of miscarriage tissue had not occurred within 8 hours of receiving misoprostol. If the trial protocol permitted 1 to 4 weeks of monitoring after mifepristone-misoprostol treatment, the success rate with medication treatment would be greater. Six to 8 weeks following miscarriage treatment, patient-reported anxiety and depression symptoms were similar in both groups.⁶

Uterine aspiration versus misoprostol

Among 3 clinical trials that limited enrollment to patients with missed miscarriage, involving 308 patients, the success rates for uterine aspiration and misoprostol treatment was 95% and 62%, respectively.⁵

In a study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, 652 patients with missed miscarriage or incomplete miscarriage were randomly assigned in a 1:3 ratioto uterine aspiration or misoprostol treatment (800 µg vaginally). After 8 days of follow-up, successful treatment rates among the patients treated with uterine evacuation or misoprostol was 97% and 84%, respectively.⁸ Of note, with misoprostol treatment the success rate increased from day 3 to day 8 of follow-up—from 71% to 84%.⁸

Continue to: Mifepristone-misoprostol versus misoprostol...

The combined results of 7 clinical trials of medication management of missed miscarriage that included 1,812 patients showed that successful treatment with mifepristone-misoprostol or misoprostol alone occurred in 80% and 70% of cases, respectively.⁵

Schreiber and colleagues⁹ reported a study of 300 patients with an anembryonic gestation or embryonic demise that were between 5 and 12 completed weeks of gestation and randomly assigned to treatment with mifepristone (200 mg) plus vaginal misoprostol (800 µg) administered 24 to 48 hours after mifepristone or vaginal misoprostol (800 µg) alone. Ultrasonography was performed 1 to 4 days after misoprostol administration. Successful treatment was defined as expulsion of the gestational sac plus no additional surgical or medical intervention within 30 days after treatment. In this study, the dual-medication regimen of mifepristone-misoprostol was more successful than misoprostol alone in resolving the miscarriage, 84% and 67%, respectively (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09–1.43). Surgical evacuation of the uterus occurred less often with mifepristone-misoprostol treatment (9%) than with misoprostol monotherapy (24%) (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21 ̶ 0.68). Pelvic infection occurred in 2 patients (1.3%) in each group. Uterine bleeding managed with blood transfusion occurred in 3 patients who received mifepristone-misoprostol and 1 patient who received misoprostol alone. In this study, clinical factors, including active bleeding, parity, and gestational age did not influence treatment success with the mifepristone-misoprostol regimen.¹⁰ The mifepristone-misoprostol regimen was reported to be more cost-effective than misoprostol alone.¹¹Chu and colleagues¹² reporteda study of medication treatmentof missed miscarriage that included more than 700 patients randomly assigned to treatment with mifepristone-misoprostol or placebo-misoprostol. Missed miscarriage was diagnosed by an ultrasound demonstrating a gestational sac and a nonviable pregnancy. The doses of mifepristone and misoprostol were 200 mg and 800 µg, respectively. In this study, the misoprostol was administered 48 hours following mifepristone or placebo using a vaginal, oral, or buccal route; 90% of patients used the vaginal route. Treatment was considered successful if the patient passed the gestational sac as determined by an ultrasound performed 7 days after entry into the study. If the gestational sac was passed, the patients were asked to do a urine pregnancy test 3 weeks after entering the study to conclude their care episode. If patients did not pass the gestational sac, they were offered a second dose of misoprostol or surgical evacuation. At 7 days of follow-up, the success rates in the mifepristone-misoprostol and misoprostol-alone groups were 83% and 76%, respectively. Surgical intervention was performed in 25% of patients treated with placebo-misoprostol and 17% of patients treated with mifepristone-misoprostol (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53 ̶ 0.95; P=.021).¹² A cost-effectiveness analysis of the trial results reported that the combination of mifepristone-misoprostol was less costly than misoprostolalone for the management of missed miscarriages.¹³

Photo: Getty Images

Expectant management versus uterine aspiration

The combined results of 7 clinical trials that included a total of 1,693 patients showed that successful treatment of miscarriage with expectant management or uterine aspiration occurred in 68% and 93% of cases, respectively.⁵ In one study, 700 patients with miscarriage were randomly assigned to expectant management or uterine aspiration. Treatment was successful for 56% and 95% of patients in the expectant management and uterine aspiration groups, respectively.⁶

The Cochrane network meta-analysis concluded that cervical preparation followed by uterine aspiration may be more effective than expectant management, with a reported risk ratio (RR) of 2.12 (95% CI, 1.41–3.20) with low-certainty evidence.⁵ In addition, uterine aspiration compared with expectant management may reduce the risk of serious complications (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.23–1.32), with a wide range of treatment effects in reported trials and low-certainty evidence.⁵

In the treatment of miscarriage, the efficacy of expectant management may vary by the type of miscarriage. In one study, following the identification of a miscarriage, the percent of patients who have completed the expulsion of pregnancy tissue by 14 days was reported to be 84% for incomplete miscarriage, 59% for pregnancy loss with no expulsion of tissue, and 52% with ultrasound detection of a nonviable pregnancy with a gestational sac.¹⁴

Expectant management versus mifepristone-misoprostol

Aggregated data from 3 clinical trials that included a total of 910 patients showed that successful treatment with expectant management or mifepristone-misoprostol was reported in 48% and 68% of cases, respectively.⁵ The Cochrane network meta-analysis concluded that mifepristone-misoprostol may be more effective than expectant management, with a risk ratio of 1.42 (95% CI, 1.22–1.66) with low-certainty evidence. In addition, mifepristone-misoprostol compared with expectant management may reduce the risk for serious complications (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.31–1.84) with wide range of treatment effects and low-certainty evidence.⁵

Continue to: Expectant management versus misoprostol...

The combined results of 10 clinical trials that included a total of 838 patients with miscarriage, showed that successful treatment with expectant management or misoprostol-alone occurred in 44% and 75% of cases, respectively.⁵ Among 3 studies limiting enrollment to patients with missed miscarriage, successful treatment with expectant management or misoprostol-alone occurred in 32% and 70%, respectively.⁵

The Cochrane analysis concluded that misoprostol-alone may be more effective than expectant management, with a reported risk ratio of 1.30 (95% CI, 1.16–1.46) with low-certainty evidence. In addition, misoprostol-alone compared with expectant management may reduce the risk of serious complications (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.22–1.15) with a wide range of treatment effects and low-certainty evidence.⁵

Patient experience of miscarriage care

Pregnancy loss is often a distressing experience, which is associated with grief, anxiety, depression, and guilt, lasting up to 2 years for some patients.^15,16 Patient dissatisfaction with miscarriage care often focuses on 4 issues: a perceived lack of emotional support, failure to elicit patient preferences for treatment, insufficient provision of information, and inconsistent posttreatment follow-up.^17-19 When caring for patients with miscarriage, key goals are to communicate medical information with empathy and to provide emotional support. In the setting of a miscarriage, it is easy for patients to perceive that the clinician is insensitive and cold.¹⁵ Expressions of sympathy, compassion, and condolence help build an emotional connection and improve trust with the patient. Communications that may be helpful include: “I am sorry for your loss,” “I wish the outcome could be different,” “Our clinical team wants to provide you the best care possible,” and “May I ask how you are feeling?” Many patients report that they would like to have been offered mental health services as part of their miscarriage care.¹⁵

The Cochrane network meta-analysis of miscarriage concluded that uterine aspiration, misoprostol-mifepristone, and misoprostol-alone were likely more effective in resolving a miscarriage than expectant management.⁵ The strength of the conclusion was limited because of significant heterogeneity among studies, including different inclusion criteria, definition of success, and length of follow-up. Clinical trials with follow-up intervals more than 7 days generally reported greater success rates with expectant¹⁴ and medication management⁸ than studies with short follow-up intervals. Generally, expectant or medication management treatment is more likely to be successful in cases of incomplete abortion than in cases of missed miscarriage.⁵

In a rank analysis of treatment efficacy, uterine aspiration was top-ranked, followed by medication management. Expectant management had the greatest probability of being associated with unplanned uterine aspiration. Based on my analysis of available miscarriage studies, I estimate that the treatment success rates are approximately:

• uterine aspiration (93% to 99%)
• misoprostol-mifepristone (66% to 84%)
• misoprostol-alone (62% to 76%)
• expectant management (32% to 68%).

Although there may be significant differences in efficacy among the treatment options, offering patients all available approaches to treatment, providing information about the relative success of each approach, and eliciting the patient preference for care ensures an optimal patient experience during a major life event. ●
 

First trimester miscarriage, the presence of a nonviable intrauterine pregnancy before 13 weeks’ gestation, is a common complication occurring in approximately 15% of clinical pregnancies.^1,2 The goals for the holistic management of first-trimester miscarriage are to 1) reduce the risk of complications such as excessive bleeding and infection, 2) ensure that the patient is supported during a time of great distress, and 3) optimally counsel the patient about treatment options and elicit the patient’s preferences for care.³ To resolve a miscarriage, the intrauterine pregnancy tissue must be expelled, restoring normal reproductive function.

The options for the management of a nonviable intrauterine pregnancy include expectant management, medication treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol or misoprostol-alone, or uterine aspiration. In the absence of uterine hemorrhage, infection, or another severe complication of miscarriage, the patient’s preferences should guide the choice of treatment. Many patients with miscarriage prioritize avoiding medical interventions and may prefer expectant management. A patient who prefers rapid and reliable completion of the pregnancy loss process may prefer uterine aspiration. If the patient prefers to avoid uterine aspiration but desires control over the time and location of the expulsion process, medication treatment may be optimal. Many other factors influence a patient’s choice of miscarriage treatment, including balancing work and childcare issues and the ease of scheduling a uterine aspiration. In counseling patients about the options for miscarriage treatment it is helpful to know the success rate of each treatment option.⁴ This editorial reviews miscarriage treatment outcomes as summarized in a recent Cochrane network meta-analysis.⁵

Uterine aspiration versus mifepristone-misoprostol

In 2 clinical trials that included 899 patients with miscarriage, successful treatment with uterine aspira-tion versus mifepristone-misoprostolwas reported in 95% and 66% of cases, respectively.^6,7

In the largest clinical trial comparing uterine aspiration to mifepristone-misoprostol, 801 patients with first-trimester miscarriage were randomly assigned to uterine aspiration or mifepristone-misoprostol.⁶ Uterine aspiration and mifepristone-misoprostol were associated with successful miscarriage treatment in 95% and 64% of cases, respectively. In the uterine aspiration group, a second uterine aspiration occurred in 5% of patients. Two patients in the uterine aspiration group needed a third uterine aspiration to resolve the miscarriage. In the mifepristone-misoprostol group, 36% of patients had a uterine aspiration. It should be noted that the trial protocol guided patients having a medication abortion to uterine aspiration if expulsion of miscarriage tissue had not occurred within 8 hours of receiving misoprostol. If the trial protocol permitted 1 to 4 weeks of monitoring after mifepristone-misoprostol treatment, the success rate with medication treatment would be greater. Six to 8 weeks following miscarriage treatment, patient-reported anxiety and depression symptoms were similar in both groups.⁶

Uterine aspiration versus misoprostol

Among 3 clinical trials that limited enrollment to patients with missed miscarriage, involving 308 patients, the success rates for uterine aspiration and misoprostol treatment was 95% and 62%, respectively.⁵

In a study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, 652 patients with missed miscarriage or incomplete miscarriage were randomly assigned in a 1:3 ratioto uterine aspiration or misoprostol treatment (800 µg vaginally). After 8 days of follow-up, successful treatment rates among the patients treated with uterine evacuation or misoprostol was 97% and 84%, respectively.⁸ Of note, with misoprostol treatment the success rate increased from day 3 to day 8 of follow-up—from 71% to 84%.⁸

Continue to: Mifepristone-misoprostol versus misoprostol...

The combined results of 7 clinical trials of medication management of missed miscarriage that included 1,812 patients showed that successful treatment with mifepristone-misoprostol or misoprostol alone occurred in 80% and 70% of cases, respectively.⁵

Schreiber and colleagues⁹ reported a study of 300 patients with an anembryonic gestation or embryonic demise that were between 5 and 12 completed weeks of gestation and randomly assigned to treatment with mifepristone (200 mg) plus vaginal misoprostol (800 µg) administered 24 to 48 hours after mifepristone or vaginal misoprostol (800 µg) alone. Ultrasonography was performed 1 to 4 days after misoprostol administration. Successful treatment was defined as expulsion of the gestational sac plus no additional surgical or medical intervention within 30 days after treatment. In this study, the dual-medication regimen of mifepristone-misoprostol was more successful than misoprostol alone in resolving the miscarriage, 84% and 67%, respectively (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09–1.43). Surgical evacuation of the uterus occurred less often with mifepristone-misoprostol treatment (9%) than with misoprostol monotherapy (24%) (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21 ̶ 0.68). Pelvic infection occurred in 2 patients (1.3%) in each group. Uterine bleeding managed with blood transfusion occurred in 3 patients who received mifepristone-misoprostol and 1 patient who received misoprostol alone. In this study, clinical factors, including active bleeding, parity, and gestational age did not influence treatment success with the mifepristone-misoprostol regimen.¹⁰ The mifepristone-misoprostol regimen was reported to be more cost-effective than misoprostol alone.¹¹Chu and colleagues¹² reporteda study of medication treatmentof missed miscarriage that included more than 700 patients randomly assigned to treatment with mifepristone-misoprostol or placebo-misoprostol. Missed miscarriage was diagnosed by an ultrasound demonstrating a gestational sac and a nonviable pregnancy. The doses of mifepristone and misoprostol were 200 mg and 800 µg, respectively. In this study, the misoprostol was administered 48 hours following mifepristone or placebo using a vaginal, oral, or buccal route; 90% of patients used the vaginal route. Treatment was considered successful if the patient passed the gestational sac as determined by an ultrasound performed 7 days after entry into the study. If the gestational sac was passed, the patients were asked to do a urine pregnancy test 3 weeks after entering the study to conclude their care episode. If patients did not pass the gestational sac, they were offered a second dose of misoprostol or surgical evacuation. At 7 days of follow-up, the success rates in the mifepristone-misoprostol and misoprostol-alone groups were 83% and 76%, respectively. Surgical intervention was performed in 25% of patients treated with placebo-misoprostol and 17% of patients treated with mifepristone-misoprostol (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53 ̶ 0.95; P=.021).¹² A cost-effectiveness analysis of the trial results reported that the combination of mifepristone-misoprostol was less costly than misoprostolalone for the management of missed miscarriages.¹³

Photo: Getty Images

Expectant management versus uterine aspiration

The combined results of 7 clinical trials that included a total of 1,693 patients showed that successful treatment of miscarriage with expectant management or uterine aspiration occurred in 68% and 93% of cases, respectively.⁵ In one study, 700 patients with miscarriage were randomly assigned to expectant management or uterine aspiration. Treatment was successful for 56% and 95% of patients in the expectant management and uterine aspiration groups, respectively.⁶

The Cochrane network meta-analysis concluded that cervical preparation followed by uterine aspiration may be more effective than expectant management, with a reported risk ratio (RR) of 2.12 (95% CI, 1.41–3.20) with low-certainty evidence.⁵ In addition, uterine aspiration compared with expectant management may reduce the risk of serious complications (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.23–1.32), with a wide range of treatment effects in reported trials and low-certainty evidence.⁵

In the treatment of miscarriage, the efficacy of expectant management may vary by the type of miscarriage. In one study, following the identification of a miscarriage, the percent of patients who have completed the expulsion of pregnancy tissue by 14 days was reported to be 84% for incomplete miscarriage, 59% for pregnancy loss with no expulsion of tissue, and 52% with ultrasound detection of a nonviable pregnancy with a gestational sac.¹⁴

Expectant management versus mifepristone-misoprostol

Aggregated data from 3 clinical trials that included a total of 910 patients showed that successful treatment with expectant management or mifepristone-misoprostol was reported in 48% and 68% of cases, respectively.⁵ The Cochrane network meta-analysis concluded that mifepristone-misoprostol may be more effective than expectant management, with a risk ratio of 1.42 (95% CI, 1.22–1.66) with low-certainty evidence. In addition, mifepristone-misoprostol compared with expectant management may reduce the risk for serious complications (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.31–1.84) with wide range of treatment effects and low-certainty evidence.⁵

Continue to: Expectant management versus misoprostol...

The combined results of 10 clinical trials that included a total of 838 patients with miscarriage, showed that successful treatment with expectant management or misoprostol-alone occurred in 44% and 75% of cases, respectively.⁵ Among 3 studies limiting enrollment to patients with missed miscarriage, successful treatment with expectant management or misoprostol-alone occurred in 32% and 70%, respectively.⁵

The Cochrane analysis concluded that misoprostol-alone may be more effective than expectant management, with a reported risk ratio of 1.30 (95% CI, 1.16–1.46) with low-certainty evidence. In addition, misoprostol-alone compared with expectant management may reduce the risk of serious complications (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.22–1.15) with a wide range of treatment effects and low-certainty evidence.⁵

Patient experience of miscarriage care

Pregnancy loss is often a distressing experience, which is associated with grief, anxiety, depression, and guilt, lasting up to 2 years for some patients.^15,16 Patient dissatisfaction with miscarriage care often focuses on 4 issues: a perceived lack of emotional support, failure to elicit patient preferences for treatment, insufficient provision of information, and inconsistent posttreatment follow-up.^17-19 When caring for patients with miscarriage, key goals are to communicate medical information with empathy and to provide emotional support. In the setting of a miscarriage, it is easy for patients to perceive that the clinician is insensitive and cold.¹⁵ Expressions of sympathy, compassion, and condolence help build an emotional connection and improve trust with the patient. Communications that may be helpful include: “I am sorry for your loss,” “I wish the outcome could be different,” “Our clinical team wants to provide you the best care possible,” and “May I ask how you are feeling?” Many patients report that they would like to have been offered mental health services as part of their miscarriage care.¹⁵

The Cochrane network meta-analysis of miscarriage concluded that uterine aspiration, misoprostol-mifepristone, and misoprostol-alone were likely more effective in resolving a miscarriage than expectant management.⁵ The strength of the conclusion was limited because of significant heterogeneity among studies, including different inclusion criteria, definition of success, and length of follow-up. Clinical trials with follow-up intervals more than 7 days generally reported greater success rates with expectant¹⁴ and medication management⁸ than studies with short follow-up intervals. Generally, expectant or medication management treatment is more likely to be successful in cases of incomplete abortion than in cases of missed miscarriage.⁵

In a rank analysis of treatment efficacy, uterine aspiration was top-ranked, followed by medication management. Expectant management had the greatest probability of being associated with unplanned uterine aspiration. Based on my analysis of available miscarriage studies, I estimate that the treatment success rates are approximately:

• uterine aspiration (93% to 99%)
• misoprostol-mifepristone (66% to 84%)
• misoprostol-alone (62% to 76%)
• expectant management (32% to 68%).

Although there may be significant differences in efficacy among the treatment options, offering patients all available approaches to treatment, providing information about the relative success of each approach, and eliciting the patient preference for care ensures an optimal patient experience during a major life event. ●
 

With a federal judge’s recent ruling clouding the future availability of mifepristone for terminating pregnancies, attention has shifted to the efficacy of another abortion drug, misoprostol.

Experts said a misoprostol-only regimen for medical abortions is as safe as but not as effective as the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol. A misoprostol-only approach also comes with more pronounced side effects.

“Misoprostol only is a good alternative; it’s not the best alternative,” Beverly Gray, MD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and Gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said during a video conference on April 12. “The best medication would be to use mifepristone and misoprostol together because they’re efficacious with fewer side effects.”

To medically terminate a pregnancy using the two-drug regimen, patients first take the progesterone blocker mifepristone, which ends the pregnancy. That is followed 24-48 hours later with misoprostol, which causes the uterus to expel the pregnancy tissue. Used in combination, the two drugs have an efficacy rate of 98% in terminating a pregnancy.

An alternative approach is a misoprostol-only regimen. Patients take multiple doses of the drug over the course of hours until the pregnancy passes. This method is considered effective and safe, although patients may experience more nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding, and cramping.

“It’s effective, but not as effective as the combination treatment,” said Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at University of California, Davis. “It also requires much higher doses. To get misoprostol by itself to have relatively high efficacy, you have to use multiple doses. It causes significantly more side effects, and it’s less effective.”

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

With a federal judge’s recent ruling clouding the future availability of mifepristone for terminating pregnancies, attention has shifted to the efficacy of another abortion drug, misoprostol.

Experts said a misoprostol-only regimen for medical abortions is as safe as but not as effective as the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol. A misoprostol-only approach also comes with more pronounced side effects.

“Misoprostol only is a good alternative; it’s not the best alternative,” Beverly Gray, MD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and Gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said during a video conference on April 12. “The best medication would be to use mifepristone and misoprostol together because they’re efficacious with fewer side effects.”

To medically terminate a pregnancy using the two-drug regimen, patients first take the progesterone blocker mifepristone, which ends the pregnancy. That is followed 24-48 hours later with misoprostol, which causes the uterus to expel the pregnancy tissue. Used in combination, the two drugs have an efficacy rate of 98% in terminating a pregnancy.

An alternative approach is a misoprostol-only regimen. Patients take multiple doses of the drug over the course of hours until the pregnancy passes. This method is considered effective and safe, although patients may experience more nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding, and cramping.

“It’s effective, but not as effective as the combination treatment,” said Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at University of California, Davis. “It also requires much higher doses. To get misoprostol by itself to have relatively high efficacy, you have to use multiple doses. It causes significantly more side effects, and it’s less effective.”

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

With a federal judge’s recent ruling clouding the future availability of mifepristone for terminating pregnancies, attention has shifted to the efficacy of another abortion drug, misoprostol.

Experts said a misoprostol-only regimen for medical abortions is as safe as but not as effective as the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol. A misoprostol-only approach also comes with more pronounced side effects.

“Misoprostol only is a good alternative; it’s not the best alternative,” Beverly Gray, MD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and Gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said during a video conference on April 12. “The best medication would be to use mifepristone and misoprostol together because they’re efficacious with fewer side effects.”

To medically terminate a pregnancy using the two-drug regimen, patients first take the progesterone blocker mifepristone, which ends the pregnancy. That is followed 24-48 hours later with misoprostol, which causes the uterus to expel the pregnancy tissue. Used in combination, the two drugs have an efficacy rate of 98% in terminating a pregnancy.

An alternative approach is a misoprostol-only regimen. Patients take multiple doses of the drug over the course of hours until the pregnancy passes. This method is considered effective and safe, although patients may experience more nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding, and cramping.

“It’s effective, but not as effective as the combination treatment,” said Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at University of California, Davis. “It also requires much higher doses. To get misoprostol by itself to have relatively high efficacy, you have to use multiple doses. It causes significantly more side effects, and it’s less effective.”

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

Contrary to popular belief, an infant’s gut microbiome is not primarily shaped by the mother’s vaginal microbiome, results of a new study indicate. The findings suggest that practices such as vaginal seeding are ineffective.

A longitudinal, prospective cohort study of more than 600 pregnant Canadian women and their newborns showed significant differences in an infant’s stool composition by delivery mode at 10 days post partum, but the differences could not be explained by the mother’s vaginal microbiome, and they effectively disappeared by 3 months.

Henry Wells

The findings were surprising, Scott Dos Santos, a PhD candidate at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, told this news organization. “The bacteria living in the maternal vagina are the first microbes that vaginally delivered infants are exposed to. … so it sounds intuitive that different kinds of vaginal microbiomes could end up influencing the development of a baby’s gut microbiome in different ways. But the maternal vaginal microbiome didn’t seem to have any role in predicting what the infant stool microbiome looked like.”

Therefore, women should not be concerned about cesarean delivery having an adverse effect on their baby’s gut microbiome, said Mr. Dos Santos. Moreover, “vaginal seeding is not safe or advised. Professional bodies, including the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, strongly advise against this practice.”

The study was published online in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology.
 

Independent communities

The investigators analyzed vaginal and stool microbiome profiles from 442 mother-infant dyads. The mothers were healthy, low-risk women who delivered at term. They were recruited into the Maternal Microbiome LEGACY Project from three hospitals in British Columbia.

The mean age of the mothers at delivery was 34.6 years, which is typical of the study hospitals’ delivery populations. Participants identified themselves as White (54.7%), Asian (21.2%), South Asian (8.3%), and of other ethnicities.

A nurse, midwife, or clinician collected maternal vaginal swabs of the posterior fornix and lateral vaginal wall at first presentation to the labor and delivery area. Neonatal meconium, which was defined as the first stool specimen collected within 72 hours of birth, and two infant stool samples were collected at follow-up visits at 10 days and 3 months post partum.

A principal component analysis of infant stool microbiomes showed no significant clustering of microbiome profiles at 10 days or 3 months by maternal community state types (that is, microbial species).

Correspondence analyses also showed no coclustering of maternal and infant clusters at either time. In addition, there were no differences in the distribution of maternal vaginal microbiome clusters among infant stool microbiome clusters, regardless of delivery mode.

Vaginal microbiome clusters were distributed across infant stool clusters in proportion to their frequency in the overall maternal population, indicating that the two communities were independent of each other.

Intrapartum antibiotic administration was identified as a confounder of infant stool microbiome differences and was associated with lower abundances of Escherichia coli, Bacteroides vulgatus, Bifidobacterium longum, and Parabacteroides distasonis.

“Our findings demonstrate that maternal vaginal microbiome composition at delivery does not affect infant stool microbiome composition and development, suggesting that practices to amend infant stool microbiome composition focus on factors other than maternal vaginal microbes,” the authors conclude.
 

More evidence needed

Commenting on the study, Emily H. Adhikari, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and medical director of perinatal infectious diseases for the Parkland Health and Hospital System, said, “These findings contribute significantly more data to an understudied area of research into factors that affect the infant gut microbiome from the earliest hours of life. Prior studies have been small and often conflicting, and the authors reference recent larger studies, which corroborate their findings.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

The data regarding whether delivery mode or antibiotic-associated differences in infant microbiomes persist remain controversial, said Dr. Adhikari. “More evidence is needed involving a more ethnically diverse sampling of patients.” In addition, prospectively evaluating vaginal seeding in a rigorously designed clinical trial setting is “imperative to understand any potential benefit and certainly to understand the potential harms of the practice. To date, this does not exist.”

The study was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant. Mr. Dos Santos and Dr. Adhikari have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to popular belief, an infant’s gut microbiome is not primarily shaped by the mother’s vaginal microbiome, results of a new study indicate. The findings suggest that practices such as vaginal seeding are ineffective.

A longitudinal, prospective cohort study of more than 600 pregnant Canadian women and their newborns showed significant differences in an infant’s stool composition by delivery mode at 10 days post partum, but the differences could not be explained by the mother’s vaginal microbiome, and they effectively disappeared by 3 months.

Henry Wells

The findings were surprising, Scott Dos Santos, a PhD candidate at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, told this news organization. “The bacteria living in the maternal vagina are the first microbes that vaginally delivered infants are exposed to. … so it sounds intuitive that different kinds of vaginal microbiomes could end up influencing the development of a baby’s gut microbiome in different ways. But the maternal vaginal microbiome didn’t seem to have any role in predicting what the infant stool microbiome looked like.”

Therefore, women should not be concerned about cesarean delivery having an adverse effect on their baby’s gut microbiome, said Mr. Dos Santos. Moreover, “vaginal seeding is not safe or advised. Professional bodies, including the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, strongly advise against this practice.”

The study was published online in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology.
 

Independent communities

The investigators analyzed vaginal and stool microbiome profiles from 442 mother-infant dyads. The mothers were healthy, low-risk women who delivered at term. They were recruited into the Maternal Microbiome LEGACY Project from three hospitals in British Columbia.

The mean age of the mothers at delivery was 34.6 years, which is typical of the study hospitals’ delivery populations. Participants identified themselves as White (54.7%), Asian (21.2%), South Asian (8.3%), and of other ethnicities.

A nurse, midwife, or clinician collected maternal vaginal swabs of the posterior fornix and lateral vaginal wall at first presentation to the labor and delivery area. Neonatal meconium, which was defined as the first stool specimen collected within 72 hours of birth, and two infant stool samples were collected at follow-up visits at 10 days and 3 months post partum.

A principal component analysis of infant stool microbiomes showed no significant clustering of microbiome profiles at 10 days or 3 months by maternal community state types (that is, microbial species).

Correspondence analyses also showed no coclustering of maternal and infant clusters at either time. In addition, there were no differences in the distribution of maternal vaginal microbiome clusters among infant stool microbiome clusters, regardless of delivery mode.

Vaginal microbiome clusters were distributed across infant stool clusters in proportion to their frequency in the overall maternal population, indicating that the two communities were independent of each other.

Intrapartum antibiotic administration was identified as a confounder of infant stool microbiome differences and was associated with lower abundances of Escherichia coli, Bacteroides vulgatus, Bifidobacterium longum, and Parabacteroides distasonis.

“Our findings demonstrate that maternal vaginal microbiome composition at delivery does not affect infant stool microbiome composition and development, suggesting that practices to amend infant stool microbiome composition focus on factors other than maternal vaginal microbes,” the authors conclude.
 

More evidence needed

Commenting on the study, Emily H. Adhikari, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and medical director of perinatal infectious diseases for the Parkland Health and Hospital System, said, “These findings contribute significantly more data to an understudied area of research into factors that affect the infant gut microbiome from the earliest hours of life. Prior studies have been small and often conflicting, and the authors reference recent larger studies, which corroborate their findings.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

The data regarding whether delivery mode or antibiotic-associated differences in infant microbiomes persist remain controversial, said Dr. Adhikari. “More evidence is needed involving a more ethnically diverse sampling of patients.” In addition, prospectively evaluating vaginal seeding in a rigorously designed clinical trial setting is “imperative to understand any potential benefit and certainly to understand the potential harms of the practice. To date, this does not exist.”

The study was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant. Mr. Dos Santos and Dr. Adhikari have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to popular belief, an infant’s gut microbiome is not primarily shaped by the mother’s vaginal microbiome, results of a new study indicate. The findings suggest that practices such as vaginal seeding are ineffective.

A longitudinal, prospective cohort study of more than 600 pregnant Canadian women and their newborns showed significant differences in an infant’s stool composition by delivery mode at 10 days post partum, but the differences could not be explained by the mother’s vaginal microbiome, and they effectively disappeared by 3 months.

Henry Wells

The findings were surprising, Scott Dos Santos, a PhD candidate at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, told this news organization. “The bacteria living in the maternal vagina are the first microbes that vaginally delivered infants are exposed to. … so it sounds intuitive that different kinds of vaginal microbiomes could end up influencing the development of a baby’s gut microbiome in different ways. But the maternal vaginal microbiome didn’t seem to have any role in predicting what the infant stool microbiome looked like.”

Therefore, women should not be concerned about cesarean delivery having an adverse effect on their baby’s gut microbiome, said Mr. Dos Santos. Moreover, “vaginal seeding is not safe or advised. Professional bodies, including the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, strongly advise against this practice.”

The study was published online in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology.
 

Independent communities

The investigators analyzed vaginal and stool microbiome profiles from 442 mother-infant dyads. The mothers were healthy, low-risk women who delivered at term. They were recruited into the Maternal Microbiome LEGACY Project from three hospitals in British Columbia.

The mean age of the mothers at delivery was 34.6 years, which is typical of the study hospitals’ delivery populations. Participants identified themselves as White (54.7%), Asian (21.2%), South Asian (8.3%), and of other ethnicities.

A nurse, midwife, or clinician collected maternal vaginal swabs of the posterior fornix and lateral vaginal wall at first presentation to the labor and delivery area. Neonatal meconium, which was defined as the first stool specimen collected within 72 hours of birth, and two infant stool samples were collected at follow-up visits at 10 days and 3 months post partum.

A principal component analysis of infant stool microbiomes showed no significant clustering of microbiome profiles at 10 days or 3 months by maternal community state types (that is, microbial species).

Correspondence analyses also showed no coclustering of maternal and infant clusters at either time. In addition, there were no differences in the distribution of maternal vaginal microbiome clusters among infant stool microbiome clusters, regardless of delivery mode.

Vaginal microbiome clusters were distributed across infant stool clusters in proportion to their frequency in the overall maternal population, indicating that the two communities were independent of each other.

Intrapartum antibiotic administration was identified as a confounder of infant stool microbiome differences and was associated with lower abundances of Escherichia coli, Bacteroides vulgatus, Bifidobacterium longum, and Parabacteroides distasonis.

“Our findings demonstrate that maternal vaginal microbiome composition at delivery does not affect infant stool microbiome composition and development, suggesting that practices to amend infant stool microbiome composition focus on factors other than maternal vaginal microbes,” the authors conclude.
 

More evidence needed

Commenting on the study, Emily H. Adhikari, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and medical director of perinatal infectious diseases for the Parkland Health and Hospital System, said, “These findings contribute significantly more data to an understudied area of research into factors that affect the infant gut microbiome from the earliest hours of life. Prior studies have been small and often conflicting, and the authors reference recent larger studies, which corroborate their findings.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

The data regarding whether delivery mode or antibiotic-associated differences in infant microbiomes persist remain controversial, said Dr. Adhikari. “More evidence is needed involving a more ethnically diverse sampling of patients.” In addition, prospectively evaluating vaginal seeding in a rigorously designed clinical trial setting is “imperative to understand any potential benefit and certainly to understand the potential harms of the practice. To date, this does not exist.”

The study was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant. Mr. Dos Santos and Dr. Adhikari have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnancies in users of combined oral contraceptives occur more often when more than two pills are missed or when missed-pill protocols are not followed, based on data from nearly 3,000 women.

Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) remain a popular method of pregnancy prevention worldwide, but efficacy and failure rates can be difficult to determine, as real-word use does not always mirror clinical trials, wrote Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues. Clinical trials include perfect use or method-failure rates, but data on pregnancy risk based on reported adherence alone are lacking, they said.

To assess the effects of missed pills on COC efficacy, the researchers reviewed data from a pair of parallel phase 3 trials, focusing only on adherence to the pill dosing regimen. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study population included 1,864 individuals from the United States and Canada, and 1,553 from Europe and Russia.

The participants were healthy, sexually active adults aged 16-50 years in monogamous relationships from 2016 through 2018 who agreed to used estetrol 15 mg and drospirenone 3 mg for up to 13 28-day cycles as their only contraceptive method. Condom use was permitted for protection against sexually transmitted infections if needed. The 28-day COCs included 24 hormonal tablets and 4 placebo tablets. Participants received written instructions for what to do it they missed pills.

The primary outcome was the relationship between missed pills and pregnancies.

A total of 31 pregnancies occurred across both studies; none of these occurred during cycles in which other contraception was used. Of 22 pregnancies in participants who reported taking all pills, 21 reported daily pill use during the cycle in which pregnancy occurred. One participant reported not taking one pill and one participant reported not taking two pills; neither correctly followed the instructions for missed pills.

Pregnancies occurred in .09% of cycles in which participants reported taking all pills, and in 0.25%, 0.83%, and 1.6% of cycles in which participants reported missing one pill, two pills, or more than two pills, respectively.

“Pregnancy rates exceeded 1% only in participants who did not correctly follow missed-pill instructions,” the researchers noted.

Pregnancy rates per cycle ranged from 0% to 0.21%, and 48.4% of the pregnancies occurred during the first four cycles of COC use. Approximately one-third (32.3%) of pregnancies occurred within the first week of a new pill pack.

“Fertilization does not appear to be related to the timing of missed pills within the cycle because pregnancy did not occur more frequently earlier in the cycle (after the placebo pills),” the researchers wrote in their discussion. This finding contradicts previous research suggesting that contraceptive failure rates decrease over the first year of use, they said. In addition, the formulation of the pill used may affect pregnancy rates when pills are missed, as some hormones have longer half-lives, they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of adjustment for outcomes based on reported sexual activity per cycle, and by the reliance on self-reports.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of the clinical outcomes of pregnancy as the primary outcome, rather than characteristics and predictors of participants who missed pills, the researchers said.

The cycle-based methodology used in the current study may provide insight on the relationship between COC adherence and pregnancy risk that can inform future studies, they concluded.
 

Findings highlight the importance of options

“With increasing restrictions on abortion care, offering more contraceptive options for people is critical,” Lauren Owens, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “That’s not to say that having another pill option makes up for the harm people are experiencing as they navigate abortion bans and legal interference in their health care, but no one pill works for all people, and having more options is helpful,” she said.

Dr. Owens noted that the rates of pregnancy in the current study were lower than she traditionally associates with COCs, “although I usually discuss annual failure rates with patients, not failure rates per cycle, and the latter will clearly be lower.” In the current study, “The authors hypothesize some of this may be due to the longer half-life that estetrol has compared to ethinyl estradiol, the estrogen form more commonly found in oral contraceptive pills,” she said.

From a clinical standpoint, “I appreciated the linkage between number of missed pills and pregnancies occurring,” Dr. Owens said. “This is a good reminder to clinicians to talk to patients ahead of time about what to do when missed pills occur and to provide resources in advance that patients can reference when needed,” she said.

“The authors published other studies on this pill in the last year and it seems to work well and have a reasonable safety profile,” Dr. Owens told this news organization. However, “We still need to broaden the methods available to patients, particularly methods that people producing sperm can use. In the face of ongoing and escalating attacks on access to contraceptive care and abortion care, it’s more important than ever to do what we can to improve options for patients,” she said.

The study was supported by Estetra SRL, an affiliate company of Mithra Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Creinin disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Gedeon Richter, Mayne, and Organon. He disclosed serving on the advisory boards for Evofem, Fuji Pharma, Gedeon Richter, GlaxoSmithKline, Mayne, Merck, OLIC, Organon, and Searchlight, and serving as a consultant for Estetra SRL (including the current study), Libbs, Mayne, and Medicines360; his university department receives contraceptive research funding from Chemo Research SL, Evofem, HRA Pharma, Medicines360, Merck, and Sebela. Dr. Owens had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Pregnancies in users of combined oral contraceptives occur more often when more than two pills are missed or when missed-pill protocols are not followed, based on data from nearly 3,000 women.

Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) remain a popular method of pregnancy prevention worldwide, but efficacy and failure rates can be difficult to determine, as real-word use does not always mirror clinical trials, wrote Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues. Clinical trials include perfect use or method-failure rates, but data on pregnancy risk based on reported adherence alone are lacking, they said.

To assess the effects of missed pills on COC efficacy, the researchers reviewed data from a pair of parallel phase 3 trials, focusing only on adherence to the pill dosing regimen. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study population included 1,864 individuals from the United States and Canada, and 1,553 from Europe and Russia.

The participants were healthy, sexually active adults aged 16-50 years in monogamous relationships from 2016 through 2018 who agreed to used estetrol 15 mg and drospirenone 3 mg for up to 13 28-day cycles as their only contraceptive method. Condom use was permitted for protection against sexually transmitted infections if needed. The 28-day COCs included 24 hormonal tablets and 4 placebo tablets. Participants received written instructions for what to do it they missed pills.

The primary outcome was the relationship between missed pills and pregnancies.

A total of 31 pregnancies occurred across both studies; none of these occurred during cycles in which other contraception was used. Of 22 pregnancies in participants who reported taking all pills, 21 reported daily pill use during the cycle in which pregnancy occurred. One participant reported not taking one pill and one participant reported not taking two pills; neither correctly followed the instructions for missed pills.

Pregnancies occurred in .09% of cycles in which participants reported taking all pills, and in 0.25%, 0.83%, and 1.6% of cycles in which participants reported missing one pill, two pills, or more than two pills, respectively.

“Pregnancy rates exceeded 1% only in participants who did not correctly follow missed-pill instructions,” the researchers noted.

Pregnancy rates per cycle ranged from 0% to 0.21%, and 48.4% of the pregnancies occurred during the first four cycles of COC use. Approximately one-third (32.3%) of pregnancies occurred within the first week of a new pill pack.

“Fertilization does not appear to be related to the timing of missed pills within the cycle because pregnancy did not occur more frequently earlier in the cycle (after the placebo pills),” the researchers wrote in their discussion. This finding contradicts previous research suggesting that contraceptive failure rates decrease over the first year of use, they said. In addition, the formulation of the pill used may affect pregnancy rates when pills are missed, as some hormones have longer half-lives, they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of adjustment for outcomes based on reported sexual activity per cycle, and by the reliance on self-reports.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of the clinical outcomes of pregnancy as the primary outcome, rather than characteristics and predictors of participants who missed pills, the researchers said.

The cycle-based methodology used in the current study may provide insight on the relationship between COC adherence and pregnancy risk that can inform future studies, they concluded.
 

Findings highlight the importance of options

“With increasing restrictions on abortion care, offering more contraceptive options for people is critical,” Lauren Owens, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “That’s not to say that having another pill option makes up for the harm people are experiencing as they navigate abortion bans and legal interference in their health care, but no one pill works for all people, and having more options is helpful,” she said.

Dr. Owens noted that the rates of pregnancy in the current study were lower than she traditionally associates with COCs, “although I usually discuss annual failure rates with patients, not failure rates per cycle, and the latter will clearly be lower.” In the current study, “The authors hypothesize some of this may be due to the longer half-life that estetrol has compared to ethinyl estradiol, the estrogen form more commonly found in oral contraceptive pills,” she said.

From a clinical standpoint, “I appreciated the linkage between number of missed pills and pregnancies occurring,” Dr. Owens said. “This is a good reminder to clinicians to talk to patients ahead of time about what to do when missed pills occur and to provide resources in advance that patients can reference when needed,” she said.

“The authors published other studies on this pill in the last year and it seems to work well and have a reasonable safety profile,” Dr. Owens told this news organization. However, “We still need to broaden the methods available to patients, particularly methods that people producing sperm can use. In the face of ongoing and escalating attacks on access to contraceptive care and abortion care, it’s more important than ever to do what we can to improve options for patients,” she said.

The study was supported by Estetra SRL, an affiliate company of Mithra Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Creinin disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Gedeon Richter, Mayne, and Organon. He disclosed serving on the advisory boards for Evofem, Fuji Pharma, Gedeon Richter, GlaxoSmithKline, Mayne, Merck, OLIC, Organon, and Searchlight, and serving as a consultant for Estetra SRL (including the current study), Libbs, Mayne, and Medicines360; his university department receives contraceptive research funding from Chemo Research SL, Evofem, HRA Pharma, Medicines360, Merck, and Sebela. Dr. Owens had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Pregnancies in users of combined oral contraceptives occur more often when more than two pills are missed or when missed-pill protocols are not followed, based on data from nearly 3,000 women.

Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) remain a popular method of pregnancy prevention worldwide, but efficacy and failure rates can be difficult to determine, as real-word use does not always mirror clinical trials, wrote Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues. Clinical trials include perfect use or method-failure rates, but data on pregnancy risk based on reported adherence alone are lacking, they said.

To assess the effects of missed pills on COC efficacy, the researchers reviewed data from a pair of parallel phase 3 trials, focusing only on adherence to the pill dosing regimen. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study population included 1,864 individuals from the United States and Canada, and 1,553 from Europe and Russia.

The participants were healthy, sexually active adults aged 16-50 years in monogamous relationships from 2016 through 2018 who agreed to used estetrol 15 mg and drospirenone 3 mg for up to 13 28-day cycles as their only contraceptive method. Condom use was permitted for protection against sexually transmitted infections if needed. The 28-day COCs included 24 hormonal tablets and 4 placebo tablets. Participants received written instructions for what to do it they missed pills.

The primary outcome was the relationship between missed pills and pregnancies.

A total of 31 pregnancies occurred across both studies; none of these occurred during cycles in which other contraception was used. Of 22 pregnancies in participants who reported taking all pills, 21 reported daily pill use during the cycle in which pregnancy occurred. One participant reported not taking one pill and one participant reported not taking two pills; neither correctly followed the instructions for missed pills.

Pregnancies occurred in .09% of cycles in which participants reported taking all pills, and in 0.25%, 0.83%, and 1.6% of cycles in which participants reported missing one pill, two pills, or more than two pills, respectively.

“Pregnancy rates exceeded 1% only in participants who did not correctly follow missed-pill instructions,” the researchers noted.

Pregnancy rates per cycle ranged from 0% to 0.21%, and 48.4% of the pregnancies occurred during the first four cycles of COC use. Approximately one-third (32.3%) of pregnancies occurred within the first week of a new pill pack.

“Fertilization does not appear to be related to the timing of missed pills within the cycle because pregnancy did not occur more frequently earlier in the cycle (after the placebo pills),” the researchers wrote in their discussion. This finding contradicts previous research suggesting that contraceptive failure rates decrease over the first year of use, they said. In addition, the formulation of the pill used may affect pregnancy rates when pills are missed, as some hormones have longer half-lives, they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of adjustment for outcomes based on reported sexual activity per cycle, and by the reliance on self-reports.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of the clinical outcomes of pregnancy as the primary outcome, rather than characteristics and predictors of participants who missed pills, the researchers said.

The cycle-based methodology used in the current study may provide insight on the relationship between COC adherence and pregnancy risk that can inform future studies, they concluded.
 

Findings highlight the importance of options

“With increasing restrictions on abortion care, offering more contraceptive options for people is critical,” Lauren Owens, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “That’s not to say that having another pill option makes up for the harm people are experiencing as they navigate abortion bans and legal interference in their health care, but no one pill works for all people, and having more options is helpful,” she said.

Dr. Owens noted that the rates of pregnancy in the current study were lower than she traditionally associates with COCs, “although I usually discuss annual failure rates with patients, not failure rates per cycle, and the latter will clearly be lower.” In the current study, “The authors hypothesize some of this may be due to the longer half-life that estetrol has compared to ethinyl estradiol, the estrogen form more commonly found in oral contraceptive pills,” she said.

From a clinical standpoint, “I appreciated the linkage between number of missed pills and pregnancies occurring,” Dr. Owens said. “This is a good reminder to clinicians to talk to patients ahead of time about what to do when missed pills occur and to provide resources in advance that patients can reference when needed,” she said.

“The authors published other studies on this pill in the last year and it seems to work well and have a reasonable safety profile,” Dr. Owens told this news organization. However, “We still need to broaden the methods available to patients, particularly methods that people producing sperm can use. In the face of ongoing and escalating attacks on access to contraceptive care and abortion care, it’s more important than ever to do what we can to improve options for patients,” she said.

The study was supported by Estetra SRL, an affiliate company of Mithra Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Creinin disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Gedeon Richter, Mayne, and Organon. He disclosed serving on the advisory boards for Evofem, Fuji Pharma, Gedeon Richter, GlaxoSmithKline, Mayne, Merck, OLIC, Organon, and Searchlight, and serving as a consultant for Estetra SRL (including the current study), Libbs, Mayne, and Medicines360; his university department receives contraceptive research funding from Chemo Research SL, Evofem, HRA Pharma, Medicines360, Merck, and Sebela. Dr. Owens had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Although drugstore shelves might suggest otherwise, affordable dietary supplements that provide critical nutrients in appropriate doses for pregnant women are virtually nonexistent, researchers have found.

In a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, investigators observed what many physicians have long suspected: Most prenatal vitamins and other supplements do not adequately make up the difference of what food-based intake of nutrients leave lacking. Despite patients believing they are getting everything they need with their product purchase, they fall short of guideline-recommended requirements.

“There is no magic pill,” said Katherine A. Sauder, PhD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, and lead author of the study. “There is no easy answer here.”

Getty Images

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

Although drugstore shelves might suggest otherwise, affordable dietary supplements that provide critical nutrients in appropriate doses for pregnant women are virtually nonexistent, researchers have found.

In a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, investigators observed what many physicians have long suspected: Most prenatal vitamins and other supplements do not adequately make up the difference of what food-based intake of nutrients leave lacking. Despite patients believing they are getting everything they need with their product purchase, they fall short of guideline-recommended requirements.

“There is no magic pill,” said Katherine A. Sauder, PhD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, and lead author of the study. “There is no easy answer here.”

Getty Images

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

Although drugstore shelves might suggest otherwise, affordable dietary supplements that provide critical nutrients in appropriate doses for pregnant women are virtually nonexistent, researchers have found.

In a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, investigators observed what many physicians have long suspected: Most prenatal vitamins and other supplements do not adequately make up the difference of what food-based intake of nutrients leave lacking. Despite patients believing they are getting everything they need with their product purchase, they fall short of guideline-recommended requirements.

“There is no magic pill,” said Katherine A. Sauder, PhD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, and lead author of the study. “There is no easy answer here.”

Getty Images

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